Greenpeace bids to turn Japan against whaling

Isabel Reynolds, Reuters 9 Dec 08;

TOKYO (Reuters) - Greenpeace launched a campaign to turn Japan against whaling on Tuesday, with directors of the group from around the world delivering a letter to Prime Minister Taro Aso, urging him to halt the hunts.

The letter handover came weeks after Japan's whaling fleet set off for the Antarctic for an annual hunt aimed at catching about 900 whales, which Tokyo says is carried out for scientific research purposes.

In a break with past practice, Greenpeace is focusing on a campaign to try to change Japanese domestic opinion this year, rather than send a ship to chase the fleet in the Southern Ocean, which caused diplomatic ruffles last year.

That decision has drawn criticism from hardline anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd, whose members skirmished with whaling vessels at sea last season.

"Each year we put more and more emphasis on the campaign in Japan," Steve Shallhorn of Greenpeace Australia told reporters. "We are asking the people of Japan to ask their politicians to end the subsidy to this outdated industry," he added.

He and Greenpeace directors from the United States, Brazil, the Netherlands, Germany and other countries, were joined by Paddy Hart, an Australian former whaler, for the letter delivery.

Activists were also set to protest outside Japanese embassies abroad, Greenpeace said.

Japan officially stopped whaling under a 1986 global moratorium, but continues to take hundreds of whales in what it calls a research program. Much of the meat ends up on dinner tables.

Though most Japanese do not eat whale meat on a regular basis, many are indifferent to accusations that hunting the creatures is cruel, while others resent being told what they should eat.

But Greenpeace Japan Director Jun Hoshikawa said there were signs that interest in the issue was rising in Japan, with a handful of lawmakers calling for an investigation of the hunt.

Among them is Ryuhei Kawada, known for battling the government after he and others became infected with HIV through tainted blood products.

"When the government is wrong, it is important to raise your voice," he told reporters. "The United States and Australia have a history of whaling, but Japan continues even now. We should think about this from the point of view of the environment," he said.

An official at the whaling section of Japan's Fisheries Ministry said he could not comment because he had not seen the letter from Greenpeace.

(Reporting by Isabel Reynolds; Editing by Bill Tarrant)


Read more!

Aussie scientists use toxic mash to turn predators off toads

Yahoo News 8 Dec 08;

SYDNEY (AFP) – Australian scientists are serving up mashed cane toad with a dash of poison to put predators off eating the toxic aliens.

The cane toads, which carry poisonous sacs on their heads that can kill animals as big as crocodiles within minutes, are spreading rapidly westwards across the country despite efforts to eradicate them.

"Native predators are actually pretty capable of learning to avoid cane toads if given the chance," University of Sydney professor Rick Shine told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this week.

"We're learning about ways to educate the predators in advance of the toad front in ways that will help them survive" once the toad arrives in their territory.

A marauding amphibian, Bufo marinus was introduced to Australia in 1935 from Central and South America in an attempt to control beetles ravaging sugar cane fields in the tropical northeast.

But, like many animals imported into Australia, the cane toad has turned into a pest, with recent research showing they have more than halved the number of crocodiles in some Northern Territory rivers.

Attempts to minimise the damage focused on trying to kill the toads, but "it's hard to do and it's clear that the toad is by and large winning the battle," Shine said.

"The invasion-front toads are all very big guys, so they've got a lot of poison, so the first toad you meet if you're a goanna (lizard) is almost bound to a big one and it's almost bound to be your last meal."

However, if predators ate a small toad that made them sick but was not big enough to kill them, they rapidly learned to avoid the warty hoppers, he said.

So scientists are working on a programme of feeding animals such as crocodiles and goannas a mixture of toad bits and a poison to make them "desperately nauseous."

"(This will) convince predators that anything that looks and smells and tastes at all like a toad is a good thing to avoid," Shine said.

Initial results showed that predators, including quolls -- carnivorous marsupials -- quickly learned that the aliens were not a good addition to their diet.

"(It) suggests there is at least some hope that we can reduce the carnage that toads cause to these big predators," Shine said.


Read more!

Eat camels to protect environment, Aussies told

Yahoo News 9 Dec 08;

SYDNEY (AFP) – Australians were urged Tuesday to eat camels to stop them wreaking environmental havoc, just months after being told to save the world from climate change by consuming kangaroos.

A three-year study has found that Australia's population of more than a million feral camels -- the largest wild herd on earth -- is out of control and damaging fragile desert ecosystems and water sources.

The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, which produced the report, plans to serve camel meat at a barbecue for senior public servants in Canberra on Wednesday to press its point.

Report co-author Professor Murray McGregor said a good way to bring down the number of camels was to eat them.

"Eat a camel today, I've done it," he told the national AAP news agency.

"It's beautiful meat. It's a bit like beef. It's as lean as lean, it's an excellent health food."

Similar claims are made for kangaroo meat, but the rationale for farming and eating the national emblem -- as outlined by the government's chief climate change adviser in October -- is different.

Millions of farm animals such as cows and sheep produce massive amounts of harmful greenhouse gases, said Professor Ross Garnaut, but kangaroos emit negligible amounts of methane.

Unlike the native kangaroo, camels were introduced into Australia as pack animals for the vast outback in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but were released into the wild as rail and road travel became more widespread.

The country has wrestled for years with imported animals brought in as beasts of burden, food sources, for recreational hunting or, ironically, to control agricultural pests.

The Department of the Environment lists animals of "significant concern" as including feral camels, horses, donkeys, pigs, European wild rabbits, European red foxes, cats, goats and cane toads.

With few natural predators and vast sparsely populated areas in which to roam, the populations have soared, putting pressure on native species by preying on them, competing for food, destroying habitats and spreading disease.


Read more!

Science paves way for climate lawsuits against oil companies

David Adam and Afua Hirsch, The Guardian 9 Dec 08;

People affected by worsening storms, heatwaves and floods could soon be able to sue the oil and power companies they blame for global warming, a leading climate expert has said.

Myles Allen, a physicist at Oxford University, said a breakthrough that allows scientists to judge the role man-made climate change played in extreme weather events could see a rush to the courts over the next decade.

He said: "We are starting to get to the point that when an adverse weather event occurs we can quantify how much more likely it was made by human activity. And people adversely affected by climate change today are in a position to document and quantify their losses. This is going to be hugely important."

Allen's team has used the new technique to work out whether global warming worsened the UK floods in autumn 2000, which inundated 10,000 properties, disrupted power supplies and led to train services being cancelled, motorways closed and 11,000 people evacuated from their homes - at a total cost of £1bn.

He would not comment on the results before publication, but said people affected by floods could "potentially" use a positive finding to begin legal action.

The technique involves running two computer models to simulate the conditions that led to extreme weather events. One model includes human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, the second assumes the industrial revolution never happened and that carbon levels in the atmosphere have not increased over the last century. Comparing the results pins down the impact of man-made global warming. "As the science has evolved this is now possible, it's just a question of computing power," he said.

Allen and his colleagues previously demonstrated that man-made warming at least doubled the risk of heatwaves such as the 2003 event that killed 27,000 people across Europe. No legal action resulted, but Allen said that was partly because most of the deaths were in France, where the legal system makes such cases difficult.

"We can work out whether climate change has loaded the dice and made extreme weather more likely. And once the risk is doubled, then lawyers get interested," he said.

Peter Roderick, director of the Climate Justice programme, said the most likely route for seeking damages would be tort cases, which deal with civil wrongs. Several have been attempted by US states against power and car companies only to be rejected by the courts.

Roderick said developing countries such as Nepal could also sue for compensation over damage caused by global warming. "As the issue of damages gets worse and worse, the chances of this happening will get greater and greater," he said. "I hope it happens."

Lawyers say it is only a matter of time before class actions are brought. However, Stephen Tromans, an environmental law barrister, said establishing causation would be one of the main difficulties. "It is one thing to be able to link levels of greenhouse gases with a specific event causing damage but, even assuming you can do that, quite another to establish causation against a particular company or industrial sector."

There are legal precedents for making exceptions to normal rules of causation. One example is the decision of the House of Lords on mesothelioma, where past employers can be liable for having contributed to the overall exposure, though the harm cannot be scientifically attributed to any specific period of employment.

"In that case an exception was made to the normal rules on causation in order to prevent an injustice that would otherwise have occurred," Tromans said.

There may also be grounds for a case on the basis that firms have tried to misinform the public - as in US cases against tobacco firms - about the effects of their business.

Owen Lomas, head of environmental law at City firm Allen & Overy, said: "If you look at the extent to which certain major companies in the US are accused of having funded disinformation to cast doubt on the link between man-made emissions and global warming, that could open the way to litigation."


Read more!

We need to turn carbon into gold

Oliver Tickell, BBC Green Room 8 Dec 08;

Little meaningful progress seems to have been made at the UN climate summit in Poznan, Poland, says Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2. In this week's Green Room, he calls on world leaders to back a deal that will raise the serious funds needed to deliver a low carbon future.

Progress at the UN climate summit in Poznan, Poland, appears to have ground to a halt.

As the global gathering enters it second and final week, there has been a dismal lack of progress to date.

One of the key stumbling blocks is how all the things that we need to tackle the climate change problem will be financed.

Here are some of the key topics being debated:

Forests and soils

Forest destruction and degradation contributes up to 20% of human greenhouse gas emissions.

To have a hope of bringing climate change under control we need to bring these emissions to a halt, and make forests (as well as soils, peatlands and other terrestrial sinks) into major carbon sinks.

But how can we bring about the change we need?

The answer has to be to make forests worth more alive than dead to governments and forest owners.

As things stand we are happy to pay for palm oil, beef, soya beans, rubber and timber from deforested land.

To persuade countries like Brazil and Indonesia to change their ways, we need to pay them more keep their forest than we are already paying them to destroy it.

Currently the main idea, which goes under the acronym of REDD, is to create carbon credits by reducing deforestation in poor countries, and selling the credits to rich countries so that they can let their industrial emissions rip.

But this suffers from the grave defect that we need to reduce emissions from both forests and industry at the same time, not trade one off against the other.

Adaptation to climate change

The cost to poor countries of the climate change that is already taking place, no matter what action we take to reduce emissions, is up to $100 billion per year.

This cost is incurred in the effort to cope with the consequences of drought, flood risk, rising sea levels, increasing insect-borne disease, and other hazards.

So far, a paltry few percent of this funding has been lined up. Since the damages are a direct result of the historic emissions of rich countries, and the world's poorest people are the principal victims, this is nothing short of iniquitous.

Meanwhile, more than $60bn-a-year is sloshing around the world's carbon markets, such as the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the "flexibility mechanisms" of the Kyoto Protocol.

It sometimes seems that everyone is making fortunes out of the carbon market, except those who really need it to adapt to the far harsher conditions that climate change is creating.

Renewable energy

Renewable energy is a key part of any sustainable future. But developing and rapidly industrialising countries are generally choosing coal-fired power generation, because it is relatively cheap, it works, and it's available now.

This development path will lock these nations into burning coal for up to 75 years, undermining any effort made elsewhere to reduce emissions.

This makes it essential to divert the hundreds of billions of dollars each year that are being invested in fossil fuels in developing countries and put them into renewables.

But in order to make this happen, extra funds need to be found to bridge the gap between the cost of coal fired power stations and renewables.

In the long run, renewables make good economic sense because once they are built there is no need to buy the fuel to keep them running.

But in the short term there is an extra cost to be paid and at the moment, there's no one to pick up the bill.

Energy efficiency

Vastly improved energy efficiency is absolutely necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to satisfy rising demand for energy around the world.

Even though energy savings can be made for next to nothing, they tend not to take place. This is usually because the costs are picked up by one person, while another enjoys the benefits.

So how are we to stimulate the revolution we need?

One answer is to regulate. EU citizens are already aware of the "energy rating" system that applies to many household appliances, and this approach has been highly effective. It should now be extended globally to all energy consuming goods, homes, buildings, factories and offices.

Poor countries will of course need extra funding to have their short-term costs covered. But in the long term, they will also benefit from reduced energy costs.

Powerful industrial greenhouse gases

The hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are gases used as refrigerants and foam blowing agents.

They were introduced by the chemical industry to replace ozone destroying CFCs, which have (almost) been phased out by the Montreal Protocol.

However, HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases, and their production is rising by 15% per year.

The Environmental Investigation Agency estimates that without controls, they could be responsible for the equivalent of about 10 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions per year by 2040, or about one-third of the world's current burn of fossil fuels.

The obvious way to control them is in the same way that the Montreal Protocol phased out the CFCs.

This would involve a direct regulatory approach, guided by an expert panel, with funding made available to help developing nations meet the cost of adapting affected industries.

Where is the money going to come from?

Currently there is no mechanism capable of taking on the problems of climate change.

My own calculations indicate that it will cost the world about one trillion dollars each year.

That is certainly a lot of money, but it is an amount that looks affordable when it is compared to what the world is spending to deal with the global financial crisis.

One obvious way to raise the funds is to sell greenhouse gas emissions permits on a global basis, rather than giving them away as under the current Kyoto Protocol.

With industrial global emissions accounting for about 33 gigatonnes, a $30-per-tonne carbon price would pay the whole bill.

The EU is already going this way. More and more allowances under the ETS are being auctioned, and the European Parliament is calling for the proceeds to finance climate solutions.

President-elect Barack Obama has a similar national policy for the US, and a new report by humanitarian charity Oxfam calls for this model to be applied to rich country emissions allocations, with auctioning taking over from free allocations.

This general approach has to be the way forward, for the simple reason that there's nowhere else for the money to come from.

Governmental aid flows remain pathetically insufficient even to deal with all the "old" problems of poverty, never mind the new problems of climate change.

Charities are nowhere near rich enough, and the private sector will only invest where there is profit to be made.

So here is one principle for delegates in Poznan to agree on - the carbon market must be turned into gold, not for carbon traders and financiers, but to finance the world's transition to a low carbon, equitable future.

Oliver Tickell is author of Kyoto2 - how to manage the global greenhouse, published by Zed Books

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website


Read more!

Industry, Investors Urge Strong U.N. Climate Deal

Alister Doyle and Gerard Wynn, PlanetArk 9 Dec 08;

POZNAN - Major companies, investors and insurers appealed on Monday for decisive action to fight climate change at a meeting in Poland working on a new U.N. pact to fight global warming.

Climate negotiators in the western city of Poznan are meeting on a new climate treaty meant to be agreed by next December in Copenhagen to replace or extend the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.

"At a time when the global economic downturn may cause some to question whether now is the time to act, we believe that decisive action will stimulate global economic activity," leaders of more than 140 companies said.

The statement, drafted by the UK-based Corporate Leaders' Group on Climate Change (CLG), represented companies including Ebay, Sun Microsystems Inc, BP, and Unilever.

Climate policies such as carbon trading or carbon taxes add to fuel bills and impact the profitability of investment choices for example between fossil fuels and low-carbon alternatives, and business lobbies say they want more clarity.

"If business people cannot see what is the next 10, 15, 20 years they cannot assess the profitability of their investments," said Guy Sebban, secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce, a global federation of employers and businessmen.

Some delegates, negotiators and analysts at the U.N. talks have suggested that the financial crisis coupled with the short time available for U.S. President-elect Barack Obama will scale back ambitions for Copenhagen.

That could water it down to an agreement on a set of principles rather than a full treaty to confront warming. That could make it harder to agree goals for emissions cuts in time before current goals under the Kyoto Protocol expire in 2012.

An investor delegation for the first time presented on Monday a call for action to the annual U.N. climate talks.

Their statement, signed by 152 global investors worth over $9 trillion, called on world leaders to negotiate a strong and binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol, to ensure investors receive market signals to fund a transition to a low-carbon economy.

Like the CLG statement, the banks and pension funds called for a continued commitment to carbon markets -- favored by the business community as a flexible, low-cost regulatory approach to curbing carbon emissions.

Insurers also said they had a role to play in a future deal, especially to help offset the costs of adapting to the impacts of climate change such as rising seas, droughts and floods.

"The insurance sector is one that most directly experiences the impacts of climate change," said Andrew Torrance, head of ClimateWise which groups 42 insurers. "We are looking forward to insurance being a central component of a Copenhagen deal."

He said insurers paid a record $83 billion in disaster-related payments in 2005, the year of Hurricane Katrina in the United States.

(Additional reporting by Gabriela Baczynska)

(Editing by Keith Weir)


Read more!

Combating climate change and boosting growth are natural allies

IUCN website 9 Dec 08;

Accelerated action on energy savings and the scrapping of fossil fuel subsidies are the two top actions needed to combat climate change and spur economic recovery, according to a survey released today.

The findings of this survey of climate decision makers in the private, public and civil society sectors underline their overwhelming view that combating climate change is a pro-growth, pro-economic recovery policy.

Three-quarters (73 percent) of the 1,000 experts surveyed agree that “equitable economic growth and development and significant progress in combating climate change can be achieved at the same time”. Only 11 percent disagree.

The overall findings from professionals across 115 countries who make or influence climate decisions will be presented today in Poznan, Poland, at the UN Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The survey found that decision makers believe that the price of carbon must nearly triple to over $50 per tonne on average before their organizations will consistently implement climate-friendly decisions over more cost effective, but carbon-intensive options.

A key finding of last year’s Climate Decision Makers Survey revealed just how important decision makers view the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. This year’s updated poll reaffirms it. The majority (64 percent) of decision makers say that investing in biodiversity protection and creating new financial mechanisms (59 percent) as an incentive should be short-term climate priorities.

“This survey echoes the message we heard at IUCN’s World Conservation Congress in Barcelona,” says Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN Director General. “We had 8,000 participants from 180 countries and the message they brought was clear; biodiversity underpins the well-being of human societies and their economies. We now have an understanding of the clear link between conservation and climate and that healthy ecosystems are the best defense against climate change.”

The survey was conducted during the past four weeks by researchers at GlobeScan with the support of the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), along with other contributing organizations.

“The fact that these decision makers across the world don’t see any inherent conflict between the economy and climate action certainly challenges the governments meeting in Poznan to move forward in spite of the current economic crisis,” says GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller. “And they’re saying the price of carbon needs to be increased in order to stimulate action on the ground.”

“Combating climate change is the stimulus package needed to power the planet out of its current malaise and set the stage for a 21st century Green Economy – one that prizes resource efficiency, innovation and decent employment in developed and developing societies alike,” says Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director.

The survey additionally asked hands-on decisions makers to rate 17 specific approaches to addressing climate change. Increasing energy conservation and efficiency (77 percent) rates as having the greatest potential impact on GHG emissions in the short term (rated “major” by 77 percent). Ranked second is the removal of subsidies for carbon-intensive activities (76 percent) – a clear signal to policy makers needing to free up budgets to fund fiscal stimulus measures.

When asked to evaluate the potential of different technologies to lower atmospheric carbon concentrations in the longer term (25 years), efficiency and conservation (88 percent) remain the most attractive among decision makers, well above nuclear energy (only 29 percent rate current nuclear technology highly), carbon capture and storage (29 percent on retrofits) and biofuels from food crops (only 12 percent). Clearly, these decision makers see energy efficiency as the “low-hanging fruit”.

“The development challenge is to accelerate or maintain robust economic growth in poorer countries while also dealing with the impacts of climate change,” says Katherine Sierra, World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development. “The new global survey supports the view that developing countries will need support in terms of finance, as well as technology in the fight against climate change. The financial situation is no justification for postponing action on climate change. Climate change is not waiting, so we cannot wait either.”

In spite of their strong opinion that economic development and climate action are synergistic, a plurality (44 percent) expect that the current economic crisis will nonetheless hinder progress toward an effective international climate agreement.

The survey results provide guidance for negotiators in Poznan. A solid majority (66 percent) of those surveyed endorse the G8+5 GLOBE legislator’s 2008 Tokyo Framework for International Cooperation beyond 2012 as a model for negotiators at Poznan and Copenhagen. Support is strong for an inclusive, multifaceted, long-term yet flexible global agreement that acknowledges the value of ecosystem services.

Unlike public opinion polls, this survey focuses on the views of professionals in position to make or influence large decisions in government, the private sector and civil society. This focus, together with the survey’s large global sample and good balance of respondents across geographies and sectors, makes this survey unique.

For these and other survey results presented in Powerpoint, with methodological details, please visit: http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/cdms08/cdms_release_slides.ppt


Read more!

Number of hungry people rises to 963 million

FAO website 9 Dec 08;

High food prices to blame – economic crisis could compound woes

9 December 2008, Rome - Another 40 million people have been pushed into hunger this year primarily due to higher food prices, according to preliminary estimates published by FAO today. This brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, compared to 923 million in 2007 and the ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty, FAO warned.

"World food prices have dropped since early 2008, but lower prices have not ended the food crisis in many poor countries," said FAO Assistant Director-General Hafez Ghanem, presenting the new edition of FAO's hunger report, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008.

"For millions of people in developing countries, eating the minimum amount of food every day to live an active and healthy life is a distant dream. The structural problems of hunger, like the lack of access to land, credit and employment, combined with high food prices remain a dire reality," he stressed.

Prices of major cereals have fallen by over 50 percent from their peaks earlier in 2008 but they remain high compared to previous years. Despite its sharp decline in recent months, the FAO Food Price Index was still 28 percent higher in October 2008 compared to October 2006. With prices for seeds and fertilizers (and other inputs) more than doubling since 2006, poor farmers could not increase production. But richer farmers, particularly those in developed countries, could afford the higher input costs and expand plantings. As a result, cereal production in developed countries is likely to rise by at least 10 percent in 2008. The increase in developing countries may not exceed even one percent.

"If lower prices and the credit crunch associated with the economic crisis force farmers to plant less food, another round of dramatic food prices could be unleashed next year," Ghanem added. "The 1996 World Food Summit target, to reduce the number of hungry by half by 2015, requires a strong political commitment and investment in poor countries of at least $30 billion per year for agriculture and social protection of the poor," Ghanem said.

Where the hungry live

The vast majority of the world's undernourished people - 907 million - live in developing countries, according to the 2007 data reported by the State of Food Insecurity in the World. Of these, 65 percent live in only seven countries: India, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Ethiopia. Progress in these countries with large populations would have an important impact on global hunger reduction.

With a very large population and relatively slow progress in hunger reduction, nearly two-thirds of the world's hungry live in Asia (583 million in 2007). On the positive side, some countries in Southeast Asia like Thailand and Viet Nam have made good progress towards achieving the WFS target, while South Asia and Central Asia have suffered setbacks in hunger reduction.

In sub-Saharan Africa, one in three people - or 236 million (2007) - are chronically hungry, the highest proportion of undernourished people in the total population, according to the report. Most of the increase in the number of hungry occurred in a single country, the Democratic Republic of Congo, as a result of widespread and persistent conflict, from 11 million to 43 million (in 2003-05) and the proportion of undernourished rose from 29 to 76 percent.

Overall, sub-Saharan Africa has made some progress in reducing the proportion of people suffering from chronic hunger, down from 34 (1995-97) to 30 percent (2003-2005). Ghana, Congo, Nigeria, Mozambique and Malawi have achieved the steepest reductions in the proportion of undernourished. Ghana is the only country that has reached both the hunger reduction target of the World Food Summit and the Millennium Development Goals. Growth in agricultural production was key in this success.

Latin America and the Caribbean were most successful in reducing hunger before the surge in food prices. High food prices have increased the number of hungry people in the sub-region to 51 million in 2007.

Countries in the Near East and North Africa generally experience the lowest levels of undernourishment in the world. But conflicts (in Afghanistan and Iraq) and high food prices have pushed the numbers up from 15 million in 1990-92 to 37 million in 2007.

Almost out of reach

Some countries were well on track towards reaching the summit's target, before food prices skyrocketed but "Even these countries may have suffered setbacks - some of the progress has been cancelled due to high food prices. The crisis has mainly affected the poorest, landless and households run by women," Ghanem said. "It will require an enormous and resolute global effort and concrete actions to reduce the number of hungry by 500 million by 2015."

Exporters under threat

The world hunger situation may further deteriorate as the financial crisis hits the real economies of more and more countries. Reduced demand in developed countries threatens incomes in developing countries via exports. Remittances, investments and other capital flows including development aid are also at risk. Emerging economies in particular are subject to lasting impacts from the credit crunch even if the crisis itself is short-lived.


Read more!

Best of our wild blogs: 9 Dec 08


Narcondam Hornbill: Addendum
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Nesting saga of Peaceful Doves: Part 5 of 6
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog


Read more!

Seven Solomon Islands dolphins to end up in Singapore?

Makili claims dolphins to Singapore
Solomon Star 9 Dec 08;

A LOCAL environmentalist Lawrence Makili claims the seven dolphins that left the country yesterday were heading to Singapore, not the Philippines.

Local exporter Chris Porter said the consignment, which met all legal requirements, was heading to an oceanarium in the Philippines where they’ll be trained for public programmes.

But Mr Makili claimed his sources informed him the dolphins’ final destination will be in Singapore.

“The exporter needs to be honest about this,” Mr Makili, who’s currently in Fiji attending a meeting, said.

He condemned this latest export, saying it’s a sad day for the Pacific, particularly Solomon Islands.

“I am surprise the Government sees it fit to allow this export while a study to determine the wild dolphin numbers in our waters is still continuing.

“This shows the government does not care four our resources,” Mr Makili said.

Gov’t accused over live dolphin export
Solomon Star 9 Dec 08;

LOCAL environmental campaigner Lawrence Makili accused the Government of allowing the export of live dolphins, as seven bottle-nose species left the country yesterday to the Philippines.

Mr Makili, who is the Pacific’s rep of US-based Earth Island Institue, said the Government acted like a robber by keeping information of the export under wraps.

He said the Ministry of Environment Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources should be ashamed of their action.

“It’s a shameful thing for this Government to continue to show the world and the Pacific its arrogance and stubbornness on this issue,” Mr Makili, who is currently in Fiji, said.

But a spokesman from the Ministry of Fisheries rejected Mr Makili’s assertion the export was kept secret.

“The deal was legal because the Government allowed 100 dolphins to be exported out of the country each year and that was only the first seven this year,” the spokesman said.

Solomon Islands Mammal Education Centre and Exporters Ltd sent the seven dolphins to the Philippines.

The company said the dolphins are being sent to a oceanarium in the Philippines where they’ll be trained for public shows.

But Mr Makili claimed the dolphins will eventually end up in Singapore.

Director of the Earth Islands Institute in the United States Mark Berman said this latest dolphin export will further damage the reputation of the Solomons as a tourist destination.

Meanwhile, Mr Berman claimed a proposed deal by Thailand to buy dolphins from the Solomon Islands had been ceased.

“There was information that a wildlife park in Thailand was going to buy dolphins but due to our strong alliance with the tuna industry of Thailand and the Thailand government, there will be no dolphin exports from Solomons or anywhere else for that matter to Thailand.”

He said Thailand is the world’s largest supplier of tuna to the US and European Union dolphin safe tuna markets therefore their government has stated no live dolphins will be brought into Thailand for any reason.

“Our goal as a NGOs is to continue to halt this disgusting trade in wildlife which only harms dolphins and the Solomon Islands people,” he said.

By EDNAL PALMER

Our 7 dolphins are now in Philippines
Solomon Star 9 Dec 08;

SEVEN Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins left our shores yesterday onboard a 767 freight carrier for the Philippines.

Marine Exports Limited director Canadian Chris Porter said the consignment met all legal requirements both locally and international.

“The transport was legal and approved by CITES, the international body for the protection of endangered species,” Mr Porter said.

UPS, the company that sent its cargo plane to carry the dolphins is one of the world’s largest cargo service providers in the world.

"UPS operated the best well executed dolphin transport that I have ever worked with,” Mr Porter said.

“From fueling the planes to safety and care meetings about the animals, they made me feel confident and secure the seven animals are in good hands.

"As one dolphin is named after my son Noah, this is very important to me," he added.

The seven animals are bottlenose dolphins, one of the many species of marine animals here.

Mr Port said the dolphins were flown to a world class oceanarium in the Philippines where they will be trained further for public display programmes.

Mr Porter and his local business partner Robert Satu said lack of protest during yesterday’s shipment was because of their well executed and open dialogue about their operation.

"The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently released a television documentary on the aspects and issues relating to Marine Exports Limited.

"And today’s transport is very symbolic for the company as it has been seven years that the company has been operational.

"No international proclamations occurred leading to today’s transport of seven animals moved to a Philippines world class oceanarium.

"Our persistence and dedication to our company’s mandate to increase both the financial and conservation value of the dolphins as a natural resource belonging to the Solomon Islands continues to be fulfilled," Mr Porter said.

Last year Marine Exports sent 28 dolphins for the Atlantis Palm in Dubai.

Ocean Embassy, a Company of ex-Sea World personnel, transported the animals 30 hours to Dubai.

The transport was fraught with numerous complaints and protest by Environmental groups around the world.

Government sources said that a levy of over $800,000 was collected from Marine Exports for the export of the seven live dolphins.

Mr Porter stated proudly: “When I first entered Solomon Islands a dead dolphin was worth $150. Next year a live dolphin will be worth over $1,000,000."

Mr Satu added: "This resource is of Solomon Islands and I have proven that the Grass Roots People can accomplish big things with our natural resources.

“I encourage fellow Solomon Islanders to challenge themselves to attain our country’s development dreams."

Meanwhile, the Government is continuing its development of one of the world’s most comprehensive animal management plan for dolphins.

Projects underway include ongoing animal census surveys, traditional hunting database and public education programmes.

Mr Satu said Solomon Islands is the world’s largest natural aquarium.

"I feel privileged that we can share some of its beauty with other countries around the world. Solomons is a very rich country and the dolphins are great ambassadors of that," he said.

More live dolphins exported
Solomon Star 7 Dec 08;

SEVEN live dolphins are due to leave the country today.

Dolphin dealer and one of the Directors of Solomon Islands Mammal Education Centre and Exporters Ltd Robert Satu is again, exporting the dolphins.

Information on whereabouts the dolphins will be exported to, remains sketchy as reports of the export arrangement leaked few minutes before the private jet landed.

However, speaking on anonymity, a reliable airport source revealed that the Boeing 763 jet took a 6 hours flight to Honiara from Pampanga , Philippines and could return the same route.

The source said the jet’s arrival also surprised some of them.

“Usually, aviation and airport officials are informed properly on an arrival of international jets, but the flight just caught some of us by surprise,” he said.

“We’re aware of a private jet coming but the arrival time was not revealed and the next thing customs and other officials did was scrambled as we were warned that the jet was ascending,” he said.

Loading of the seven dolphins was expected to have taken place last night at the domestic terminal, as the flight will leave the country at 9am this morning.

Attempts to talk to Robert Satu last night were unsuccessful.

Solomon Islands banned the live dolphin export trade in 2003 following an outcry over a consignment of 28 bottlenose dolphins to an aquatic park in Mexico .

Activists claim at least nine of the dolphins died in Mexico.

Satu, who was involved in the exports to Mexico, claimed the ban was illegal and won a landmark court ruling last December that paved the way for dolphin exports to resume.

After the court ruling, the government was swift to change its position on the trade.

Fisheries Minister Nollen Leni has said the government would now encourage the capture and sale of up to 100 bottlenose dolphins a year for export, noting that water parks would pay tens of thousands of dollars for a trained dolphin.

The Solomon Islands Mammal and Education Centre Exporters Ltd Company was paid about $769,000 the Mexico export.

In October last year, another 28 Dolphins were exported to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, sparking criticisms from Australia, New Zealand and the world.

By EDNAL PALMER

Related articles
Dolphin exporter signs deal with Western Province
Joy A. Rikimae, Solomon Star 19 Feb 08

Solomon Islands to export 30 dolphins to Dubai
Yahoo News 12 Oct 07

3 dolphins found dead in Solomon Islands
Yahoo News 17 Oct 07

Report of a Fact-finding Visit to the Solomon Islands, 9-12 September 2003 (PDF file) by Graham Ross1, Frances Gulland1, Nick Gales, Robert Brownell and Randall Reeves

Environmental Concerns Action Network Of Solomon Islands response to the IUCN REPORT "ECANSI (Environmental Concerns Action Network of Solomon Islands) wishes to place on record the deep concern of this organization over the Report of a Fact-finding visit to the Solomon Islands, 9-12 September, 2003 by Drs Graham Ross and Frances Gulland on behalf of the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group and the IUCN/SSC Veterinary Specialist Group."

See also
SUFFERING, NOT SMILING: The Truth About Captive Dolphins
A campaign by Acres to raise awareness on the plight of captive dolphins and to urge Singaporeans not to support marine parks and dolphinariums that keep dolphins in captivity.


Read more!

The prowl for offenders bears up well

Most TCM halls stick to ban on sales of illegal animal products
Grace Chua, Straits Times 8 Dec 08;

'NO, WE do not import illegal bear products,' says the elderly woman proprietor of the Chinese medical hall in Ang Mo Kio.

But when asked if she had bear gall bladder, she readily says: 'We may have some left over.'

She then shaved slices off a lump of waxy, blackish substance and pressed them into four capsules. The asking price: $20.

It was the only shop out of 10 Chinese medicine halls that agreed to sell The Straits Times the banned product. The other nine said selling such products was illegal and that their shops had stopped carrying them five to 10 years ago.

The sale of bear products, along with those of tiger and rhinoceros, is prohibited under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites). Singapore is a signatory to the convention.

Under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 2006, selling or advertising products containing parts of endangered animals carries a maximum penalty of $50,000 and two years in prison.

Madam Kong Yown Foong, the proprietor of Eng Peng Trading Chinese Medical Hall, says it is not worth the risk. 'We would lose a lot of money in order to make a small sum.'

She receives requests for bear bile and bear gall about once a year but suggests her customers try herbal alternatives instead.

It appears that most Chinese medicine halls are complying with the ban, though there are a few black sheep.

An undercover probe by the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) in 2006 found 23 out of 115 traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) shops, or about 20 per cent, selling bear products, down from more than 70 per cent in 2001.

It is not at all clear that these products are even genuine.

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) investigated 14 shops last year offering illegal bear products for sale and found that products in 12 of the shops were fake.

But this is just as damaging as selling the real thing, said Acres.

'By making a claim that the product is from bears, the dealer is potentially driving up the demand for bear products, which directly contravenes the spirit of Cites and the local legislation meant to enforce Cites,' says Acres' executive director Louis Ng.

In March last year, Acres and the Singapore TCM Organisations Committee introduced a voluntary labelling scheme for TCM outlets, to verify that they do not sell tiger, bear or rhino products. So far, 274 of the 800 TCM retail outlets in Singapore have signed on. At least three of the 10 outlets The Straits Times visited had the red accreditation sticker pasted on their premises.

Those who suspect a shop is selling illegal animal products should not buy from it, says AVA spokesman Goh Shih Yong. They should instead contact the AVA, which will investigate the matter immediately. The AVA hotline is 1800-226-2250.

Links

More about Acres and their bear bile campaign.


Read more!

Glimmer of hope for rare monkey

BBC News 8 Dec 08;

A new sub-population of a Critically Endangered species of monkey has been recorded in north-western Vietnam.

Biologists from Fauna and Flora International said they had found up to 20 Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys in a remote forest.

The team said the new group offered a ray of hope because it included three infants, suggesting that the monkeys were breeding and increasing in number.

Until now, fewer than 250 of the primates were thought to exist.

"When I saw the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys, I was overjoyed," said biologist Le Khac Quyet.

"This new discovery further underlines the importance of learning more about the monkeys' range and distribution.

"There is still time to save this unique species, but with 200 or so left and the threat still strong, we need to act now," he added.

Under pressure

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species lists the monkeys as Critically Endangered because their numbers have continued to decline as a result of intensive hunting and deforestation.

Until now, the monkeys had only been recorded in a few north-eastern areas within Vietnam, with no group exceeding 50 mature adults.

The loss of habitat and human encroachment had "dramatically restricted" the animals' distribution, the Red List warned.

It also said that the creatures' inquisitive nature also meant that they did not flee when approached by humans, increasing the risk of being shot by hunters.

However, Fauna and Flora International (FFI) hopes the discovery of the new sub-population will lead to increased efforts to protect the primates' remaining habitat.

"All recent indications suggest that we have a fantastic opportunity to secure this population and significantly increase the chances of survival of this species," explained Paul Insua-Cao, FFI's Vietnam primate programme manager.

Biologists observing the monkeys also found that they were more wary of people, issuing warning signs to each other.

The FFI team suggested that this group had associated humans with danger, perhaps as a result of ongoing threats from hunters.

A global assessment of the world's primates published in August warned that 48% of the order faced extinction.

The outlook, described as depressing by conservationists, warned that the main threat was habitat loss, primarily deforestation.

Other threats include hunting of primates for food and the illegal wildlife trade.

The FFI team hopes its work, co-funded by the UK government, with local people will ease the pressures on the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys' habitat.

Measures including curbing the growing of crops in the area's tropical forests and confiscating hunters' guns have already been introduced since the new sub-population was first recorded in April 2008.


Read more!

Tiger, tiger, fighting back

A census that revealed a shocking drop in numbers could be the big cat's salvation as an effective rescue plan is developed in India

Michael McCarthy, The Independent 8 Dec 08;

There are signs of hope that the world's rapidly diminishing population of wild tigers may at last be able to make a comeback. Stephen Mills, a writer and film-maker who has spent more than 20 years watching the biggest of the big cats in the wild, believes initiatives by the Indian government, and growing awareness by local people in tiger areas of the need to conserve the animals, offer new grounds for optimism in what has been a remorseless decline over the past 40 years.

There may now be as few as 4,000 tigers left in the wild from a world population estimated at 100,000 a century ago. Destruction of their forest habitat, clashes with local communities, and ceaseless hunting – not least for tiger bones to be used in traditional Asian medicine – have been the main drivers of a decline which seemed to slope towards extinction.

The steepest decline has been in India, traditionally thought of as the heartland of the tiger's range, where until recently it was estimated there were nearly 4,000 animals. But results of a thorough scientific census published late last year gave a figure of 1,411 tigers remaining across the sub-continent , which shocked conservationists in India and across the world.

It was seen as a damning indictment of the failure of Project Tiger, the nationwide conservation effort set up by India in 1973, but which did not succeed in preserving the animals it was designed to save; in recent years, tiger reserves, such as Sariska in Rajasthan, were found to contain no tigers: they had all been poached.

Yet, perversely, it is precisely this census which Mr Mills, a former head of campaigns for the Environmental Investigation Agency, believes can offer the basis for a new beginning in Indian tiger conservation. "We should not see the census results as a measure of decline, but rather as an accurate count for the first time," he said. "When they were published, it was the first time since the launch of Project Tiger 35 years earlier that we had a count of tigers done on a scientific basis, and results which would be stuck to by government scientists and conservationists, and could form the basis of action."

Mr Mills, who scripted the 1993 BBC film Tiger Crisis which revealed for the first time the extent of the trade in tiger bones and other body parts which was helping drive the decline, sets out a lengthy argument for hope for the survival of Panthera tigris in the current issue of BBC Wildlife magazine, giving five reasons for optimism. The first he says, is the 2007 census itself and the follow-up action from the Indian government, including setting up a new National Tiger Conservation Authority with a $140m (£95m), five-year plan for conservation measures, a Wildlife Crime Bureau and an armed Tiger Protection Force to combat poachers. The census itself provides the way forward.

"For the first time, government scientists and conservationists are in agreement," he writes. And efforts are being made to restore the ravages of the poachers: young tigers have been airlifted into the Sariska reserve to establish a new population. Second, Mr Mills points to efforts to identify new tiger habitat, led by the wild cat protection organisation, Panthera, headed by the celebrated American biologist Alan Rabinowitz. Dr Rabinowitz has identified vast tracts of tiger forest habitat in Burma, Thailand and Laos where there is potential for a significant increase in tiger numbers if they are protected. "He believes although only 5 per cent of the tiger's original habitat remains worldwide, it is enough to support a total population of 15,000 to 20,000 tigers," Mr Mills writes.

Third, he notes that efforts to engage local communities with tiger conservation are beginning to bear fruit. For example, in Nepal, there are now more than 1,500 Community User Forest Groups working to manage their own forests sustainably through understanding their value, including understanding the value of all wildlife. Fourth, Mr Mills takes hope from the stability of the world's largest single tiger-breeding population, the 500 Siberian tigers of the Russian Far East. He thinks these may be able to repopulate previous tiger habitat, including areas across the border in China.

Last, he notes there is reduction in the demand for tiger body parts, in particular skins used as ceremonial robes in Tibet, an extensive market revealed only in 2005, but which the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has since publicly condemned.

Mr Mills writes: "So can I really imagine 20,000 tigers living wild once more in Asia? I think I can." It would be unfair to expect too much of rural people in the most crowded habitats, he says. "We must support them and respect their needs." And India's leading experts do not believe that, in the long run, the country's tigers can survive outside strictly protected reserves. But it might be possible elsewhere, as much more is known now about tigers themselves and how to conserve them, and the animal is highly adaptable.

Mr Mills said: "I've written doom-laden articles and campaigns about tigers but now I feel the message has got through. You can't say 'tiger' to anybody without them understanding they're a diminishing and valuable resource. With many governments understanding this, perhaps we can protect the tiger and perhaps it can survive."


Read more!

Ban fishing in third of UK seas, says Marine Conservation Society

Fishing should be banned in a third of the seas around the UK, according to conservationists.

Louise Gray, The Telegraph 8 Dec 08;

For the past few decades fish stocks in the oceans around Britain have been depleting due to overfishing, causing a knock-on effect to other species.

Once-common species are now facing extinction, including the common skate, angel shark, sturgeon and leatherback turtle which are all critically endangered.

In order to protect the wildlife that is left, the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) want a third of UK waters to be designated as "no-take" nature reserves by 2020 as part of the Marine Bill currently going through Parliament.

Dr Jean-Luc Solandt, biodiversity policy officer for MCS, said: "We have dithered while Rome burns.

"Marine reserves are a cost-effective way to achieve benefits for wildlife and the fish species that rely on habitats being protected for the long term.

"It makes social, economic and ecological sense. We must no longer fear these simple and cheap methods to recover our seas and embrace their proven value for marine management."

He warned that currently the Bill, which puts a duty on ministers to create marine conservation zones but does not indicate what they would look like or what level of protection they would receive, was "just window-dressing in terms of recovery and sustainability".

In addition to the 30 per cent of the seas that should be protected as broad habitats, specialist areas such as sea grass beds and reefs should be safeguarded, he added.

A Defra spokesman said: "The Marine Bill is a new flexible tool which will allow us to provide better marine protection, for example through Marine Conservation Zones to safeguard rare and threatened habitats and species.

"Separately the UK wants to secure a sustainable Common Fisheries Policy which ensures both conservation of fish stocks and a living for fishermen and dependent industries."

Call to widen curbs on UK fishing
BBC News 8 Dec 08;

Fishing should be banned in almost a third of UK seas to help stocks recover from decades of harm, campaigners say.

The Co-operative Group wants 30% of UK waters to become "no-take" reserves by 2020 to reverse decades of overfishing.

It says just eight out of 47 fishing stocks are healthy and warns once-common species now face extinction.

The campaign, backed by the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), calls for the measures to be included in the government's Marine Bill.

The Co-operative's Marine Reserves Now campaign aims to help wildlife recover from overfishing and habitat destruction.

Spokesman Paul Monaghan said: "The need for an extensive network of marine reserves around the UK is an uncomfortable truth.

"In UK waters there are 22 species - such as the common skate and Atlantic halibut - listed as critically endangered.

"Most worryingly, the rate of biodiversity loss is accelerating, highlighting the need for quick and decisive science-led action," he said.

Other once-common species facing extinction include the angel shark, sturgeon and leatherback turtle.

Dr Jean-luc Solandt, the MCS's biodiversity policy officer, said: "Marine reserves are a cost-effective way to achieve benefits for wildlife and the fish species that rely on habitats being protected for the long term. it makes social, economic and ecological sense."

'Window-dressing '

He said the recently published Marine Bill puts a duty on ministers to create marine conservation zones, but does not indicate protection levels.

In terms of recovery and sustainability, it was "window-dressing", he said.

The Marine and Coastal Access Bill, aimed at helping wildlife thrive in biologically diverse seas, is due to have a second reading in the Lords this month.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended four years ago that 30% of UK seas be protected as marine reserves closed to commercial fishing.

There are two highly protected marine reserves - off Lundy Island, in the Bristol Channel and Lamlash Bay, in Scotland.

The MCS also wants protection for specialist areas like sea grass beds and reefs.

Around 10% of Lyme Bay, in Dorset, was permanently closed this summer due to the damaging effects of scallop dredging and bottom trawling on reefs, corals and rare sponges.


Read more!

Back at Junk Value, Recyclables Are Piling Up

Matt Richtel and Kate Galbraith, The New York Times 8 Dec 08;

Trash has crashed.

The economic downturn has decimated the market for recycled materials like cardboard, plastic, newspaper and metals. Across the country, this junk is accumulating by the ton in the yards and warehouses of recycling contractors, which are unable to find buyers or are unwilling to sell at rock-bottom prices.

Ordinarily the material would be turned into products like car parts, book covers and boxes for electronics. But with the slump in the scrap market, a trickle is starting to head for landfills instead of a second life.

“It’s awful,” said Briana Sternberg, education and outreach coordinator for Sedona Recycles, a nonprofit group in Arizona that recently stopped taking certain types of cardboard, like old cereal, rice and pasta boxes. There is no market for these, and the organization’s quarter-acre yard is already packed fence to fence.

“Either it goes to landfill or it begins to cost us money,” Ms. Sternberg said.

In West Virginia, an official of Kanawha County, which includes Charleston, the state capital, has called on residents to stockpile their own plastic and metals, which the county mostly stopped taking on Friday. In eastern Pennsylvania, the small town of Frackville recently suspended its recycling program when it became cheaper to dump than to recycle. In Montana, a recycler near Yellowstone National Park no longer takes anything but cardboard.

There are no signs yet of a nationwide abandonment of recycling programs. But industry executives say that after years of growth, the whole system is facing an abrupt slowdown.

Many large recyclers now say they are accumulating tons of material, either because they have contracts with big cities to continue to take the scrap or because they are banking on a price rebound in the next six months to a year.

“We’re warehousing it and warehousing it and warehousing it,” said Johnny Gold, senior vice president at the Newark Group, a company that has 13 recycling plants across the country. Mr. Gold said the industry had seen downturns before but not like this. “We never saw this coming.”

The precipitous drop in prices for recyclables makes the stock market’s performance seem almost enviable.

On the West Coast, for example, mixed paper is selling for $20 to $25 a ton, down from $105 in October, according to Official Board Markets, a newsletter that tracks paper prices. And recyclers say tin is worth about $5 a ton, down from $327 earlier this year. There is greater domestic demand for glass, so its price has not fallen as much.

This is a cyclical industry that has seen price swings before. The scrap market in general is closely tied to economic conditions because demand for some recyclables tracks closely with markets for new products. Cardboard, for instance, turns into the boxes that package electronics, rubber goes to shoe soles, and metal is made into auto parts.

One reason prices slid so rapidly this time is that demand from China, the biggest export market for recyclables from the United States, quickly dried up as the global economy slowed. China’s influence is so great that in recent years recyclables have been worth much less in areas of the United States that lack easy access to ports that can ship there.

The downturn offers some insight into the forces behind the recycling boom of recent years. Environmentally conscious consumers have been able to pat themselves on the back and feel good about sorting their recycling and putting it on the curb. But most recycling programs have been driven as much by raw economics as by activism.

Cities and their contractors made recycling easy in part because there was money to be made. Businesses, too — like grocery chains and other retailers — have profited by recycling thousands of tons of materials like cardboard each month.

But the drop in prices has made the profits shrink, or even disappear, undermining one rationale for recycling programs and their costly infrastructure.

“Before, you could be green by being greedy,” said Jim Wilcox, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. “Now you’ve really got to rely more on your notions of civic participation.”

The impact of the downturn on individual recycling efforts varies. Most cities are keeping their recycling programs, in some cases because they are required by law, but also because the economics, while they have soured, still favor recycling over landfills.

In New York City, for instance, the city is getting paid $10 for a ton of paper, down from $50 or more before October, but it has no plans to cease recycling, said Robert Lange, the city’s recycling director. In Boston, one of the hardest-hit markets, prices are down to $5 a ton, and the city expects it will soon have to pay to unload its paper. But city officials said that would still be better than paying $80 a ton to put it in a landfill.

Some small towns are refusing to recycle some material, particularly the less lucrative plastics and metals, and experts say more are likely to do so if the price slump persists.

Businesses and institutions face their own challenges and decisions. Harvard, for instance, sends mixed recyclables — including soda bottles and student newspapers — to a nearby recycling center that used to pay $10 a ton. In November, Harvard received two letters from the recycler, the first saying it would begin charging $10 a ton and the second saying the price had risen to $20.

“I haven’t checked my mail today, but I hope there isn’t another one in there,” said Rob Gogan, the recycling and waste manager for the university’s facilities division. He said he did not mind paying as long as the price was less than $87 a ton, the cost for trash disposal.

The collapse of the market is slowing the momentum of recycling overall, said Mark Arzoumanian, editor in chief of Official Board Markets. He said the problem would hurt individual recycling businesses, but also major retailers, like Wal-Mart Stores, that profit by selling refuse.

Mr. Arzoumanian said paper mills in China and the United States that had signed contracts requiring them to buy recycled paper were seeking wiggle room, invoking clauses that cover extraordinary circumstances. “They are declaring ‘force majeure,’ which is a phrase I’d never thought I’d hear in paper recycling,” he said.

Mr. Arzoumanian and others said mills were also starting to become pickier about what they take in, rejecting cardboard and other products that they say are “contaminated” by plastic ties or other material.

The situation has also been rough on junk poachers — people who made a profitable trade of picking off cardboard and other refuse from bins before the recycling trucks could get to it. Those poachers have shut their operations, said Michael Sangiacomo, chief executive of Norcal Waste Systems, a recycling and garbage company that serves Northern California.

“I knew it was really bad a few weeks ago when our guys showed up and the corrugated cardboard was still there,” he said. “People started calling, saying ‘You didn’t pick up our cardboard,’ and I said, ‘We haven’t picked up your cardboard for years.’ ”

The recycling slump has even provoked a protest of sorts. At Ruthlawn Elementary School in South Charleston, W.V., second-graders who began recycling at the school in September were told that the program might be discontinued. They chose to forgo recess and instead use the time to write letters to the governor and mayor, imploring them to keep recycling, Rachel Fisk, their teacher, said.

The students’ pleas seem to have been heard; the city plans to start trucking the recyclables to Kentucky.

“They were telling them, ‘We really don’t care what you say about the economy. If you don’t recycle, our planet will be dirty,’ ” Ms. Fisk said.


Read more!

Ecoflation, a new worry, could hit consumer goods

Deborah Zabarenko, Reuters 8 Dec 08;

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Add another economic worry to inflation and deflation: ecoflation, the rising cost of doing business in a world with a changing climate.

Ecoflation could hit consumer goods hard in the next five to 10 years, according to a report by World Resources Institute and A.T. Kearney, a global management consulting firm.

Companies that make fast-moving consumer goods, everything from cereal to shampoo, could see earnings drop by 13 percent to 31 percent by 2013 and 19 percent to 47 percent by 2018 if they do not adopt sustainable environmental practices, the report said.

The costs of global warming are showing up now in the form of worse heat waves, droughts, wildfires and possibly more severe tropical storms but they are not yet reflected in consumer prices, said the institute's Andrew Aulisi after the report's December 2 release.

Instead, these costs are paid by governments and society, Aulisi said in a telephone interview. That could change if President-elect Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress push for a system that puts a price on the emission of climate-warming carbon dioxide, Aulisi said.

This is unlikely to happen next year in time for a December 2009 deadline to craft an international pact to fight climate change but it is more likely to happen in 2010.

These rising costs and possible tightening regulation of greenhouse gas emissions are not necessarily a bad thing, he said.

"The message we don't see in this study is that regulation is going to cost ... a lot of money," Aulisi said. "We think the analysis is a catalyst to convince companies to take greater action on these important issues."

LESS PLASTIC

In fact, some companies are already looking at ways to cut their emissions in advance of any new regulation, said Daniel Mahler of A.T. Kearney.

One example is consumer giant Procter & Gamble, which has a team looking across the company's varied laundry, hair-care and health-care businesses to see how they can use less plastic, a fossil-based material, Mahler said by telephone.

But the changes may need to go deeper and wider, he said, spreading to the basics of how supply chains are managed.

For instance, companies that presumed U.S. transportation costs would be low and U.S. labor costs would be high had their goods made in countries where employees would work for less. But a new cost to the carbon emitted by long-distance transport could change that equation, making foreign manufacturing less attractive, Mahler said.

Within the United States, there could be a move away from big, centralized manufacturing plants to smaller, more widely dispersed ones, according to Mahler.

"That is not a little tactical change," he said. "It is an infrastructure change that we see companies ... addressing much more aggressively than they had been in the past."

Under the ecoflation scenario, the world's major economies are likely to set a price on carbon emissions of $50 a tonne, Aulisi said.

That is between five and 10 times the price of carbon being traded on voluntary markets in the United States now. There is no mandatory U.S. carbon market, though the first regional market will begin trading in January.

(Editing by Bill Trott)


Read more!

U.N. says climate change may uproot 6 million annually

Megan Rowling, Reuters 8 Dec 08;

POZNAN, Poland (Reuters) - The impact of climate change could uproot around six million people each year, half of them because of weather disasters like floods and storms, a top U.N. official said on Monday.

The U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) was making plans based on conservative estimates that global warming would force between 200 million and 250 million people from their homes by mid-century, said L. Craig Johnstone, the U.N. Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees.

"That means a displacement of something like six million people a year -- that's a staggering number," he told Reuters on the sidelines of the December 1-12 U.N. climate talks in Poland.

"Our operating assumption is to cover the minimum ... but we're not anywhere near being able to cover that right now," he said.

Johnstone said relief agencies would need to aid almost three million people a year displaced by sudden disasters.

Another three million would likely migrate due to gradual changes like rising sea levels, and be more able to plan.

UNHCR statistics show 67 million people were uprooted around the world at the end of 2007, 25 million of them because of natural disasters.

Johnstone said steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change would not be enough to prevent rising disasters or conflict over resources, which would hit the poorest people hardest.

"You can expect that as you have droughts, as you have scarcity of resources ... it will increase tensions and it will increase conflict," he said.

But plans could be made to deal with disasters because experts understood which areas of the world would likely be affected, he said.

Predicted global warming impacts include more intense storms hitting coastal areas in Asia and the Caribbean, and more frequent floods and droughts in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Johnstone said aid agencies would need to boost the relief supplies they keep in stock for emergencies by 10 to 20 times.

"(Climate change) adds a substantial additional burden to humanity," he said. "(UNHCR's) presence in the world corresponds almost perfectly with the hotspots ... So we will be called on to help and we need to be prepared for that."

He added that a new global climate pact due to be agreed by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen should include funding to prepare for disasters, because it would save money in the long run.

(Reporting by Megan Rowling, editing by Diana Abdallah)


Read more!

The Energy Debates: Solar Farms

Charles Q. Choi, livescience.com Yahoo News 8 Dec 08;

Editor's Note: "The Energy Debates" is a LiveScience series about the pros, cons, policy debates, myths and facts related to various alternative energy ideas. We invite you to join the debate by commenting directly on each article.

The Facts

The amount of energy from the sun that falls on Earth is staggering. Averaged over the entire surface of the planet, roughly each square yard collects nearly as much energy each year as you'd get from burning a barrel of oil. Solar farms seek to harness this energy for megawatts of power.

There are two ways solar power is used to generate electricity. Solar thermal plants - also known as concentrating solar power systems - focus sunlight with mirrors, heating water and producing steam that drives electric turbines, while photovoltaic cells directly convert sunlight to electricity.

Altogether, solar currently makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. energy, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. The nation now has just two large-scale solar thermal systems - one 354-megawatt set of facilities has run continuously in the Mojave Desert in California for about 20 years, and another 64-megawatt plant came online in Nevada last year. When it comes to solar photovoltaics, the largest system in the nation so far is the 14-megawatt plant at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

However, more solar farms are rapidly under construction. Utilities in California and Florida have announced plans for at least eight new solar thermal power stations totaling more than 2,000 megawatts, while two photovoltaic projects are currently under development in California that would bring a total of 800 megawatts of power.

"You can expect to see a lot more of these solar power systems as the market for these technologies gets built out and manufacturing costs come down," said Cliff Chen, senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group.

Pros

Solar energy is clean, renewable and has vast potential. "If a concentrated solar power system was built that was a hundred mile by hundred mile square in size out in the Southwest (United States), which has some of the best solar resources in the entire world, or you covered 1 percent of the country's land with photovoltaics, either strategy would be more than enough to meet the country's entire energy demand," Chen said. "The sky really is the limit."

Creating solar farms to meet energy demands while avoiding concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions "could create hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs in the U.S.," he added.

Another advantage of solar power is that it is usually produced during peak demand for electricity - for instance, during hot summer days when air conditioners are often full-blast. That means that value of the electricity that it produces is significantly higher, Chen explained - for example, at least 20 to 30 percent higher in California.

Photovoltaics have a slight advantage over solar thermal systems in that the latter do not require water, which can be an understandable advantage in the desert, where many solar farms are located. On the other hand, solar thermal systems can work in the shade for brief amounts of time, since the heated fluids they depend on can stay hot enough to generate electricity for some time without the sun, while photovoltaics need sunlight.

Cons

The sun is not always out, which means solar power suffers at night or when it is cloudy. However, solar thermal systems can store excess solar energy as heat in molten salt, to generate power even in the dark. Photovoltaics could store energy in batteries, but this will likely not happen on a large scale until battery costs drop significantly.

The high cost of solar power has traditionally kept it from entering the mainstream - for instance, the budget for the 64-megawatt Nevada Solar One concentrated solar power system ran up to $250 million. Still, the price of solar power has declined steadily over the past 30 years, and continues to drop significantly each year, Chen said.

"Credible sources of cost estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and electricity industry consultant firms such as Black & Veatch suggest the cost of photovoltaics will drop by half in the next 10 to 15 years and by 30 to 40 percent for concentrated solar power systems in the same time frame," he noted. "That drop in price for concentrated solar power could even make it competitive with natural gas."

One concern is that a lot of the sunniest land in the western United States ideal for solar power is federally managed, with many agencies often having overlapping jurisdictions there, making it challenging to set up solar farms on it, Chen explained. Also, the best places to build solar farms are typically in the desert, far away from the population centers that need the most electricity, often meaning that new power lines have to be raised, potentially running into more jurisdiction issues as well as "not-in-my-backyard" concerns.

"Transmission lines are some of the least popular public projects in the country," Chen said. "The good news is that a lot of solar power projects can be built on smaller scales, which means that they can be located closer to existing transmission stations and not need as much in the way of lines."


Read more!

EU agrees to switch off old-style light bulbs by Sep 2012

Yahoo News 8 Dec 08;

BRUSSELS (AFP) – The European Union decided to phase out traditional household light bulbs by September 2012 in favour of new energy-saving models that use a fraction of the electricity.

From next September, 100-watt versions of the old incandescent bulbs will be banned from Europe's shops and other bulbs with lower wattage will follow in the ensuing years, EU experts decided in a vote in Brussels.

"It's very clear that this is a measure that will change the way that we consume energy," EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs told journalists.

The European Commission estimated that the measure would save the electricity consumption equivalent to 11 million European households or the yearly output of ten 500-megawatt power stations.

It also said that the move should cut carbon dioxide emissions by 15 million tonnes as well as save households as much as 50 euros a year on their electricity bills.

At the moment, around 85 percent of household lights are considered to use too much electricity.

EU nations have agreed to make 20-percent cuts in energy use by 2020 as part of a wider climate change package.

New technology light bulbs, such as compact florescent lights (CFL) can save up to 80 percent of the energy used by the worst old-style lights in homes.

Piebalgs said that the phasing out had to be gradual so that "production facilities could adapt to the new lighting" and the quality of light could be ensured.

"We really needed to be sure that in phasing out conventional light bulbs, we would have the same quality of light," he said. "Money is being saved, CO2 emission are being saved, but the quality of light isn't changing."

The decision still has to be endorsed by the European Parliament.

EU climate package explained
BBC News 5 Dec 08;

The EU is trying to hammer out a final deal on a climate change package that is supposed to become law in the 27-nation EU early next year.

The original package presented by the European Commission in January 2008 is expected to be watered down to some extent, because the financial crisis has amplified concern about the economic cost of green energy. EU countries are divided over how to share out that burden and limit the economic pain.

The package focuses on three areas: emissions cuts, renewables and energy efficiency.

The EU's credibility is at stake as it aims to be a model in the run-up to a new global climate pact to be signed in Copenhagen in a year's time. That pact will succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012.

But pressure is mounting from EU member states for other major polluters worldwide to adopt similar targets.

France, which holds the EU presidency until January, has the tricky task of keeping all 27 member states on board at the EU summit on 11-12 December.

EMISSIONS CUTS AND THE ETS

The European Commission and EU governments agreed on the target of cutting greenhouse gases by at least 20% by 2020, compared with 1990 levels.

The target will rise to 30% if an international agreement is reached committing other developed countries and the more advanced developing nations to comparable emission reductions.

The EU launched its pioneering Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2005. But to meet the new targets for emissions cuts changes to the ETS are required.

Under the ETS, permits for emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) are distributed under a system of national allocations. The permits are traded - so big polluters can buy extra ones from greener enterprises.

The EU aims to reduce the allocations by 21% from 2005 levels by 2020. And there is to be one EU-wide cap on the number of permits, rather than individual national allocation plans.

The ETS covers about 10,000 heavy industrial plants across the EU - notably power plants, oil refineries and steel mills - which together account for almost half the EU's CO2 emissions, the commission says.

All major industrial emitters of CO2 are to be brought under the ETS and the scheme will also include greenhouse gases other than CO2 - nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons.

Many permits were given away for free in the first ETS phase. But from 2013 enterprises in the power sector will have to buy all their permits at auction, under the EU plans. For other industrial sectors and aviation full auctioning will be phased in by 2020.

The move to full auctioning is proving contentious. German industrial groups say full auctioning will cost them billions of euros - costs that they could not pass on to customers.

Similar warnings have come from new EU member states in Central and Eastern Europe - especially Poland, which is heavily dependent on coal. Italy has added its voice to the protests.

Concessions over the ETS targets may be necessary to prevent Italy or Poland vetoing the whole climate package - a threat that was made at the October EU summit.

Another option may be for the richer EU member states to compensate the poorer ones, to help cover the costs.

Full auctioning might also be delayed for specific sectors where it is feared there could simply be a transfer of jobs or plant to non-EU countries where the rules on emissions are not as strict - so-called "carbon leakage".

Revenues from the auctioning of permits will go to member states' treasuries, but the commission says they should devote at least 20% of that income to low-carbon technology and innovation. National budget pressures are now threatening that target too.

The EU has already softened the targets for reducing CO2 emissions from cars, under pressure from carmakers hit hard by the economic downturn.

A key area of green innovation is carbon capture and storage (CCS) - new technologies that allow industrial CO2 emissions to be captured and stored underground, where they cannot harm the climate.

There are plans to build 10 to 12 big pilot plants in the EU by 2015, with a view to making CCS commercially viable by about 2020. The plants would be funded by revenue from the ETS.

RENEWABLES

The EU package sets the goal of increasing renewable energy's share of the market to 20% by 2020, from around 8.5% today.

Within that goal, 10% of transport fuels will have to come from biofuels. The commission wants a strict certification system to ensure that only biofuels achieving a real cut of at least 35% in CO2 emissions will be allowed.

The use of food-based biofuels is under review because of concern about deforestation and food shortages in developing countries.

The renewables targets for member states differ because they are at different stages in their use of wind energy, solar power, hydroelectric power and other green sources. The UK's proposed target is 15% by 2020, because the UK is far behind many other EU countries in the area of renewables.

The commission says the EU must embrace renewables not only to slow climate change but also because the EU's reliance on imported gas is set to increase from 57% currently to 84% by 2030, and on imported oil from 82% to 93%.

The creation of new jobs in renewable energy technologies is another benefit, the commission argues.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Energy consumption is to be cut by 20% by 2020 through improved energy efficiency, the package says.

The commission says state aid can legitimately be used to promote emissions cuts and increase take-up of renewables, so long as it does not breach EU competition rules.

On 3 December the commission came up with new proposals for the EU to co-finance national and local schemes to promote energy-efficient housing.

If the plan is adopted, the EU will help member states install double glazing, wall insulation and solar panels in housing, especially targeting low-income households.

The residential sector accounts for 25% of Europe's energy consumption, the commission says.


Read more!

EU shifts last hurdle to green energy deal

Pete Harrison, Reuters 8 Dec 08;

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union has resolved the last remaining dispute preventing a deal to boost green energy after Italy agreed to a compromise over its demand the laws be reviewed in 2014.

Negotiators last week struck a rough agreement to source 20 percent of EU energy from renewable sources, but they failed to break a deadlock between Italy and the European Parliament over Italy's demand for a review.

"We took significant steps forward today," Claudio Scajola, Italy's minister for economic development, told reporters.

The green energy laws are a major part of an EU package to fight climate change, which it hopes will help spur a global deal with other big emitters like China and the United States.

The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) welcomed progress on what it described as the most important legislation in the industry's history.

EU sources said Monday's compromise meant that while the green energy proposals could be altered in 2014, national targets and financial support schemes could not be touched.

"Everybody was against a review clause that could have appeared as an escape route," said Jean-Louis Borloo, France's environment minister.

The deal will still need approval by the European Parliament and all 27 European Union nations before becoming law, but is not expected to change much.

"Europe is turning away from transferring ever larger amounts of European citizens' wealth to a handful of fuel-exporting nations, opting instead to put the money to work at home and exploit our abundant domestic renewable energy," said EWEA Chief Executive Christian Kjaer.

The breakthrough paved the way for a package of measures forcing EU nations to roll out detailed strategies on how to reach their national targets for green energy.

And mechanisms have been agreed to improve the access of renewable energy to electricity grids.

"The grid and administrative barriers whose shadows loom long over wind energy project developers will finally be tackled," said EWEA's Kjaer.

(Additional reporting by Francesco Guarascio; Editing by Sophie Hares)


Read more!

Poznan is a shambles

The world cannot afford the climate conference's foot-dragging on carbon cuts. We need action now
Kevin Watkins, The Guardian 6 Dec 08;

The crucial climate change negotiations in Poznan, Poland, are heading nowhere fast. Charged with producing a plan for cutting carbon emissions, governments have so far produced copious amounts of hot air and little else, with ministers recycling vague promises of future action.

They doubtless go to bed at night muttering a variant of St Augustine's prayer: "Oh Lord make us chaste - but not just yet." Unfortunately, this is one of those now or never moments. The conference marks the halfway point on the road map for negotiating a new UN climate convention. It is supposed to prepare the ground for a global grand bargain aimed at tackling the greatest challenge that humanity has faced.

Put starkly, Poznan must head off a collision between the energy systems that drive our economies, and the Earth's biosphere. Ambitious targets must be at the heart of any agreement. But we also need a new institutional architecture for cooperation between rich and poor countries.

If we are to have any chance of keeping global temperature increases below a 2C tipping point, greenhouse gas emissions will have to fall by over 50% by 2050. On current trends, they will rise by 50% by 2030. Such an outcome would lead to unprecedented reversals in human development in our lifetime followed in short order by ecological catastrophe for future generations. Economies can recover from a financial crisis. But there is no antidote or rewind button for global warming.

At Poznan, rich countries should be taking the lead. They need to signal a binding commitment to reducing their carbon footprint by at least 80%. More than that, they need to signal serious intent. Above all, that means closing the gap between climate change targets and energy policies.

The British government's carbon budget targets are ambitious. They are also inconsistent with current policies on renewable energy, the commissioning of coal-fired power stations, and another runway at Heathrow. The EU may have set carbon quota ceilings, but these are way above the targets set for cutting emissions.

President-elect Obama is inheriting a climate change policy bereft of credible targets or strategies.

Rich countries have the financial resources and technological capacity to make a rapid low-carbon transition: by putting a higher price on carbon emissions through taxation, quotas, and tougher regulatory standards, and developing and commercialising new technologies. Carbon capture and storage is a priority, yet neither the US nor the EU has gone beyond small-scale pilot projects.

Rich countries also need to lay the foundations for a new global compact with developing countries. It is not just that these countries are home to the populations most vulnerable to climate change. They also account for the bulk of the projected increase in CO2 emissions to 2030, with coal-fired economic growth in China and India the main driver.

Governments in Poznan need to put in place three foundations for a global deal. First, we need a plan of action on adaptation backed by increased aid. For millions of vulnerable people in drought-prone areas of Africa, flood zones in South Asia, and elsewhere, dangerous climate change is is happening now.

Second, developed countries need to reduce deforestation. Investments of $17-30bn annually could halve deforestation levels, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10%.

Third, the world needs a Marshall Plan for low-carbon financing and technology transfer. Scaling-up emissions trading must be part of that plan, alongside wider multilateral mechanisms. Covering the incremental costs of low carbon technologies for coal-fired power generation and renewable energy would give developing countries an incentive to join a global deal - and to decarbonise their energy systems.

The world cannot afford the type of shambolic display on show in Poznan. Over the past few months, rich governments have moved financial mountains to protect the integrity of their banking systems. What price the ecological integrity of our planet, the wellbeing of future generations, and our commitments to the world's poor?

• Kevin Watkins is senior research fellow at Oxford University's global economic governance programme


Read more!