EcoRadio

Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • Arctic 5degrees hotter than usual

    That warming of the air and ocean impacts land and marine life and cuts the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer, according to the report.

    In addition, wild reindeer and caribou herds appear to be declining in numbers, according to the report.

    The report also noted melting of surface ice in Greenland.

    “Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions,” said report author James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.

    “It’s a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways.”
    Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, part of the University of Colorado, reported last month that Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level this northern summer.

    The 2008 season, those researchers said, strongly reinforces a 30-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent – 34 per cent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000, but 9 per cent above the record low set in 2007.

    Last year was the warmest on record in the Arctic, continuing a regionwide warming trend dating to the mid-1960s. Most experts blame climate change on human activities spewing so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

  • Local power generation saves regions and economy

    For many years, rural economies have depended upon the land: agriculture and forestry, minerals and fossil fuel resources, beautiful landscapes. But not everyone can farm. Minerals and fossil fuels vary widely in price and are finite. Beautiful landscapes may remain pristine, but tourism is a fickle business.

    Renewable energy development may be the catalyst for changing the rural economy. The boom in corn ethanol and soy biodiesel has provided many farmers with a market price above the cost of production for the first time in a generation. Large wind projects are providing steady lease payments to farmers who surrender a small portion of their land to the turbines.

    These benefits are sustainable because the resource is limitless. Wind will blow no matter how many turbines harness its energy and the sun will shine on rooftops and fields whether they’re bare or lined with solar panels. Simply put, the rural renewable resource is vast: the wind in just the Dakotas could supply 80 percent of U.S. electricity, the sun in Nevada could power the entire country. We could fuel half the nation’s cars with biofuel made of non-food biomass.

    This renewable resource can be harnessed in a centralized fashion or a decentralized one. But the rewards of harnessing it will mirror the style of development. A massive wind farm in the Dakotas and a big solar plant in Nevada may provide enough electricity to power the nation, but they will do so only with a massive investment in long-distance power transmission and use of eminent domain. The beneficiaries of this development will not be rural residents and farmers, but instead will be the same big investors that dominate existing electricity markets.

    If our vision is grand — to get to 100 percent renewable power — some centralized power production is inevitable. But a decentralized network of modest wind farms and biorefineries can harness the vast renewable resource of rural areas and bring home the economic benefits as well. The success of homegrown renewable energy lies in two key findings. Very large renewable power plants and biorefineries cannot be locally owned past a certain size because the capital costs are beyond the community’s wherewithal. Typically this occurs when the facilities have reached a scale such that the cost savings of “bigness” are minimal. But the rewards of local ownership are significant, delivering anywhere from 25 to 300 percent more economic impact to rural communities from identically sized absentee owned facilities.

    Federal renewable energy policy tends to disregard these facts. Renewable power tax credits limit the opportunities for local ownership by requiring investors to have significant tax liability and hampering the ability of cooperatives, nonprofits, units of government and other aggregators of average people from becoming investors. Some incentives, such as accelerated depreciation, are only provided to commercial projects, with no comparable incentive for residential projects. The result is few locally owned projects, except in states with strong policies favoring such development. It’s as though the federal nutrition programs were designed to fight hunger with McDonald’s coupons – providing plenty of calories – when supporting home cooked meals would do a lot more for nutrition and the overall health of the nation.

    There are policy alternatives that do much more for energy and economic security. Renewable energy payments (also known as feed-in tariffs) provide stable, long-term incentives without bias against local ownership. They also wouldn’t expire regularly, as federal tax credits are threatening to do yet again.

    The coming US $1 trillion investment in rural renewable energy will help secure America’s energy future, but it also requires a choice. Will we build large, centralized power plants and biorefineries that bypass the rural communities whose resources we tap? Or will we change our policies to disperse the development of renewable energy and its financial benefits more broadly, securing our economic future, as well?

    Readers can find more on confluence of rural economic development and renewable energy policy in ILSR’s latest report: Rural Power: Community-Scaled Renewable Energy and Rural Economic Development.

    John Farrell is a research associate at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, where he examines the benefits of local ownership in renewable energy. His latest paper, Wind and Ethanol: Economies and Diseconomies of Scale, uncovers why bigger isn’t necessarily better. He’s a graduate of the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and currently resides in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

  • New book on Bee Death

      

    Lyons Press, 2008, $24.95.

    Lyons Press, 2008, $24.95.

    Referencing the French experience with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), Schacker implicates IMD, a relatively new pesticide and close cousin to DDT, manufactured in its most widespread form by Bayer. This revelation has a feeling of inevitability to it, like finding out that the murderer who drew the light sentence was the Congressman’s cousin. Though Schacker’s tone can sometimes get a little strident, any initial annoyance on the reader’s part is dissipated by the urgency of his message. By the time we get to the section titled “The Government Responds?” we are very much with him.

    As the front flyleaf of the book points out, it’s been 100 years since the birth of Rachel Carson, and A Spring without Bees makes a fine testament to how right she was—and how little she’s been heeded. Looking beyond IMD and Bayer to uncover the deeper whys, Schacker makes it crystal-clear that deregulation of pesticide manufacturers—and the lobbyists who currently steer the EPA and the FDA—have brought us all to the brink of a new definition of CCD. That would be Civilization Collapse Disorder, and intervening at this point will take a vast and basic paradigm shift. But Schacker doesn’t merely wring his hands and moan. He offers a potpourri of hopeful small suggestions that, if widely adopted, could have big results: nontoxic lawns, starting our own bee gardens, planting our streetscapes with lovely silver linden trees and our agricultural fields with hedgerows. Organic and regenerative agriculture, he points out, are things we know how to do. Natural predators can take care of bee mites without hurting a soul, and the Earth, properly understood, can still rebound enough to help us heal its biosphere. But there is no time to waste.

    Schacker has not only written a book that manages to convince, educate, and somehow amuse at the same time, he’s also the founder of The New Earth Institute, an online transformative learning center. At this writing, he’s recovering from a catastrophic stroke. He should be in all our thoughts. Not only is his heart very clearly in the right place, but his boring-but-erudite statistics are relegated to appendices, a habit more science writers might emulate. A Spring without Bees poses the question: could the humble honeybee be the agent of our planetary awakening? Michael Schacker’s book is a powerful wake-up call.

  • Litigation inspires government to act on climate change

    “International negotiations are not advancing, hence presenting litigation is an attractive path despite some drawbacks,” Justice Preston said.

    Litigation was “unlikely to have a great overall effect on climate change” but “environmental groups and affected individuals and groups have taken up the challenge”.

    Issues related to climate change had been litigated “more or less successfully” since 1994, Justice Preston said.

    “It is only in recent years that climate change as a phenomenon has been more widely accepted by the courts, although there are still cases where the science of climate change is challenged.

    “Taking climate change into account when deciding upon the merits of a development proposal is another new development.”

    He cited five decisions last year alone, four involving the NSW minister for planning, on matters such as alleged failure to consider coastal hazards, including sea-level rise.

    “More commonly, the statute does not expressly state the matters relating to climate change and it is necessary to ascertain, from the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute, whether the statute impliedly requires consideration of matters relating to climate change.”

    Misrepresentation as to the environmental credentials of goods and services could be addressed via tort law or the Trade Practices Act, he said.

    The chief judge noted the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had been active in scrutinising such claims and had taken action against household goods manufacturer De Longhi, tyre company Goodyear and car maker Saab.

    De Longhi amended its advertising while Goodyear undertook to offer partial refunds to those who relied on unsubstantiated environmental claims.

    The commission took General Motors to court over advertising that claimed “every Saab is green” and that people should “switch to carbon-neutral motoring”.

    Breaches of the Trade Practices Act were alleged but an agreement was reached for GM to train its marketing staff and plant 12,580 trees.

    Justice Preston said that “constitutions or statutes might provide for certain rights, such as a right to life, or right to a healthy environment”.

    He also made a prediction: “There has not yet been litigation focused on greenhouse gas emission or climate change, although there is the potential” as governments were likely to use legislation to tackle climate change.

    He said there was value even in unsuccessful litigation because “matters that are important to communities are being brought to the attention of governments, and hence act as a catalyst for executive action”.

  • UK commits to 80% reduction

    He accepted the recommendations of the government-appointed Climate Change Committee, chaired by Lord Turner, which said last week that the UK ought to commit to an 80% reduction from 1990 levels for all greenhouse gases and covering all sectors.

    He also pledged to amend the energy bill to create “feed-in tariffs”, allowing small-scale energy producers – such as homes with wind turbines or solar panels – to sell electricity at a guaranteed price.

    And he issued a warning to energy companies to act “in a satisfactory way” to reduce charges for customers with pre-payment meters and those not connected to the gas main.

    He said the government expects “rapid action or explanation to remedy any abuses” and warned if the firms do not act then ministers would consult on legislation to prevent “unfair pricing”.

    //

    insertAudioPlayer(“300”, “25”, “http://static.guim.co.uk/static/66062/original/common/flash/guMiniPlayer.swf”, “linktext=John Vidal on Britain’s new climate change pledge&publication_date=&file=http://download.guardian.co.uk/audio/kip/standalone/environment/1224226399344/8771/gdn.env.081017.tm.John_Vidal.mp3&popupurl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/audio/2008/oct/17/climate-change-edmiliband?popup=true&popupheight=232&popupwidth=500&duration=245&audioid=338695861”);
    John Vidal on Britain’s new climate change pledge
    Link to this audio

    Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace’s chief scientist, said: “This is a hugely encouraging first move from the new climate change secretary. In a decade in power Labour has never adopted a target so ambitious, far-reaching and internationally significant as this.

    “To meet it will require determined action from Gordon Brown and every one of his successors for the next four decades. Hard choices will be made that will touch every Briton, but it can and must be done.”

    He added: “Ed Miliband obviously understands the urgency of the threat we face from climate change. He is absolutely right to say Britain should set an example to the rest of the world in tackling this issue, and we will support him wholeheartedly if the decisions he takes in the coming weeks and months genuinely reflect this ambition.”

    Ruth Davis, the head of climate change at the RSPB, said: “This is one of the most far-sighted and far-reaching climate change initiative any government could take and is testament to the efforts of campaigners.”

    Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth’s executive director, said: “Miliband’s admission that pollution from international aviation and shipping will be dealt with outside the bill is a sign that these industries are being picked out for special treatment yet again. “The Committee on Climate Change made it clear that we have to reduce all carbon emissions by 80%. We cannot leave the cuts in aviation and shipping emissions to chance.” Greg Clark, the shadow climate change secretary, also welcomed the announcements. He said: “The choice between aggressive and ambitious action on carbon reduction and a successful, powerful economy is, in fact, not a choice at all – they are one and the same.”

    Miliband, making his first statement to the Commons as head of the newly created department, said: “In tough economic times, some people ask whether we should retreat from our climate-change objectives.

    “In our view it would be quite wrong to row back and those who say we should misunderstand the relationship between the economic and environmental tasks we face.”

    The 2006 Stern report showed that the costs of doing nothing “are greater than the costs of acting”, he said.

    The climate change bill would be amended to set the higher target, which “will be binding in law”.

    Miliband said: “However, we all know that signing up to an 80% target in 2050 when most of us will not be around is the easy part. The hard part is meeting it and meeting the milestones that will show we’re on track.”

    The Climate Change Committee will advise on the first 15 years of carbon budgets in December, “national limits to our total emissions within which we will have to live as a country”.

    The announcement on feed-in tariffs will be welcomed by Labour backbenchers, who staged the biggest revolt of Gordon Brown’s leadership over the issue.

    In April, 35 backbenchers rebelled on the issue during debate on the energy bill, with two more Labour MPs acting as tellers.

    Miliband said: “Having heard the debate on this issue, including from many colleagues in this house, on this side of the house and on others, I also believe that complementing the renewables obligation for large-scale projects, guaranteed prices for small-scale electricity generation – feed-in tariffs – have the potential to play an important role, as they do in other countries.”

    Last week Ofgem, the energy regulator, highlighted “unjustified” higher charges for 4 million customers without mains gas.

    The regulator also believes that many homes using pre-payment meters – often the poorest customers – are being “overcharged”.

    Miliband said: “Unfair pricing which hits the most vulnerable hardest is completely unacceptable. I made that clear to the representatives of the big six energy companies when I met them yesterday.

    “I also told them that the government expects rapid action or explanation to remedy any abuses. I will meet them again in a month to hear what they have done.”

    He added: “If the companies don’t act in a satisfactory way, and speedily, then we will consult on legislation to prevent unfair pricing differentials.”

    Miliband said the measures announced today were part of an energy and climate change policy “that is fair and sustainable, which meets our obligations to today’s and future generations”.

    Clark said there had been a “decade-long void” in the government’s policy towards energy, in which “successive ministers have looked the other way rather than address the issue of future energy needs”.

    He welcomed the acceptance of Turner’s 80% target, saying: “We have always said that we should be guided by the science on that matter.”

    But he called for the target to be kept under constant review, saying that just eight years ago 60% was considered to be the right number.

    Clark also pressed Miliband to “lead the world” on carbon capture and storage by committing to three UK-based demonstration projects and said smart metering should be introduced for microgeneration.

  • Money and the crisis of civilisation – Pt 3

    From part 2

    The present crisis is actually the final stage of what began in the 1930s. Successive solutions to the fundamental problem of keeping pace with money that expands with the rate of interest have been applied, and exhausted. The first effective solution was war, a state which has been permanent since 1940. Nuclear weapons and a shift in human consciousness have limited the solution of endless military escalation. Other solutions — globalization, technology-enabled development of new goods and services to replace human functions never before commoditized, and technology-enabled plunder of natural resources once off limits, and finally financial auto-cannibalism — have similarly run their course. Unless there are realms of wealth I have not considered, and new depths of poverty, misery, and alienation to which we might plunge, the inevitable cannot be delayed much longer.

    In the face of the impending crisis, people often ask what they can do to protect themselves. “Buy gold? Stockpile canned goods? Build a fortified compound in a remote area? What should I do?” I would like to suggest a different kind of question: “What is the most beautiful thing I can do?” You see, the gathering crisis presents a tremendous opportunity. Deflation, the destruction of money, is only a categorical evil if the creation of money is a categorical good. However, you can see from the examples I have given that the creation of money has in many ways impoverished us all. Conversely, the destruction of money has the potential to enrich us. It offers the opportunity to reclaim parts of the lost commonwealth from the realm of money and property.

    We actually see this happening every time there is an economic recession. People can no longer pay for various goods and services, and so have to rely on friends and neighbors instead. Where there is no money to facilitate transactions, gift economies reemerge and new kinds of money are created. Ordinarily, though, people and institutions fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. The habitual first response to economic crisis is to make and keep more money — to accelerate the conversion of anything you can into money. On a systemic level, the debt surge is generating enormous pressure to extend the commodification of the commonwealth. We can see this happening with the calls to drill for oil in Alaska, commence deep-sea drilling, and so on. The time is here, though, for the reverse process to begin in earnest — to remove things from the realm of goods and services, and return them to the realm of gifts, reciprocity, self-sufficiency, and community sharing. Note well: this is going to happen anyway in the wake of a currency collapse, as people lose their jobs or become too poor to buy things. People will help each other and real communities will reemerge.

    In the meantime, anything we do to protect some natural or social resource from conversion into money will both hasten the collapse and mitigate its severity. Any forest you save from development, any road you stop, any cooperative playgroup you establish; anyone you teach to heal themselves, or to build their own house, cook their own food, make their own clothes; any wealth you create or add to the public domain; anything you render off-limits to the world-devouring machine, will help shorten the Machine’s lifespan. Think of it this way: if you already do not depend on money for some portion of life’s necessities and pleasures, then the collapse of money will pose much less of a harsh transition for you. The same applies to the social level. Any network or community or social institution that is not a vehicle for the conversion of life into money will sustain and enrich life after money.

    In previous essays I have described alternative money systems, based on mutual credit and demurrage, that do not drive the conversion of all that is good, true, and beautiful into money. These enact a fundamentally different human identity, a fundamentally different sense of self, from what dominates today. No more will it be true that more for me is less for you. On a personal level, the deepest possible revolution we can enact is a revolution in our sense of self, in our identity. The discrete and separate self of Descartes and Adam Smith has run its course and is becoming obsolete. We are realizing our own inseparateness, from each other and from the totality of all life. Interest denies this union, for it seeks growth of the separate self and the expense of something external, something other. Probably everyone reading this essay agrees with the principles of interconnectedness, whether from a Buddhistic or an ecological perspective. The time has come to live it. It is time to enter the spirit of the gift, which embodies the felt understanding of non-separation. It is becoming abundantly obvious that less for you (in all its dimensions) is also less for me. The ideology of perpetual gain has brought us to a state of poverty so destitute that we are gasping for air. That ideology, and the civilization built upon it, is what is collapsing today.

    Individually and collectively, anything we do to resist or postpone the collapse will only make it worse. So stop resisting the revolution in human beingness. If you want to survive the multiple crises unfolding today, do not seek to survive them. That is the mindset of separation; that is resistance, a clinging to a dying past. Instead, allow your perspective to shift toward reunion, and think in terms of what you can give. What can you contribute to a more beautiful world? That is your only responsibility and your only security. The gifts you need to survive and enjoy will come to you easily, because what you do to the world, you do to yourself.