EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Climate groups dimayed at G20

    The final summit statement ageed by the leaders, however, was fairly vague.

    “We will spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations,” it said, without going into specifics of how the funding gap might be met.

    Hopes that the world’s leading powers would get behind measures to help poorer countries fight climate change were raised in July in L’Aquila, Italy, when G8 leaders sent their finance ministers to seek sources of cash.

    On Friday, however, the broader G20 group promised simply to “intensify our efforts” and sent the ministers back to do some more research.

    “We welcome the work of the finance ministers and direct them to report back at their next meeting with a range of possible options for climate change financing,” the final statement said.

    “This was not a breakthrough on the climate issue … but over lunch we had a very open discussion that we need to take responsibility as leaders,” said Sweden’s Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who chairs the European Union.

    Reinfeldt promised the leaders would seek to meet again within two weeks to take another stab at resolving the issue, but pressure groups were outraged, singling out Obama and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel for scorn.

    “This is a crisis of leadership. The rich-country G20 leaders – especially Merkel and Obama – set themselves a deadline for a climate finance proposal, and then slept right through it,” said Ben Wikler of Avaaz.

    “Until the US, EU and Japanese leaders wake up and put together a serious climate finance plan, there will be a 150 billion dollar pothole on the road to Copenhagen,” he told reporters in Pittsburgh for the summit.

    Max Lawson, senior policy adviser for the aid agency Oxfam, said: “With 72 days to Copenhagen rich countries have once again refused to put up the funds needed to deliver the deal in Copenhagen.”

    The G20 did endorse an Obama-inspired plan to reduce government subsidies on fossil fuels, a move welcomed but dismissed as not enough by campaigners, but no one was pretending the leaders made progress towards a Copenhagen deal.

    Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the summit only took up global warming in broad terms and that he simply didn’t know whether there would be a new deal to be signed in Denmark to replace the Kyoto protocol.

    “I’m not an astrologer,” Singh told a news conference dismissively.

    “There is a broad, vague agreement that any agreement in which developing countries are also required to take any national action will have to be accompanied by credible action on the part of developed countries,” he said.

    “But other than expressing a pious wish with regard to the success of the framework convention meeting in Copenhagen, the Group of 20 I think did not go into the mechanics of these things.”

    The Kyoto Protocol required rich nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions but the requirements expire at the end of 2012, and experts say emerging powers such as India and China must take part if a new plan is to succeed.

    AFP

  • STOP CAPITALISM DEFINING HUMAN NATURE

     

    When what were regarded in a more primitive age as negative attributes are magically re-formed so they shine as virtues, it is easy to persuade ourselves that these represent human nature. It gives us permission, as it were, to be intemperate, self-indulgent and greedy. The morality of economic growth and expansion has invaded the psyche, the inner sites where people struggle with how to be a good person; and now reigns as the ultimate revelation of what it means to be human.

    The success of industrial society depends on this grim account of “reality”. “You can’t change human nature” is the first article in the credo of capitalism; a mildly sorrowful recognition that human beings are “essentially” selfish, irremediably “fallen” in fact: and this exhibits continuity in what might, at first sight, seem a radical break with Christian teaching.

    If the first article of capitalism has been the unalterability of human nature, its second has been a relentless remaking, domination and plunder of the rest of the natural world. Nature itself has been infinitely pliable, to be used and shaped to any purpose “humanity” proposes. Whole continents have been subjugated, forests felled, watercourses diverted, the earth gutted, seas fished to extinction; only human nature, remains triumphant, invincible.

    The weight of the dazzling iconography of production and consumption, together with these vices-become-virtues leaves no room for other, eclipsed visions of the better world that this one might have been, but can no longer be, since these have been colonised by one of the many possible versions of prosperity or well-being. If the western view of the world has prevailed over all others, this is not so much a sign of its providential truth as of its physical power.

    If this story of human purposes contains some truth, that truth conceals an even greater falsehood. It is undeniable that human beings have always longed for more, have yearned for possessions that will serve as a bulwark against existential desolation, as an illusion against eternity – the tombs of history are strewn with precious objects to accompany the deceased even into the afterlife. But, no one has ever before seriously believed that bliss is to be attained in this brief life, even those who have professed total faith in the pursuit of happiness.

    Religion has always taught the necessity for restraint, limits and the impossibility of transcendence in this world. The ideology of limitless growth turns this on its head: it injects an otherworldly cosmology into an ostensibly secular context. Instead of promising happiness in the hereafter, it offers a happy eternity in the here-and-now. These doctrines are far more impossible of fulfilment than the dogmas of any religious faith; for while it cannot be proved that there is no afterlife, it is obvious that perpetual happiness in a life limited by insecurity, pain and loss is a vain endeavour. This is why much of the resistance to capitalist ideology comes from the religious; since priests, imams and intermediaries with the other world are well aware that it is their territory that is being trampled.

    The conviction that the natural world is ours for the taking, but that human nature remains closed to change, has led directly to multiple global crises – climate change, growing inequality, and, less noted, but perhaps even more significant, a pervasive, doomed and morbid desire for the unattainable. It has now been recognised that disturbance of the biosphere, an addiction to progress, the accumulated effects of human action, have led directly to global warming; but there has been – understandably – far greater reluctance to recognise the role of an unalterable human nature in the achievement of this melancholy state.

    This equation cannot be selectively modified, since it is, in its way, a holistic view of the world. Any resolution of the threats posed by globalisation requires a reversal of the ideology: the very opposite is needed of the cynical, taken-for-granted fatalism about the nature of humanity, for this has led to immobilism and sense of powerlessness in engaging effectively with the present crisis.

    The most urgent work is to address this fiction of human nature, which is viewed as the only fixed point in the constant churning of feverish change and growth. Human nature is not as it has been painted by the self-justifying prophets of economic ideology. It is one thing to compel people to behave in a particular way and then to approve the outcome of such conduct as in accord with human nature. If there is no public space for other attributes of humanity, this bleak view will inevitably crowd out our capacity for generosity, selflessness, sacrifice and kindness. We know these things exist: only they are barred, proscribed guests from the sombre economic banquet, except for the crumbs of philanthropy of leftovers. Ruthless, self-centred, individualistic – if these characteristics are rewarded, who will not cultivate them, leaving human virtues to be practised furtively, in the secrecy of a private life where they have been incarcerated as spoilers of the economic game?

    “We must change nature, but we can’t change human nature” has been the cry of the most serious conservationists of all, those who would conserve intact the dominant unjust paradigm. Even for the modest aim of 10:10 to work effectively in Britain, other human possibilities will have to be aroused from the common grave of unsettling ideas; among them, a reawakening of the resourcefulness, creativity and flexibility of people, which alone can mitigate our baleful effects upon the planet.

    Perhaps there are, for the rich, other ways of being prosperous, and for the poor, other pathways out of poverty than those we know. But they remain blocked by the immoveable conviction that the disciplines of the market economy – that alliance of destructiveness of nature and the inviolability of our human nature – are still the only route to the realisation of our deepest dreams and avoidance of our worst nightmares.

    It has now been generally acknowledged that the plunder of nature must cease; but without confronting the source of those predations, our chances of survival are becoming smaller by the day. Some radical questions arise, not the least of which is why it has become so difficult to distinguish between the nature of industrialism and the industrialising of our own nature?

  • Millions at risk of flooding as river deltas sink

     

    The researchers found that 85% of the major river deltas studied experienced severe flooding in the past decade.

    The area of deltas vulnerable to flooding will increase by half if sea levels rise by an average of 44 centimetres this century as projected.

    They studied 33 river deltas, formed by deposits of sediment where a river joins another body of water such as an ocean, by combining satellite and remote sensing data with historical maps to determine their height relative to sea level, and looked at flooding events and sediment deposits.

    They found that 26 deltas were sinking relative to sea level.

    “A delta is a dynamic system, so a natural delta is sinking anyway,” Robert Nicholls, professor of coastal engineering at the United Kingdom’s University of Southampton and one of the authors of the study, told SciDev.Net. “But every flood season, sediment is brought back in and maintains the level of the land.”

    But in many rivers, sediment upstream of the deltas is getting trapped in reservoirs and dams, and the removal of oil, gas and groundwater is compacting the sediment.

    Large areas of delta are less than two metres above sea level, making them vulnerable to flooding, particularly from tropical storm surges, which can temporarily raise sea levels by 3–10 metres.

    For example, in 2008 a 3.5-metre storm surge caused by cyclone Nargis flooded the Irrawaddy Delta in Myanmar, killing thousands (see Ignored warnings ‘worsened’ Myanmar cyclone disaster).

    Nicholls says that the banks of many river deltas — particularly in South and South-East Asia — are densely populated. The Pearl Delta in China and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, both home to millions, are particularly at risk of flooding.

    Many developing countries have yet to address the issue.

    “You cannot stop deltas from sinking, but you can reduce how much they sink, and developing countries need public funding and coordinated programmes [to prevent major consequences from the floodings],” says Nicholls. “But they have to start by recognising the problem.”

    • This article was shared by our content partner SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network

  • Loss of soil threatens food production, UK government warns.

     

    New housing and transport infrastructure as well as climate change are all adding to the pressures on soils, explained the environment secretary, Hilary Benn. “Soil erosion already results in the annual loss of around 2.2m tonnes of topsoil. This costs farmers £9m a year in lost production. Climate change has the potential to increase erosion rates through hotter, drier conditions that make soils more susceptible to wind erosion, coupled with intense rainfall incidents that can wash soil away,” he said.

    British soils contain around 10bn tonnes of carbon, half of which is found in peat habitats. Many of this habitat is under threat from climate change, mining, or poor land management. “Losing this [carbon] store to the atmosphere would create emissions that are equivalent to more than 50 times the UK’s current annual greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.

    Defra’s chief scientist, Professor Bob Watson, said safeguarding soil would be “critical” if food production was to increase in the next 20-30 years. “We face many challenges of climate change, we have to produce twice as much food, it needs to be more nutritious, and if we don’t take care of our soil and our water, we will not be able to accomplish that task,” he said.

    The government plans to improve soil conditions by tightening the planning system to make developers take soils into account, encouraging farmers to put back more organic matter back and preventing industrial pollution. Most soils in Britain are degraded by poor land management and the inefficient use of fertilisers, especially nitrogen.

    The Soil Association, the organisation that promotes organic farming, welcomed what it said was a recognition thatintroducing large amounts of nitrogen fertiliser was not sustainable in the long term, but said that the government’s proposed measures did not go nearly far enough.

    “They [the government] will not put right the huge degradation that our soils have suffered over the last 200 years, partly as a result of what the government calls intensive agricultural production. Organic farming should be acknowledged as a key approach to protect our vital soils,” said policy director, Peter Melchett.

    Kathryn Alton, soil scientist and executive officer of the British Society of Soil Science, said: “The numbers of professional soil scientists in the UK has declined over time in conjunction with the loss of soil science departments.  Investment is clearly needed in training soil scientists to meet these future challenges.”

  • World consumption plunges planet into’ecological debt’, says leading thinktank

     

    Andrew Simms, nef’s director, said the deep recession had delayed this “ecological debt day” by only 24 hours compared with last year, when it fell on 24 September. He warned that as G20 leaders gather in Pittsburgh to discuss global finance, there is a risk that the world economy will be kick-started again, without learning the lessons of the “consumption explosion”.

    “Debt-fuelled over-consumption not only brought the financial system to the edge of collapse, it is pushing many of our natural life support systems toward a precipice. Politicians tell us to get back to business as usual, but if we bankrupt critical ecosystems no amount of government spending will bring them back,” he said.

    In the UK, nef warns of increasing dependence on overseas energy, declining self-sufficiency in food, and the proliferation of “boomerang trade” — sending goods to foreign markets and receiving almost identical items back.

    The research also underlines the yawning gap between the energy consumption of the world’s poorest people, and the rich. Just 7% of the global population produces 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. A typical American will by 4am on January 2 have produced as many emissions as a Tanzanian generates in a year.

    Nef argues that while the arrival of reliable electricity and other energy resources could bring enormous improvements in life expectancy and quality of life in developing countries, when consumption increases above a certain level, it will stop improving people’s health or happiness.

    Beyond this point, they say, “to increase human well-being, the focus should shift away from a quantitative focus on income and consumption, towards more qualitative improvements in the human environment to do with culture, civic, community and family life, long-term learning and those other dimensions that contribute to relatively long and happy lives.”

    The analysis suggests many countries have passed far beyond saturation point, into wasteful “overconsumption”.

    In the past 50 years, the report argues, people in the rich world have changed their lifestyles radically, and “in doing so, we have generally assumed that the resources and energy these activities rely on are limitless and cheap.” In the 1970s, the average household in the UK had 17 domestic appliances, for example – but that had almost trebled, to 47, by 2006, and is expected to continue rising. Yet in fact, consumption has begun to gnaw away at natural resources at a rate which cannot be sustained.

    Concern about the damage caused by the unrestrained pursuit of economic growth echoes a call by President Nicolas Sarkozy last week for politicians to look beyond GDP, to wider measures of the quality of life. Sarkozy published a report from Nobel prize-winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, advocating a broader approach to assessing the health of an economy.

    These arguments have been given added urgency by the financial crisis, which undermined the arguments for unfettered consumption-fuelled growth.

    “For years, we proclaimed the financial world a creator of wealth, until we learned one day that it had accumulated so much risk that it plunged us into chaos,” Sarkozy said last week.

    Simms calls for a radical redistribution between the millions of “underconsumers,” in the poorest countries, whose lives could be transformed by small amounts of energy a year — and the bloated overconsumers in the rest of the world.

    “We need a radically different approach to ‘rich world’ consumption. While billions in poorer countries subsist, we consume vastly more and yet with little or nothing to show for it in terms of greater life satisfaction. Defusing the consumption explosion will give us the chance of better lives,” he said.

  • UK launches 22m(UK) wave energy fund

     

    The government faced criticism last month from Conservative shadow energy and climate change secretary Greg Clark, after it emerged that none of the £50 million Deployment Fund had yet been distributed. Clark said that the government was guilty of providing over 20 times more subsidies to the coal industry than it has delivered to the marine energy sector.

    Energy and Climate Change Minister Lord Hunt said that the new Proving Fund would help marine projects “get off the drawing board and into the water, taking them a vital step closer to full scale commercial viability”.

    The launch of the new fund completes a good few weeks for the marine energy sector, after the Carbon Trust announced that it has awarded £500,000 from the deployment fund to marine energy firms Pelamis Wave Power and Marine Current Turbines to help them develop more cost effective means of installing their technologies, and the Department of Business and Skills unveiled plans to create 1,500 engineering graduate placements to support the sector.

    According to recent research from the Carbon Trust, a quarter of the world’s wave energy technologies are already developed in the UK, while the marine energy sector has the potential to contribute £2 billion a year to the country’s economy by 2050, employing 16,000 people in the process.

    In related news, the government announced that it is currently working on a new Marine Action Plan that will be published early next year and will detail the steps the industry needs to take to ensure the wider roll out of wave and tidal technologies.