Category: Sustainable Settlement and Agriculture

The Generator is founded on the simple premise that we should leave the world in better condition than we found it. The news items in this category outline the attempts people have made to do this. They are mainly concerned with our food supply and settlement patterns. The impact that the human race has on the planet.

  • Financial crisis leaving billions malnourished:UN

     

    The annual survey of world hunger describes a food price crisis with prices settling at levels too high for many people in developing countries to afford.

    The general increase in population, the number of mouths to feed – is one factor.

    But the authors of the Global Hunger Index say today’s high food prices are also caused by the global economic downturn, erratic weather patterns and higher oil and fertiliser prices.

    The report also identifies one possible solution – the empowerment of women through better education and access to jobs.

    BBC

  • Millions will starve as rich nations cut food aid funding, warns UN

     

    Food riots in more than 20 countries last year persuaded rich countries to give a record $5bn to the WFP to help avert a global food crisis brought on by record oil prices and the growth of biofuel crops. But new data seen by the Observer show that food aid is now at its lowest in 20 years. Countries have offered only $2.7bn in the first 10 months of 2009.

    The US, by far the world’s biggest contributor to food aid, has so far pledged $800m less than in 2008; Saudi Arabia has paid only $10m in 2009 compared with $500m in 2008; and the EU has given $130m less. Britain’s promise of $69m (£43.5m) this year is nearly $100m (£63m) less than 2008, and, if nothing more is given, will be its lowest contribution since 2001.

    “Even under our best scenarios, we will end the year $2bn short,” said Sheeran. “Many of our funders do not feel that they need to give on the level of last year. They think the world food crisis is over, but in 80% of countries food prices are actually higher than one year ago.”

    World food supplies are under increased strain this year following a succession of droughts, typhoons, floods and earthquakes that have destroyed crops in Africa and south-east Asia. But human needs are also greater because the financial crisis has led to widespread unemployment. In addition, the remittances from foreign nationals living in rich countries to their families at home are 20% lower than last year.

    Last month the UN said that the number of hungry people in the world had increased by more than 150 million in a single year to more than one billion. Aid agencies last week warned of severe food shortages in southern India after heavy floods damaged hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of crops.

    “There is a silent tsunami [of hunger] gathering. You cannot see or hear it, but it’s in all these villages, killing people just as hard. This is the worst food crisis since the 1970s. We will lose a generation. Children will never recover,” said Sheeran.

    More than 40 million people could be affected by the WFP’s enforced scaling back of its food rations. Countries most likely to be hit include Bangladesh, where the budget is likely to be cut by as much as 50%, and Kenya, where similar cuts will worsen the plight of millions of extra people made destitute by a long drought.

    The new rations, which are reserved for people who have no access to food, will fall below what aid agencies consider a survival ration and will provide, at most, one meagre meal a day. “We are making hard choices over who to feed. We are very aware that as we dismantle [feeding programmes] it may take out the underpinning of society and leads to political destabilisation,” said Sheeran.

    Aid agencies last night urged rich countries to pledge more. “We are very concerned about the large budget shortfall faced by WFP, which means the programme has to cut the food rations to millions of people who rely on this assistance for their very survival,” said Fred Mousseau, Oxfam’s humanitarian policy adviser. “This will translate into more child deaths, with more than 16,000 children already dying from hunger-related causes every day.”

  • Prepare for a Copenhagen compromise

     

    Fortunately this isn’t deal or no deal – on some issues agreement is possible. But to get there nations must accept that the outcome of Copenhagen will be an uneven and incomplete series of compromises.

    The bad news is that laggards such as Australia, Canada and the US are going to have to be let off the hook and allowed to pledge to meet targets grossly out of line with their responsibility for climate change. But the political reality is that there is a limit to what they will commit to this year. Push too hard and we face a nightmare scenario where they either lead a race to the bottom, dragging down developed world targets, or just walk away, derailing the process completely.

    This will, of course, further enrage developing nations, so laggard states must try to find ways to appease the developing world. Most obviously they should make a large contribution to financing what will be an expensive deal. The inadequacy of the range of policies proposed by the US could also be off-set through increased bi-lateral cooperation with China on designing, manufacturing and deploying clean technology, expanding on the memorandum of understanding they signed on climate change earlier this year. It goes without saying that the US must also end hypocritical posturing about China and India and shelve ridiculous threats to impose tariffs on goods from these countries.

    These kinds of compromises, though imperfect and distasteful, will be acceptable if there is progress on what the Maldives described as the “beefier” issues. Negotiators need to focus their efforts on reaching agreement on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and on how to expand the use of clean technology in the developing world. It would also be a significant step forward to begin the process of facilitating financial flows to help the poorest adapt in the face of droughts, floods and crop-failure. Ultimately a focus on the practicalities is better than empty promises about short term targets.

    The importance of progress on these beefy issues cannot be understated either. Deforestation, for instance, is one of the largest drivers of climate change. To avoid disaster nations must tackle this issue now. Negotiations on forests are at a crucial juncture in Bangkok this week and there is a real possibility that they might go very wrong. The current negotiating text does not explicitly protect intact natural forests and might inadvertently provide financial incentive to those who convert forests to other uses. An agreement at Copenhagen could start a process that initially slows and eventually stops deforestation, but there is a danger that without sufficient attention and pressure, it could perversely encourage it.

    It is worth remembering that Copenhagen will be just another step forwards, part of an ongoing process of crafting a response to climate change. Ideally this summit will lay the practical foundations for this response. But if nations fail to agree on at least some of these issues this December, then negotiations will become even more of an unyielding morass, which would be a bad thing for everyone.

  • Redd in Africa: how we can earn money from air by harvesting carbon

     

    Rukinga is on the frontline of global deforestation: every month, dozens of large gangs of commercial charcoal-makers are caught cutting down trees and building crude fire pits to make cooking fuel for the port city of Mombasa 100 miles away. No one knows exactly how many thousands of tonnes of trees are lost a year, but at estimated present rates the reserve could be like much of the land between it and the coast – semi-desert, treeless and barren of animals – within 20 years.

    This could change this week if countries agree to back a revolutionary UN plan to preserve the world’s forests by allowing owners to trade the carbon stored in endangered forests on condition the trees are not felled. The plan aims to slash the 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions that come from deforestation and is one of the few aspects of a global deal to fight climate change that looks on track to be settled, with key talks taking place this week in Bangkok.

    If the ranch’s owners can show that Rukinga’s trees and shrubs are under threat, and independent scientists can calculate the amount of carbon in its forest, the ranch could qualify as an international Redd (Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries) project, attracting millions of dollars of carbon credits.

    The carbon saved would be traded on the growing voluntary carbon market and after 2012 when the next round of the Kyoto treaty becomes affective, Rukinga could qualify as an official Kenyan government Redd scheme, attracting public money from Britain and other rich countries seeking to offset emissions they have legally committed to cut.

    British conservationist Rob Dodwell and California-based dotcom millionaire Mike Korchinsky, the ranch’s two main shareholders, say they have spent $400,000 (£251,000) over six months measuring Rukinga’s trees and getting their Redd application validated. Despite the deep concerns of many observers about how open to fraud Redd projects are, the pair are determined to show it can be done properly.

    The carbon stored has been provisionally estimated at around 160 tonnes an acre, which at the present world price of carbon could earn Rukinga nearly $2m a year — a big return for land bought only 10 years ago for around $10 an acre. Dodwell and the 50 local community shareholders of Rukinga will continue to earn money from eco-tourism and cattle, but hope to earn a lot more from farming carbon.

    “We calculate that one third of the money [earned] from carbon will go to protect the forest. One third will be cash, like dividends for shareholders, and one sixth will go to the carbon broker. The rest is profit. About $600,000 would go back into the environment every year to protect the trees. It would secure the jobs of the 150 people who already work on Rukinga and it could lead to 100 more jobs. We would need to employ tree patrols, administrators and others. The local shareholders who own 10% of the ranch would earn a lot of money. The wildlife would benefit from the habitat protection and it would cut climate change emissions,” says Dodwell.

     

    The local communities were at first bemused, but are now delighted: “When the idea was proposed, we thought ‘how can you earn money from air?’. We asked how you could harvest carbon? We wondered if you needed containers,” says Alphonse Mwaidoma, chair of nearby Kasigau ranch. “Now, everyone realises it will change everything. Since 1971 we have never had any benefits from the ranch. We get very small dividends, enough to buy just a few bags of sugar or paraffin. Some of the [new] money would go as dividends; some we would put to long term development of the community and scholarships.”

    Dodwell and Korchinsky, who are also planning to get a 1.8m acre tract of virgin Cameroonian forest classified as a Redd project, potentially earning themselves and 10,000 forest pygmies who live there nearly $10m a year, say they want local people and wildlife to benefit. But they accept that the Redd system is wide open to be abused by organised crime and corrupt governments and businesses.

    “There’s a great worldwide scramble going on to find land that would qualify for Redd schemes. But there are no guidelines on how to find out how many tonnes of carbon there are,” says Dodwell.

    “Redd has the potential to be fantastic for commuities but also to go horribly wrong. Logging companies may turn into carbon companies. In most countries in Africa you can do what you like, log out the trees, put in roads, do anything. There is little or no monitoring. The rewards could be 99% for me and 0.5% for the communities,” he said.

    There are signs that many nascent Redd projects are already leading to social conflict, possible fraud and worsening land disputes. In July, the director of climate change in Papua New Guinea was suspended following allegations that unofficial carbon credits worth $100m had been issued from 39 potential Redd projects by an Australian-based carbon company. Landowners claimed they had been forced to sign over the rights to their forests by “carbon cowboys”. The scandal is embarrassing because Papua New Guinea, which has a history of rampant, illegal logging, is leading world efforts to have Redd schemes backed at the UN climate change talks which culminate in Copenhagen in December.

    Elsewhere, Redd projects are widely expected to reward political and commercial elites with billions of dollars of public money, with little or nothing reaching the communities who will be expected to protect the forests. In Indonesia, where 40 million people depend on forests, potential Redd projects are in limbo because much of Indonesia’s forests have never been surveyed, and land ownership is fiercely disputed.

    Local communities are supposed to earn a share of Redd credit sales to pay for better health, education and alternative livelihoods but out of 144 Redd projects analysed by the International Institute for Environment and Development, only one included a proposal to make community-managed forests or indigenous peoples’ rights a binding part of Redd.

     

    “The momentum is to get carbon reductions guaranteed above all else. But the overturning of power needed to make Redd work in some countries is almost inconceivable,” said James Mayer, head of the natural resources group at IIED.

    The Redd rush has been fuelled by conservation groups eager to save emissions but often naive about human rights and development work. US Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, WWF US, Environmental Defense Fund, Woods Hole Research Center, CIFOR, as well as US energy companies, hotel groups, hedge funds, banks and many private buinesses have signed deals with forest owners and are setting up their own Redd schemes.

    Hans Brattskar, director of Norway’s Forest and Climate Programme whose country is funding the UN-Redd programme, said he envisaged some difficulties could be overcome by sophisticated hi-tech surveillance mixed with on-the-spot monitoring by indigenous peoples. “We know that Redd will needs new laws, land reform and new institutions. But if countries do not perform they will not be paid. This is payment for services. The consequences if we fail are enormous.”

  • America is a toxic dump

     

    The worst part is that so much of what we throw away would not fit with most people’s perception of rubbish. I recently took part in an urban foraging tour in New York. I had intended only to be a casual observer, but when I saw the range of goodies on offer – organic still fresh fruits and vegetables, fancy olive breads, cured meats, bagels, donuts and other delectables, still sealed in non-biodegradable packaging, it seemed an awful shame to let it go to waste. Another dumpster dive led me to more durable goods like books, clothes, toys, furniture and electronic items in near perfect condition. Nothing, it appears, is too good to be discarded here.

    Unfortunately only a tiny percentage of the city’s refuse is reclaimed by foragers. The rest (which amounts to about 4,385,000 tons a year) is gathered by collection trucks which instantly crush it into compact piles, eliminating the possibility of further salvaging. It is then taken to a transfer station and from there either to an incinerator where it will be burned, releasing cancer causing dioxins into the air, or more likely to a landfill where it will decompose into a hazardous brew that leaches liquid waste into the soil and water and releases landfill gases into the air.

    These gases consist mostly of lethal methane, which according to the Environmental Protection Agency is a major contributor to global climate change, being 21-times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

    Garbage’s contribution to climate change does not stop with the polluting effects of the waste itself, however. As Heather Rogers points out in her book Gone Tomorrow: the Hidden Life of Garbage, the fact that the goods we throw out need to be continuously replaced leads to more pollution-causing processes and a further drain on our resources.

    The other travesty of our current waste-disposal system is that almost 60% of our landfill contents are compostable, and a further 30% consists of non-recyclable packaging and disposables which should never have been produced in the first place. But when you start looking into why this is the case, you come head to head with the biggest threat to the environment of all: the pursuit of profit.

    Lobbying groups like the National Association of Manufacturers, headquartered in Washington, have fought tooth and nail for decades against any restrictions on the highly profitable production of disposable containers and packaging. And at the other end of the equation, the equally powerful waste-management companies (a multi-billion-dollar industry) work on the simple premise that more trash equals more cash. It is far more profitable and much less labour intensive to dump unsorted garbage in a landfill than it is to separate it for compost or recycling.

    And so the pillage of nature continues unabated. Instead of any meaningful effort to reduce, reuse and recycle, we export any waste we can’t handle to poorer countries and find ever more ingenious ways to cover up the problem at home.

    Many US landfills, including the infamous Fresh Kills in New York, have been capped and sealed and reclaimed as public spaces. While this is definitely good for the neighbourhood, burying our sins and hiding them from view is not the answer to our problems and quite possibly has the effect of convincing consumers that it’s OK to throw away.

    We should keep in mind that no more than a mortician’s magic can render a corpse anything other than dead, no amount of top soil or innovative landscaping can render the toxic cocktail beneath anything other than deadly.

    Unlike the societies with no word for garbage, America has several – the most common being trash. The dictionary definition of trash is anything “useless, disreputable, worthless, foolish, pointless or nonsensical”.

    When you think about our current approach to the growing problem of garbage, that pretty much sums it up.

  • Southeast Drought Study Ties Water Shortage to Populaion,Not Global Warming/

    Southeast Drought Study Ties Water Shortage to Population, Not Global Warming

     

     

    Published: October 1, 2009

    The drought that gripped the Southeast from 2005 to 2007 was not unprecedented and resulted from random weather events, not global warming, Columbia University researchers have concluded. They say its severe water shortages resulted from population growth more than rainfall patterns.

    The researchers, who report their findings in an article in Thursday’s issue of The Journal of Climate, cite census figures showing that in Georgia alone the population rose to 9.54 million in 2007 from 6.48 million in 1990.

    “At the root of the water supply problem in the Southeast is a growing population,” they wrote.

    Richard Seager, a climate expert at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who led the study, said in an interview that when the drought struck, “people were wondering” whether climate change linked to a global increase in heat-trapping gases could be a cause.

    But after studying data from weather instruments, computer models and measurements of tree rings, which reflect yearly rainfall, “our conclusion was this drought was pretty normal and pretty typical by standards of what has happened in the region over the century,” Mr. Seager said.

    Similar droughts unfolded over the last thousand years, the researchers wrote. Regardless of climate change, they added, similar weather patterns can be expected regularly in the future, with similar results.

    In an interview, Douglas LeComte, a drought specialist at the Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service, said the new report “makes sense.” Although Weather Service records suggest the 2005-7 drought was the worst in the region since the 1950s, Mr. LeComte said, “we have had worse droughts before.”

    Some climate models developed by scientists predict that the Southeast will be wetter in a warming world. But the Columbia researchers said it would be unwise to view climate change as a potential solution to future water shortages.

    As the region’s temperature rises, there may be more rain, they wrote, but evaporation will increase, possibly leaving the area drier than ever.

    Mr. LeComte said that creating greater water storage capacity — say, in reservoirs — could mitigate drought effects in areas where population was rising.

    “I am not going to criticize any governments for what they did or did not do,” he said. “But if you have more people and the same amount of water storage, you are going to increase the impact of droughts.”

    The researchers said rainfall patterns in the Southeast were linked only weakly to weather patterns like La Niña and El Niño, the oscillating warm and cold conditions in the eastern Pacific linked to precipitation rates in the Southwestern United States.

    Instead, they wrote, any variation in rainfall in the Southeast commonly “arises from internal atmospheric processes and is essentially unpredictable.”