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.
 

  • World carbon emissions, by country: new data released

     

    We asked the EIA and this is what they said:

    Each year we review the underlying consumption data for petroleum, natural gas, and coal and the flaring data for natural gas and make any necessary revisions. These, in turn, affect our CO2 emissions estimates. I think that most of the change for China was due to revisions to our coal consumption data. Coal consumption is a calculated value based on production, imports, exports, and stock change and when measured in Btus is also affected by the types of coal consumed (i.e. anthracite, bituminous, and lignite). Data for the most recent year are often preliminary and most subject to revision but data for earlier years are also often revised.

    Of course, these aren’t all emissions – just consumption of engergy, which accounts for 60% of the total. But they give a good picture of what is going on.

    Because of the interest, the EIA are going to come up with 2008 figures at the end of this year or early 2010. Then we will see exactly how fast China has grown. In the meantime, as we countdown to Copenhagen, these figures will become even more important.

    We’ve added in the %-change since 1990 – the Kyoto benchmark. What can you do with the numbers?

    Download the full data

    DATA: World emissions since 1980, by country

    Summary table

    Carbon emissions from consumption of energy

    Click heading to sort. Million tonnes of CO2
    ID
    2007 RANK
    2006 RANK
    CHANGE IN RANK
    COUNTRY/ REGION
    2007
    % change, 1990-07
    Per capita emissions, 2007, tonnes

    SOURCE: EIA
    1       North America 7050.95 21.3 15.9
    2 179 179 SAME Bermuda 0.66 -0.0 9.8
    3 7 7 SAME Canada 589.9 24.3 17.9
    4 180 180 SAME Greenland 0.63   10.9
    5 13 13 SAME Mexico 452.96 49.8 4.2
    6 211 211 SAME Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0.09 -66.1 12.5
    7 2 1 DOWN United States 6006.71 19.3 19.9
    8       Central & South America 1193.56 66.5 2.6
    9 197 197 SAME Antarctica 0.26 25.4 NA
    10 178 177 DOWN Antigua and Barbuda 0.66 55.9 7.9
    11 29 28 DOWN Argentina 165.91 61.6 4.1
    12 165 165 SAME Aruba 1.07 79.3 10.6
    13 123 122 DOWN Bahamas, The 5.09 70.2 16.8
    14 159 158 DOWN Barbados 1.38 6.1 4.9
    15 170 170 SAME Belize 0.98 213.3 3.3
    16 92 93 DOWN Bolivia 13.54 167.1 1.4
    17 17 17 SAME Brazil 397.56 67.3 2.1
    18 184 184 SAME Cayman Islands 0.48 74.3 10.2
    19 50 48 DOWN Chile 64.55 102.0 4.0
    20 51 52 UP Colombia 64.14 54.6 1.5
    21 114 114 SAME Costa Rica 6.83 149.2 1.6
    22 78 77 DOWN Cuba 25.14 -29.0 2.2
    23 207 206 DOWN Dominica 0.12 103.7 1.6
    24 85 85 SAME Dominican Republic 18.82 107.7 2.0
    25 76 76 SAME Ecuador 27.55 82.6 1.9
    26 116 116 SAME El Salvador 6.41 168.0 0.9
    27 214 214 SAME Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) 0.05 81.6 NA
    28 164 166 DOWN French Guiana 1.12 63.9 NA
    29 194 196 DOWN Grenada 0.3 141.8 3.3
    30 151 152 DOWN Guadeloupe 2.21 53.2 NA
    31 99 100 DOWN Guatemala 11.94 215.5 0.9
    32 157 157 SAME Guyana 1.62 140.6 2.1
    33 155 155 SAME Haiti 1.82 144.9 0.2
    34 109 108 DOWN Honduras 7.85 188.0 1.0
    35 94 95 DOWN Jamaica 13.09 73.7 4.7
    36 147 147 SAME Martinique 2.46 56.7 NA
    37 212 212 SAME Montserrat 0.08 120.9 18.5
    38 97 98 DOWN Netherlands Antilles 12.46 27.8 55.7
    39 124 125 DOWN Nicaragua 4.85 141.2 0.9
    40 89 89 SAME Panama 14.78 25.3 4.5
    41 133 133 SAME Paraguay 3.83 74.3 0.6
    42 74 74 SAME Peru 32.42 61.3 1.1
    43 71 71 SAME Puerto Rico 36.57 80.8 9.3
    44 202 203 DOWN Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.2 196.2 5.0
    45 187 187 SAME Saint Lucia 0.38 129.7 2.4
    46 201 201 SAME Saint Vincent/Grenadines 0.2 154.5 1.9
    47 152 153 DOWN Suriname 2.07 37.4 4.4
    48 62 62 SAME Trinidad and Tobago 47.03 158.6 38.1
    49 217 216 DOWN Turks and Caicos Islands 0.01   0.6
    50 110 111 DOWN Uruguay 7.5 66.6 2.2
    51 27 31 UP Venezuela 171.67 56.4 6.6
    52 88 87 DOWN Virgin Islands, U.S. 16.48 121.0 150.0
    53 210 209 DOWN Virgin Islands, British 0.1 104.2 4.4
    54       Europe 4690.43 2.5 7.9
    55 125 126 DOWN Albania 4.65 -23.8 1.3
    56 46 47 UP Austria 72.74 30.3 8.9
    57 33 32 DOWN Belgium 144.16 14.7 13.9
    58 84 82 DOWN Bosnia and Herzegovina 18.87   4.1
    59 61 58 DOWN Bulgaria 50.63 -33.8 6.9
    60 77 78 DOWN Croatia 25.38   5.6
    61 105 104 DOWN Cyprus 9.54 87.4 9.1
    62 38 39 UP Czech Republic 103.24   10.1
    63 55 53 DOWN Denmark 57.05 -0.5 10.4
    64 174 173 DOWN Faroe Islands 0.8   16.5
    65 53 55 UP Finland 57.53 7.7 11.0
    66       Former Czechoslovakia —   —
    67 69 66 DOWN Former Serbia and Montenegro 38.97 -3.9 3.9
    68       Former Yugoslavia —   —
    69 16 15 DOWN France 405.06 -2.9 6.4
    70 6 6 SAME Germany 835.13 -2.2 10.1
    71       Germany, East —   —
    72       Germany, West —   —
    73 128 128 SAME Gibraltar 4.55 1.5 159.1
    74 36 36 SAME Greece 107.86 1.8 10.1
    75 56 54 DOWN Hungary 57 -2.8 5.7
    76 134 134 SAME Iceland 3.49 3.7 11.6
    77 64 63 DOWN Ireland 44.74 -2.6 10.9
    78 11 11 SAME Italy 460.8 -1.7 7.9
    79 98 96 DOWN Luxembourg 12.18 -2.3 25.4
    80 107 107 SAME Macedonia 8.35 4.5 4.1
    81 136 138 DOWN Malta 3.1 5.3 7.7
    82 185 185 SAME Montenegro 0.46 3.8 —
    83 24 23 DOWN Netherlands 261.46 -5.4 15.8
    84 66 67 DOWN Norway 42.31 5.6 9.1
    85 22 20 DOWN Poland 301.71 0.1 7.8
    86 52 51 DOWN Portugal 61.13 -0.8 5.7
    87 39 38 DOWN Romania 103.12 2.6 4.6
    88 93 91 DOWN Serbia 13.51 1.1 —
    89 70 72 DOWN Slovakia 38.52 1.8 7.1
    90 87 86 DOWN Slovenia 17.28 -1.0 8.6
    91 18 18 SAME Spain 383.21 1.7 9.5
    92 57 56 DOWN Sweden 56.86 0.1 6.3
    93 65 64 DOWN Switzerland 43.81 -3.7 5.8
    94 23 24 UP Turkey 277.2 10.1 3.7
    95 8 8 SAME United Kingdom 564.02 -3.8 9.3
    96       Eurasia 2609.01 0.9 9.2
    97 101 101 SAME Armenia 11.22 8.4 3.8
    98 73 68 DOWN Azerbaijan 35.69 -10.9 4.4
    99 48 50 UP Belarus 68.55 3.2 7.0
    100 80 84 DOWN Estonia 21.28 13.5 16.2
    101       Former U.S.S.R. —   —
    102 121 124 DOWN Georgia 5.56 13.6 1.2
    103 26 26 SAME Kazakhstan 216.4 1.9 14.2
    104 118 119 DOWN Kyrgyzstan 5.68 3.4 1.1
    105 104 105 DOWN Latvia 9.78 5.5 4.3
    106 86 88 DOWN Lithuania 17.63 6.5 4.9
    107 108 109 DOWN Moldova 7.86 3.0 1.8
    108 3 3 SAME Russia 1672.62 -0.4 11.8
    109 115 110 DOWN Tajikistan 6.77 -9.6 1.0
    110 59 61 UP Turkmenistan 53.13 6.3 11.1
    111 19 19 SAME Ukraine 354.39 5.4 7.7
    112 35 35 SAME Uzbekistan 122.46 1.4 4.5
    113       Middle East 1569.38 4.6 8.0
    114 75 75 SAME Bahrain 29.11 4.6 41.0
    115 10 10 SAME Iran 490.29 3.0 7.5
    116 41 41 SAME Iraq 95.91 4.4 3.5
    117 49 49 SAME Israel 68.41 -0.5 9.8
    118 81 81 SAME Jordan 21.07 5.1 3.5
    119 43 44 UP Kuwait 78.49 1.5 31.3
    120 90 90 SAME Lebanon 13.86 3.4 3.5
    121 72 73 DOWN Oman 36.35 2.2 11.3
    122 139 140 DOWN Palestine 3 3.6 0.8
    123 54 57 UP Qatar 57.51 3.3 70.6
    124 15 16 UP Saudi Arabia 433.93 6.8 15.7
    125 60 60 SAME Syria 51.03 -0.1 2.5
    126 28 29 UP United Arab Emirates 170.92 10.0 38.5
    127 83 83 SAME Yemen 19.51 2.8 0.9
    128       Africa 1090.89 2.3 1.2
    129 40 40 SAME Algeria 100.95 6.6 3.0
    130 79 80 DOWN Angola 22.1 3.9 1.8
    131 137 137 SAME Benin 3.04 1.0 0.4
    132 129 127 DOWN Botswana 4.47 -1.9 2.3
    133 161 161 SAME Burkina Faso 1.27 1.8 0.1
    134 188 188 SAME Burundi 0.38 5.6 0.0
    135 111 112 DOWN Cameroon 7.48 1.7 0.4
    136 195 194 DOWN Cape Verde 0.29 0.8 0.7
    137 189 189 SAME Central African Republic 0.34 4.4 0.1
    138 198 199 DOWN Chad 0.24 8.2 0.0
    139 206 207 DOWN Comoros 0.12 4.4 0.2
    140 120 118 DOWN Congo (Brazzaville) 5.6 0.7 1.5
    141 148 146 DOWN Congo (Kinshasa) 2.41 -2.6 0.0
    142 113 115 DOWN Cote dIvoire (IvoryCoast) 6.85 7.3 0.3
    143 156 156 SAME Djibouti 1.76 4.7 2.5
    144 30 30 SAME Egypt 159.81 4.6 2.1
    145 127 123 DOWN Equatorial Guinea 4.56 -7.0 7.6
    146 176 176 SAME Eritrea 0.77 2.8 0.1
    147 122 121 DOWN Ethiopia 5.35 3.8 0.1
    148 130 129 DOWN Gabon 4.31 -3.6 3.0
    149 191 190 DOWN Gambia, The 0.34 3.4 0.2
    150 112 113 DOWN Ghana 6.97 4.3 0.3
    151 158 159 DOWN Guinea 1.41 2.6 0.1
    152 186 186 SAME Guinea-Bissau 0.41 6.1 0.3
    153 100 99 DOWN Kenya 11.68 3.2 0.3
    154 199 198 DOWN Lesotho 0.24 3.0 0.1
    155 181 181 SAME Liberia 0.62 1.4 0.2
    156 58 59 UP Libya 53.88 2.7 8.9
    157 146 145 DOWN Madagascar 2.6 4.3 0.1
    158 168 169 DOWN Malawi 1.05 3.4 0.1
    159 177 178 DOWN Mali 0.7 6.8 0.1
    160 140 141 DOWN Mauritania 2.91 2.8 1.0
    161 131 131 SAME Mauritius 4.18 2.9 3.3
    162 68 70 DOWN Morocco 39.06 2.2 1.3
    163 150 142 DOWN Mozambique 2.3 -17.6 0.1
    164 138 139 DOWN Namibia 3.03 4.6 1.5
    165 162 162 SAME Niger 1.27 2.0 0.1
    166 37 37 SAME Nigeria 103.47 0.3 0.7
    167 142 143 DOWN Reunion 2.78 1.4 NA
    168 171 171 SAME Rwanda 0.86 3.1 0.1
    169 216 217 DOWN Saint Helena 0.01 25.4 1.9
    170 208 208 SAME Sao Tome and Principe 0.11 3.4 0.6
    171 117 117 SAME Senegal 5.88 -0.4 0.5
    172 169 163 DOWN Seychelles 1.03 -13.8 12.1
    173 163 164 DOWN Sierra Leone 1.18 3.3 0.2
    174 175 174 DOWN Somalia 0.79 3.7 0.1
    175 14 12 DOWN South Africa 452.28 1.4 9.4
    176 96 97 DOWN Sudan 12.47 0.7 0.3
    177 167 167 SAME Swaziland 1.05 -2.7 0.8
    178 119 120 DOWN Tanzania 5.68 3.8 0.1
    179 144 148 DOWN Togo 2.62 12.4 0.5
    180 82 79 DOWN Tunisia 20.26 -4.8 2.0
    181 154 154 SAME Uganda 1.93 0.9 0.1
    182 196 195 DOWN Western Sahara 0.28 5.7 0.7
    183 145 144 DOWN Zambia 2.6 1.3 0.2
    184 102 102 SAME Zimbabwe 10.83 6.4 0.9
    185       Asia & Oceania 11710.01 6.1 3.2
    186 172 175 DOWN Afghanistan 0.83 8.9 0.0
    187 182 182 SAME American Samoa 0.61 1.4 9.5
    188 12 14 UP Australia 456.36 9.2 22.0
    189 63 65 UP Bangladesh 45.56 5.2 0.3
    190 192 191 DOWN Bhutan 0.32 1.4 0.5
    191 103 103 SAME Brunei 10.2 3.5 27.2
    192 91 94 DOWN Burma (Myanmar) 13.66 7.3 0.3
    193 132 132 SAME Cambodia 3.92 1.7 0.3
    194 1 2 UP China 6283.56 7.2 4.8
    195 213 213 SAME Cook Islands 0.08 1.0 5.9
    196 143 150 DOWN Fiji 2.71 17.7 2.9
    197 166 168 DOWN French Polynesia 1.05 3.0 3.8
    198 153 151 DOWN Guam 2.06 -8.6 11.9
    199       Hawaiian Trade Zone —   —
    200 42 43 UP Hong Kong 82.93 3.0 11.9
    201 4 4 SAME India 1400.71 8.7 1.2
    202 20 22 UP Indonesia 318.54 9.5 1.4
    203 5 5 SAME Japan 1262.39 0.7 9.9
    204 215 215 SAME Kiribati 0.04 7.4 0.4
    205 47 45 DOWN Korea, North 69.44 -9.2 3.1
    206 9 9 SAME Korea, South 515.98 6.1 10.7
    207 183 183 SAME Laos 0.6 2.7 0.1
    208 149 149 SAME Macau 2.35 2.2 4.5
    209 31 27 DOWN Malaysia 157.71 -0.8 6.4
    210 173 172 DOWN Maldives 0.81 -2.0 2.2
    211 106 106 SAME Mongolia 9.09 6.0 3.1
    212 204 204 SAME Nauru 0.19 7.2 13.7
    213 135 135 SAME Nepal 3.42 7.9 0.1
    214 141 136 DOWN New Caledonia 2.8 -7.1 12.6
    215 67 69 DOWN New Zealand 39.23 -2.0 9.5
    216 218 218 SAME Niue 0 -2.1 NA
    217 34 34 SAME Pakistan 138.4 2.1 0.8
    218 126 130 DOWN Papua New Guinea 4.59 6.8 0.8
    219 45 46 UP Philippines 76.09 1.5 0.8
    220 205 205 SAME Samoa 0.18 8.6 0.8
    221 32 33 UP Singapore 154.17 10.0 33.9
    222 200 200 SAME Solomon Islands 0.22 13.4 0.4
    223 95 92 DOWN Sri Lanka 13.07 2.0 0.6
    224 21 21 SAME Taiwan 307.89 3.1 13.5
    225 25 25 SAME Thailand 248.15 4.4 3.8
    226 190 192 DOWN Timor-Leste (East Timor) 0.34 9.0 0.3
    227 203 202 DOWN Tonga 0.19 6.5 1.7
    228 193 193 SAME U.S. Pacific Islands 0.3 0.5 1.2
    229 209 210 DOWN Vanuatu 0.1 7.1 0.5
    230 44 42 DOWN Vietnam 77.88 -6.3 0.9
    231 160 160 SAME Wake Island 1.28 1.1 NA
    232       World 29914.24 3.1 4.5

    Simon Rogers byline pic Posted by Simon Rogers Thursday 22 October 2009 15.45 BST guardian

     

  • Europe lags behind with a sleight of hand on emission targets

     

     

    You would imagine a tougher target for 2050 would require more action sooner but it appears our politicians are happy to kick that problem into the long grass for future politicians to wrestle with, with the increasing impact of climate change they have so thoughtfully bequeathed them. The deal also continues to ignore the fact that we should be debating a target for 2015. If a system like Kyoto is to continue then this would be the next milestone in the emissions timeline.

     

    Far from being in the lead, the EU, like most countries, is a laggard when it comes to responding effectively to the threat of climate change – but it is very good at presentation. Our targets use a 1990 baseline. Nothing wrong with that, except it is a very convenient date for countries that benefitted from the huge collapse in Soviet economies in the 1990s, which of course now includes Europe.

     

    The combination of this unearned reduction with a handful of one-off reductions in industrial gases in a few countries delivered Europe its Kyoto target ahead of schedule and we are set to achieve a 10% reduction by the end of this decade – helped along by the current recession. The 30% target is therefore only a 20% target measured from current levels. Again this may sound reasonably challenging. But this also masks the reality that Europe will allow itself to buy in emissions credits from overseas for up to half of this target. Meaning Europe’s own emissions need be reduced by only 10% over a decade.

     

    The European Union has, over a number of years, claimed to be leading the world in reducing emissions. It has introduced a range of policies to try to curb emissions but these have been slow to start and dedicated climate and energy policies have delivered few savings to date. This is evident not only from the emissions record so far of the EU but also from the continued unbroken link between emissions and economic growth or decline.

     

    Investment in energy infrastructure also appears not to have deviated significantly from “business as usual”, with many more coal-fired power stations being proposed in Europe. Cap and trade regulation has been implemented on 50% of emissions, however, they have been set too leniently, leading to large surpluses in emissions permits and low prices.

     

    More investment is now being made into renewable electricity but this is still too insignificant on its own to achieve a significant reduction in all energy-related emissions. The harder tasks of reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations and industrial plants and de-carbonising our transport and heating systems has yet to begin in earnest. As a result, emissions in recent years, the effect of the recent recession aside, have been more or less static.

     

    Only tougher targets will provide the impetus for serious policy change and investment on the ground. There are many reasons why Europe can and must step up to the mark in Copenhagen. Sandbag, the climate NGO that I run, will be launching a briefing paper in Brussels next week explaining why Europe’s targets are nowhere near as tough as they think they are and calling for a recalibration and higher ambition.

     

    The current politics of Europe are not easy and there are some countries who are arguing against even the current levels of ambition. But rather than trying to cling on to the vestiges of leadership using clever accounting, Europe should be honest about what the numbers mean and accept that it can and must go further.

     

    The sleight of hand has not gone unnoticed by other countries and if Europe continues to fail to pull its weight it will be impossible to win the support of developing countries who rightly point out we have a massive historic responsibility to lead the way.

     

    • Bryony Worthington is the founder of Sandbag, a not-for-profit website that allows its members to buy up carbon emissions trading permits

  • Europe lags behind with a sleight of hand on emissions targets

     

     

    You would imagine a tougher target for 2050 would require more action sooner but it appears our politicians are happy to kick that problem into the long grass for future politicians to wrestle with, with the increasing impact of climate change they have so thoughtfully bequeathed them. The deal also continues to ignore the fact that we should be debating a target for 2015. If a system like Kyoto is to continue then this would be the next milestone in the emissions timeline.

     

    Far from being in the lead, the EU, like most countries, is a laggard when it comes to responding effectively to the threat of climate change – but it is very good at presentation. Our targets use a 1990 baseline. Nothing wrong with that, except it is a very convenient date for countries that benefitted from the huge collapse in Soviet economies in the 1990s, which of course now includes Europe.

     

    The combination of this unearned reduction with a handful of one-off reductions in industrial gases in a few countries delivered Europe its Kyoto target ahead of schedule and we are set to achieve a 10% reduction by the end of this decade – helped along by the current recession. The 30% target is therefore only a 20% target measured from current levels. Again this may sound reasonably challenging. But this also masks the reality that Europe will allow itself to buy in emissions credits from overseas for up to half of this target. Meaning Europe’s own emissions need be reduced by only 10% over a decade.

     

    The European Union has, over a number of years, claimed to be leading the world in reducing emissions. It has introduced a range of policies to try to curb emissions but these have been slow to start and dedicated climate and energy policies have delivered few savings to date. This is evident not only from the emissions record so far of the EU but also from the continued unbroken link between emissions and economic growth or decline.

     

    Investment in energy infrastructure also appears not to have deviated significantly from “business as usual”, with many more coal-fired power stations being proposed in Europe. Cap and trade regulation has been implemented on 50% of emissions, however, they have been set too leniently, leading to large surpluses in emissions permits and low prices.

     

    More investment is now being made into renewable electricity but this is still too insignificant on its own to achieve a significant reduction in all energy-related emissions. The harder tasks of reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations and industrial plants and de-carbonising our transport and heating systems has yet to begin in earnest. As a result, emissions in recent years, the effect of the recent recession aside, have been more or less static.

     

    Only tougher targets will provide the impetus for serious policy change and investment on the ground. There are many reasons why Europe can and must step up to the mark in Copenhagen. Sandbag, the climate NGO that I run, will be launching a briefing paper in Brussels next week explaining why Europe’s targets are nowhere near as tough as they think they are and calling for a recalibration and higher ambition.

     

    The current politics of Europe are not easy and there are some countries who are arguing against even the current levels of ambition. But rather than trying to cling on to the vestiges of leadership using clever accounting, Europe should be honest about what the numbers mean and accept that it can and must go further.

     

    The sleight of hand has not gone unnoticed by other countries and if Europe continues to fail to pull its weight it will be impossible to win the support of developing countries who rightly point out we have a massive historic responsibility to lead the way.

     

    • Bryony Worthington is the founder of Sandbag, a not-for-profit website that allows its members to buy up carbon emissions trading permits

  • Water crisis in west as Lachan River runs dry

     

    A telephone hook-up of state officials, community representatives and farmers in the Lachlan Valley confirmed measures that would be taken to cope with the crisis, which follows the failure of spring rains. It is feared that Wyangala could run dry by mid-summer.

    ”I don’t think people understand that, under the present conditions, by next April the dam will have less than 1 per cent left in it,” said the chairman of Lachlan Valley Water, Dennis Moxey.

    ”Towns like Cowra and Forbes may not have any water, either. There are going to be hundreds, even thousands, of households that will have to truck water in to … live in their houses or they will have to walk away. I never imaged it could get this bad.”

    The Department of Water and Energy triggered plans yesterday for slashing flows and supplying water to suffering towns south and west of Condobolin.

    The drought gripping the valley has caused the water level in Wyangala dam drop to 6 per cent. At full capacity the dam holds twice the water in Sydney Harbour and helps sustain the 100,000 people in the region.

    “The Government will never let a town run out of water,” said the Water Minister, Phillip Costa. ”Government agencies are working with local water utilities in the area on a range of emergency drought works to strengthen town supplies and continue water delivery, should the situation continue to worsen.”

    A senior official in the Department of Water and Energy, Peter Christmas, said slashing flows to keep only part of the river flowing had not been tried since the dam was built in 1935.

    ”I don’t think there were any heads in the sand; people were aware of it and hoping against hope that it would have to happen. Now that it’s going to happen, it has really hit home.

    ”The whole Lachlan Valley’s been in drought for the seventh year this year, and I’m just absolutely amazed at the resilience of these people. But for some, I don’t know whether this will be the last straw.”

    Wal Dawson farms beef cattle, merinos and cereal along a Lachlan tributary south of Condobolin, just after the point where the water flows stop.

    ”The situation for us is unprecedented,” Mr Dawson said. ”My family’s been around here since the 1800s and they survived a lot but I don’t know if they could survive today, because this is coming on top of eight years of drought.”

    Water is expected to stop flowing down the tributary near his property within weeks.

    Another farmer, Barry Crouch, said allocating the remaining litres was already becoming a source of tension between those in towns and on farms.

    ”We haven’t used our irrigation pump since 2003 because we haven’t had the allocations but we will have to forgo our water because they are sending it to the town. The question is, how do you cut a drop of water in half?

  • Ravaged by drought, Madagascar feels the full effect of climate change

     

    The animals did go away, but so did the luck of Anjamahavelo, a cluster of wooden houses. Southern Madagascar has had three years of crop failure in five years, resulting in chronic hunger for tens of thousands of families and soaring rates of malnutrition, stunted growth and death among children.

    Three forces are combining with deadly effect on the Indian Ocean island, which is incalculably rich in wildlife but impoverished in basic infrastructure. Climate change is widely blamed for playing havoc with the seasons and destroying agricultural harvests. This is exacerbated by local deforestation, which has altered the microclimate and reduced rainfall.

    Finally, a bloody political coup earlier this year paralysed essential services and led to the crippling suspension of several foreign aid programmes. The UN says that nearly half of households in the south have severe food shortages.

    To feed her five children in Anjamahavelo, Tinalisy – her only name – works as a prostitute at the end of each month, when the local men, mostly in the police, have been paid. The unmarried 27-year-old has slept with men for sex since she was 17. “If the men don’t want to marry, that is not really a problem. We have to survive.”

    Tinalisy says her 20-month-old daughter, Vany Lentine, suffers a fever each evening. “We eat once or twice a day – always cassava. I’m worried but what I can do? There is no money. People here are unhappy because their children do not eat. There is nothing to be happy about.”

    Other villagers say that the fierce competition for dwindling resources has led to lawlessness and violence. Valiotaky, 56, the village chief, supplies an explanation for the drought. “When we plant trees we don’t have rain and nothing grows,” he said. “I think God is angry. Young people don’t respect the traditions.”

    Perversely, people in the south are so starved of water that they crave the increasingly fierce cyclones that pound the north three times a year. Two separate dry seasons have progressively expanded until they meet to form one long hot season, hitting crops such as maize, manioc and sweet potato.

    Tovoheryzo Raobijaona, director of a food insecurity early warning system in nearby Ambovombe, said: “Before, people spoke about the cycle of drought every 10 years. Now it’s every five years, or every three years. After a bad year like 2009, people need two to three years to get back to standard.”

    Unicef, the UN’s children’s agency, said that in the past six months 8,632 children had been treated for severe acute malnutrition in three southern regions – more than double the expected number. The UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) warns that 150,000 children could be affected this year.

    There are reports of people resorting to eating lemurs and turtles, even though these are culturally taboo. They have also resumed cutting down trees for firewood or to make space for rice fields, inadvertently adding to the drought problem by reducing the capacity of forests to capture water that will evaporate into clouds and become rain.

    The added impact of global climate change is difficult to quantify. The World Bank says that only one thing is certain: in the past half century Madagascar has seen a 10% increase in temperature and 10% decrease in rainfall. Experts say it is not a question of whether this trend will continue, but by how much.

    Silvia Caruso, deputy country director of the WFP, said: “Environmental degradation and climate change are building on each other. The results are dramatic in Madagascar.”

    This has been compounded by political instability. In March Andry Rajoelina, a city mayor, businessman and former DJ, seized power from president Marc Ravalomanana after clashes that left dozens dead. The fallout has been political deadlock, economic downturn, job losses, price inflation, collapsing public services, a flight of investors and international sanctions on a country that relies on foreign aid for half its budget.

    Caruso added: “The coup has paralysed services that we need to work with in the provinces. It has made the response to drought more complex. We had to fill the gaps at regional level.”

    Bruno Maes, Unicef’s representative for Madagascar, described the coup as “a disaster for children”, adding: “Madagascar was on the road to take-off. They understood it was time to make reforms in health and education, so that all children can have access. Now all this is frozen. Nothing is moving.”

    Unicef has provided medicine and training to all regional health clinics for acute malnutrition cases, supported food distribution and worked to improve sanitation. The WFP has begun programmes to provide school meals to 215,000 children, help 8,000 households mitigate against environmental change and supply supplementary feeding to around 70,000 children under two and pregnant and lactating women.

    Maes said Unicef was also negotiating with the World Bank to directly administer money earmarked for teachers’ salaries. “Children’s rights should be addressed in any situation – whatever the crisis.”

    Case-study: ‘Lack of food is eating us up’

    Zanasoa Relais Anjado, 38, has 11 children. Her husband, a former plantation worker, is unemployed. They live in Anjado village in southern Madagascar.

    “Lack of food is eating us up every day. We often go through very hard moments – in the most difficult we ate only tamarinds [fruit] mixed with ashes. We were hungry and tired and had to beg for something to eat. We were like famine victims … I have 11 children and I don’t know how to feed them. Sometimes we have one meal a day, sometimes two. One of my children was sick. He managed to survive and recover, but I know people in the community who are still very weak. The river is 5km from here and we walk for hours to get there … With rainwater we would cook food and diversify agriculture. We’d plant cabbages, green leaves, corn and beans. What we planted so far dried and failed … It will be really difficult and we will suffer. That is why I am asking the government for help, directly and immediately. Without it, we risk dying here. I don’t care about the political situation in the country. The only thing that concerns me is that I’m eating.”

  • US coal stands in the way of Copenhagen

     

    A year after the 1992 treaty, President Bill Clinton tried to pass an energy tax that would have helped the US to begin reducing its dependence on fossil fuels. The proposal not only failed, but also triggered a political backlash. When the Kyoto protocol was adopted in 1997, Clinton did not even send it to the US Senate for ratification, knowing that it would be rejected. President George Bush repudiated the Kyoto protocol in 2001 and did essentially nothing on climate change during his presidency.

    There are several reasons for US inaction – including ideology and scientific ignorance – but a lot comes down to one word: coal. No fewer than 25 states produce coal, which not only generates income, jobs and tax revenue, but also provides a disproportionately large share of their energy.

    Per capita carbon emissions in US coal states tend to be much higher than the national average. Since addressing climate change is first and foremost directed at reduced emissions from coal – the most carbon-intensive of all fuels – America’s coal states are especially fearful about the economic implications of any controls (though the oil and automobile industries are not far behind).

    The US political system poses special problems as well. To ratify a treaty requires the support of 67 of the Senate’s 100 members, a nearly impossible hurdle. The Republican party, with its 40 Senate seats, is simply filled with too many ideologues – and, indeed, too many senators intent on derailing any Obama initiative – to offer enough votes to reach the 67-vote threshold. Moreover, the Democratic party includes senators from coal and oil states who are unlikely to support decisive action.

    The idea this time around is to avoid the need for 67 votes, at least at the start, by focusing on domestic legislation rather than a treaty. Under the US constitution, domestic legislation (as opposed to international treaties) requires a simple majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to be sent to the president for signature. Getting 50 votes for a climate change bill (with a tie vote broken by the vice president) is almost certain.

    But opponents of legislation can threaten to filibuster (speak for an indefinite period and thereby paralyse Senate business), which can be ended only if 60 senators support bringing the legislation to a vote. Otherwise, proposed legislation can be killed, even if it has the support of a simple majority. That will certainly be true of domestic climate change legislation. Securing 60 votes is a steep hill to climb.

    Political analysts know that the votes will depend on individual senators’ ideologies, states’ voting patterns, and states’ dependence on coal relative to other energy sources. Based on these factors, one analysis counts 50 likely Democratic yes votes and 34 Republican no votes, leaving 16 votes still in play. Ten of the swing votes are Democrats, mainly from coal states; the other six are Republicans who conceivably could vote with the president and the Democratic majority.

    Until recently, many believed that China and India would be the real holdouts in the global climate change negotiations. Yet China has announced a set of major initiatives – in solar, wind, nuclear, and carbon-capture technologies – to reduce its economy’s greenhouse gas intensity.

    India, long feared to be a spoiler, has said that it is ready to adopt a significant national action plan to move towards a trajectory of sustainable energy. The two nations have agreed to co-ordinate efforts on renewable energy and research, and the US is under growing pressure to act. With developing countries displaying their readiness to reach a global deal, could the US Senate really prove to be the world’s last great holdout?

    Obama has tools at his command to bring the US into the global mainstream on climate change. First, he is negotiating side deals with holdout senators to cushion the economic impact on coal states and to increase US investments in the research and development, and eventually adoption, of clean coal technologies.

    Second, he can command the Environmental Protection Agency to impose administrative controls on coal plants and automobile producers even if the Congress does not pass new legislation. The administrative route might turn out to be even more important than the legislative route.

    The politics of the US Senate should not obscure the larger point: America has acted irresponsibly since signing the climate treaty in 1992. It is the world’s largest and most powerful country, and the one most responsible for the climate change to this point, it has behaved without any sense of duty – to its own citizens, to the world, and to future generations.

    Even coal state senators should be ashamed. Sure, their states need some extra help, but narrow interests should not be permitted to endanger our planet’s future. It is time for the US to rejoin the global family.

    Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009