THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE NEWS
Wednesday, 23 May, 2012
UNEP and the Executive Director in the News














Financial Times (UK): Shell defends pay and plans for Arctic
IPS: Can 'Blue Forests' Mitigate Climate Change?
Radio Netherlands Worldwide (Netherlands): Nigeria: Every Year the Same - You Spill Oil,
No We Don't
Global Post (US): Chile's Lake Cachet II vanishes in less than a day
Stockholm resilience center (Sweden): From diagnostics to solutions
Gulf Times (UAE): Environment Day painting competition on Friday
Green Biz (US): It is awfully tempting to ignore the Rio+20 Earth Summit.
Bahrain News Agency (Bahrain): PCPMREW’s director receives UNEP representative
New Vision (Uganda): And the invasive water weed ravages water bodies
Common Dreams (US): Seventy Thousand People Ask Oil Giant Shell to Clean up its
Mess in Nigeria
Student Reporter (Switzerland): An hour with Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP
Swiss Info (Switzerland): Transforming Geneva into an environmental hub
Afrique jet : Bio-diversity training in Zambia
KBCD e-news (US): Budweiser encourages men to stop shaving to save water
Other Environment News








Reuters: Most Fukushima radiation doses within norms: WHO
Reuters: Ivorian minister resigns over toxic dumping scandal
New York Times (US): The Ray and the Coconut: Tracing Life on an Atoll
EuraActivity (Belgium): Negotiate a world carbon price signal, now
Times of India (India): World's oceans need greater protection: UN chief
Daily Star (Sri Lanka): Recognise women's contributions
MongaBay (US): Groups urge President Obama to attend Rio+20 Sustainability Summit
Epoch Times (US): A Wastewater Treatment Plant Like No Other
Environmental News from the UNEP Regions





RONA
ROWA
ROA (None)
ROAP (None)
ROLAC (None)
Selected Blog Posts

Huffington Post (US): The Environment Is Dead: Long Live Mother Nature
Other UN News


Environment News from the UN Daily News of 23 May 2012
Environment News from the S.G.’s Spokesman Daily Press Briefing of 23 May 2012
UNEP and the Executive Director in the News
Achim Steiner at Stockholm resilience centre
Watch Video at: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/5.3e9bddec1373daf16faca5.html
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Financial Times (UK): Shell defends pay and plans for Arctic
22 May 2012
Environmental campaigners and shareholders clashed with Royal Dutch Shell at an annual
meeting dominated by concerns over exploration in Alaska, slow progress tackling oil leakages in
Nigeria, dividend policy and executive pay.
Shell, which faced criticism from retail investors at the meeting over pay increases for top
executives, said 9 per cent of its shareholders voted against its remuneration report.
In March it revealed that its chief executive Peter Voser took home €11.7m last year, more than
doubled his pay in the previous 12 months, after lucrative long-term incentive plans paid out.
However Mr Voser, along with the head of Shell’s remuneration committee Hans Wijers and other
directors, were re-elected by overwhelming votes of 99 per cent or more to the board despite the
revolt on pay.
“Shell’s remuneration policy firmly links executive compensation with the performance of the
company, and the 2011 outcomes reflect what was a positive year for the company,” it said.
Shares in Shell, which rose 11 per cent in 2011 but are down 15 per cent this year, gained 1.8 per
cent to £20.20 on Tuesday.
Amid tight security at venues in The Hague in the Netherlands and London’s Barbican Centre,
Shell’s chairman Jorma Ollila and Mr Voser politely batted away dozens of questions criticising
the environmental record of the Anglo-Dutch oil major.
Shell said it was still in talks with the Nigerian government and other parties about how best to
proceed with proposals to spend $1bn on a clean-up and rehabilitation of the polluted areas of
Ogoniland in the Niger Delta.
The $1bn estimated budget emerged from a UN Environment Programme report presented to
Goodluck Jonathan, Nigeria’s president, last August which argued that tackling decades of
environmental damage would be the “world’s most wide-ranging and long-term oil clean-up
exercise ever undertaken”.
The abandonment of operations in Ogoniland in 1993 by Shell and its partners followed a
campaign against production in the region led by activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was later executed
by Nigeria’s then military government.
During protracted but generally well-tempered questioning on Shell’s handling of its Nigerian
operations, one Dutch shareholder said: “I don’t want to be ashamed, and I don’t want to sell my
shares.”
The company, which in March was issued with a claim for damages over two oil spills in the delta
in 2008, said it was keen to push ahead with the investment in remedying pollution damage in the
region.
Mr Voser accepted that Shell bore much of the operational responsibility for oil spills which
continue in the delta but insisted the bulk of continuing spillage was the result of “illegal bunkering
and refining”.
He added that remedying damage was also often hindered by “some people” who made money
from exploiting oil spills and who might expect higher compensation.
“I just want to push back on the accusation that we have done nothing,” he said, rejecting claims
from a shareholder from Friends of the Earth that Shell had “clearly evaded” the recommendations
of the report.
He estimated 70 per cent of spillages resulted from deliberate sabotage.
Mr Ollila also defended Shell’s ability to develop oilfields safely in Arctic waters as it prepares for
exploratory drilling this summer, in the face of arguments from a representative of local native
Americans that the project ran a substantial risk of ecological devastation. “It is 50 years since the
industry took its first steps of drilling in the Arctic,” he said.
He also defended Shell’s position of offering no increase in quarterly dividend payments of 42
cents over three years since 2009. It nudged the payment up by a 1 cents to 43 cents in April.
“Last year we represented 12 per cent of all dividends on the FTSE 100,” he said.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
IPS: Can 'Blue Forests' Mitigate Climate Change?
21 May 2012
Fifty-five percent of global atmospheric carbon captured by living organisms happens in the
ocean.
Between 50-71 percent of this is captured by the ocean’s vegetated "blue carbon" habitats, which
cover less than 0.5 percent of the seabed, according to a 2009 United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) report entitled ‘Blue Carbon – The role of healthy oceans in binding carbon,’
one of the first documents to demystify the term.
These recent discoveries - of the efficiency of ocean vegetation in mitigating greenhouse gases
and ocean ecosystems’ ability to store atmospheric carbon dioxide for millennia – has sent
scientists running to probe the potential role of 'blue forest's in global efforts to lessen climate
change.
An international symposium on the effects of climate change on the world’s oceans, at the Yeosu
Expo 2012 being held here from May 12-Aug. 12 under the theme ‘Living Oceans and Coasts',
brought together scientists and researchers to discuss the carbon management of blue forests.
"Carbon stored and taken out of the atmosphere by coastal ecosystems such as mangroves,
seagrass and salt marsh is called blue carbon," explained Nairobi-based Gabriel Grimsditch of the
UNEP.
"Blue carbon is important because it allows investment in protection of coastal ecosystems. These
ecosystems are important for more than just carbon sequestration and storage - they provide food
through fish and protect coastal populations from storms and tsunamis," he added.
Wendy Watson-Wright, executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
(IOC) and assistant director-general of UNESCO, told IPS, "In order to make good policy we need
good science. Not much about blue carbon is known outside the scientific community but it is of
crucial importance that its huge benefits be known to policy makers and particularly local
communities who take care of and derive their livelihood from this ecosystem."
In a paper presented at the symposium, ‘Vegetated Coastal Habitats as Intense Carbon Sinks:
Understanding and Using Blue Carbon Strategies’, Nuria Marba Bordalba, a scientific researcher
at Spain’s Mediterranean Institute of Advanced Studies, claimed that there is more carbon stored
in the soils of vegetated marine habitats than the scientific community had hitherto accounted for.
An important aspect of blue carbon is that most of it is found in the soil beneath the ecosystems,
not in the biomass above ground. Carbon can be stored for millennia due to sea level fluctuation,
as opposed to terrestrial forests that reach the carbon saturation point earlier.
But there are risks. The flip side to blue carbon is that if these ecosystems are degraded or
destroyed, the huge amount of stored carbon – sometimes accumulated over millions of years – is
released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide due to oxidation of biomass and of the organic
soil in which carbon may have been stored.
In fact, some key questions on the table at the symposium were: how vulnerable are coastal
carbon sinks to climate change habitat degradation? And, if the habitat is destroyed, how do
carbon stocks react?
"The rate of carbon emission is particularly high in the decade immediately after disturbance but
continues as long as oxidation occurs," Grimsditch told IPS.
"When a wetland is drained, carbon is released, first slowly, then (at an) accelerated pace," said
San Francisco-based Stephen Crooks, co-chair of the International Blue Carbon Science Working
Group.
"There is now a growing realisation that we will not be able to conserve the earth’s biological
diversity through the protection of critical areas alone," said Gail Chmura, associate professor at
the Canadian McGill University’s Department of Geography.
The East Asian Seas region of the world has lost 70 percent of its mangrove cover in the last 70
years. A recent publication, ‘From Ridge to Reef’, by the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
warned that if this pattern continues the region will lose all its mangroves by 2030.
This would be a disastrous scenario, since the region’s coast is comprised of six large marine
ecosystems and supports the livelihoods of 1.5 billion people.
"On the global scale, mangrove areas are becoming smaller or fragmented and their long-term
survival is at great risk. In 1950, mainland China had 50,000 hectares of mangroves. By 2001, it
was down to 22,700 hectares – a 50 percent loss," Guanghui Lin, professor of ecology at the
Centre for Earth System Science in Beijing’s Tsinghua University, told IPS.
Researchers currently estimate loss of mangroves, seagrass beds and salt marshes at between
0.7 to two percent a year, a decline driven largely by human activities such as conversion, coastal
development and over harvesting.
"Ecological restoration is a critical tool for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development,"
Chmura stressed.
During the last three decades China has established 34 natural mangrove conservation areas,
which account for 80 percent of the total existing mangrove areas on the mainland, according to
Lin.
"One of the replicable regeneration policies is a mandatory funding from the real estate sector for
mangrove regeneration," Lin said.
"The cost of seagrass restoration may be fully recovered by the total carbon dioxide captured in
50 years in societies with a carbon tax in place," Bordalba suggested.
"Seaweed production as a climate change mitigation and adaption measure (also) holds great
promise because it will (contribute to) global food, fodder fuel and pharmaceutical requirements,"
said Ik Kyo Chung from the oceanography department of the Pusan National University of South
Korea.
While acknowledging the considerable uncertainty surrounding estimates and a lack of concrete
data, the UNEP report suggests that blue forests sequester between 114 and 328 teragrammes of
carbon per year.
Luis Valdes, head of Ocean Science at IOC-UNESCO told IPS, "There are two sides to the blue
carbon issue, one is the scientific aspect of how much carbon is actually sequestered, technology
transfers and so on; the second facet is political – identifying and negotiating with developing
countries, collaborating and funding for blue carbon projects."
"Socialist countries in South America like Venezuela or Cuba are skeptical of blue carbon. They
are often opposed to market-based solutions to climate change," said Grimsditch.
Mexico, Senegal and Bangladesh are already trying out blue carbon sequestration through
demonstration projects. Senegal is using mangroves for carbon credits and REDD+, something
the UNEP is pushing in other countries’ policies too.
UNEP and GEF with Indonesia have initiated a Blue Forests Project, which seeks to standardise
methodologies for carbon accounting and ecosystems valuation.
"We also need to better understand the economics of blue carbon, and whether it is possible to
pay for ecosystem management through carbon credits," said Grimsditch.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Green Biz (US): It is awfully tempting to ignore the Rio+20 Earth Summit.
23 May 2012
If you've been listening to the echo chamber of low expectations surrounding the summit, you
can't be blamed for doing so. Many companies and even some environmental NGOs are keeping
their heads down.
But it's not in business' best interest to ignore the summit. We're in the midst of a tipping of the
scales of power, where nation states have less of it, and companies -- and some civil society
groups -- have much more.
General Motors, for example, now has annual revenue larger than Bangladesh's gross domestic
product (GDP). Walmart's revenue surpasses Norway's GDP. Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation
has a larger annual budget than the World Health Organization.
Regardless of whether the shift in power to private sector leaders is right or fair, business must be
part of the sustainable development dialogue. Even sustainability pioneers like Gro Harlem
Brundtland and Achim Steiner speak of the need for the business community to see itself as part
of the sustainable development dialogue.
Despite the negative press, several positive developments are emerging from summit
stakeholders. Interactions (some public, others private) with a few colleagues deeply involved in
the summit -- including Clarissa Lins of FBDS, Jacob Scherr of NRDC, Chantal Line Carpentier at
the United Nations, and Pavan Sukhdev of GIST Advisory -- have shed light on innovative
opportunities for business to be involved, demonstrate leadership and learn about issues in the
pipeline.
Accelerating new leadership
Ideally, we'd like a stellar "Rio Outcome Document" that puts forth plans for a green economy and
offers a new governance structure for sustainable development. But any consensus that emerges
at Rio+20 -- with national interests and negotiators' egos at stake -- is bound to be weak.
Waiting for nation states to drive the development of new regulation won't get us far. As we give
up the fantasy that heads of state will deliver a solution at Rio+20, we will likely see new leaders
emerge.
Take for example, Aviva, which has led the charge to develop a convention that would mandate
corporate sustainability reporting. Unilever's Paul Polman has also spoken of the need for more
world leaders to attend the summit.
Although it's uncertain whether Barack Obama or David Cameron will attend, executives from
Aviva, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Eskom, Puma, Novo Nordisk, Schneider Electric,
Siemens, Total and Unilever, among others, are expected to participate. We're looking forward to
seeing business leaders emerge during and after the summit.
A cloud of crowdsourced commitments
Several entities, such as the United Nations Global Compact, Sustainia, and the U.N. summit
organizers, have created platforms that give new leaders the opportunity to gain visibility when
they make a commitment related to the sustainable development agenda.
These platforms give bold companies and civil society groups an avenue through which to share
their initiatives, set an example for others and invite collaboration.
For example, the Brazilian arm of WBCSD, known as CEBDS or the Brazilian Council for
Sustainable Development, has posted a commitment to offer good and sustainable living
conditions to Brazil's 260 million people by 2050. Ecocity Builders and a host of collaborators aim
to bring cities and human settlements into balance with nature and culture in the same time frame.
If your business is already on the path towards sustainable development, with your goals in
progress, consider registering your commitment.
Issues raised by the critical mass
As we saw during the Arab Spring, the long tentacles of social media have enabled
transformational engagement from far-reaching corners of society. Now several initiatives are
enabling citizens from around the world to raise their voice on sustainable development
challenges.
Rio+Social, hosted by Mashable, the 92nd Street Y and the U.N. Foundation, provides a digital
platform for millions to share their perspectives. On June 19, on the eve of the summit, there will
be a live discussion that will be streamed virtually for global participation.
The U.N. has also set up a separate and slightly cumbersome platform called RioDialogues.org
where anyone can submit recommendations related to conference themes. These will be
debated, voted upon and submitted to the U.N. negotiators during the summit.
Game Change Rio, launched this week, allows players to "explore the countless options to ruin
our world for future generations or save the planet." Players can choose policies and manage the
resulting budget. Each policy has an effect on the resources available. It's a creative engagement
tool on issues often thought to be too serious for gamification.
For companies interested in understanding society's concerns related to food security, sustainable
cities, employment and other themes, these sites provide new, unique sounding boards and
engagement ideas.
Tapping into these platforms may help you learn more about what matters to your current and
future customers in countries around the world.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Radio Netherlands Worldwide (Netherlands): Nigeria: Every Year the Same - You
Spill Oil, No We Don't
22 May 2012
When media reports of oil theft in Nigeria seem to be on the increase, and environmental
organisations are busy launching new cool campaigns to embarrass Shell, one thing is certain:
the oil multinational's annual shareholders meeting is drawing near.
Every year early in May, Dutch environmental organisations and Royal Dutch Shell stay vying for
media attention. This competition enters overdrive in the weeks preceding Shell's annual
shareholders meeting in The Hague, being held this year on 22 May.
Force of oil thefts
The current campaigns began with news reports of new cases of oil theft in Nigeria. On 4 May,
Shell declared force majeure (meaning they could no longer fulfil its production obligations)
because of what they called "incessant" oil theft from a major pipeline in the Niger Delta. The
Anglo-Dutch oil giant, recently under fire by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
Amnesty International and environmental organisations for not repairing and cleaning up oil major
leaks, reported that they were "working hard to repair the line and resume production as quickly
as possible."
The necessary shut down for repairs, the company claimed, would cost 60,000 barrels per day of
production. This information was then picked up by dozens of international, Nigerian, and Dutch
media. (Shell also drew considerable media attention in the Netherlands with news about the
recent Shell Eco-Marathon in which students worldwide are invited to build energy efficient
vehicles.)
Living with the worst of bad
At the same time, also early in May, the Dutch environmental organisation Friends of the Earth
Netherlands (FOE) launched a new anti-Shell campaign "Worse than Bad" with its motto of: "living
with Shell is bad and it is getting worse every day. Tell the world."
The climax of this pre-shareholders meeting campaign came just a week ago with the launching
of the sarcastic iPhone app "Live with it". Presented by an actor impersonating a top Shell
executive, it invites viewers to use the app to report oil spills in exchange for rewards points. It is a
parody of an official Shell app for Ipads, "Inside Energy".
"Live with it" has attracted over 20,000 views, mostly in the US, Netherlands, UK and Germany. A
spokesman for the organisation says the stunt generated a lot of discussion, and at first mostly by
people who did not grasp the sarcasm. Meanwhile a Shell spokesman told RNW that the
company has no official reaction to the video or its impact.
Sabotage redux
As in recent annual meetings, Shell is likely to tell its shareholders in The Hague and (via video
link) London that the majority of oil spills in Nigeria's oil rich region are due to theft and what it
calls "sabotage by third parties". Top executives are likely to reiterate the information contained in
a Shell statement from 14 May: that sabotage and theft were responsible for 73 percent of the
total volume of oil spilled from its operations between 2007 and 2011.
These figures have been consistently questioned by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, and they
are likely to do so again at this year's annual shareholders ritual on Tuesday. Outside the
meeting's venue in The Hague, FOE staff will also be on hand to welcome shareholders with
"fancy" drinks they say contain pollutants found in the drinking water in the Niger Delta.
Dance continues
Inside, after Shell officials have reported on the company's activities and performance over the
past year, the campaigners will, as per usual, use the question period to call on the multinational
to spell out its strategy to clean up oil pollution and stop gas flaring in the Niger Delta.
Shell executives will then respond as politely as they can, and after that, it will be business as
usual - until the next scheduled standoff that will be taking place in a courtroom. Friends of the
Earth Netherlands has taken legal action against Shell for causing oil spills it says polluted the
land of four Nigerian farmers. The trial is set to resume 11 October.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Global Post (US): Chile's Lake Cachet II vanishes in less than a day
22 May 2012
Lake Cachet II in Chile's southern Patagonia region was once an enormous, two-square-mile
glacial lake. But now, the lake is empty. In a period in March that lasted less than 24 hours, the
lake completely vanished, the Agence France Presse reported today.
This is actually the 11th time that the lake has drained since 2008, and scientists wonder if global
warming is to blame. The lake's water comes from a glacier, but rising temperatures have made
the glacier weaker. As a result, Lake Cachet II's 200 million cubic liters of water gushed out into
another river, emptying Lake Cachet II's lake bed, the AFP said.
The United Nations Environment Programme has also said that glaciers on Argentine and Chilean
Patagonia are “losing mass faster and for longer than glaciers in other parts of the world,"
Newsweek Magazine reported last year.
The most famous example of this occurred in 2007, when a five-acre, 100-feet-deep glacial lake in
Chile's southern Andes region also completely vanished.
"The lake had simply disappeared," Juan Jose Romero, head of Chile's National Forest Service,
told the Associated Press at the time. "No one knows what happened."
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Stockholm resilience center (Sweden): From diagnostics to solutions
23 May 2012
Seminar on Rio, UNEP and how to bridge science and society.
One of the most significant outcomes from the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment was the recommendation to create a UN environmental organisation. This paved the
way for the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Fourty years on, UNEP plays a significant role in sponsoring negotiations on major environmental
treates.
In April 2012, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner visited the centre to discuss issues related
to the upcoming Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the role of UNEP and how
the world must move forward.
The visit was organised in collaboration with Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Bahrain News Agency (Bahrain): PCPMREW’s director receives UNEP
representative
23 May 2012
Director General of Public Commission for the Protection of Marine Resources, Environment and
Wildlife (PCPMREW) Dr. Adel Khalifa Al Zayani received here today the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) director and regional representative for West Asia Dr. Eyad
Abomughly.
During the meeting, Dr. Zayani welcomed and congratulated Dr. Abomughly on behalf of Shaikh
Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa on the occasion of appointing him in his new post.
Means of bolstering bilateral cooperation and topics of mutual interest between both sides were
reviewed.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
New Vision (Uganda): And the invasive water weed ravages water bodies
22 May 2012
Today, JOSEPH SSEMUTOOKE writes about the water hyacinth that threatened to destroy
Uganda’s water bodies.
At one time in the 1990s, there were genuine fears that the surface of Lake Victoria was destined
to be lost to an invasive waterweed that was fast forming floating rafts all over the water body.
The second largest lake in the world had been attacked by the water hyacinth. The water hyacinth
is one of the world’s most invasive water weeds. The hyacinth was eating up several other
sizeable water bodies in the East African region, including other lakes and several rivers in
Uganda. Lake Kyoga was the other lake that was attacked by the hyacinth.
It would take substantial efforts from allied stakeholders to overcome the problem. And still, by the
time the problem was solved, there had been some disruptions suffered across various sections
of the communities around the affected water bodies. Substantial amounts of money had been
spent, and the bio-diversity of the region had been affected.
Emergence of the problem
Its origin is believed to be South America. The water hyacinth was not reported in Lake Victoria
until 1989, although some researchers say the weed had been growing in Africa’s waters since
the 1870s.
There were rumours among the locals that the weed had been brought by ill- willed people who
wanted to destroy the lakes in Uganda. By 1993, the Natural Resources Institute of London had
declared that about 30% of the lake was covered by the plant. By 1995 it had declared the weed
to cover nearly 70% of the lake’s surface. By 1997 the weed had reportedly spread to Lake
Kyoga.
Effects on environment/economy
Lake Victoria is a source of food and transportation so as the hyacinth spread access the lake, the
livelihoods of a many communities around the lakes would be at risk. The weed caused difficulties
in water extraction, blocked irrigation canals and made travel across the lake difficult. The weed
also led to disputes between local communities (as they fought over less-weed covered waters)
and led to an increase in water borne diseases.
Several communities in the affected areas also reported a decrease in biodiversity which
scientists explained to arise from the death of several water organisms, thus creating gaps in the
ecosystem. The hydro-electric plant at Jinja was also threatened with closure, owing to weed build
up, which slowed down the turbines.
Dealing with the hyacinth
By the mid-1990s the country was desperate for ways to solve the hyacinth problem. According to
the United Nations Environment Programme, the Lake Victoria Environmental Management
Project was one of the stakeholders that first contributed seriously to the fight against the water
hyacinth. The project, jointly funded by the World Bank and the governments of Tanzania and
Uganda, initiated a five-year programme at the cost of US$ 70m, which went a long way in
research and sensitisation, among other efforts.
Dr. Aryamanya Mugisha, the former deputy executive director of the National Environmental
Management Authority (NEMA), recalls that in 1997, the Government formed a body to tackle the
problem. The body was called Lake Victoria Water Hyacinth Eradication Programme.
The programme came up with solutions from different organisations. But then there arose the
problem of which method to use without affecting the environment.
These were; mechanical (using machines to weed out the hyacinth), biological (using pests that
feed on weeds) and chemical (using drugs and pesticides).
The use of chemical control was supported by some people but according to Aryamanya, NEMA
opposed this option. The mechanical option, which was implemented first was both very costly
and ineffective. The machinery and manpower to remove the weeds were expensive yet the
hyacinth grew back so quickly.
The biological method was tried around 1998 and it proved successful. The method had been
used successfully in Kenya by Kenya Agricultural Research Institute.
An entomologist specialising in biological control at the National Agriculture Research
Organisation (NARO), Dr James Ogwang, worked out a fast way to solve the problem.
A breeding programme of two water hyacinth-eating weevils (the mottled water hyacinth weevil
and another weevil) was established in Uganda.
It released more then 250,000 weevils at 30 sites along the Lake Victoria shoreline. At the height
of the problem, 12 bio-control rearing centres had been established at different landing sites on
Lake Victoria.
Doctor Ogwang
Entomologist Dr. James Ogwang, for his efforts to fight the weed, attained global recognition. He
presented his work at the annual meeting of the American Society of Plant Biologists in the US in
July 2007. It was thereafter declared as a method for eradicating the hyacinth from Africa’s water
bodies. Ogwang’s work on the Lake Victoria Water Hyacinth Eradication Programme was even
featured on National Geographic’s television series, Strange Days on Planet Earth. It still shows
occasionally.
After 2000
By 2000, Uganda’s water bodies were cleared of the hyacinth except for some areas where it
would re-emerge but would be cleared without much difficulty. For instance, in 2006, the weed
started growing on Lake Albert it was cleared off. Thereafter, Uganda became one of the
countries of reference (featured in several UN publications) regarding successful management of
the water hyacinth problem.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Common Dreams (US): Seventy Thousand People Ask Oil Giant Shell to Clean up
its Mess in Nigeria
22 May 2012
On the eve of the annual general meeting of oil giant Shell, Friends of the Earth International
announced that it will deliver to Shell CEO Peter Voser some 70,000 signatures of people who
want Shell to start cleaning up its mess in the oil-rich and highly polluted Niger delta in Nigeria.
The signatories believe that Shell must take responsibility for its pollution and provide a US$1
billion emergency fund needed to start cleaning up the Niger Delta.
Friends of the Earth International Corporates campaigner Paul de Clerk will deliver the signatures
at the Shell meeting in The Hague on May 22.
The signatures were collected by the organisation SumOfUs [1] in close cooperation with Friends
of the Earth and Amnesty International.
Nnimmo Bassey, director of Friends of the Earth Nigeria and chair of Friends of the Earth
International, said:
“Shell continues to reap obscene profits from the oil fields of Nigeria at the expense of the lives
and the livelihoods of the poor people. As we speak Shell is intensifying its poisoning of the
environment and the peoples of the region. by our records Shell had over 200 oil spills in 2011
alone and the 2012 tally is rising already. Shell must stop the poisoning and start cleaning up its
mess right now.”
Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth International corporates campaign coordinator, said:
"Almost one year has passed since the UN presented its report on Shell's pollution of Ogoniland.
But we are still waiting for a comprehensive plan from Shell to clean up its mess. The first step
recommended by the UN was US$1 billion emergency fund for clean up. We want Shell to commit
to that today".
Friends of the Earth Netherlands campaigners will stand outside the May 22 Shell meeting and
offer to Shell shareholders the opportunity to taste a sip of contaminated water from the Niger
Delta: water with hydrocarbons such as benzene, but also other hazardous chemicals such as
barium. This is the only 'drinking' water which many residents of the Niger Delta can drink.
Over the past decades Shell let tens of millions of litres of oil to stream into the Niger Delta by
refusing to properly maintain the pipeline network. Moreover, the AngloDutch multinational still
does not comply with the Nigerian ban on gas flaring.
Because Shell is doing so little, Friends of the Earth Netherlands / Milieudefensie started an
international campaign which members of the public can support at www.worsethanbad.org
For instance three people will win the opportunity to go with Friends of the Earth Netherlands /
Milieudefensie on a mission to Nigeria and see with their own eyes what Shell has brought about.
In August 2011 the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) launched a report about oil
pollution in Ogoniland, in the Niger Delta. UNEP’s report was harsh on Shell — for instance, it
reported on the inadequacy of Shell’s previous halfhearted clean-up efforts, stating that “the
difference between a cleaned-up site and a site awaiting clean-up was not always obvious.”
UNEP concluded that the maintenance of the Shell infrastructure “has been and remains
inadequate” and calls for a $1 billion starter fund for clean-up in the Ogoniland region to be
contributed.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Student Reporter (Switzerland): An hour with Achim Steiner, Executive Director of
UNEP
22 May 2012
Skepticism ahead of Rio+20 is rife, let’s be honest.
And for good reason: We are still a long way from having even a proper definition of Green
Economy, a concept which is considered the cornerstone of the conference and of sustainable
development at large. Meanwhile, the European financial crisis dominates many a political mind,
with environmental conferences finishing, at best, a distant second on the current political radar.
Amidst all this doom and gloom, I recently had a rare chance to hear what one of the true leaders
of the environmental movement had to say about all this.
More specifically, I attended a small-group meeting on the 23rd of April with Achim Steiner,
Executive Director of UNEP. He spoke in an informal setting in Stockholm in the think tank cluster
where I work. This talk was especially interesting since it concerned primarily big-picture issues
ahead of Rio+20, many of which I consider supremely relevant and symptomatic also of the
environmental movement as a whole. But I am getting ahead of myself.
My immediate reaction, when settling down to listen, was that you wouldn’t think the
environmental movement was in any sort of crisis by just observing Mr. Steiner. Calm and
collected, he talks of issues of momentous importance with requisite gravity, but also possessing
the tempered intellectual detachment that undoubtedly is needed to observe the troubled state of
the world as it truly stands.
Thinking about the Future
The future is a favourite subject of environmentalists, and this time was no different as it was the
subject that opened up the talk. Interestingly, Mr. Steiner proposed a changing of mindset just with
regards to this:
“We used to talk about the future, but we are already in the future. In fact, we can’t even catch up
with all the change that is happening environmentally to the planet.”
Agreed. In fact, a continously future-oriented approach can be tricky since it inherently lulls you
into the feeling that the time that really matters is always just beyond the horizon. Indeed, it is this
very collective delusion that completely runs much of the public stance towards climate change
and other severe environmental problems. Larry King, the famous CNN host, perhaps said it best:
“Nobody cares what happens 50 years from now”. Particularly if such caring implies that
something onerous must be done right now of course.
Global Change and Society
The word change was one that also ran like a thread throughout the stream-of-consciousness
style of the talk delivered by Mr. Steiner on this day. Even UNEP itself, the premier world
environmental organization (and a likely candidate to expand into a true world environmental
organization at some point) is changing rapidly.
On this note of change, Mr. Steiner uttered the unfortunate opinion that I myself hold, which is that
Rio+20 is unlikely to be a “game-changer”. It will, in all honesty, probably not be the conference
that will be talked about generations from now. Why? Steiner jots it down to the simple point of
lacking political will, without going too deep into why this is. As someone who is very interested in
the changing geopolitics of the world I have a few guesses, but I’ll resist the temptation to go off
on a sidetrack here. The important thing, Steiner continued, was to keep the faith. Rio might not
be the watershed moment that we all long for and want to see as soon as possible. However, he
continued, it is the faith of civil society that is important at this juncture, and particularly in the case
of a “blah” Rio+20 outcome.
Again, I couldn’t agree more. The environmental community at this point is sufficiently hard at core
to withstand the blows of a failing multilateral system, but how robust is the engagement of civil
society? Arguably, it’s nowhere near as robust as we would like, and further interrupted
momentum can take a long time to rebuild. So, considering the implications, let’s not kid ourselves
and just call a spade a spade. Disillusionment rules the roost right now, even in environmental
institutions and in an increasingly skeptical civil society, whose financial reality is being turned
upside down on a daily basis. An alarming signal, that Steiner also pointed out, is that the
environmental movement is not all that young anymore. Many of the people working on these
issues have now been in this “game” for 20-25 years. And it is exactly among these people that
disillusionment seems to be most rampant. This is disturbing, but I wager that it also points to a
certain subtle hubris that has existed in the environmental movement: That of success in splendid
isolation. That is to say the belief that the movement would somehow organically transform the
state of the world through its own momentum and without really needing outside help from “old”
society.
Nope, turns out we still need politics, finance ministers and civil society to be on board with this.
It’s just that the true inertia of these systems is finally beginning to dawn on the brave souls that
led the initial charge of the environmental movement, and this realization is perhaps depressing a
lot of these “old hands”.
In any case, Steiner continued by noting that he thinks Rio+20 is unlikely to do any damage either
(a statement that is pretty indicative of the expectation level in and of itself).
Moving Forward
So what to do? Here is where Steiner contrasted the decidedly gray state of things as they stand
with the key questions and actions for moving forward.
Number one on the to-do list: The ability of instituitions to create imperatives for action. That is the
key question according to Steiner. The reasons for this are many in his opinion. First of all, we
now live firmly in the age of the anthropocene. Put simply, human activity leads environmental
change. However, this realization remains largely theoretical on most levels, and this prevents us
from generating fitting responses to what is happening around us. More than this, he continues, a
separate problem is that even if we had the required level of comprehension of this fact, our
institutions are stuck in a largely obsolete state. The speed with which this change is happening is
something our current social, political and economic systems are simply not equipped to handle.
So how to change this? Well, Steiner suggests that a “big one” to embrace for the vanguard of the
environmental community is becoming more economically literate. The debates on environmental
issues all too often stop flat on questions of economics, employment, growth, trade and
competitiveness. This will not do. The environmental community must learn to be comfortable with
these questions, something they are clearly not at the moment. Put simply, the environmental
knowledgebase must be economically viable. Lacking this, there is a risk that the superficial
penetration of many of these supremely important concepts becomes chronical and effectively
neutered.
As for UNEP itself, Steiner’s ship to sail in very troubled waters, the institution is given a lot of
responsibility,but perhaps not the requisite influence and power it needs to actually exact the
change that is needed. Certainly Steiner seems to think so. He suggests to take the organization
to “the next level”. That is to say the institution must be transformed to be able to deal properly
with the real scope of the issues that it is facing. Almost everyone agrees that environmental
governance needs to be improved, and Steiner is adamant about putting in place a strong
“anchor” environmental organization as a foundation from which to work. Without a strong core,
governance will always suffer, and environmental issues will continue to be secondary, at best, to
other concerns.
But governance of course extends beyond just the multilateral form. Arguably even more
important in the coming years will be the role of governments. More specifically, for governments
to properly capture in laws & regulations the societal “streams” of public choices and priorities that
are currently ongoing. That is the job of government after all, and it is especially important now to
facilitate public discourse and choice. Importantly, Steiner suggests that governments must also
become much faster at detecting and channeling this public choice. It is a classic democratic idea,
the state as a vehicle for the citizens, but it’s a very important one, and an idea that the private
sector should also have no trouble coping with.
Hopes for the Future
Reflecting broadly, Steiner ended his take on the situation by wishing that one day, hopefully we
will live in a world where the environment ministers are the second most important ministers after
the heads of state. But to get there, the institutional and governance questions need to be solved.
It is lamentable, Steiner also notes, that UNEP was born by being put into an environmental “box”.
A box that it is now struggling to get out of as the true nature and scope of the challenges facing it
are becoming clear.
Succinctly, a closing quote by Steiner captured much, in precious few words, about the challenge
of finding constructive paths to the future:
“To have creative interactions is very important, and that is where we are now.”
And on that note, perhaps the very idea and concept of Rio+20 does make the conference truly
worthwhile after all. If just for a moment one lets go from the results-oriented mindset that
demands solutions delivered yesterday, and instead witnesses the conference in a more
benevolent light, seeing it as an attempt at just the type of creative interaction that Steiner hopes
for, and that is so sorely needed at this stage. At least seen from this perspective, the conference
might even already be a success.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Gulf Times (UAE): Environment Day painting competition on Friday
22 May 2012
More than 2,000 families are expected for the popular annual World Environment Day (WED)
celebrations set to take place on Friday and Saturday.
Over 1,500 entries have already been received for the painting contest and the WED team
estimates it to cross over 2,000 entries this year.
The painting contest is open to all age groups and will be held at the IAID premises in Mansoura
from 8am, with the final awards and closing ceremony along with prize-winning exhibits to be
held on June 5 at Al Rayyan Theatre in Souq Waqif. Exciting gifts, cash prizes, trophies and
certificates await the winners.
IAID in association with the Friends of the Environment Centre (FEC) have been the major
organisers of the World Environment Day (WED) celebrations in Qatar for the sixth consecutive
year under the auspices of Saif Ali al-Hajari, chairman, FEC.
The theme of World Environment Day celebrated all over the world, initiated by the United
Nations Environment Programme, this year is “Green Economy – does it include you?”
“A green economy is one where environmental risks are significantly reduced and based around
sustainable development for the betterment of the people in that society,” said
al-Hajari.
This year’s WED celebration involves activities from May 25 to June 5, with the painting contest
as the centrepiece of the week.
Rajesh Jadhav, director, IAID, said: “WED is a wonderful way to raise awareness about the
importance of the green economy for Qatar’s sustainable development. We’re delighted with the
response to date for the painting contest.”
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Swiss Info (Switzerland): Transforming Geneva into an environmental hub
17 May 2012
Newly installed in a 19th century mansion in the leafy suburb of Versoix, a short hop from the city
centre, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s non-profit environmental group R20 is the latest addition to
International Geneva’s burgeoning green hub.
The R20, an alliance of 30 city and regional governments and partners developing low-carbon
projects worldwide, joins some 250 NGOs and 32 international organisations - many in the
environmental field - as well as the European headquarters of the United Nations and specialist
agencies.
“It was quite a natural decision for us,” R20’s operations manager Liliane Ursache told
swissinfo.ch.
“We have to follow up closely what's going on in the environmental field and not lose sight of
international negotiations. One of the most important actors here is the world of finance and
investors, who are very interested in new projects,“ she noted.
“Geneva is also an important place for cleantech. There has been much progress made in this
area, and we work closely with the networks and partners based here.”
On top of operational arguments and potential synergies, Schwarzenegger’s very public move to
establish the headquarters in Geneva was most likely eased by the canton reportedly agreeing to
pay almost two years’ rent at Versoix’s Villa Grand-Montfleury, tax-free income, and Switzerland’s
“unique aftersales service” that stretches to expertise in the capital Bern to help NGOs settle in.
Clear strategy
Over recent years the Swiss and local authorities have been keen to develop Geneva as an
international hub for both environmental and health matters.
The arrival of the R20 closely follows that of the secretariat of the Global Framework of Climate
Services in 2011, and joins a long list of environmental institutions based there like the secretariat
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the headquarters of the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The next organisation in Switzerland and Geneva’s sights is the permanent secretariat of the
Green Climate Fund (GCF), an autonomous organisation under the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change, designed to channel up to $100 billion of aid annually to poor, vulnerable
countries by 2020 to help them mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Switzerland announced its official candidacy to host the fund and to run for a seat on its executive
board in April. It is up against the former German capital Bonn, which is the temporary home to
the secretariat, as well as South Korea, Poland, Namibia and Mexico. A final decision is expected
at the end of 2012.
“Strong network”
Swiss officials are convinced Geneva offers the ideal location for the fund thanks to its growing
environmental expertise, synergies and global financial centre.
“It also has a strong network of diplomatic missions, which is important if we want the GCF to
grow and for countries to be able to follow up its activities,” Franz Perrez, head of international
affairs at the Federal Environment Office, told swissinfo.ch.
Environmental consultant Yves Lador agreed that other international environmental centres, like
Nairobi, headquarters to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Bonn or Montreal, could not
compete on synergies.
“Geneva has lots of specialised environmental organisations and is a hub for economic and
chemical questions with the three conventions, and there are other departments looking at this in
the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), and let’s
not forget WMO and IPCC,” he said.
But the complex political decision over the GCF’s future is not in Switzerland or Geneva’s hands,
he added.
Second global centre
Former Swiss ambassador François Nordmann echoed this: “I think the competition is fierce.
Switzerland is up against five other countries, three of whom are G20 members, and one from
Asia – a very attractive proposal. And Germany is so strong it can influence lots of votes. Also,
there is the beginning of an environmental concentration in Bonn.”
Lador said one major problem for Switzerland was states’ resistance to global environmental
governance, a topic for discussion at the forthcoming Rio climate talks in June.
“It faces a strategy of states breaking up environmental organizations. If politicians really wanted
to do a serious job for the environment you could imagine them building hubs like climate,
chemical or biodiversity. But in fact they splitting them up and sharing them between places like
Bonn, Geneva and Montreal,” the consultant said.
Perrez said it was important to avoid a scattering of locations and to concentrate expertise, adding
that it was not Switzerland’s wish to become “the” global centre for the environment.
“Nairobi is ‘the’ centre for environmental questions, as it is the headquarters of UNEP and it’s
important that UNEP remains a strong institution there, but Nairobi cannot deliver on everything
and there are strong benefits to have a second centre supporting Nairobi and that’s where
Geneva comes in,” he added.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Afrique jet : Bio-diversity training in Zambia
22 May 2012
Munda Wanga offers bio-diversity training - MUNDA Wanga Environmental Park has embarked
on conservation and biodiversity training programmes for schools aimed at empowering pupils
with improved environmental conservation methods. Munda Wanga Environmental Park general
manager Frederrik Hengeveld said more than 760 children would this year be trained in climate
change and environment conservation.
Mr Hengeveld said the training would be based on this year's World Environmental Day (WED)
under the theme 'Green Economy, Does It Include You?'
He said the training would help children become strong ambassadors of sustainable and equitable
development and environmental conservation.
There is need for enhanced training and information dissemination on climate change, its effects
and other environmental issues.
The training programme will run for a week from May 28 to June 4.
" On June 5, every year, throughout the world every nation, schools and institution commemorate
this day. WED is one of the principal vehicles through which the United Nations stimulates
worldwide awareness of the environment and enhances political attention and action," he said.
He said Munda Wanga's objective was to promote the understanding that communities were the
centre in changing attitudes, especially towards environmental issues like climate change.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
KBCD e-news (US): Budweiser encourages men to stop shaving to save water
23 May 2012
On June 5, people around the globe will celebrate World Environment Day, a day organized by
the United Nations to encourage environmental awareness, education and conservation. The
team at Standard Sales Company are doing their part by joining Budweiser's "Grow One. Save a
Million." program, which asks adult men to not shave prior to World Environment Day, with a goal
of together saving one million gallons of water. Each shave uses about five gallons of water*, so
by putting down our razors, each of us can save roughly 35 gallons of water per week. Water
conservation is a critical issue on the South Plains and our participation hopes to raise continued
awareness to this important issue.
WHEN: Our participation in Budweiser's "Grow One. Save a Million." campaign runs from May 23,
2012 -June 5, 2012
TO REGISTER: Adults can visit Budweiser's Facebook page to learn more about the program
and take the pledge to "Grow One." The page also contains a running tabulation of the amount of
water saved through this effort.
BACKGROUND: Anheuser-Busch, brewer of Budweiser, is committed to conserving water in its
facilities and protecting waterways in the community.
Standard Sales Company's new warehouse was built with sustainability in mind. Environmentally
friendly materials, energy efficient lighting, water wise plant life and the latest technology for
warehouse cooling were utilized. We would love to host your team at our new warehouse for a
tour and the opportunity to raise community awareness on the issue of water conservation.
*The average shave uses 3-10 gallons of water.
Back to Menu
=============================================================
Other Environment News
Reuters: Most Fukushima radiation doses within norms: WHO
23 May 2012
Spikes in radiation caused by the Fukushima nuclear accident were below cancer-causing
levels in almost all of Japan and neighboring countries had levels similar to normal background
radiation, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.
In a preliminary report using conservative assumptions, independent experts said that people in
only two locations in Fukushima prefecture may have received a dose of 10-50 millisieverts
(mSv) in the year after the accident at the power station operated by TEPCO.
Populations exposed to radiation typically stand a greater chance of contracting cancer after
receiving doses above 100 mSv, according to the United Nations health agency. The threshold
for acute radiation syndrome is about 1 Sv (1000 mSv).
"A worldwide average annual dose from natural background radiation is about 2.4 mSv, with a
typical range of 1-10 mSv in various regions of the world," the report said.
In the rest of Fukushima prefecture, the effective dose was estimated to be within a dose band
of 1-10 mSv, while effective doses in most of Japan were put at just 0.1-1 mSv. In the rest of the
world, doses were below 0.01 mSv or less.
The massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 wrecked the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear plant, triggering meltdowns that caused contamination and forced mass evacuations.
"Doses have not been estimated for the zone within 20 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi
site because most people in the area were evacuated rapidly and an accurate estimation of
dose to these individuals would require more precise data than were available," the report said.
"Some exposure may have occurred prior to evacuation but the assessment of this requires
more precise data than those available to the panel," it added.
The experts did not examine the short- and long-term health risks for the emergency response
workers who worked on the site - that will be part of a wider WHO report due from a separate
group of experts in July.
That report will also assess the prospect for long-term increases in cancer cases, including
cancers of the thyroid, the most exposed organ in the body as radioactive iodine concentrates
there.
The experts based their assessment on data available up to last September on the amount of
radioactivity in air, soil, water and food supplies after the disaster.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Reuters: Ivorian minister resigns over toxic dumping scandal
22 May 2012
Ivory Coast's minister of African integration - a lead mediator in Mali's political crisis - resigned
his post on Tuesday over questions about his role in a toxic waste dumping scandal, his office
said in a statement.
Adama Bictogo is suspected to have stolen some 600 million CFA francs ($1.17 million)
intended as compensation for victims of toxic waste dumping by trading firm Trafigura in 2006,
according to a police report made public in February.
"Following the most recent developments in the case of toxic waste dumped in Abidjan by
Trafigura, Minister Adama Bictogo, who played a role in negotiating compensation for the
victims, has asked to be heard by the state prosecutor," according to the statement issued by
Bictogo's office.
It said he had resigned "to ensure and guarantee a separation between the executive and
judiciary powers."
A presidential decree issued earlier in the day said Bictogo, who also was Ivory Coast's
representative in regional negotiations to restore democracy in coup-stricken Mali, had been
sacked but gave no reason.
Trafigura was found guilty in 2010 of exporting toxic waste dumped in a part of Ivory Coast's
economic capital, Abidjan, and agreed to pay some 22.5 billion CFA francs to the area's roughly
30,000 victims.
Ivory Coast police said in February that Bictogo and two other people were suspected of having
stolen some of the money, and recommended that the state prosecutor file charges.
At least 17 people reportedly died from the pollution.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
New York Times (US): The Ray and the Coconut: Tracing Life on an Atoll
20 May 2012
The idea that all life is interdependent is familiar to anyone who has seen “The Lion King,” but
this “circle of life” is rarely displayed in such a long chain of connections as it is on Palmyra
Atoll.
Palmyra, part of the Northern Line Islands in the Pacific, was briefly occupied by the United
States. in World War II and is now a national wildlife refuge with no permanent residents but a
changing cast of scientists for whom it is a rich site for ecological research. It is also the site of a
linked chain of birds, trees, soil, plankton and manta rays so nicely forged that it deserves its
own song.
The chain is an example of natural intricacy and balance so easy to miss that it should make us
consider what unknown processes human activity could be disrupting, according to Douglas J.
McCauley, an ecologist at Stanford University who is one of the authors of a study on Palmyra
just published online in Scientific Reports.
Birds make a good place to start. Red-footed boobies and other seabirds roost and nest in the
high trees of the native forest on Palmyra, as they do on other atolls. They feed on sea life —
predominantly flying fish and squid, in the case of the boobies — and their guano is rich in the
nutrients they have harvested from the sea.
That guano falls from the trees in abundance and “is being used by everything in that native
forest,” said Dr. McCauley. All that life in the forest contributes to the richness of the soil. Rains
and tides wash nutrients from the forest floor into the coastal waters in a “rich organic slurry,” as
Dr. McCauley described it.
The nutrients in the water feed plankton. And all the fish in the sea are part of a food system
that starts with plankton. And the fish, some of them, provide nutrients for the seabirds, which fly
home to roost at night and deposit guano, completing the circle.
Other ecological chains that cross from one ecosystem to another have been reported, like the
relation of fish to flowers around ponds in Florida. The fish eat dragonfly larvae, which are
aquatic, thus cutting down the number of adult dragonflies, which eat bees and other insects
that pollinate flowers. When the fish kept down the dragonfly numbers, the pollinators, and the
flowers, flourished. Fish-free ponds had fewer flowers. The movement of salmon, which migrate
and die in freshwater rivers, has also been shown to affect land vegetation.
Another author of the new paper, Hillary S. Young, from Harvard, had earlier published research
on the effect of coconut palms on Palmyra. They are not native to the atoll, and seabirds don’t
like to nest or roost in them. So palm forests lack guano and have poorer soil than native
forests.
What Dr. Young, Dr. McCauley and several other Stanford researchers found in the new study
is how giant manta rays fit into the system. Dr. McCauley said he started out following the rays.
“That’s how we got into this story,” he said. “We were actually tracking the movements of manta
rays.”
He and other researches found the rays were going back to the same spots on the coast, where
the native forests predominated. Where palms were dense, the manta rays were not.
The researchers tracked the nutrients coming from the seabird guano to the coastal waters and
documented an abundance of the rays in the waters by the native forests. Dr. McCauley
emphasized that the manta rays, which can travel long distances and have many choices of
where to feed, are not in trouble. What he found most significant was the length of this
ecological chain, and the many points at which it could be interrupted by breaking one link.
James Estes of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not part of the research, but
read drafts of the work along the way, said that such long interactive chains might be more
common than we realize, and that the research ought to “open our minds to the length and
complexity of ecological processes.”
These chains might also inspire some new Disney movies. “The Tale of the Coconut and the
Manta Ray” has a nice ring to it.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
EuraActivity (Belgium): Negotiate a world carbon price signal, now
22 May 2012
Every country in the world should each make a commitment to introduce a carbon price aligned
with a scientifically-validated international standard, say Stéphane Dion and Éloi Laurent.
Stéphane Dion is a member of the House of Commons of Canada; as Canada's then Minister of
the Environment, he chaired the 11th conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (COP 11), held in Montréal in 2005. Éloi Laurent is senior
economist and scientific advisor at the Observatoire français des conjunctures économiques
(OFCE), and professor at Sciences Po (Paris) and Stanford University.
"Two decades after the 1992 Rio summit, with a new climate conference taking place in Bonn, we
must admit a collective failure in combating human-induced climate change. We will not escape
serious climate disruption if we keep going down that road. We must change direction, and we
must move quickly.
The International Energy Agency forecasts warming of over 3.5º C by the end of the 21st century
if all countries respect their commitments and warming of over 6º C if they content themselves
with their present policies. At that level of warming, climate science warns that our planet will
become much less hospitable for humans and virtually all forms of life.
At the December 2011 Durban Conference, countries expressed “grave concern” regarding the
gap between their own commitments and achieving the objective of a 2º C limit on increased
global warming (compared to pre-industrial era). They promised to 'raise the level of ambition' to
bridge this gap. Yet, they didn’t commit to achieving more stringent objectives. We are thus facing
an increasingly untenable distance between the urgency of taking action and the inertia of
international negotiations.
Developed countries are refusing to strengthen their climate policies as long as other large
emitters refuse to follow suit. But emerging economies, particularly China and India with Gross
Domestic Product annual growth rates of between 8% and 10%, will not accept absolute reduction
targets for GHG emissions. On the other hand, these countries might be more open to the idea of
a harmonised levy of a price per tonne of carbon dioxide, a price from which they would derive
revenues, and which their economic competitors would also be required to levy.
In our view, the best international co-ordination instrument we can establish to combat climate
change is such an harmonised carbon price signal. We therefore propose that upcoming
negotiations now focus on this essential objective.
Here is what we propose: countries would each make a commitment to introduce, in their
respective jurisdictions, a carbon price aligned with a scientifically-validated international standard,
in order for the world to achieve or at least come as close as possible to the objective of keeping
global warming below 2º C over pre-industrial era levels. Countries may levy this price through a
carbon tax or through the allocation of emission quotas (cap and trade i.e. carbon market).
Governments would be free to invest, as they see fit, revenues from the carbon emission levy and
from the corresponding elimination of fossil energy subsidies. For example, they could invest in
research and development in clean energy, public transportation, etc. They could also choose to
address social inequalities with respect to access to energy.
Developed countries would be required to set aside part of their revenues to help developing
countries introduce mitigation, adaptation and carbon sink creation policies (the latter through
reforestation, for example). The contributions of individual developed countries would be based on
what their respective GHG emissions represent relative to the total emissions of all developed
countries.
This international agreement would allow countries to levy border taxes on products from
countries that have not established a carbon price signal in accordance with the international
standard. The message would be clear to all large GHG emitters: if you do not levy a carbon price
on your products before exporting them, other countries will do it for you – and will keep the
resulting revenue. It will be in each country’s interest to comply with the international agreement,
to levy a carbon price on its own emissions, and to use the resulting revenue as it sees fit.
In this way, the world would have available an instrument that is vital to its sustainable
development. At last, carbon emitters would be required to pay the environmental price for their
actions. Consumers and manufacturers would have an incentive to choose lower-carbon-content
goods and services and to invest in new energy-saving and emission-reducing technologies.
We must negotiate this harmonised carbon price signal, and we must do it now. What better place
to undertake this approach than in Rio, right where the problem of climate change was recognised
by the international community 20 years ago?"
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Times of India (India): World's oceans need greater protection: UN chief
22 May 2012
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has sought global attention to the fragile state of the world's
oceans and the importance of marine diversity for global survival.
He has stressed on strengthening protection of marine life, Xinhua reported.
Speaking on the International World Biodiversity Day, the UN chief Tuesday said: "Oceans cover
almost three-quarters of the surface of the globe. They are home to the largest animal known to
have lived on the planet -- the blue whale."
"From sandy shores to the darkest depths of the sea, oceans and coasts support the rich tapestry
of life on which human communities rely on," he said.
The UN chief laid emphasis on the impact of commercial exploitation of fish stock.
Ban said, more than half of world's fisheries have exhausted their stock, with an additional third of
the world' s fisheries in complete depletion. Moreover, an estimated 30 to 34 percent of marine
environment consisting of coral reefs, mangroves, and sea grasses have been destroyed.
"Increased burning of fossil fuels is affecting the global climate, making the sea surface warmer,
causing sea level to rise and increasing ocean acidity, with consequences we are only beginning
to comprehend," the UN chief said.
On May 22, the UN General Assembly marked International Day for Biological Diversity, to
increase awareness of issues affecting global marine life.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Daily Star (Sri Lanka): Recognise women's contributions
23 May 2012
Experts yesterday stressed the need for giving credit to the women of our country for their
contributions in the field of disaster management.
They said the females play a vital role to overcome disaster, but they are yet to receive any formal
recognition for it from the authorities concerned.
The disaster management experts were speaking at a roundtable titled 'Female and girls are
silent force for overcoming disaster' at Senate Building on the Dhaka University (DU) campus in
the capital.
Centre for Disaster and Vulnerability Studies (CDVS) of DU organised the programme in
collaboration with Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP).
Speakers at the programme said people consider the females the most vulnerable portion of the
society during and after a disaster while they (females) contribute vitally.
Presenting a keynote paper, DU sociology department Prof Mahbuba Nasrin said the
contributions of females to disaster management was excluded in the 2011 Asia-based
coordinated report conducted by the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) of the
United Nations.
The male and the female, both are affected at times of disaster, but the responsibility of
minimising the risk of disaster falls on the shoulder of the females, said Nasrin, also CDVS
coordinator.
Disaster Management Bureau Director General Ahsan Zakir, Disaster Management National
Project Manager Muhammad Abdul Quyyum and CDMP Communication Specialist Shaila Shahid
also addressed the programme.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
MongaBay (US): Groups urge President Obama to attend Rio+20 Sustainability
Summit
22 May 2012
Twenty-two conservation, indigenous, health and science groups have called on U.S. President
Barack Obama to attend the up-coming Rio+20 Summit on Sustainable Development.
"Your presence at this Summit would signal its critical importance to all Americans, demonstrate
our country’s deep concern over urgent global issues that will inevitably affect our security and
well-being, and highlight our nation’s determination to be a contender in the race to a low-carbon
green economy," the groups write in a letter to the president.
The UN summit, which marks twenty years since the landmark UN Rio summit in 1992, is being
seen an opportunity for world leaders to take action on strengthening environmental protections
while reducing global poverty. However, the summit has already come under fire from critics for a
lack of ambition in the face of growing crises like biodiversity loss, hunger, water scarcity, and
climate change. Already two of Obama's colleagues, German chancellor Angela Merkel and
British Prime Minister David Cameron, have stated they will not be attending.
But NGOs hope the U.S. leader will make a different decision, urging the Obama Administration in
the letter to take active leadership in protecting and restoring the world's oceans, in the global
transition to a green economy, and in moving forward new international norms on safeguard the
environment and promoting human rights.
The groups add that the Obama Administration won't be attending the summit empty-handed.
"Your Administration can point to important areas where it is making real progress towards
sustainability—including making major new investments in renewable energy, promulgating EPA
rules on carbon pollution from power plants, and proposing to reduce fossil fuel subsidies, among
others," the letter reads.
The signatories of the letter include American Rivers, Center for International Environmental Law,
Citizens for Global Solutions, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Day Network,
Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Environment America, Greenpeace, League of
Conservation Voters, Native American Rights Fund, National Tribal Environmental Council,
National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Population Action International, Population Connection, Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy, Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Epoch Times (US): A Wastewater Treatment Plant Like No Other
22 May 2012
A wastewater treatment plant in New York state has become the first in the United States to reach
the capability of energy-independence. The plant is almost entirely powered by methane gas
derived from its own wastewater and therefore hardly imports energy.
The Gloversville-Johnstown Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility near Albany serves as an
economically viable example for solutions to the growing problem of reducing air pollution and
improving energy security. Technologies called anaerobic digestion and combined heat and
power make it possible for wastewater plants to turn sewage into fuel, and in turn save energy,
and even pay for itself.
“Every community that has the environmental liability of a wastewater treatment plant can utilize
this liability for its own advantage and turn it into asset,” said Robert Ostapczuk, from ARCADIS,
an international engineering consultancy company.
In April, ARCADIS won several design awards for its work on the plant from organizations such as
the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) and the American Academy of
Environmental Engineers (AAEE).
The cities of Gloversville and Johnstown in Fulton County have jointly run a mid-sized treatment
plant to take care of their sewage and wastewater for four decades.
In the early 1990s, the plant struggled to maintain operations because the volume of incoming
waste from nearby factories dropped, while energy, debit service and personnel costs soared.
Methane gas storage tanks. By 2006, the plant produced 40 percent of its own power. These
circumstances spurred significant changes at Gloversville-Johnstown. First, the plant initiated big
conservation projects at the facility leading to a more efficient use of energy and sizeable cost
savings. More significant was the introduction of an anaerobic digester as well as combined heat
and power technologies at the plant.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process involving microorganisms that break down organic matter
without gaseous oxygen, usually in large tanks. Final products of the digestion process are
biogas, a renewable energy resource, mostly made up of methane, water, and carbon dioxide.
The biogas is stored and then used as a fuel to generate heat and electricity via a gas-powered
engine in a process called combined heat and power (CHP).
Gradual upgrades to these technologies at total cost of $11.5 million allowed the facility to reach
an ambitious plan for producing 100 percent of the operating energy on site.
Besides the building of a 50,000-cubic-foot biogas holder, equipped with an expanding and
contracting “inner lung,” two 350-kilowatt biogas generators replaced smaller ones. As a result,
not only has the ability of the plant to generate biogas from municipal sludge increased, the
biogas is also used more efficiently. Instead of treating high strength wastes from local industry in
energy intensive aeration systems, the high strength waste is co-digested with the municipal
sludge liberating the energy and providing treatment.
While for many years half of the biogas was lost, for the last three months the generators
averaged 95–98 percent in power generation, up from12 percent in the late 1990s. In 2011, the
plant reached its goal of becoming energy independent, as the first of its kind in the United States,
though only potentially. Due to the regulatory situation in New York state, the plant is not allowed
to sell excess power to the grid through net metering. If it did sell, the energy it gave out would
offset the peak times when it has to purchase some power.
Gloversville-Johnstown is able to “produce 110 percent of its own electricity on site,” said Robert
Ostapczuk. As the senior project engineer, Ostapczuk was mainly responsible for the upgrades in
the last 12 years.
As a result of these measures, the facility generated 5 million kilowatt hours of electricity in 2011,
while saving almost $330,000 on its electricity bill. The costs for purchased electricity were at an
all-time low last year, according to the annual report.
Additional revenue comes in from increasingly taking on yogurt and cheese whey, which is
basically the waste product leftover after making cheese. Gloversville-Johnstown made almost
$450,000 in 2011 just from one big dairy plant.
“There is a growing interest nationally in that configuration at wastewater treatment facilities,” said
David Terry, executive director the Association of State Energy Research & Technology Transfer
Institutions, who wrote a case study on the plant.
A higher rate of recycled waste puts less stress on the local environment since less sludge is sent
to landfills. Plus, it is a local renewable resource with lower carbon emissions. Anaerobic digestion
and combined heat and power are considered to be one of the most useful decentralized sources
of energy by the United Nations Environmental Program.
“It’s all there. It’s just a matter of having the right person wanting to do it in each community,” said
Ostapczuk.
Besides technological upgrades and improvements, “it takes a change of culture … of managing
waste water,” said Ostapczuk. “It is just a matter of being willing to take risks and expand what
you treat, how you treat it, and run the plant like a business.”
Back to Menu
=============================================================
Environmental News from the UNEP Regions
RONA MEDIA UPDATE
THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE NEWS
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Greenwire: U.N. chief scolds negotiators as talks lag
22 May 2012
UNITED NATIONS -- U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told negotiators here today to get
moving in his most aggressive public remarks to date about next month's sustainable
development conference in Brazil.
Ban spoke in reaction to a failure at the United Nations over the past few months to settle on a
focused agenda for the meeting, which starts June 20 and is meant to commemorate the first
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 20 years ago.
The summit, called Rio+20, has been framed as a broad attempt to advance sustainable
development by promoting green economies, especially in the developing world. But negotiators
here have been unable to broker an official "outcome document" to shape the agenda.
Last month, talks over the outcome document broke off, leading to previously unplanned
negotiations this week and next to give it another go. The sense of disarray has become
palpable here with less than a month until 130 heads of state and 50,000 participants descend
on Rio.
This morning, Ban took up the situation and addressed the feeling that the pre-Rio process has
become a case study of too many cooks brewing the same stew, with many U.N. member
nations looking to advance an overwhelming number of individual ideas over the past few
months.
"We cannot let a microscopic examination of text blind us from the big picture," Ban said during
a U.N. General Assembly debate on Rio. "The current pace of negotiations is sending all the
wrong signals."
His office also announced plans to release a "streamlined" agenda document later today. That
document is expected to come directly from Rio+20 Secretary-General Sha Zukang, who has
said the current iteration of the outcome document -- which had ballooned from 19 pages to
more than 200 pages -- was a "far cry from the 'focused political document' called for by the
General Assembly. The document has been described internally as still too large and containing
too much repetition to pave the way for success in Rio.
Kim Sook, permanent representative of South Korea and a key figure in the preparations, has
said the streamlined version of the text will be prepared by the co-chairs of the conference. This
appears to mean they will decide themselves what is on the Rio agenda and possibly dismiss
many of the proposals in the 200-page version.
Among the ideas on the table have been calling for the elimination of fossil-fuel subsidies,
elevation of the U.N. Environment Programme to a World Environment Organization, doing
away with gross domestic product as the key measure of national economic growth,
encouraging a doubling of renewable energy and technology transfer, and a number of
sustainable development goals and finance measures.
'Governments can do very little'
Those close to the process have been critical of Brazil in particular for not engaging as a host
nation perhaps should. A European diplomat close to the talks who asked not to be named said
earlier this month that Brazil was "notoriously absent" from the talks until recently.
Today, Brazilian Ambassador Luiz Figueiredo Machado called Rio a "once-in-a-generation
opportunity" but also offered a glimpse into the discord that has emerged behind closed doors.
He said each member nation "will find its path to sustainable development" through its own
sovereign priorities and then appeared to downplay the importance of U.N.-brokered directives.
"Governments can do very little," he said. "Society is the main actor."
Figueiredo added that "the participation of civil society" in Rio will be essential to its success.
This line of argument appears to mirror that of some activists who have lately said Rio is a
chance to depart from the model of recent U.N. climate change conferences to focus on private
industry and more than 600 planned side events.
"Nothing will be achieved if we do not inspire civil society," Figueiredo said.
Seasoned observers at the United Nations today were openly expressing their concern.
"We're at a very complicated moment with just a few weeks to go" until Rio, Jeffery Sachs,
director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said during a presentation to the General
Assembly.
To Sachs, "the single most important outcome" in Rio would be adoption of sustainable
development goals in the post-2015 period as "the core organizing principle" in the years to
come. He argued against trying to define too many of the technical details that would help
nations achieve such goals, saying that work would follow in the years to come.
"If we do that, the summit will be historic," he said. "We don't need to solve all the details of
sustainable development."
He added: "We cannot make a legally binding, detailed treaty in all of these areas four weeks
from now. We cannot solve the problems of the world economy four weeks from now. All we can
do is make a framework."
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Huffington Post: Rio+20: "We Are Made Wise by the Responsibility of Our Future"
21 May 2012
In less than a month, world leaders will gather in Rio de Janeiro for the United Nation's 2012
Earth Summit. At stake: a new global green deal that could pull our planet back from the brink of
irreversible climate change.
Two months ago, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned that the world is heading
towards a 6°C temperature rise by the end of this century: "Energy-related CO2 emissions are
at historic highs, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would almost double by
2050."
A 6°C temperature rise would mark the end of most life here on earth. According to Australia's
Climate Change Research Centre, it would create something "similar to the depths of the last
ice age."
The clock is ticking. The IEA says that global warming will hit the point of no return in 5 years
time. And according to leading NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen, "In the near term, things will
be bad enough." He says that there will be widespread drought followed by floods: "Economic
losses would be incalculable. Food prices will rise to unprecedented levels. If this sounds
apocalyptic, it is."
According to a recent report from the World Wildlife Fund, there has already been a 30%
decline in wildlife since 1970. "There would be panic if the FTSE index showed a decline like
this," says Professor Tim Blackman from the UK's Institute of Zoology. "Nature is more
important than money. Humanity can live without money, but we can't live without nature and
the essential services it provides."
And it's not too late, not yet. But, "we need to address this with the same urgency and
determination with which we tackled the systemic financial crisis," says David Nussbaum, CEO
of WWF-UK.
97% of all climate scientists now see extreme weather as a "serious" risk to our planet. This is
not some splinter view espoused by the fringes of society, this is the mainstream. In the words
of Jim Hansen: "The science of the situation is clear -- it's time for the politics to follow."
So, why hasn't it? According to Helen Clark, the head of the UN's development program, it's
because it's too politically risky and this is a problem if one is only in power for four years.
But, according to Nick Clegg, the UK's deputy prime minister, "Some say that we have to
choose between boosting growth and being green. What a load of rubbish. Going for growth
means going green. The race is on to lead the world in clean energy."
In other words, the rise of the green sector may herald the start of our next industrial revolution.
And, as economist Lord Stern points out:
Industrial revolutions bring some dislocation. When the electric light came in, the whalers and
the candle makers had to adjust. But, there are huge opportunities; it's a story of growth; a story
of innovation; and going to the pioneers.
Lord Stern believes that fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out and ploughed into the green
economy instead. According to the IEA, over $400 billion was spent on the fossil fuel sector in
2010. In the same year, green energy received less than one fifth of that money.
British barrister Polly Higgins adopts a similar view. She believes that the "problem needs to be
part of the solution." She says that we need to abolish subsidies for polluting industries; outlaw
those sectors and then create financial incentives in the other direction so that those same
companies can thrive in a world of clean energy. Essentially, we need to turn "the poacher into
the gamekeeper."
Polly Higgins then takes another step forward. She believes that environmental destruction
should be treated as an international peace crime just like genocide and other crimes against
humanity:
We need to expand our circle of concern so that it's not just human life, but all life on earth. It's
not just humanity that is sacred; all life is sacred. We need to put people and planet over and
above profit. We are standing at the precipice of civilization where morally it is wrong to cause
this damage. And, we can close this door much like we closed the door to slavery 200 hundred
years ago.
She has asked the UN to accept "ecocide" as the 5th crime against peace and will present her
case before world leaders in Rio next month: "Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life. It
leads to resource depletion, and where there is an escalation of resource depletion, war comes
chasing behind."
According to Sir David King, the UK's former head scientist, we are facing a century of 'resource
wars.' But, as Ms Higgins points out, our global future need not be so bleak. We can put an end
to this mindless destruction, and regain control of our destiny here on earth by protecting the
planet that gives us home.
In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "We are made wise not by the recollection of our past,
but by the responsibility of our future." It's time for us to act wise, otherwise we may forsake our
future. Michelangelo once said, "I saw the angel in the marble, and carved until I set her free."
We can all see our planetary angel and she's suffering; it's time to set her free.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Climatewire: 22 environmental groups push Obama to attend Rio+20
22 May2012
Environmental groups are pressing President Obama to extend his itinerary from next month's
visit to a Group of 20 summit in Mexico and fly from there to the U.N. sustainable development
conference a few days later in Brazil.
In a letter sent to the White House yesterday, the Natural Resources Defense Council and 21
other groups said Obama's attendance in Brazil is crucial to send a signal that the United States
intends to lead the world in creating green economies.
Obama is set to attend the G-20 heads of government summit in Los Cabos on June 18 and 19
but has made no mention of plans to extend the trip southward to Rio de Janeiro. Rio is host to
the U.N. gathering this year known as Rio+20 to commemorate the first Earth Summit there 20
years ago.
Jacob Scherr, director of global strategy and advocacy at NRDC, in a press call yesterday
called the Rio summit "one of the most important conferences" from the United Nations in recent
memory. He said it will feature more than 50,000 participants and about 130 heads of state, as
U.N. officials attempt to shift the tone of environmental gatherings from difficult face-to-face
climate change negotiations to a more open-ended approach.
"We believe it is really crucial that the president attend," he said. "It's important for him to go to
show that our country is concerned."
The letter was also signed by the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, the National
Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace and others.
The plea comes despite several months of bad press about Rio+20, which has yet to produce
an official agenda. Host country Brazil has been called disengaged during preparatory talks in
New York, and some key delegations have decided to either skip the meeting altogether or
lower the size of their contingent.
Another try at an 'outcome document'
Negotiations at the United Nations over the "outcome document" are set to resume for one
more week of meetings next week, in hopes of focusing the conference. The challenge appears
to be a case of too many cooks brewing the same stew, with many U.N. member nations
looking to advance an overwhelming number of individual ideas.
Scherr himself has been critical of the U.N. meetings on Rio, which he attended, but in the press
briefing he repeated his pitch that the sustainable development conference is about turning the
tables on past meetings and framing a new approach to international environmental talks.
He noted the high number of side events, estimated at 600 by the United Nations, and stressed
that Rio+20 is not about negotiating another global climate treaty. It is instead about framing a
strategy for implementing past commitments held over from talks in South Africa, Denmark and
Mexico, he said.
NRDC and others "are really urging the [Obama] administration to look at it differently," he said.
"Our hope is that this would be the first summit in history to produce a cloud of commitments."
Among the hard proposals NRDC is backing with about a month to go until Rio is encouraging
private investments in clean energy in the developing world with $500 million in private funds.
The group would also like to see a major pact on nations agreeing to phase out fossil fuel
subsidies by 2015 and elimination of super greenhouse gas emissions like hydrofluorocarbons.
Brazil intent on 'tackling poverty'
Other proposals possibly on the table include doubling the amount of renewable energy in the
developing world, making the U.N. Environment Programme into a World Environment
Organization and ending the use of gross domestic product to measure national economic
growth.
On climate talks, NRDC's international policy director, Jake Schmidt, said he does not expect
hard mandates, but with so many heads of state attending, he finds it hard to believe global
warming will not be discussed in some form.
"Anytime you get heads of government around the table, they have to talk about global
warming," he said. "That has to be a central part of what they're talking about."
Scherr said he expects the White House to release its own wish list of intended commitments,
including a green cities cooperation agreement with Brazil, in the next few weeks. As for
whether Obama will attend, the White House has been mum, and Scherr has received no clear
signal from aides there.
In the meantime, Brazilian ministers have recently shown signs of coming around to taking Rio
seriously. Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota and Minister of Environment Izabella Teixeira issued
a document last week that said they would like Rio+20 to step beyond Rio '92 to focus not just
on environmental issues but also on poverty eradication and how to improve technology transfer
among nations, among other concepts.
"Unlike the Rio '92 meeting, the conference moves beyond a debate focused solely on
environment," Teixeira said, adding that "every segment of society is part of this debate, which
will concentrate on green economy, sustainability and tackling poverty."
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Market Watch: WBCSD Delivers Policy Solutions to Rio+20, Calls For Urgent
Leadership From Governments
22 May 2012
Changing Pace" Report Presents Policy Recommendations to Boost Business Role in
Innovating a Sustainable Future
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) today launched Changing
Pace, a detailed blueprint of policy recommendations to scale up business solutions that can
tackle our most pressing sustainability challenges.
"Business skills and capacity have until now been grossly underestimated and undervalued by
governments around the world," said Peter Bakker, President, WBCSD. "We have a
tremendous opportunity in Rio to start down the path toward sustainability, but we cannot get
there unless we unleash the power of business as a full partner in this effort through policy and
collaboration. We need policies to allow business to do what it does best: innovate and solve
problems that will help us reach a sustainable world."
Changing Pace complements WBCSD's landmark report Vision 2050, which identifies pathways
and timeframes to allow 9 billion people to live well and within the limits of our planet by 2050.
Changing Pace builds on Vision 2050 by putting forward clear and concrete policy proposals
aimed at accelerating progress toward inclusive and sustainable growth. The report is an
invitation from WBCSD and its member companies, to governments, civil society and fellow
business leaders to actively engage in dialogues to shape policy solutions and pathways to a
sustainable 2050 at a national and international level.
Changing Pace is meant to facilitate a discussion between the WBCSD and national
governments in order to develop and implement concrete policies that stimulate the innovation
and implementation of sustainable business solutions.
Regardless of whether Rio+20 is able to achieve progress through a comprehensive
international agreement, urgent action at the national level is still needed now more than ever.
Policies at the national level must be enacted that will drive business innovation and success
while achieving sustainability at scale in a world whose population is projected to increase 2
Billion by 2050.
Changing Pace identifies seven categories of policy action that create a dynamic and
achievable policy framework and applies them to the nine elements laid out in Vision 2050
necessary to create a sustainable world.
The seven categories of action that constitute the "Green Growth Policy Accelerator" in
Changing Pace are:
Set goals with a clear purpose and specific goals that define the world in which we want to live;
Communicate and educate the public to foster understanding and commitment to pursue
sustainability objectives;
Standardize by enforcing and introducing performance standards, emission or usage limits and
codes of conduct;
Budget through fiscal reforms to price scarce natural resources and negative externalities;
Invest for efficient infrastructures, technology developments, and green public procurements
that mobilize private capital for green growth;
Monitor progress through adequate indicators that compensate for the limitations of GDP; and,
Coordinate governance that is predictable, coherent and has longevity.
Changing Pace is about adopting better rules for markets, and overcoming mindsets and
dilemmas about how governments and business should work together. Changing Pace
recognizes that only with business, government and civil society fulfilling and coordinating their
respective roles can we achieve the speed and scale necessary to reach a sustainable path by
2050.
Changing Pace was released at the B4E Conference in Berlin, Germany.
About the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) The World Business
Council for Sustainable Development is a CEO-led organization of forward-thinking companies
that galvanizes the global business community to create a sustainable future for business,
society and the environment. Together with its members, the council applies its respected
thought leadership and effective advocacy to generate constructive solutions and take shared
action. Leveraging its strong relationships with stakeholders as the leading advocate for
business, the council helps drive debate and policy change in favor of sustainable development
solutions.
The WBCSD provides a forum for its 200 member companies - who represent all business
sectors, all continents and a combined revenue of more than $7 trillion - to share best practices
on sustainable development issues and to develop innovative tools that change the status quo.
The Council also benefits from a network of 60 national and regional business councils and
partner organizations, a majority of which are based in developing countries.
www.wbcsd.org
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Washington Times: FEULNER: Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty (Op-Ed)
The Washington Times
21 May 2012
Want the United States to gain legal access to the vast amount of oil and natural gas in the
underwater extended continental shelf? Get LOST - specifically, the U.N. Convention on the
Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).
The Obama administration wants the Senate to act on the treaty, which has been around since
1982. Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, will be holding a series of hearings, beginning
Wednesday, to make the case for LOST.
According to its advocates, we need LOST for a variety of reasons. One of them concerns the
oil and gas resources located in the outer limits of our continental shelf. The treaty’s proponents
say we can obtain legal title to it only by signing on to the treaty.
“If the United States does not ratify this treaty, our ability to claim the vast extended continental
shelf off Alaska will be seriously impeded,” said Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican.
Without LOST, we are told, we will not be able to develop the hydrocarbon resources beneath
the extended continental shelf in areas such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean.
Sounds pretty dire and, at a time of fluctuating prices for gasoline and other forms of energy,
alarming. Fortunately, it’s not true.
Under international law and long-standing U.S. policy, we already have access to these areas.
Presidents dating back to Harry Truman have issued proclamations - and Congress has passed
laws - establishing America’s maritime laws and boundaries. And no one has challenged them.
Perhaps LOST’s proponents would like this to change. They tend to be fans of superfluous
international agreements and frequently back policies that would tie the hands of the U.S. and
prevent us from acting in our own interests. But the fact remains that their claim about LOST
being necessary to obtain legal title to the oil and gas under the extended continental shelf is
pure fiction.
A big part of the reason this matters is that a lot of money is at stake. It is hard to say exactly
how much hydrocarbon deposits there are beneath the extended continental shelf, but
according to the ECS Task Force, “Given the size of the U.S. continental shelf, the resources
we find there may be worth many billions, if not trillions, of dollars.”
Forgoing such a treasure is not the only way that the United States could lose out financially
under LOST. Environmental activists are high on the treaty, too. That is because they anticipate
suing the U.S., if it joins LOST, to force America to adopt the radical climate-change agenda
they have been unsuccessful at imposing. So far, at least.
Climate-change alarmists have tried again and again in recent years to secure an international
agreement. In Denmark, Mexico and South Africa, they have tried to come up with a legally
binding climate-change pact. Considering what an economic wrecking ball such an agreement
would represent to the U.S. and its allies, we can be glad they failed. But now they think they
have found a solution: LOST.
Groups such as Greenpeace would love a chance to make the U.S. pay in international court.
And that is just what we would do under the U.S. Convention on the Law of the Sea - pay.
“In addition to needlessly exposing itself to baseless environmental lawsuits,” writes The
Heritage Foundation’s Steve Groves, an expert on LOST, “the United States would be required
to transfer billions of dollars in oil and gas royalties … to the International Seabed Authority for
redistribution to the developing world.”
What does this mean? In short, it means that the United Nations will have an independent
source of income, courtesy of the United States.
So who has Sen. Kerry invited to testify at his hearings? Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. All of them are proponents of the treaty. So do not expect to hear a word about
any of its many drawbacks.
LOST amounts to little more than an expensive power grab by America’s detractors worldwide.
President Reagan was right to reject it 30 years ago. The U.S. Senate should do the same thing
today.
Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org).
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Treehugger: Will President Obama Attend Rio+20? Green Groups Urge Him to
Commit
May 22, 2012
With Rio+20 now a month away, a coalition of 22 green groups, representing some 5 million
people, is urging President Obama to confirm his attendance at the environmental conference
(like 130 other heads of state have done).
The letter opens:
Your presence at this Summit would signal its critical importance to all Americans, demonstrate
our country's deep concerns over urgent global issues that will inevitably affect our security and
well-being, and highlight our nation's determination to be a contender in the race to a lowcarbon green economy. As United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated recently, your
participation will be "crucial." This is true both for the success of the summit and progress
towards a sustainable future for everyone on this fragile planet, and for your Administration's
goals on jobs and clean energy here at home.
The letter goes on to urge Obama to announce "as soon as possible [the US's] own
commitments for Rio+20," then goes on to outline how the signatories think those commitments
should be formed.
It's pretty standard boilerplate environmental demands, and is largely in line with what we know
is already being discussed in the pre-Rio negotiations, as well as the aspirational statements
emerging from the recent meeting at Camp David—meaning, there's lots of general talk and
some of it on point topically, but nothing approaching groundbreaking in terms of proposed
implementation. Some of that is, no doubt, because that's what these sort of documents are, but
it's also not wanting to be hemmed in politically in any way, a calculated lack of taking a stand.
Ultimately I don't think President Obama will actually snub Rio, and I doubt any of the 22 groups
producing this letter do either (the letter serves a dual political purpose). While it's perfectly
tedious to have a repeat of COP15 in 2009, where there was doubt up until the very last minute
that the President would attend (and then arrive on the scene through the back door, and leave
the same way), it very well may be the same sort of thing here—hopefully with the change that
something environmentally meaningful actually emerges and not just more deferred action.
We'll see.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Huffington Post: UN Bonn Climate Conference Delegates Say Greenhouse Gas
Ambitions Lacking
21 May 2012
BONN, Germany, May 21 (Reuters) - Reluctance to raise ambitions to cut greenhouse gas
emissions due to economic constraints is threatening progress towards limiting global warming,
delegates at United Nations' climate talks in Germany warned on Monday.
The talks in Bonn, which end on May 25, are partly to discuss ways of raising the level of
ambition on cuts but the worsening eurozone crisis and battered global economy have
increased reluctance to commit to more financially onerous cuts by the end of the decade,
delegates told Reuters.
Last year's U.N. climate talks in Durban, South Africa, agreed to develop a new protocol, legal
instrument or legally binding deal by 2015 which would apply to all parties under the U.N.'s
climate convention and would come into force no later than 2020.
Countries had already agreed in 2010 that deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts had to be
made to keep a rise in global average temperature below two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels this century to avoid more extreme weather, glacier melts, ocean acidification
and other harmful impacts.
But efforts so far to cut emissions are not seen as sufficient to stop a rise beyond two degrees
this century.
"The ambition gap must be closed..in Doha," said Sai Navoti, lead negotiator for the Alliance of
Small Island States, referring to talks scheduled for November-December in Qatar.
"Failing to close the gap immediately will lead to sginificant risks across various tipping points
and global average temperature exceeding 3.5 degrees," he added.
Last November, the U.N. Environment Programme issued a report showing that the gap
between current emissions cut pledges and what is needed to limit global warming is wider than
ever, growing from 5-9 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent in 2010 to 6-11 gigatonnes in 2011.
UNDER PRESSURE
Current pledges cover around 80 to 85 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and nine
economies among the world's top 30 emitters in 2005 have not yet tabled cuts, said Justin Lee,
head of Australia's climate delegation.
"The shared collective efforts are not enough to meet the two degree goal. Countries that
haven't yet pledged, should."
The European Union has said it would cut emissions by 30 percent from 1990 levels by 2020
from the current 20 percent if other large emitters take on equally ambitious pledges but none
have yet done so and the EU is now grappling with the rapid deterioration of the euro zone
economy.
"People clearly do not want to talk about raising pledges with the global recession and euro
zone about to collapse under its own weight," said a source who requested anonymity.
Less developed countries are also under pressure to define domestic measures to cut
emissions through so-called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) but progress
there too is slow due to lack of finance.
Such actions could include programmes to develop renewable energy, improve energy
efficiency, or the uptake of electric vehicles, for example.
Although the number of NAMA initiatives has grown to 52 from 30 last year, less than five have
been implemented, said a report on Monday by the German ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nature Safety and consultancy Ecofys.
The greenhouse gas emissions cuts from just 13 such programmes is expected to total around
23.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2020, the report showed.
"More nations should come forward with NAMAs. It is time to ask what can be done. Nothing at
all is not the right answer," said Kaminaga Kaminaga, negotiator for the Marshall Islands, in the
Pacific Ocean.
People's current ways of life on those islands, which are only 2 metres above sea level, could
be under threat even if seas rose a metre this century as glaciers and ice caps melt due to
global warming.
"There is no higher ground and nowhere to relocate," Kaminaga warned.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Newsweek: ‘The Ocean of Life’—And the Sorrow Beneath the Sea
14 May 2012
Imagine an underwater world without whales, sharks, and dolphins, where jellyfish and algae
rule. It's already happening, says marine biologist Callum Roberts in his new books, The Ocean
of Life.
Like children the world over, my daughters love turtles. At once incongruous and graceful, they
connect us to the world of 15 million years ago, when very similar turtles swam alongside
megatooth sharks, or 75 million years ago, when they rubbed shoulders with dinosaurs. Only
eight species of marine turtle remain from a lineage that stretches back little changed deep into
the age of dinosaurs. The largest living reptile is the leatherback turtle, a barnacle-encrusted
eminence that can reach 10 feet long and weigh two tons. Today we confront the stark
possibility that people will drive the leatherback turtle to extinction within the next human
generation. Already there is just one leatherback left in the Pacific for every 20 in 1962, the year
I was born.
Human dominion over nature has finally reached the sea.
With an ever-accelerating tide of human impact, the oceans have changed more in the last 30
years than in all of human history before. In most places, the seas have lost upwards of 75
percent of their megafauna—large animals such as whales, dolphins, sharks, rays, and turtles—
as fishing and hunting spread in waves across the face of the planet. For some species, like
whitetip sharks, American sawfish, or the once “common” skate, numbers are down as much as
99 percent. By the end of the 20th century, almost nowhere shallower than 3,000 feet remained
untouched by commercial fishing. Some places are now fished down to 10,000 feet.
Why, in the face of widespread evidence of human impact, do so many people persist in
thinking that the oceans remain wild and beyond our influence? The answer lies in part in the
creeping rate of change. Younger generations are often dismissive of the tales of old-timers,
rejecting their stories in favor of things they’ve experienced themselves. The result is a
phenomenon known as “shifting baseline syndrome,” as we take for granted things that would
have seemed inconceivable two generations ago.
Loren McClenachan, a graduate at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, unearthed a telling
example of shifting baselines in the archives of the Monroe County Library in Florida. She found
a series of photographs of fish landed into Key West by one recreational fishing charter
company between the 1950s and 1980s, and extended it by taking her own pictures at the same
dock. In the 1950s, huge Goliath groupers and sharks dominated catches, many of them bigger
and fatter than the anglers. Over the years, the fish shrink and groupers and sharks give way to
smaller snappers and grunts, but the grins on the anglers’ faces are just as broad today as they
were in the 1950s. Modern-day tourists have no idea that anything has changed.
With the sole exception of Alaskan salmon, which have been well managed, and rockfish or
striped bass, which have experienced a resurgence thanks to the careful shepherding of their
fisheries, most of the species we like to eat have plummeted since their historic highs. Puget
Sound’s salmon runs have dwindled to a trickle. Red snapper, bluefish, and menhaden are all
overfished in U.S. waters today, while grouper and capelin are far below their 19th-century
numbers. In 2010, a quarter of commercial fish stocks assessed in the U.S. were considered
overfished, meaning that they lie below target levels, themselves far below historic highs. But
this misses the real scale of the problem. Overfishing is only one small piece in a much larger
puzzle of interacting impacts.
We pump chemical and industrial pollutants into our rivers and oceans, heedless of
consequences, and our unplanned experiment with greenhouse gases is gradually infiltrating
the deep sea, changing ocean chemistry, impacting temperatures and oxygen levels, and
shifting patterns of underwater currents with dramatic consequences. The path we are on today
is pushing ocean ecosystems to the edge of their viability. Few people yet grasp the gravity of
the predicament.
I began my career studying coral-reef fish. Thirty years on, fish are still at the heart of my
research, but my outlook has expanded to a much wider interest in the relationship between
people and the sea. Scientists are specialists and devote their lives to research within narrow
fields that become further constricted as time passes. Management of pollution is segregated
from that of fisheries, which in turn are rarely considered in the same place as shipping, or
climate change. This means that impacts are discussed in isolation and by different people. But
a view of the whole is far more alarming than the sum of its parts.
What will the future look like? It is hard to grasp the prospect of seas so compromised that they
no longer sustain the ecological processes which we take for granted, and upon which our
comfort, pleasure, and perhaps even our very existence depends. In the early days of European
seafaring, unexplored areas of ocean were marked on charts as “Mare Incognitum,” or
“Unknown Seas,” and the truth is that we are voyaging into such seas again today.
The oceans have absorbed around 30 percent of the carbon dioxide released by human activity
since pre-industrial times, mainly from fossil-fuel burning, conversion of forests and swamp to
cities and agriculture, and cement production. If carbon-dioxide emissions are not curtailed,
ocean acidity is expected to rise 150 percent by 2050, the fastest rate of increase at any time in
at least the last 20 million years and probably as long as 65 million years, which takes us back
to the age of dinosaurs. As Carol Turley, an expert on ocean acidification from Plymouth Marine
Laboratory put it, “the present increase in ocean acidity is not just unprecedented in our
lifetimes, it is a rare event in the history of the planet.”
The effects of acidification are hard to predict. At the very least life is likely to get much more
difficult for species with carbonate shells, which includes some of the most important primary
producers in the sea, the phytoplankton that sustain food webs and release life-giving oxygen.
Any fall in the rate of plankton production would reduce the snow of organic debris that sinks
from sunlit surface layers to the deep sea. Deep-sea communities survive on meager handouts
from above, and failure in supply would shrink their numbers.
Acidification is only one part of the problem. The runoff of nutrients from land, in the form of
fertilizers and sewage, coupled with rising temperatures, have triggered in recent years an
explosion of dead zones, low-oxygen areas where few species can survive. Dead zones are
often found at the mouth of mighty rivers like the Mississippi or in populated coastal areas and
inland seas. And yet despite their proliferation, future seas will not be lifeless. We are creating
winners as well as losers.
Jellyfish, for example, are great opportunists, and some scientists fear that large parts of our
most productive seas will transform into jellyfish empires. Jellyfish positively thrive in pollutionenriched seas. Given unlimited food, they can reach adult size fast. With their stinging tentacles,
they are formidable predators. Here one of the quirks of ocean food webs comes into play to
seal their dominance. Most animals that might eat jellyfish go through tiny egg, larval, or juvenile
stages when the tables turn and they are themselves jellyfish prey. Such role reversals of
predator and prey are rare on land. In the sea, however, they are prevalent, with surprising
effects. The American oceanographer Andrew Bakun invites us to imagine a world in which
zebras and antelopes are voracious predators of young of lions or cheetahs. What would the
Serengeti look like if this were so?
The jellyfish joyride begins when high nutrients combine with a fall in abundance of their
predators. When plentiful, jellyfish suppress their predators further by eating more of their young
and so pave the way for a full-blown population explosion. Mediterranean resorts have been
plagued by jellyfish outbreaks in the last 20 years. The main problem species there is the
mauve stinger, whose tentacles inflict slashing welts on the tender bodies of bathers. In the
summer of 2004, an estimated 45,000 swimmers were treated for stings in Monaco alone. In
2007, Irish salmon farms were overwhelmed by hordes of mauve stingers which slaughtered
tens of thousands of salmon in their deathly embrace. Similar mass killings have been reported
in Japan, India, and Maryland.
If food runs short, jellyfish don’t just die; instead they shrink and wait until conditions improve
(although if nutrient levels fall far enough and for long enough, jellyfish blooms can snuff out). In
a future with more acidified seas, jellies won’t have troublesome carbonate skeletons to
handicap their chances. The altered oceans that haunt our possible future could offer jellyfish
worlds of opportunity. They have been here before. Enigmatic traces in rocks from the earliest
Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, tell of an age of jellyfish that preceded the great
radiation of life that established most of the animal groups alive today. Collectively, the modern
reappearance of seas dominated by gelatinous animals, microbes, and algae has been dubbed
“the rise of slime.” It signals a reversion toward conditions that prevailed in the earliest days of
multicellular life.
We are living on borrowed time. We can’t cheat nature by taking more than is produced
indefinitely, no matter how fervently politicians or captains of industry might wish it. In essence,
what we have done in the last few decades is to mine fish, bringing them in at rates faster than
they can replace themselves. Sharks, bluefin tuna, cod, Chilean sea bass, all have declined
steeply as a result of excessive fishing. The price that must be paid for today’s rapaciousness
will be tomorrow’s scarcity, or in some places, seas without fish. If we follow our current
trajectory, that point may be only 40 or 50 years away.
Most people are unaware that some of the species that show up on the fishmonger’s slab
simply cannot sustain productive fisheries in the long run. They grow and reproduce too slowly.
Most sharks and the bigger skates and rays fall into this category. So does almost everything
caught more than 1,600 feet down—deep sea beasts like Chilean sea bass, orange roughy, or
roundnose grenadier. They are caught because they are there, and when they are gone, they
disappear from markets. There are good reasons why we farm animals that are highly
productive and feed low in the food web, like chickens and cows, rather than bears or cougars.
But it is the bears and cougars of the sea that we have grown used to eating.
I often come across people who think that we can’t afford to cut back fishing when every day
there are more mouths to feed. But simple math tells you that restocking our seas makes
economic sense. Think of it this way: if you have a million fish in the sea and can catch 20
percent of them every year without depleting the stock, that stock would give you 200,000 fish a
year. Now imagine that you nurtured your fish and gave them a chance to grow so that you had
5 million. Your 20 percent would come to 1 million a year. The interest rate on your capital is the
same, but the yield is much bigger. And with fish more abundant, they would be easier to catch,
so you would need fewer boats and each would cost less to run.
Wishful thinking? Not really. A World Bank report aptly titled “The Sunken Billions” highlighted
the madness of overfishing when it calculated that major fish stocks of the world would produce
40 percent more if we fished them less. It sounds paradoxical—fish less to catch more—but that
is the simple message.
People often ask me, “What can I do to help?” One place to start is to avoid eating fish that are
overexploited in the wild or taken using methods that harm other wildlife. Try to avoid prawns or
scallops and other bottom feeders fished up by dredgers and trawlers, such as plaice, cod, and
hake. Eat low in the food web, so favor smaller fish like anchovies, herring, and sardines over
big predators like Chilean sea bass, swordfish, and large tunas (you will be doing yourself a
favor, as these predators also concentrate more toxins). If you can’t give up tuna, choose poleand line-caught animals, which have virtually zero bycatch. (“Dolphin friendly” versions alone
may not be very dolphin friendly, since tuna are often caught with purse seines, walls of net that
surround and stress dolphins and snare sharks, turtles, and other wildlife.) Farm-raised fish and
prawns often come at a high environmental cost in destroyed habitat and wild fish turned into
feed. Vegetarian fish like tilapia and carp are better than predators like salmon and sea bass.
Organic is better too, since your fish will have been dosed with fewer chemicals.
If we carry on with business as usual, humanity has a bleak and uncertain future. More fertilizer
and sewage input into the oceans would increase the frequency of harmful algal blooms,
intensify oxygen depletion, create more dead zones, and set the stage for the jellyfish
ascendancy. The spread of aquaculture will eat away at natural habitats and aggravate
problems of nutrient enrichment. More intense agriculture on degrading soils will flush extra mud
into coastal waters, which would destroy sensitive habitats constructed by invertebrates like
corals. Sea-level rises will lead to more sea walls and other defenses in a process of coastal
hardening that will squeeze out productive habitats like mud flat and marsh. With the
disappearance of these vital nurseries, wild fisheries will suffer, and there will be fewer feeding
grounds for migratory birds. And if we remain wedded to all the comforts that modern
technology can give us, and remain as wasteful as we are today, the oceans will continue to
accumulate toxic contaminants.
There is an old adage, much loved of self-help books, that says “today is the first day of the rest
of your life.” If we change course by a few degrees now, it will take us to a very different place in
50 years’ time from where we are headed now.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Reuters: Seagrass Stores More Carbon Than Forests - Study
22 May 2012
Author: Deborah Zabarenko
Coastal seagrass can store more heat-trapping carbon per square mile (kilmometre) than
forests can, which means these coastal plants could be part of the solution to climate change,
scientists said in a new study.
Even though seagrasses occupy less than 0.2 percent of the world's oceans, they can hold up
to 83,000 metric tons of carbon per square kilometer, a global team of researchers reported
Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.
That is more than twice the 30,000 metric tons of carbon per square kilometer a typical
terrestrial forest can store.
Earth's oceans are an important carbon sink - keeping climate-warming carbon dioxide from
human-made and natural sources out of the atmosphere - and seagrasses account for more
than 10 percent of all the carbon buried in oceans each year, the scientists found.
Led by James Fourqurean of Florida International University, the study included participants
from Virginia, Spain, Australia, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Greece.
"Seagrasses have the unique ability to continue to store carbon in their roots and soil in coastal
seas," Fourqurean said in a statement. "We found instances where particularly seagrass beds
have been storing carbon for thousands of years."
In addition to storing carbon, seagrasses filter out sediment before it gets into oceans, protect
coastlines from floods and storms and serve as habitat for fish, crustaceans and other
commercially important species.
Seagrasses can be damaged by human activity, such as pollution from oil spills and by boat
propellers and cargo that can rake through seagrass meadows and cut through roots.
Some of the study's authors are affiliated with the Blue Carbon Initiative, a global plan to
mitigate climate change by conserving and restoring coastal marine ecosystems. The initiative
is a collaboration between UNESCO, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Conservation International.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
New York Times: An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon
21 May 2012
SAN DIEGO — If Americans ever eat genetically engineered fast-growing salmon, it might be
because of a Soviet biologist turned oligarch turned government minister turned fish farming
entrepreneur.
That man, Kakha Bendukidze, holds the key to either extinction or survival for AquaBounty
Technologies, the American company that is hoping for federal approval of a type of salmon that
would be the first genetically engineered animal in the human food supply.
But 20 months since the Food and Drug Administration tentatively concluded that the fish would
be safe to eat and for the environment, there has been no approval. And AquaBounty is running
out of money.
Mr. Bendukidze, the former economics minister of Georgia and AquaBounty’s largest
shareholder, says the company can stay afloat a while longer. But he is skeptical that
genetically altered salmon will be approved in the United States in an election year, given the
resistance from environmental and consumer groups.
“I understand politically that it’s easier not to approve than to approve,” Mr. Bendukidze said
during a recent visit to a newly acquired laboratory in San Diego, where jars of tiny zebra fish for
use in genetic engineering experiments are stacked on shelves. While many people would be
annoyed by the approval, he said, “There will be no one except some scientists who will be
annoyed if it is not approved.”
While opponents would cheer the company’s demise, some scientists and biotechnology
executives say that if transgenic animals cannot win approval in the United States, then the
nation will lose its lead in animal biotechnology as work moves elsewhere. Scientists in China,
in particular, are trying to develop livestock that is resistant to mad cow and foot and mouth
diseases, sheep with high yields of wool, and pigs and cows with healthy omega 3 fatty acids in
their meat.
“Lack of funding, lack of regulation, you can drag it out only for so long,” said James Murray, a
professor of animal science at the University of California, Davis, who has been genetically
engineering goats so their milk produces human proteins that could help infants fight infections.
He is now trying to move his herd to Brazil, where he has obtained funding.
The animal biotechnology industry is anemic to begin with. AquaBounty is the only American
company seriously trying to win approval for a transgenic animal for the food supply. A project at
a Canadian university to develop a pig with less-polluting manure was terminated recently for
lack of commercial interest.
AquaBounty’s Atlantic salmon contain a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon. They
also contain a genetic switch from an eel-like creature known as the ocean pout that keeps the
gene on even in cold weather — unlike normal salmon. With the year-round production of
growth hormone, the AquaBounty fish grow to market size in 16 to 18 months instead of 30.
Some members of Congress, led by those from salmon-rich Alaska, are promoting legislation
that would prohibit or delay approval. They say the AquaBounty fish might be harmful to eat or
could damage wild fisheries if they were to escape into the ocean. The giant salmon, for
instance, might out-compete wild salmon for food or mates.
“We’re messing with what Mother Nature has done,” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of
Alaska said in proposing such a measure last month. A $500,000 research grant awarded
AquaBounty by the Agriculture Department last year was rescinded after a furor arose,
company executives said.
The F.D.A. said in September 2010 that there was little chance the salmon could mate with wild
fish because the salmon would be raised inland and sterilized, though the sterilization would not
be foolproof. That same month, a committee of outside advisers, while finding various faults with
the F.D.A. analysis, more or less endorsed its conclusion that the fish would be safe for
consumers and the environment.
But with no word since and its cash dwindling, the company, which is based in Maynard, Mass.,
recently trimmed its work force to 12 people from 27, according to its chief executive, Ronald L.
Stotish. “We are currently the poster child for a process that we are not sure works,” he said.
Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said in a rare
comment on a pending application that it was simply taking time for her agency to complete its
analysis of the salmon. “It’s a lengthy process, especially when you are dealing with a first-in-
kind product that cuts across many dimensions,” she said in a brief interview. She said that a
revised environmental assessment, a step necessary for approval, would be issued “very soon.”
AquaBounty’s precarious condition has made the company dependent on Mr. Bendukidze, who
owns nearly a 48 percent stake. Since shareholder approval is required to issue new stock, he
can effectively control how much money the company raises.
In March, AquaBounty raised $2 million, enough to keep the company in business only until
around the end of the year, according to regulatory filings in London, where the company’s
stock is traded. Mr. Bendukidze provided nearly half of that. In return, however, AquaBounty
agreed to sell its research and development operations to him — for a mere dollar.
“It was not an appealing deal, but it was the only deal available to us,” Mr. Stotish said.
Mr. Bendukidze was in San Diego in late April to visit his lab. Scientists there are genetically
engineering zebra fish, the laboratory mice of the aquatic world, to test modifications that might
be used on salmon and other seafood. One goal is to develop fast-growing tilapia, a commonly
farmed fish that is growing in popularity in the United States.
Mr. Bendukidze, 56, began his career as a molecular biologist in a research institute outside
Moscow, working on genetically engineering viruses for vaccine use. He later started a
company selling biology supplies. When parts of the Soviet economy were privatized, he earned
a reputation as a corporate raider, building through acquisitions and leading United Heavy
Machinery, a large maker of equipment for mining, oil drilling and power generation.
In 2004, Mr. Bendukidze returned to his native Georgia as economics minister under Mikheil
Saakashvili, the newly elected president. With a free-market philosophy and a penchant for
insulting those who disagreed with him, Mr. Bendukidze earned his share of enemies as he
moved to deregulate and privatize the economy.
He still lives in Georgia and now spends his time as chairman of the Free University of Tbilisi,
which he founded. He also set up Linnaeus Capital Partners to manage his money. It has
increasingly focused on aquaculture, with stakes in companies in Greece, Israel and Britain, in
addition to AquaBounty.
“I had no idea of aquaculture,” Mr. Bendukidze said. “I was just looking for some diversified
investments.”
Linnaeus has put $8 million into AquaBounty since early 2010. In the March financing, other
shareholders also invested, in part to prevent Mr. Bendukidze from gaining majority control of
the company.
Mr. Bendukidze said he was not interested in developing a salmon farming business but rather
was interested in AquaBounty for its technology, which he said fit in with two trends he saw
occurring in aquaculture.
One is that more efforts will be made to genetically improve farmed fish, either through
engineering or breeding, much as is now done by breeding livestock.
The other would be a shift from raising fish in ocean pens to inland industrialized facilities, in
which conditions can be controlled. The fast-growing salmon can be produced for 20 percent
less, he said, making it more feasible to raise them inland.
Having obtained AquaBounty’s laboratory, Mr. Bendukidze stands to benefit even if the salmon
are not approved. Still, he said, he was confident the fish would eventually win approval and
consumer acceptance because of its lower production costs.
“Salmon is salmon,” he said. “At the end of the day, economics will win.”
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
New York Times: Hudson Pipeline Approval Is Sure to Draw Mixed Reviews
22 May 2012
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has approved construction of a much-debated natural
gas pipeline that will run beneath the Hudson River from New Jersey into the West Village in
Manhattan, connecting with Con Edison’s distribution system.
The 4-to-0 decision on Monday had been widely anticipated since the commission’s staff
concluded in March that construction and operation of the pipeline would not pose significant
environmental hazards.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg supports the project, which would transport up to 800 million cubic
feet of gas a day, as a way of meeting New York City’s growing energy needs in decades to
come. But the pipeline is fervently opposed by anti-drilling groups and many public officials in
the region, including the mayors of Jersey City and Hoboken, and legal challenges are
expected.
Proposed by Spectra Energy of Houston, the $1.2 billion project includes 15.2 miles of new
pipeline that would run from Staten Island through Bayonne, N.J., and Jersey City before
crossing over to Manhattan beneath West Street. It will be the first major new natural gas
transmission line to reach the city in 40 years.
“This approval clears the way for a much-needed new natural gas supply in the New York City
region,” Mayor Bloomberg’s deputy mayor for operations, Caswell F. Holloway, said in a
statement. He said the project would bolster the reliability of the city’s energy supply and help
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and soot by providing an alternative to more polluting
energy sources like oil.
But opponents on both sides of the Hudson have cited safety concerns, including the possibility
of accidental explosions beneath densely populated areas, industrial sites and bodies of water.
Jersey City’s mayor, Jerramiah T Healy, said in an interview that he also worried that the pipeline
and the construction bustle would prove a disincentive for investment in his city, where the
population of about 250,000 is already doubled on weekdays by commuters. He said the city
planned to appeal the commission’s decision and, if need be, challenge it in court.
“This is a foolhardy place to put this high-pressure pipeline,” Mr. Healy said.
The pipeline has also been caught in the furor over horizontal hydraulic fracturing, which
involves injecting large volumes of water and chemicals underground to extract natural gas from
the Marcellus Shale. New York environmental officials are now weighing whether to begin
granting permits for such drilling upstate.
Addressing some of the concerns, the federal commission noted in its order approving the
pipeline that it would bring in natural gas from multiple sources.
“This project is driven by a desire to bring additional, reliable, competitively priced gas supplies
to New Jersey and New York end users,” the order said. “It is not designed to serve as a
gathering system for gas from the Marcellus Shale.”
“The development of the Marcellus and other shale reserves is expected to proceed over
decades, and will do so with or without the proposed project,” it added.
Spectra officials said they hoped to begin construction of the pipeline, an expansion of the
company’s Texas Eastern Transmission and Algonquin Gas Transmission interstate pipeline
systems, by June and complete it by November 2013, when the pipeline would start service.
"We remain committed to safely constructing this critically needed pipeline and look forward to a
timely notice to proceed," said Marylee Hanley, a spokeswoman for the company.
Spectra officials said the project has been modified considerably to meet safety concerns and
that it now exceeds current federal requirements. Plans call for the pipeline to lie as deep as
200 feet underground.
The project also involves replacing five miles of existing pipeline from Staten Island to Linden,
N.J., and installing associated equipment and facilities in New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut. It would span Middlesex County in Connecticut; Morris, Bergen, Union, and
Hudson Counties in New Jersey; and Rockland, Richmond and New York Counties in New
York.
Parties will have 30 days to request a rehearing of the action by the commission, which
regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil as well as proposals to
build interstate natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Climatewire: Sea-level rise poses expensive questions for New York City
22 May 2012
NEW YORK CITY -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg has given his city one of the most detailed and
highly publicized plans to reduce carbon emissions and to adapt to rising sea levels and other
risks posed by climate change.
He launched his program in 2007 and used it as a platform to vault into the chairmanship of
C40, an international group of 40 big-city mayors determined to deal with the complex welter of
climate issues they face. "Mayor Bloomberg is shaping the global dialogue and action on
climate change in cities," boasts the latest version of New York City's plan, known as "PlaNYC."
Cities hold half the world's
population and produce more
than 70 percent of the world's
greenhouse gas emissions.
While they have heightened
risks from floods, storms and
sea-level rise, they are often
left out of national and global
warming talks. This series
shows
how
some
are
beginning their own plans to
deal with a more hostile
climate.
While Mitt Romney and other major Republicans sow doubts
about climate issues and many Democrats -- including at
times President Obama -- have soft-pedaled them,
Bloomberg's plans appear to confront the difficulties of climate
change head-on. "The scientific evidence is irrefutable,"
PlaNYC says. "Rising sea levels are extremely likely," says
the New York City Panel on Climate Change, appointed to
advise the city on carrying out the plan.
Bloomberg has one built-in advantage. He oversees a city
that has only one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions of
the average U.S. city because New York has the largest
underground subway and commuter train network in the
United States. More than half of its densely packed population
doesn't own a car.
But there is also a steep downside. Because New York City has more than 520 miles of
coastline, it is among the top 10 port cities in the world that are most exposed to coastal
flooding. Measured in terms of private property subject to damage from more potent storms and
torrential rains that scientists predict are coming with climate change, the low-lying Big Apple
ranks second in the world, with $2.3 trillion of property at risk, according to its own data.
One of the first victims of the flooding will likely be the same underground transit systems that
make New York's carbon dioxide emissions so low. A recent report by the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority warned that the combination of sea-level rise and
the surging ocean currents that can accompany a powerful storm could flood many of the city's
subway, highway and rail tunnels "in less than one hour."
According to state and federal estimates, the resulting damage could take weeks, even months,
to repair. The New York state study estimates that the economic losses from a once-in-100years storm, including workers unable to get to work, could range from $58 billion to $84 billion,
depending on the extent of sea-level rise and the size of the storm.
Close calls in the past
"I think you could drown a lot of people very easily. All it takes is water going into the subway,"
said Malcolm Bowman, a professor of physical oceanography at the State University of New
York at Stony Brook. He is the leader of a group of scientists at the university who have been
looking at models of storm surges and ways, including building some large ocean barriers, that
might help New York protect itself.
Bowman said New York has already had some close calls. A powerful winter storm in 1992 shut
down the subway's power, and rescue crews had to evacuate passengers from flooding tunnels.
Because of the peculiar shape of New York's harbor, big storms have a tendency to pile up
water at the Battery on the southern tip of Manhattan -- an area rich with street-level subway
and train tunnel entrances. Last fall, when Hurricane Irene gave the city a glancing blow,
Bowman stationed himself there at a flood gauge. "I was watching the sea level, and it came
within an inch and a half of what it was in '92."
The damage of a major flood could extend far beyond subway passengers because much of the
city's electrical power lines and communications systems is buried in or near the same tunnels.
Bowman and other engineers who have studied the problem think it's time for the city to
consider building storm surge barriers, adjustable floodgates in the harbor that can let shipping
through but are able to close to slow or block a storm surge.
The Netherlands and England have built their barriers. Italians are building one to protect
Venice, and the Russians are completing a system that would protect St. Petersburg. Estimates
for building a barrier or network of barriers to protect New York City and its surroundings begin
at about $10 billion.
Bowman, a past member of Bloomberg's committee focused on climate change, said that, so
far, city officials have resisted the idea. "It was clear they didn't really want to go there," he said.
"I don't know why; too expensive, too ambitious, I guess."
According to Adam Freed, deputy director of New York's Long-Term Planning and Sustainability
Office, Bloomberg has committed to completing 132 initiatives in his climate plan before he
leaves office next year. So far, building storm surge barriers is not among them.
Strategies still under study
However, Freed noted that David Bragdon, who heads the long-term planning office, told the
City Council in December, "We are evaluating a wide variety of coastal protection strategies,
from wave attenuators and soft edges to storm surge barriers." Bragdon added, "We are not
presupposing the outcomes of this or other studies under way."
Last week, Caswell Holloway, New York's deputy mayor for operations, said the city was
preparing to invest more than $1 billion in projects that promote "climate resilience." Some of
the strategies that Bragdon and Holloway have discussed come from teams of architects who
presented an exhibit in 2010 at the city's Museum of Modern Art on how they would redesign
New York's harbor to cope with rising sea levels.
They recommended using "soft infrastructure," including constructing a network of tidal
wetlands, salt marshes and an irregular, parklike coastline with "fingers" of land extending into
the sea that would "attenuate" or take some of the power out of storm-driven waves.
"The mayor's office has done wonderful things in terms of funding studies, but we haven't come
to real engineering solutions," said Klaus Jacob, a geophysicist and environmental disaster
expert at Columbia University. He wrote the portion of the New York state climate change plan
that described in detail how flooding could knock out the city's rapid transit systems.
The state plan envisions a 100-year storm hitting the city. It estimates that 1 billion gallons of
seawater might have to be pumped from subway and train tunnels. Because salt water is
corrosive, repairing or replacing subway equipment once the water leaves could take months
before the system is restored.
The state plan suggests some short-term fixes, such as elevating street-level subway entrances
and rebuilding collapsed flood walls at subway rail yards. It proposes medium-term measures
that would begin over the next 30 years. They would include building "estuary-wide storm
barriers" with floodgates that could close and protect the city from the engineers' nightmare
scenario, which is a storm surge riding into the city on top of a high tide.
Then there are long-term strategies including "retreat options," or plans to evacuate parts of the
city being reclaimed by a rising sea.
Storm surge barriers and the 'Katrina effect'
The study says because of the potential of billions of dollars in damage, the city might find it
cost-effective to begin spending now for protective measures, including the surge barriers,
starting with "hundreds of millions of dollars" per year.
Jacob proposes a carbon tax to help finance a barrier system, but he regards it as an "interim
solution," because although the surge barriers might be built within 30 years, scientists expect
sea levels to continue rising long after that, driven by melting glaciers and the expansion of
warming water.
Artist's concept of how a 4,800-foot storm surge He worries about what he calls the "Katrina
barrier might look next to the Verrazano Narrows effect," describing how New Orleans
Bridge in New York's harbor. Drawing courtesy of politicians gained the illusion of protection
Arcadis.
from high sea walls, only to see them
overtopped by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. "Ultimately, the same thing that happened in New
Orleans will happen here, only it will happen later."
The dilemma the Bloomberg administration is facing is not just of its own making. The federal
government is responsible for mapping floodplains, or areas at risk of flooding, and its maps
haven't been updated since 1983. Currently, according to city officials, 200,000 New Yorkers
live in them, including Robert Trentlyon, who lives in lower Manhattan's fashionable Chelsea
neighborhood.
A long-term civic activist, he began by pondering one of the city's "vision statements" that set
out "resilience" as part of its strategy to protect against sea-level rise. "If we get flooded, the
water will leave, then we'll fix it up again and wait another 50 years and then it will happen
again," is the way he describes it.
'Flooding is a bad thing here'
That put Trentlyon, 82, on the warpath. He began appearing before neighborhood groups. He
remembered telling a group of businessmen how, once the flooding occurred, it might take
weeks or months to restore the subway. "That was what they seized on. Most of them and their
employees take the subway to work."
Trentlyon and allies began buttonholing City Council members and state senators, building up
pressure that may have led to the city's current study of the problem. While experts say storm
surge barriers could be built in 10 years, the matter of reaching a political decision to build them
in Europe has sometimes taken two or more decades. "I would like to get all the candidates who
are running for mayor to take a position on this," Trentlyon said.
It would help future New York City officials if all of the pieces of the flooding problem were under
their control, but they aren't. The city's subway system, for example, is run by the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA), which is a state agency.
"Flooding is a bad thing here," acknowledged Thomas Abdallah, the subway's chief
environmental engineer. Because groundwater seeps into the 107-year-old system, the MTA
must pump out 8 million gallons a day, even when it doesn't rain.
"When the city sewers clog, where else does the water go? It goes to us," he added. "When it
rains, we have rains coming through gratings and through subway entrances." He has vivid
memories of 5-inch rain in August 2007. It started at 5 a.m., ending rush hour before it could
start. "Just about all of New York City had to walk to work that day."
Abdallah still has trouble convincing New Yorkers that climate change has the power to stop the
heartbeat of this legendarily bustling city. "Last year, when we had the severe snow, people
would call me and say, 'Hey, where's your global warming now?' I said, well, the science is
really very consistent. I think sometime in the next five years, the 100-year storm will be reevaluated to something like a 30-year storm."
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Climatewire: G-8 support for cutting climate pollutants reinforces U.S. role
Tiffany Stecker, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Correction appended.
The Group of Eight joined an international coalition to curb the rise of highly potent greenhouse
gases and black carbon at the group's annual meeting last week at Camp David in Maryland.
In the shadows of negotiations on Europe's deepening debt crisis, the G-8 nations -- the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Russia, France and Germany -- agreed to
work toward cutting methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases. These pollutants stay a short
time in the atmosphere but can yield thousands of times the global warming power of carbon
dioxide -- the most common greenhouse gas and contributor to climate change.
Nevertheless, short-lived climate forcers are responsible for at least 30 percent of current global
warming, said David Turk, a counselor to U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern.
While CO2 mitigation remains the focus of climate policy, cutting methane, black carbons and
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) can achieve a lot with less effort.
"When it comes with those statistics, the impetus was there," Turk said.
The Climate and Clean Air Coalition for Reducing Short Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC),
announced in February by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, has grown from six
nations to 15, plus the World Bank, the U.N. Environment Programme and the European
Commission (ClimateWire, Feb. 17). The coalition signifies a "general willingness" to work
together on short-lived climate forcers, but members can choose which particular initiatives and
pollutants on which to focus, said Turk.
The G-8 announcement adds weight to the U.S. support behind curbing short-lived climate
forcers, said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable
Development. After Clinton's announcement, President Obama mentioned short-lived climate
forcers in his statement at the North American Leaders' Summit in April.
The G-8 agreement includes Russia -- whose agricultural burning practices deposit a significant
amount of black carbon on Arctic snow and speed the rate of snowmelt -- to commit to the
issue.
"It's a huge step forward to have heads of government, rather than environmental ministers,"
making commitments, said Zaelke.
Using a protocol that works
The $15 million effort announced three months ago will fund projects to reduce methane
emissions from agriculture or oil and gas operations; HFC leaks from refrigerators; and black
carbon, or soot, from diesel engines and wood-burning cookstoves.
The World Bank has invested about $12 billion in projects that contribute to reductions in shortlived climate forcers, as well, said Zaelke, according to calculations by the bank's vice president
for sustainable development, Rachel Kyte.
Examples of promising projects include methane capture systems on landfills, capture systems
at oil and natural gas extraction wells, the distribution of clean-burning cookstoves that do not
release black soot into the atmosphere, and the substitution of more benign alternatives for
refrigerant gases with thousands of times the global warming potential of CO2.
The G-8 commitment comes just a month before the Group of 20 meeting in Los Cabos,
Mexico, and the United Nations' Rio+20 meeting on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro.
It also takes place in the 25th anniversary year of the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to phase out
gases that deplete the ozone layer. Climate change advocates have begun looking to the
protocol, widely considered one of the most successful environmental agreements, as a way to
lower emissions of the climate-warming HFCs, which come from leaks in refrigeration systems.
HFCs were widely used as replacements for the ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) (ClimateWire, Nov. 18, 2011).
"If you want to take a big bite out of the HFCs, you have to do it out of the Montreal Protocol,"
Zaelke said. "The question is, will this be the year? Will the 25th anniversary be the year?"
Correction: The original version of this story stated that the coalition includes 13 countries. The
total is 15 countries. The European Commission, not the European Union, is a partner.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
New York Times: An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon
SAN DIEGO — If Americans ever eat genetically engineered fast-growing salmon, it might be
because of a Soviet biologist turned oligarch turned government minister turned fish farming
entrepreneur.
That man, Kakha Bendukidze, holds the key to either extinction or survival for AquaBounty
Technologies, the American company that is hoping for federal approval of a type of salmon that
would be the first genetically engineered animal in the human food supply.
But 20 months since the Food and Drug Administration tentatively concluded that the fish would
be safe to eat and for the environment, there has been no approval. And AquaBounty is running
out of money.
Mr. Bendukidze, the former economics minister of Georgia and AquaBounty’s largest
shareholder, says the company can stay afloat a while longer. But he is skeptical that
genetically altered salmon will be approved in the United States in an election year, given the
resistance from environmental and consumer groups.
“I understand politically that it’s easier not to approve than to approve,” Mr. Bendukidze said
during a recent visit to a newly acquired laboratory in San Diego, where jars of tiny zebra fish for
use in genetic engineering experiments are stacked on shelves. While many people would be
annoyed by the approval, he said, “There will be no one except some scientists who will be
annoyed if it is not approved.”
While opponents would cheer the company’s demise, some scientists and biotechnology
executives say that if transgenic animals cannot win approval in the United States, then the
nation will lose its lead in animal biotechnology as work moves elsewhere. Scientists in China,
in particular, are trying to develop livestock that is resistant to mad cow and foot and mouth
diseases, sheep with high yields of wool, and pigs and cows with healthy omega 3 fatty acids in
their meat.
“Lack of funding, lack of regulation, you can drag it out only for so long,” said James Murray, a
professor of animal science at the University of California, Davis, who has been genetically
engineering goats so their milk produces human proteins that could help infants fight infections.
He is now trying to move his herd to Brazil, where he has obtained funding.
The animal biotechnology industry is anemic to begin with. AquaBounty is the only American
company seriously trying to win approval for a transgenic animal for the food supply. A project at
a Canadian university to develop a pig with less-polluting manure was terminated recently for
lack of commercial interest.
AquaBounty’s Atlantic salmon contain a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon. They
also contain a genetic switch from an eel-like creature known as the ocean pout that keeps the
gene on even in cold weather — unlike normal salmon. With the year-round production of
growth hormone, the AquaBounty fish grow to market size in 16 to 18 months instead of 30.
Some members of Congress, led by those from salmon-rich Alaska, are promoting legislation
that would prohibit or delay approval. They say the AquaBounty fish might be harmful to eat or
could damage wild fisheries if they were to escape into the ocean. The giant salmon, for
instance, might out-compete wild salmon for food or mates.
“We’re messing with what Mother Nature has done,” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of
Alaska said in proposing such a measure last month. A $500,000 research grant awarded
AquaBounty by the Agriculture Department last year was rescinded after a furor arose,
company executives said.
The F.D.A. said in September 2010 that there was little chance the salmon could mate with wild
fish because the salmon would be raised inland and sterilized, though the sterilization would not
be foolproof. That same month, a committee of outside advisers, while finding various faults with
the F.D.A. analysis, more or less endorsed its conclusion that the fish would be safe for
consumers and the environment.
But with no word since and its cash dwindling, the company, which is based in Maynard, Mass.,
recently trimmed its work force to 12 people from 27, according to its chief executive, Ronald L.
Stotish. “We are currently the poster child for a process that we are not sure works,” he said.
Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said in a rare
comment on a pending application that it was simply taking time for her agency to complete its
analysis of the salmon.
“It’s a lengthy process, especially when you are dealing with a first-in-kind product that cuts
across many dimensions,” she said in a brief interview. She said that a revised environmental
assessment, a step necessary for approval, would be issued “very soon.”
AquaBounty’s precarious condition has made the company dependent on Mr. Bendukidze, who
owns nearly a 48 percent stake. Since shareholder approval is required to issue new stock, he
can effectively control how much money the company raises.
In March, AquaBounty raised $2 million, enough to keep the company in business only until
around the end of the year, according to regulatory filings in London, where the company’s
stock is traded. Mr. Bendukidze provided nearly half of that. In return, however, AquaBounty
agreed to sell its research and development operations to him — for a mere dollar.
“It was not an appealing deal, but it was the only deal available to us,” Mr. Stotish said.
Mr. Bendukidze was in San Diego in late April to visit his lab. Scientists there are genetically
engineering zebra fish, the laboratory mice of the aquatic world, to test modifications that might
be used on salmon and other seafood. One goal is to develop fast-growing tilapia, a commonly
farmed fish that is growing in popularity in the United States.
Mr. Bendukidze, 56, began his career as a molecular biologist in a research institute outside
Moscow, working on genetically engineering viruses for vaccine use. He later started a
company selling biology supplies. When parts of the Soviet economy were privatized, he earned
a reputation as a corporate raider, building through acquisitions and leading United Heavy
Machinery, a large maker of equipment for mining, oil drilling and power generation.
In 2004, Mr. Bendukidze returned to his native Georgia as economics minister under Mikheil
Saakashvili, the newly elected president. With a free-market philosophy and a penchant for
insulting those who disagreed with him, Mr. Bendukidze earned his share of enemies as he
moved to deregulate and privatize the economy.
He still lives in Georgia and now spends his time as chairman of the Free University of Tbilisi,
which he founded. He also set up Linnaeus Capital Partners to manage his money. It has
increasingly focused on aquaculture, with stakes in companies in Greece, Israel and Britain, in
addition to AquaBounty.
“I had no idea of aquaculture,” Mr. Bendukidze said. “I was just looking for some diversified
investments.”
Linnaeus has put $8 million into AquaBounty since early 2010. In the March financing, other
shareholders also invested, in part to prevent Mr. Bendukidze from gaining majority control of
the company.
Mr. Bendukidze said he was not interested in developing a salmon farming business but rather
was interested in AquaBounty for its technology, which he said fit in with two trends he saw
occurring in aquaculture.
One is that more efforts will be made to genetically improve farmed fish, either through
engineering or breeding, much as is now done by breeding livestock.
The other would be a shift from raising fish in ocean pens to inland industrialized facilities, in
which conditions can be controlled. The fast-growing salmon can be produced for 20 percent
less, he said, making it more feasible to raise them inland.
Having obtained AquaBounty’s laboratory, Mr. Bendukidze stands to benefit even if the salmon
are not approved. Still, he said, he was confident the fish would eventually win approval and
consumer acceptance because of its lower production costs.
“Salmon is salmon,” he said. “At the end of the day, economics will win.”
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Globe and Mail: Even a moderate body now must die (Editorial)
21 May 2012
The imminent demise of the National Roundtable on the Economy and Environment speaks
volumes about this government’s peculiar attitude toward the environment.
The roundtable is no bastion of radicalism. In fact, it looks a bit like a home for old Tories.
Its creator was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney. Its current president
and chief executive officer, David McLaughlin, was chief of staff to James Flaherty, the Minister
of Finance. Progressive Conservatives on the board include Mark Parent, Dianne Cunningham
and Pauline Browes. Its past chair, Bob Page, spent time with TransAlta Corporation in the
Alberta oil patch. Its budget is a piddling $5-million a year.
This is the group that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, denounced in aggressive terms
in the House of Commons last week. “Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10
reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly
rejected?” Yet it isn’t true. The group has never promoted a carbon tax. Would a bunch of
Conservatives be so foolish as to promote a Liberal leader’s tax idea that was rejected by the
electorate, resulting in the election of a Conservative government? Of course not.
So why kill the roundtable? Was it a source of dissent? Not really. In fact, it produced two major
reports this year, including one on how the provinces are addressing climate change, at the
request of the federal Environment Minister, Peter Kent.
But at a time when hearings into a major oil pipeline in the West are being held, and when
Ottawa is opening up northern waters for oil exploration, this group was apparently imagined to
be a threat simply because, as its name implies, the economy and environment are equally
important. Perhaps its very name made it vulnerable.
“Our desire for a modern economy and our duty to a sustainable environment are not mutually
exclusive — they are mutually reinforcing,” says a quote on the organization’s website from its
founding chair – the current Governor- General, David Johnston. “Indeed, one requires the
other.” Can it be that the Conservative government doesn’t accept that seeming motherhood
statement? Even to ask that question might seem farfetched, except that the government has
launched a campaign of wild attacks on environmental charities, alleging criminal activity in the
receipt of foreign funds.
If even the Roundtable on the Economy and Environment needs to be silenced, there’s little
hope of balance between the economy and the environment being achieved. Surely it’s not an
either-or proposition.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Vancouver Sun: Pipeline project approval process is open and public
22 May 2012
It is often thought that major projects in British Columbia, for example the Prosperity Mine
project, may be “pushed through” over the objections of provincial and local organizations and
first nations. This is a common but inaccurate characterization of the project approval process.
Major project approval is the result of extended environmental assessments by both the federal
and provincial governments, in which both project proponents and the public, including first
nations, have an opportunity to provide input.
The provincial approval process for major projects is conducted by the Environmental
Assessment Office (EAO) and has three stages: the pre-application, application review and
decision stages. The first stage sets the scope of the application. At this point, the EAO
establishes a working group — comprised of government agencies, first nations and local
governments — that consults the EAO throughout the process. Stage two includes opportunities
for public participation — including further consultation with first nations that declined to
participate on the working group — and results in a report and recommendations to the Minister
of Environment. In the decision stage, the Minister must consider the EAO report and may also
consider any other matters relevant to the public interest.
Projects of a type that tend to have a significant environmental impact require a comprehensive
study by the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). The Minister of the
Environment may also appoint an objective review panel in cases where potential adverse
environmental effects or the public interest warrant it.
Federal and provincial government assessment processes engage the public throughout, often
as a requirement of law. Provincially, proponents of projects must conduct a public consultation
program as approved by the Minister of Environment. What that entails may vary with
circumstances, but the general policy of the EAO is to at least order public access to project
application information and two formal comment periods. The comment periods are issuebased, meaning that the proponent must respond to any issue once it is raised. Proponents
must give public notice of when and where to review applications, the purpose and time limit of
comment periods and the location and time of any additional open houses or public meetings
required by the minister.
Federally, projects may require public participation by law or when deemed appropriate by the
responsible agency. In such cases, the public must be able to examine any record relating to
the project before the agency can come to a decision. The agency may also at any time provide
additional opportunities for the public to be heard. Projects that require comprehensive studies
have two formal opportunities for written public comment — commencement and report
completion. Any person may submit comments at any time before the report deadline. Review
panel hearings are public and give the opportunity for public participation and government
funding.
The first nations consultation process has been specifically addressed and reviewed by the
Supreme Court of Canada and provincial courts of appeal. The federal and provincial
governments have a duty to consult with first nations, and both government and first nations
have an obligation to act in good faith. This does not necessarily entail a duty to accommodate
first nations requests in all circumstances; there is no first nations veto power over what can be
done with land. The government needs to balance aboriginal interests with the general public
interest.
The federal government recently proposed legislative changes to its process with the goal of
streamlining assessments and eliminating redundancies within provincial processes.
It is worth noting that these assessments require large investments of both time and money on
the part of proponents and by no means guarantee approval, as has been demonstrated by
recent cases in B.C. The provincial assessment of the Red Chris mining project lasted two
years, but the federal assessment process extended to seven years because of legal
challenges that went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Tulsequah Chief mining project
assessment lasted 17 years before the proponent eventually went bankrupt. The Galore Creek
mining project assessments were comparatively fast, lasting three years, as was the Mt. Milligan
Copper-Gold mining project. These examples provide a cross section of cases and illustrate the
unpredictable nature of environmental assessments, both in terms of length and result.
Approvals of major projects in this province are the result of an extended, open process
designed to make an informed decision based on the balancing of the often disparate interests
present in B.C.; they are not the result of one party unilaterally pushing a project through over
the objection of another.
Brian Abraham is a partner and Taylor Buckley is an articling student at Fraser Milner Casgrain
LLP
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Vancouver Sun: Environmental standards should build, not erode (Op-Ed)
By Gwen Barlee, Vancouver Sun May 21, 2012
Polls repeatedly show Canadians value honesty, accountability and kindness – attributes that
are completely missing these days from the federal government’s approach to the environment.
A case in point is the government’s sweeping budget bill. Tabled on April 26th Bill C-38
dedicates over a third of its 420 pages to rolling back environmental legislation that generations
of Canadians have fought to establish. Written with no public consultation, the bill wages war
on: laws that protect our air and water, regulations to safeguard fish habitat, public participation
in environmental assessments, and government oversight of large industrial projects.
Ottawa has cloaked these draconian changes with soothing language. Decimating
environmental standards is portrayed as providing “certainty” and “efficiency” for industry while
gutting conservation laws is characterized as “streamlining” and removing “red-tape.” This
language is misleading and fundamentally dishonest to the vast majority of Canadians who
value clean air and fresh water.
These changes are also harmful to industry. Low environmental standards, reduced public
participation and increased political interference provide neither certainty nor public support for
business. In fact a dramatically weakened regulatory environment is a recipe for litigation, civil
disobedience and certain environmental damage.
Accompanying the government’s scorched earth approach to environmental laws is rhetoric that
tears a page from the Republican playbook of our neighbours to the south. Environmental
organizations have been branded as “radical,” accused of laundering money and have had their
charitable status targeted. Silencing critics through the powers of the state rather than engaging
in an informed debate is the new norm.
This is not the Canada in which I was raised; nor the Canada I envision for the future.
The impetus for a dramatically weakened regulatory environment appears to be Western
Canada, especially B.C., where proposed pipelines, oil tankers and mines have created the
perfect storm of controversy. The concern is particularly charged here because we have so
much to lose; after a decade of provincial environmental cuts the federal rollbacks will leave
B.C.’s environment with just an illusion of protection. Thousands of miles of coastline, hundreds
of wild salmon rivers and the belief in good government and rule of law hang in the balance.
History has shown us that rock bottom environment standards don’t make for better projects,
good jobs or healthy communities. Right now the federal government, and taxpayers across the
country, are on the hook for $7.7 billion in cleanup costs for over 10,000 contaminated sites
ranging from abandoned mines to old fuel spills. Low environmental standards and lax
enforcement in the past created this situation and more of the same bad medicine will only
make the problem worse.
Ottawa is correct when it says that a regulatory overhaul is needed for environmental laws – but
they are headed in the wrong direction. More democracy, enhanced citizen engagement and
robustly enforced environmental laws are the cure for what ails us, not the illness.
As a starting point we need to reverse and halt any further cuts to environmental protections.
Specifically, habitat protection for fish must be reinstated in the Fisheries Act and meaningful
public participation put back into the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. But that won’t
be nearly enough. Sustainability must be at the core of an improved environmental assessment
process.
Language to protect our environment must be binding, existing laws properly enforced and the
cuts of thousands of staff and tens of millions of budget dollars from Environment Canada,
Parks Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans reversed. The Federal government
also needs to stop devolving responsibility to the provinces; not only does this raise the spectre
of a constitutional challenge in regards to the federal Fisheries Act, it guarantees a patchwork
quilt of environmental laws where provinces compete against one another by lowering
standards to attract short-term business investment.
Canada needs to regain its place on the world stage. We should start by enacting an
Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). A Canadian EBR would enshrine a statutory right to a
healthy environment and impose a legal duty upon the federal government to protect this right. It
would also empower Canadian citizens, in limited cases, to take the government to court for
failing to uphold environmental laws.
At the end of the day environmental laws should protect the public good. If we want wild salmon,
clean air, fresh water and a stable climate in our future then we must have a government that is
prepared to make and enforce strong environmental laws.
Let corporations do what they do best – make a profit — but don’t expect a mining company or
an oil and gas corporation to put the public good or Canadian values ahead of quarterly profits.
Gwen Barlee is the policy director of the Wilderness Committee
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Victoria Times-Colonist: Ottawa axes ocean pollution monitoring program
By Cindy E. Harnett, Victoria Times Colonist May 22, 2012
Canada's only marine mammal toxicologist at the Institute of Ocean Sciences on Vancouver
Island is losing his job as the federal government cuts almost all employees who monitor ocean
pollution across Canada.
Peter Ross, an expert on killer whales and other marine mammals, was the lead author of a
report 10 years ago that demonstrated Canada's killer whales are the most contaminated
marine mammals on the planet. He has more than 100 published reports.
Now, he's a casualty of federal budget cuts, one of 75 people across Canada told Thurs-day his
services will no longer be needed because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is closing
the nation's contaminants program.
In total, 1,075 people working for the Department of Fisheries received letters Thursday telling
them that their jobs will be redundant or affected - including 215 in the Pacific Region.
The closure of DFO's contaminants program in Victoria will see nine marine scientists and staff two research scientists, a chemist and six support staff - based in North Saanich lose their jobs
or be retrained and moved.
The entire Department of Fisheries and Oceans contaminants program is being shut down
effective April 1, 2013. Official letters are expected to be delivered in June, and Ross has been
told he'll have a few months to wrap up his files.
"The entire pollution file for the government of Canada, and marine environment in Canada's
three oceans, will be over-seen by five junior biologists scattered across the country - one of
which will be stationed in B.C.," said environmental toxicologist Ross.
"I cannot think of another industrialized nation that has completely excised marine pollution from
its radar," said Ross, who was informed in a letter Thursday that his position will be "affected."
"It is with apprehension that I ponder a Canada without any research or monitoring capacity for
pollution in our three oceans, or any ability to manage its impacts on commercial fish stocks,
traditional foods to over 300,000 aboriginal people, and marine wildlife," Ross said.
Ross oversees pollution files including everything from municipal sewage and
contaminated sites to the effect of pesticide on salmon and the impact of PCBs on killer whales.
If we can understand through scientific means the threats to killer whales listed as endangered
or threatened then we are in a much better position to protect and recover that charismatic
species as well as help the entire Strait of Georgia environment and B.C. marine environment,
Ross said.
DFO spokeswoman Melanie Carkner said between Fisheries and the Canadian Coast Guard,
about $79.3 million in savings has been found, "primarily by adjusting our internal operations
and administration."
"We will be removing about 400 positions from DFO's 11,000-strong workforce," Carkner said
Friday. "This works out to less than two per cent a year over three years."
The department said it is refocusing its research on conservation and fisheries management: "In
lieu of in-house research on the biological effects of contaminants and pesticides, the
department will establish an advisory group and research fund of $1.4 million a year to work
with academia and other independent facilities to get advice on priority issues."
Green party leader Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, said it's shocking to lose all the
toxin-related research going on at the Institute for Ocean Sciences and across Canada,
especially when the Conservative government is "blindly and recklessly enthusiastic about
putting oil tankers on B.C.'s coastline."
"I will do everything I can to stop this government's budget bill," May said of the Budget
Implementation Act, Bill C-38.
The Conservatives have abandoned streamlining and they are steamrollering, May said.
Deficit reduction is important, she said. "But to take out an entire group, that's not prudent fiscal
management, that's driven by ideology that doesn't want to know what toxic chemicals are doing
in the oceans and freshwater."
DFO staff at the Institute of Ocean Sciences on Vancouver Island were reeling on Friday.
"I will say to their credit, of the nine people axed in our program, I would say every single one
was less concerned with his or her personal career loss than they were concerned about what
this means to Canada as a country," Ross said.
Back to Menu
=============================================================
ROWA MEDIA UPDATE
THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE NEWS
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Zawya (Saudi arabia): Saudi Arabia to bolster fisheries industry in accord with
FAO
JEDDAH - Saudi Arabia has signed an agreement with the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) to allocate $66.7 million to implement the latter's technical assistance projects in the
Kingdom. The accord was signed at FAO headquarters in Rome during its Regional Conference
for the Near East.
Under the five-year program from 2012 to 2016, FAO will provide technical assistance and
expertise for 17 specific projects in Saudi Arabia covering several areas. Laurent Thomas, FAO
Assistant Director General for Technical Cooperation, and Khaled Al-Fuhaid, Saudi Deputy
Minister for Agriculture, signed the Memo of Understanding in the presence of FAO Director
General Jose Graziano da Silva.
The MoU will include the transfer of technology, sustainable management of natural resources
including water and forests, sustainable crop production and protection, the rational
management of animal and fisheries resources, animal health, capacity building and the
strengthening of rural institutions. The program aims to benefit small-scale agricultural
producers and fishermen, who will be able to increase and diversify food production.
Da Silva also signed another agreement with Libyan Minister of Agriculture and Animal
Resource and Navy Resources Sulaiman Abdulhamid Bukhroba another cooperation
agreement to fund Libya in a program totaling $71 million. The agreement will improve
development in various agriculture and natural resource sectors, including health and animal
production and development in urban areas.
The fisheries sector plays a significant role in global food security providing a valuable dietary
source of proteins, minerals, micronutrients and essential fatty acids, the "OECD-FAO
Agricultural Outlook 2010-2019" report said. In addition, the sector contributes to economic
activity, employment and in generating foreign exchange.
World per capita fish consumption is estimated at about 17.1 kg, with fish providing about 3
billion people with 15 percent of their average per capita intake of animal protein. Fish is widely
traded, with about 38 percent of production entering international trade as various food and feed
products. Trade of fish and fishery products has significantly increased in the last decades,
reaching a record $102 billion in 2008.
In 2009, following the global economic recession, there was a contraction in demand, with a
slight decline of fishery trade in both value and volume terms. However, trade is again
expanding and the outlook for 2010 is generally positive as is the longer-term trend for fishery
trade. Developed countries absorb about 80 percent of world fishery imports in value.
Developing countries play a crucial role in fishery exports with a share of about 50 percent by
value and 60 percent by quantity (live weight equivalent) of the total. The fishery net exports of
developing countries (i.e., the total value of their exports less the total value of their imports) has
shown a continuing rising trend in the last decades, growing from $9 billion in 1986 to $27 billion
in 2008. These figures were significantly higher than those for agricultural commodities such as
rice, sugar, coffee and tea. At present, about 80 percent of total fishery production is used for
direct human consumption. The remaining 20 percent, entirely from capture fisheries, is
destined for non-food products, mainly for production of fishmeal and fish oil, as well as direct
feed in aquaculture and livestock. In 2008, total world fish production (capture and aquaculture),
excluding aquatic plants, reached 142 Mt. It should be mentioned that this figure might
underestimate the effective amount due to the incomplete recording of subsistence fisheries as
well as of illegal, unreported and unregulated catches.
The OECD Workshop on Advancing the Aquaculture Agenda, held in April 2010, underscored
the importance of ensuring a solid governance system for the sector with a view to ensuring
future growth.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Oman Observer (Oman): HCT’s ‘Eco Friendly House’ participants honoured
MUSCAT — The participants team of the Higher College of Technology, which obtained the
second place in the competition of “Eco Friendly House,” was honoured yesterday in a
ceremony held at the auditorium of the Higher College of Technology in Al Khuwair under the
patronage of Shaikh Abdullah bin Nasser al Bakri, Minister of Manpower.
Dr Ahmed bin Mohsen al Ghassani, Dean of the college, in his speech said the competition
supports the engineering education for sustainable engineering as its focuses on needs of the
future generations through preserving the environment and benefiting from the renewable
energy resources.
He explained that the design submitted by students of the college combines the innovation and
the Omani architecture through different student teams in the field of engineering and applied
sciences as the participation of 34 male and female students from the college in this competition
indicates the commitment of the college towards the engineering education for better life. the
chief guest distributed certificates of appreciation to the winning team.In a statement, the
Manpower Minister said that the attention accorded by the Sultanate’s government to the ecofriendly houses and projects encourages all to provide programmes that meet requirements of
the health environment for the future generations. He explained that participation in this
competition opened new horizons in the fields of sustainable engineering and eco-friendly
designs. The ceremony was attended by Dr Mohammed bin Hafeedh al Dhahab, Adviser of
Manpower Ministry, Dr Muna bint Salim al Jardaniya, Under-Secretary of the Manpower Ministry
for Technical Education and Vocational Training officials. —
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Gulf Times (Qatar): Environment Day painting competition on Friday
More than 2,000 families are expected for the popular annual World Environment Day (WED)
celebrations set to take place on Friday and Saturday. Over 1,500 entries have already been
received for the painting contest and the WED team estimates it to cross over 2,000 entries this
year.
The painting contest is open to all age groups and will be held at the IAID premises in Mansoura
from 8am, with the final awards and closing ceremony along with prize-winning exhibits to be
held on June 5 at Al Rayyan Theatre in Souq Waqif. Exciting gifts, cash prizes, trophies and
certificates await the winners.
IAID in association with the Friends of the Environment Centre (FEC) have been the major
organisers of the World Environment Day (WED) celebrations in Qatar for the sixth consecutive
year under the auspices of Saif Ali al-Hajari, chairman, FEC.
The theme of World Environment Day celebrated all over the world, initiated by the United
Nations Environment Programme, this year is “Green Economy – does it include you?” “A
green economy is one where environmental risks are significantly reduced and based around
sustainable development for the betterment of the people in that society,” said al-Hajari.
This year’s WED celebration involves activities from May 25 to June 5, with the painting contest
as the centrepiece of the week. Rajesh Jadhav, director, IAID, said: “WED is a wonderful way
to raise awareness about the importance of the green economy for Qatar’s sustainable
development. We’re delighted with the response to date for the painting contest.”
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
Daily Star(Lebanon): 15th annual Operation Big Blue hits the beaches
BEIRUT: Several thousand volunteers took part in the 15th Operation Big Blue Association’s
coastal cleanup Sunday, at beaches, cliff tops and underwater sites along Lebanon’s shore.
Originally due to be launched at Tripoli’s port, Sunday’s event, held under the patronage of
Prime Minister Najib Mikati, was inaugurated at Raouche on Beirut’s Corniche, and Information
Minister Walid Daouk spoke on behalf of the prime minister.
Cleanup operations in Tripoli and Akkar have been postponed due to the security situation there
but went ahead Sunday at some other 55 beaches, from Naqoura in southern Lebanon to Jbeil
and Batroun north of Beirut.
At Raouche, Lebanese Army soldiers abseiled down the cliff face, picking up trash, while small
fishing boats circled Pigeon Rocks, their passengers collecting garbage from the surface of the
water. There were also 10 dive sites, where volunteers were due to collect trash from below the
surface, but because of strong currents and high waves, the dives have also been postponed.
Iffat Edriss, the president of OBBA, spoke to The Daily Star about the event and why it was held
at this time of year. “This is a very important time of year for turtles and other marine life,” she
said. With a group of other divers, Edriss helped found OBBA in 1997 after they witnessed
turtles becoming caught up in plastic bags and struggling to swim.
A major first for this year’s event, Edriss said, was the introduction of biodegradable bags in
which to collect the trash. “Thanks to Reverte and Sanita, this year for the first time we are
using biodegradable bags instead of the nylon ones we have used in the past,” Edriss said. The
bags will fully biodegrade in an average of 24 months, leaving nothing but water, carbon dioxide
and biomass.
The majority of waste collected this year, Edriss added, will be sent for recycling, with the
assistance of Sukleen. Since the annual cleanups started 15 years ago, the situation on
Lebanon’s beaches has been gradually improving, Edriss said.
“First, this is because we eventually managed to make an impact on the great deal of waste
which had accumulated in the seas after 20 years of war. And [it is] also due to the increase in
recycling plants.” The public beach at Ramlet al-Baida is today virtually spotless, she added,
since OBBA took over management of the shoreline in 2003, alongside Sukleen and the
Tourism Ministry.
Back to Menu
=============================================================
Selected Blog Posts
Huffington Post (US): The Environment Is Dead: Long Live Mother Nature
22 May 2012
"Environmentalism has failed" is a statement that deserves attention. It comes from famed
environmentalist David Suzuki marking 50 years since Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring,
widely regarded as having sparked the environmental movement.
Suzuki's May 2, 2012 blog (The Huffington Post, rabble.ca) on the fundamental failure of
environmentalism is ominous. The world faces not only environmental calamities such as
deforestation, coral reef depletion, and freshwater shortages, it is also mired in economic crises
and harsh political realities. Despite the promise of "Arab Springs" and the global Occupy
movement, we are increasingly in planetary peril. Throughout his life, David Suzuki has been a
leading educator on planetary health; his conclusion about the environmental movement's
failure must be agonizing. Perhaps that's why his blog offered no new way forward.
What now?
If decades of environmental campaigns produced significant gains but have lost the overall
struggle to protect planetary life, that raises key questions:
What caused the failure? What is to be learned?
What do environmental organizations, supporters and concerned citizens do now?
What do we say to children, and to young advocates?
Where's the new strategic road ahead?
As a longtime troubadour and ecology advocate, in word and song I've celebrated this bountiful
planet and our place in the family of all life. Besides my eco-awareness songs for kids beginning
with "Baby Beluga" in 1980, ten years later I also recorded an ecology album, Evergreen
Everblue. I've worked with kids of all ages, attended environmental conferences, and met with
leading campaigners such as climatologist James Hansen and Green Party leader and MP
Elizabeth May, as well as with eminent thinkers across a number of disciplines. I feel a
responsibility to briefly address the key questions this sobering moment holds.
What caused the failure?
Primary among the many factors that can be cited is the growth of corporate concentration,
power and dominance. This in part may explain the gridlock among nations when it comes to
concerted eco-progress. Perhaps it's also been a failure of imagination and language.
The environmental movement failed to change the way we look at the world and our place in it.
Even after the 1970 NASA portrait of Earth from space, we didn't learn to feel our
interconnectedness and belonging on this planet, third from the sun.
Nature became "the environment": a reductionist term devoid of relationship. The grandeur of
Gaia thus reduced and objectified separated us from our Earth Mother. And environmentalism
itself became divisive. While environmentalists struggled mightily to save this species/habitat
and protect that, activist hubris pitted "environmentalists" against those who were not.
Environmental challenges were hard to ignore. In 1989 in Vancouver I heard Stephen Lewis say
that if China and India were to use coal to fuel their exploding economies in the 1990s, what the
rest of the world did in carbon reduction wouldn't matter. He was right. Ten years later, United
Nations Environment Programme's GEO 2000 Report decried not only a lack of overall progress
in environmental protection but also the loss of ground in the 1990s, which UNEP had dubbed
"the turnaround decade." That news pained me as much as discovering in 1989 that St.
Lawrence River belugas were riddled with toxins at levels found in hazardous waste sites. Or
learning in the mid '90s that human breast milk was contaminated with trace amounts of PCBs
and dioxins, among the most of lethal poisons. Belugas and breast milk were new canaries in
the coal mine.
A word about language: in the press release for GEO 2000, the landmark UNEP report
described as "the most authoritative assessment ever of the environmental crisis facing
humanity in the new millennium," the fragmented language is in direct contradiction to the
report's stated aim of integration, synthesis:
...full scale emergencies now exist in a number of fields. "The environment remains largely
outside the mainstream of everyday human consciousness and is still considered an add-on to
the fabric of life, says GEO 2000. Furthermore, "Despite successes on various fronts, time for a
rational, well-planned transition to a sustainable system is running out fast," says Klaus Töpfer,
UNEP's Executive Director. "In some areas, it has already run out. In others, new problems are
emerging which compound already difficult situations. [italics mine.]
The failure of words is as simple as it is stunning. To make the very point that "the environment"
remains separate from everyday life, why use that same barren term? That environmentalists
still make that linguistic faux pas, seemingly oblivious to the irony, is truly baffling.
Small wonder that what has not changed is precisely what must change: "everyday human
consciousness."
What do environmental organizations and their supporters do now?
Well staffed large membership eco-NGO's are institutions in their own right, with a culture,
modus operandi, and funding strategies with which they compete for tightly contested funds. In
a way, they too constitute a status quo. Do they re-invent themselves now? For example, does
the David Suzuki Foundation (to which I was a founding donor) close up shop or retool its aims
and operations? Will Suzuki reduce globe-trotting, reuse his fame portals, and recycle global
success stories into a rich compost of new ideas?
Sustainable advocacy is an art. Like artists, advocates must grow or stagnate.
Environmentalism's failure is bound to spur new thinking and action. Online organizations such
as 350.org already display an impressive global reach and response.
It's a time for daring. Funders and supporters are seeking out transformation agents and
catalytic ideas. They might look to those with bold visions for societal transformation.
Organizationally, "less is more" may be the way ahead. Increasingly, people and groups are
enjoying a partnering synergy made easy by social media.
What Will We Say to Children and Youth?
This is the hardest question to answer. The three R's won't be abandoned; kids will learn about
them and nag their parents. But it's a different kind of environmental education that needs to
begin and ramp up at all grade levels. One with connect-the-dots clarity between, say,
advertising, consumption habits, pollution and global warming. The young tend to be well
informed, although we can understand the impulse to turn away from overwhelming global
crises. Yet a great many stay engaged, in all manner of worthwhile pursuits.
As Earth advocates go, children and youth are among the most inspiring. Their words move you
to the core. We'll need to encourage and amplify their voices, and to support their right to be
heard. We need to hear from them. And listen.
What's to be learned? Where's the next strategic direction?
Is there a financial bailout for our big beautiful planet? Can we say our biosphere is too big to
fail? Despite over 20 years of climate stabilization campaigns, in the year 2010 annual
greenhouse gas emissions were the highest ever recorded.
Humanity is in a survival crisis -- a crisis of identity, conscience and spirit. Who are we as an
evolving species? Do we really care more about money than our children? Or is a collective
spirit stirring millions to rally for more just and equitable societies?
We need a lexicon for reframing global issues into a connected whole, a unifying lens "for
seeing the world anew": a language of waves, not particles. One that connects and inspires,
uplifts everyday life. Can "sustainability," a current buzz word in business and in education,
catch on as a moral code of conduct -- in a mainstream movement with children at its heart?
Can this be how a shift in consciousness sparks a deep empathy for the present generation and
for generations to come?
Students, teachers, families, corporate executives, and media need a thorough grounding in
restorative sustainability: an intergenerational triple-bottom-line economy ("bionomy") that
fosters social and environmental well-being. Long term rewards must replace growth-obsessed
bottom-line fixation. Without economic maturity, we're still on the new Titanic.
Situation critical: the movement to protect and restore Earth's living splendour needs
rebranding. Welcome to the post-environment age. Possibilities abound.
We all remember advertising jingles from our youth. If jingles are that potent in selling things,
why not use music to move ideas -- sustainability -- in populist language? For a massive
movement to win the hearts and minds of billions? Or at least those of a huge critical mass?
Every society's treasure is its young. Since children are multinational and have the most to gain
or lose from our response to environmentalism's failure, we can embrace "a culture of respect"
for the world's children and their planetary home. Respecting Earth and Child can offer a
universal ethic for honouring all of life. Earth-friendly equals Child-friendly, and we all win.
Daniel Nocera's synthetic leaf for storing solar energy is among the eco-tech miracles needing
support and accelerated pathways to market. Also worth noting is a recent U.S. drive for
"atmospheric trust legislation" by which governments might rise to meet their "public trust"
obligation to youth and future generations. These represent glimpses of new ways of seeing
possibility and connection.
There is no alternative to a thorough detoxification of the air, water and lands we inhabit. The
longer we put this off, the harder it gets for restorative sustainability to take hold. The Gulf oil
spill and Fukushima mega-disasters brought little transparency we could trust, and at enormous
cost both economic and in public health. In the U.S., the military is the greatest polluter, and
there are hundreds of toxic waste sites that need attention. Worldwide, breast milk carries trace
levels of PCBs and Dioxins. Only sustainability is a positive vision broad enough to address all
of these threats, whose uniquely vulnerable victims are children.
The needed shift in consciousness may yet win the day. In the cold of winter the forces of
renewal position tender buds to emerge from the toughest branches in Spring. Nature's dance is
mighty. Wildflowers proliferate. With a profound understanding of the King Midas fable we might
yet avoid the Midas curse and hold on to all that's most precious. Long live Mother Nature.
Raffi Cavoukian, C.M., O.B.C., is best known as Raffi, renowned singer, author, children's
champion and ecology advocate. Raffi's numerous awards include the Order of Canada, the
Global 500 Roll, and three honorary degrees. Fifteen million sales of his children's albums,
books, and DVDs have sprouted a generation of fans now enjoying Raffi songs with their own
kids. An outspoken advocate of commercial-free childhood, Raffi is founder and chair of Centre
For Child Honouring.
Back to Menu
=============================================================
ENVIRONMENT NEWS FROM THE
UN DAILY NEWS
23 May 2012
UN News Centre: On biodiversity day, UN chief calls for greater protection of
world’s oceans
22 May 2012
Marking the International Day for Biological Diversity, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today
highlighted the fragile state of the world’s oceans, urging greater protection for marine biodiversity.
“Oceans cover almost three-quarters of the surface area of the globe. They are home to the
largest animal known to have lived on the planet – the blue whale – as well as billions upon
billions of the tiniest of microorganisms. From sandy shores to the darkest depths of the sea,
oceans and coasts support a rich tapestry of life on which human communities rely,” Mr. Ban said
in a message to mark the Day.
“Yet, despite its importance, marine biodiversity… has not fared well at human hands,” he added.
The General Assembly proclaimed 22 May as the International Day for Biological Diversity, to
increase understanding and awareness of biodiversity issues. The theme for this year’s
observance is marine diversity.
In his message, Mr. Ban noted the impact of commercial over-exploitation of the world’s fish
stocks, with more than half of global fisheries exhausted and a further third depleted, and between
30 and 35 per cent of critical marine environments – such as seagrasses, mangroves and coral
reefs – estimated to have been destroyed. As well, plastic debris continues to kill marine life, and
pollution from land is creating areas of coastal waters that are almost devoid of oxygen.
“Added to all of this, increased burning of fossil fuels is affecting the global climate, making the
sea surface warmer, causing sea level to rise and increasing ocean acidity, with consequences
we are only beginning to comprehend,” he noted.
According to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the survival of
marine and coastal ecosystems and biodiversity is essential to the nutritional, spiritual, societal
and religious well-being of many communities, and not just those in coastal areas. Amongst its
findings, it notes that fisheries provide more than 15 per cent of the global dietary intake of animal
protein; oceans and coastal areas provide invaluable ecosystem services, from tourism to
protection from storms; and, minuscule photosynthesizing plants called phytoplankton provide 50
per cent of all the oxygen on Earth.
Amidst the concerns over the future of marine biodiversity, Mr. Ban said, “there is hope.” He
pointed to a 2011 scientific review which showed that, despite all the damage inflicted on marine
wildlife and habitats over the past centuries, between ten and 50 per cent of populations and
ecosystems have shown some recovery when human threats were reduced or removed.
“However, compared to the land – where nearly 15 per cent of surface area is under some kind of
protection – little more than one per cent of marine environments are protected,” the UN chief
said. “Lately, some progress is being made, particularly with the establishment of large-scale
marine reserves and documenting areas of ecological or biological significance in open-ocean and
deep-sea habitats.”
Mr. Ban said the upcoming UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), in Rio de
Janerio, Brazil, next month, will provide an opportunity to recommit to building on advances made
so far.
“Rio+20 must galvanize action to improve the management and conservation of oceans through
initiatives by the United Nations, governments and other partners to curb overfishing, expand
marine protected areas and reduce ocean pollution and the impact of climate change,” Mr. Ban
said. “By taking action at the national, regional and global levels, including enhancing international
cooperation, we can achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Target of conserving 10 per cent of marine and
coastal areas by 2020, a crucial step in protecting marine biodiversity for the future we want.”
The CBD entered into force in December 1993, with three main objectives: the conservation of
biological diversity, the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
Back to Menu
=============================================================
ENVIRONMENT NEWS FROM THE
S.G’s SPOKESMAN DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
23 May 2012
UN News Centre: Secretary-General's message on the International Day for
Biological Diversity
22 May 2012
Oceans cover almost three-quarters of the surface area of the globe. They are home to the
largest animal known to have lived on the planet – the blue whale – as well as billions upon
billions of the tiniest of microorganisms. From sandy shores to the darkest depths of the sea,
oceans and coasts support a rich tapestry of life on which human communities rely. Fisheries
provide more than 15 per cent of the global dietary intake of animal protein. Oceans and coastal
areas provide invaluable ecosystem services – from tourism to protection from storms. Minuscule
photosynthesizing plants called phytoplankton provide 50 per cent of all the oxygen on Earth.
Yet, despite its importance, marine biodiversity – the theme of this year’s International Day for
Biological Diversity – has not fared well at human hands. Commercial over-exploitation of the
world’s fish stocks is severe. Many species have been hunted to fractions of their original
populations. More than half of global fisheries are exhausted, and a further third are depleted.
Between 30 and 35 per cent of critical marine environments – such as seagrasses, mangroves
and coral reefs – are estimated to have been destroyed. Plastic debris continues to kill marine
life, and pollution from land is creating areas of coastal waters that are almost devoid of oxygen.
Added to all of this, increased burning of fossil fuels is affecting the global climate, making the sea
surface warmer, causing sea level to rise and increasing ocean acidity, with consequences we are
only beginning to comprehend.
But, there is hope. A scientific review conducted in 2011 showed that, despite all the damage
inflicted on marine wildlife and habitats over the past centuries, between 10 and 50 per cent of
populations and ecosystems have shown some recovery when human threats were reduced or
removed. However, compared to the land – where nearly 15 per cent of surface area is under
some kind of protection – little more than 1 per cent of marine environments are protected.
Lately, some progress is being made, particularly with the establishment of large-scale marine
reserves and documenting areas of ecological or biological significance in open-ocean and deepsea habitats. On this International Day for Biodiversity, as we look ahead to the UN Conference
on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in June, we need to recommit to building on these
advances.
Rio+20 must galvanize action to improve the management and conservation of oceans through
initiatives by the United Nations, governments and other partners to curb overfishing, expand
marine protected areas and reduce ocean pollution and the impact of climate change. By taking
action at the national, regional and global levels, including enhancing international cooperation,
we can achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Target of conserving 10 per cent of marine and coastal
areas by 2020, a crucial step in protecting marine biodiversity for the future we want.
Back to Menu
_________________________________________________________________
UN News center - Secretary-General's address to the Informal Thematic Debate of
the 66th Session of the General Assembly on "The Road to Rio+20 and Beyond"
22 May 2012
Thank you for convening this important thematic debate.
Rio+20 is one month away.
We are one month from a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform ideas and aspirations into
bold action for sustainable development.
One month from seizing our chance to scale-up the policies and solutions that we know deliver
profound results.
One month from building the future we want… a future made to last … a future of greater
prosperity and equitable growth on a healthy planet for ourselves and our succeeding
generations.
But what we achieve one month from now will depend on what we do today and every day to Rio.
Above all, we need a fundamental re-think of our current economic model and new tools such as
green economy policies and strategies.
We have the opportunity to forge agreements and bold action on many thematic issues. Today,
let me point to seven:
First, decent jobs. Within the context of sustainable development, the green economy should help
generate decent jobs, especially for the nearly 80 million young people entering the workforce
every year. We can also scale up social protection safety nets.
Let me emphasize that social progress and job creation require bold action on education – the
basic building block of any society.
Second, we can advance food security and sustainable agriculture and push for a goal on “zero
hunger” or “food security for all”.
Third, we can enhance support for universal access to more efficient and cleaner energy sources.
Fourth, we should endorse action on universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation. This
is closely linked with the achievement of universal health goals and the reduction of poverty.
Fifth, Rio+20 should also provide political guidance on the way forward for the sustainable use,
management, and conservation of the world’s oceans.
Sixth, we need institutions that can effectively support sustainable development at all levels. While
strengthening UNEP, governments should decide what institutional framework can best advance
the sustainable development agenda and provide space for civil society, local authorities and the
private sector.
Seventh and finally, we can help advance a process for defining sustainable development goals
that build on and reinforce the MDGs.
Leaders should agree in Rio that SDGs with clear and measurable targets and indicators will be a
central part of the post-2015 global development framework. SDGs would give concrete
expression to renewed high-level political commitment for sustainable development.
Rio+20 is our chance to make progress in all these areas while re-vitalizing global partnerships for
sustainable development – essential partnerships with civil society, local authorities and the
private sector.
Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen,
The world is watching. The media are focused. People – young and old – are demanding action.
Yet the current pace of negotiations is sending all the wrong signals.
We cannot let a microscopic examination of text blind us to the big picture.
We do not have a moment to waste.
It is time for ambitious leadership. It is time for us to focus on what really matters. It is time for
common ground, for the sake of our planet and our children.
Thank you very much.
Back to Menu
=============================================================