Author: admin

  • Global warming dauses 300.000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank

     

    Economic losses due to climate change today amount to more than $125bn a year — more than all the present world aid. The report comes from former UN secretary general Kofi Annan’s thinktank, the Global Humanitarian Forum. By 2030, the report says, climate change could cost $600bn a year.

    Civil unrest may also increase because of weather-related events, the report says: “Four billion people are vulnerable now and 500m are now at extreme risk. Weather-related disasters … bring hunger, disease, poverty and lost livelihoods. They pose a threat to social and political stability”.

    If emissions are not brought under control, within 25 years, the report states:

    • 310m more people will suffer adverse health consequences related to temperature increases

    • 20m more people will fall into poverty

    • 75m extra people will be displaced by climate change.

    Climate change is expected to have the most severe impact on water supplies . “Shortages in future are likely to threaten food production, reduce sanitation, hinder economic development and damage ecosystems. It causes more violent swings between floods and droughts. Hundreds of millions of people are expected to become water stressed by climate change by the 2030. “.

    The study says it is impossible to be certain who will be displaced by 2030, but that tens of millions of people “will be driven from their homelands by weather disasters or gradual environmental degradation. The problem is most severe in Africa, Bangladesh, Egypt, coastal zones and forest areas. .”

    The study compares for the first time the number of people affected by climate change in rich and poor countries. Nearly 98% of the people seriously affected, 99% of all deaths from weather-related disasters and 90% of the total economic losses are now borne by developing countries. The populations most at risk it says, are in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, south Asia and the small island states of the Pacific.

    But of the 12 countries considered least at risk, including Britain, all but one are industrially developed. Together they have made nearly $72bn available to adapt themselves to climate change but have pledged only $400m to help poor countries. “This is less than one state in Germany is spending on improving its flood defences,” says the report.

    The study comes as diplomats from 192 countries prepare to meet in Bonn next week for UN climate change talks aimed at reaching a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in December in Copenhagen. “The world is at a crossroads. We can no longer afford to ignore the human impact of climate change. This is a call to the negotiators to come to the most ambitious agreement ever negotiated or to continue to accept mass starvartion, mass sickness and mass migration on an ever growing scale,” said Kofi Annan, who launched the report today in London.

    Annan blamed politians for the current impasse in the negotiations and widespread ignorance in many countries. “Weak leadership, as evident today, is alarming. If leaders cannot assume responsibility they will fail humanity. Agreement is in the interests of every human being.”

    Barabra Stocking, head of Oxfam said: “Adaptation efforts need to be scaled up dramatically.The world’s poorest are the hardest hit, but they have done the least to cause it.

    Nobel peace prizewinner Wangari Maathai, said: “Climate change is life or death. It is the new global battlefield. It is being presented as if it is the problem of the developed world. But it’s the developed world that has precipitated global warming.”

    Calculations for the report are based on data provided by the World Bank, the World Health organisation, the UN, the Potsdam Insitute For Climate Impact Research, and others, including leading insurance companies and Oxfam. However, the authors accept that the estimates are uncertain and could be higher or lower. The paper was reviewed by 10 of the world’s leading experts incluing Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, Jeffrey Sachs, of Columbia University and Margareta Wahlström, assistant UN secretary general for disaster risk reduction.

  • Gore’s green groups kick into campaign mode to push climate legislation

     

    Gore founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and The Climate Project in 2006 with money he earned from An Inconvenient Truth and other ventures.  He’s built them into “multi-hundred-million-dollar” organizations “aimed at getting the facts before the people,” he told Grist. Up to this point, their work has been largely separate: The Climate Project has trained 2,600 people to present versions of Gore’s famous slideshow, while the Alliance has run major advertising campaigns to convince Americans of the need to address the climate crisis.

    But now the two groups are coordinating closely as they enter a new campaign-style phase with a focused mission: passing a solid climate bill.

    The plan, according to Alliance CEO Maggie Fox, is to organize “the biggest mobilization that the climate movement has ever seen.”

    Getting into the field

    Fox came to the Alliance in March from America Votes, a coalition of progressive groups that coordinates get-out-the-vote drives in swing states.  She replaced Cathy Zoi, who left to join the Obama administration as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

    The Alliance recently brought on other veterans of national political campaigns: Steve Hildebrand, the Obama campaign’s deputy national campaign director, is working as a consultant for the project.  Steve Bouchard, a veteran of the 2004 and 2008 Democratic presidential campaigns, is campaign manager for the Alliance. Brian Rogers, spokesperson for John McCain’s presidential campaign last year, has come on board as research director.

    The group is hiring a fleet of veteran field organizers who cut their teeth during the Obama campaign, and who bring a wealth of grassroots organizing skills. Since the beginning of the year, the group’s paid staff has grown from 20 people to 120, with plans to expand up to 250 in the next few months.  The Alliance has moved its headquarters from California to Washington, D.C., but at the same time sent many of its organizers far outside the Beltway.  New hires include 16 state directors and 55 regional field organizers, working in a total of 28 states, with a particular emphasis on the districts of swing-vote representatives in the Midwest and South who need encouragement to support climate legislation.

    The group’s annual budget hasn’t changed—it’s still in the range of $80 million to $100 million, Fox confirms—but now, instead of spending the bulk of its money on big ad campaigns, it’s dividing funds between advertising and on-the-ground staff.

    “We know we can’t win this through just paid media,” said Bouchard. “The idea was to develop a comprehensive campaign, just like you would in any electoral context.”

    “If we’re going to make a difference, it’s going to be in people’s congressional districts and people’s states,” said Hildebrand. “What happens in Washington oftentimes is very important, but where we’re going to apply pressure is back home. I wish everyone in the environmental community would empty out their offices in Washington and ship them back to these states and districts to create a lot of noise.”

    Fox, citing lessons learned in her time with America Votes, notes the importance of spreading organizers out to crucial districts. The Alliance has been coordinating with partners from environmental, labor, religious, and progressive groups to figure out which areas are already covered and which need people on the ground.

    “It’s not just that you have to agree on the elements of a legislative package,” said Fox. “What we are agreeing on now is how to cover the map, how to engage, involve, and reach out to constituencies across the map.”

    Rallying the troops

    Hildebrand touts a community-organizing model—which was quite successful for his former boss last year.

    “The big lesson from the Obama campaign is let people help develop their destiny,” said Hildebrand. “Everybody knows how to be active in their community. You don’t have to teach them, you don’t have to hand-hold them. You need to give them encouragement, you need to make sure they buy into what the mission is, and they will go to town, and they will do the job that you need them to do.”

    As in an electoral campaign, the paid Alliance staff have expectations each day, including how many phone calls, letters to the editor, and press events they’re supposed to generate or organize.

    “You need to create noise, you need to get calls into these members’ offices, demand meetings,” said Hildebrand.

    The Alliance has a large pool of supporters to call into action, including an email list of 2.3 million, more than double the number of names it had a year ago.  The group is encouraging volunteers within its network to gather community members in a room, talk about the importance of passing climate legislation, and start assigning jobs: a phone-bank captain, a letter-to-the-editor captain, a scheduler, a press person, a community-outreach leader.

    Alliance organizers don’t want their troops to delve too deeply into the specifics of climate policy, like how deep emissions cut should be or what percentage of power should be drawn from renewables. They’re focusing on a straightforward goal, according to Fox: “Bold climate action this year.” And right now that means supporting the Waxman-Markey climate bill, “even if the prettiness of it is not what I might want or you might want or the vice president might want,” said Fox.

    This approach has already started paying off.  In the weeks leading up a critical vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the bill, the Alliance’s network of activists sent 20,000 letters to 960 newspapers in key congressional districts, according to Fox.  The Alliance also hosted more than 30 town hall meetings in the districts of committee members. The committee passed the bill on May 21.

    This week, during Congress’ Memorial Day recess, Alliance organizers are coordinating another 30 or so town halls to draw attention to the issue of climate change while representatives are in their home districts.

    As debate over climate legislation moves forward in Congress, the Alliance is building a “legislative war room” that can do rapid response, sending out action alerts and directives to supporters around the country.

    A slideshow, reborn

    Gore’s other group, The Climate Project, is proving a critical partner in these efforts. It has trained 1,200 volunteers in the U.S. and 2,600 worldwide over the past two and half years to deliver the slideshow on global warming that Gore made famous in An Inconvenient Truth. These activists have reached 5 million people through 50,000 presentations.

    Now, in a new phase of the project kicked off at its North American summit in Nashville, Tenn., earlier this month, Climate Project volunteers will be pushing for a climate bill—and using a retooled slideshow to do it.

    “Phase two is entering into a more activism phase, an issue campaign to give them the tools and other information that they’re going to need to go forth and increase public engagement in this issue,”  Jenny Clad, executive director of The Climate Project, told Grist at the summit.  “One hundred percent of the people here will be pushing for the toughest, strongest climate legislation that we can possibly pass in this country.”

    The climate presenters have been successful so far because they use “peer-to-peer persuasion,” said Clad.  “[People] are more likely to be persuaded by people that they go to church with, go to school with, work with. They are more likely to listen to this person when they say ‘We’ve got to listen and start doing something’ than they are perhaps to great scientists and icons when they say it.”

    Press wasn’t permitted to see the new slideshow yet, but summit attendees report that it includes updated (and scarier) climate science data, as well as new info about the technological and legislative solutions that could help address the problem. The new presentation, said Clad, is “not just how do we change light bulbs, but how do we change laws as well.”

    Storming the airwaves

    Though there’s a new emphasis on grassroots engagement, the Climate Alliance isn’t abandoning its ad campaigns.

    Its best-known advertising blitz was the “We Can Solve It” campaign, with the memorable ad featuring Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich sitting together on a couch and calling for climate action.  In November 2008, the Alliance launched its Repower America campaign supporting Gore’s call to shift to 100 percent clean energy in 10 years.

    The group recently ran a new set of Repower America TV ads around the country, calling on 14 swing-vote legislators on the Energy and Commerce Committee to support the Waxman-Markey bill—and 10 out of 14 did, voting to pass it out of committee last week. Another ad currently airing on national cable features a blue-collar worker asking Congress to take on the “big oil boys” and support clean energy.

    With all these efforts combined, Gore and his team are confident they’ll be able to influence the debate at least as much as dirty energy interests have thus far.

    “They have their billions and billions of dollars in record profits … We don’t think we’ll ever compete head to head,” said Hildebrand. “We just have enough to create the kind of noise that’s really needed to get something serious done.”

    ——-

  • Effects of overpopulation

  • Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming[146] [147]
  • Irreversible loss of arable land and increases in desertification[148] Deforestation and desertification can be reversed by adopting property rights, and this policy is successful even while the human population continues to grow.[149]
  • Mass species extinctions.[150] from reduced habitat in tropical forests due to slash-and-burn techniques that sometimes are practiced by shifting cultivators, especially in countries with rapidly expanding rural populations; present extinction rates may be as high as 140,000 species lost per year.[151] As of 2007, the IUCN Red List lists a total of 698 animal species having gone extinct during recorded human history.[152]
  • High infant and child mortality.[153] High rates of infant mortality are caused by poverty. Rich countries with high population densities have low rates of infant mortality. [8]
  • Increased chance of the emergence of new epidemics and pandemics[154] For many environmental and social reasons, including overcrowded living conditions, malnutrition and inadequate, inaccessible, or non-existent health care, the poor are more likely to be exposed to infectious diseases.[155]
  • Starvation, malnutrition[118] or poor diet with ill health and diet-deficiency diseases (e.g. rickets). However, rich countries with high population densities do not have famine.[156]
  • Poverty coupled with inflation in some regions and a resulting low level of capital formation. Poverty and inflation are aggravated by bad government and bad economic policies. Many countries with high population densities have eliminated absolute poverty and keep their inflation rates very low.[157]
  • Low life expectancy in countries with fastest growing populations[158]
  • Unhygienic living conditions for many based upon water resource depletion, discharge of raw sewage[159] and solid waste disposal. However, this problem can be reduced with the adoption of sewers. For example, after Karachi, Pakistan installed sewers, its infant mortality rate fell substantially. [160]
  • Elevated crime rate due to drug cartels and increased theft by people stealing resources to survive[161]
  • Conflict over scarce resources and crowding, leading to increased levels of warfare[162]
  • [edit] Mitigation measures

    While the current world trends are not indicative of any realistic solution to human overpopulation during the 21st century, there are several mitigation measures that have or can be applied to reduce the adverse impacts of overpopulation.

  • Rudd wooing Africa while our growers struggle

    Rudd wooing Africa while our growers struggle

    EXCLUSIVE by Steve Lewis

    May 29, 2009 12:00am

    LOCAL farmers are being robbed by the Rudd Government so it can use the cash to “buy” a seat at the United Nations Security Council, it was claimed yesterday.

    While the countryside has its funding cut despite battling floods and drought, hundreds of millions in extra aid dollars are going to Africa.

    Ignoring a $57 billion deficit, the Government announced $464 million extra for overseas “food security” in this month’s Budget – much of it going to African countries battling to provide sustainable farming.

    And The Daily Telegraph can also reveal that the main agency in charge of combating money laundering has had its budget slashed but has been told to help African nations.

    Who should the financial aid go to – NSW farmers or Africa? Tell us below

    Austrac confirmed plans to provide $7.7 million in “technical assistance” to four African countries. The votes of these countries – Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and Namibia – will help decide whether Australia is elected to the UN seat. Dairy farmer Vic Rudder said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had his priorities the wrong way around.

    The 64-year-old battler said Canberra should look “after its own backyard first” rather than giving more money to overseas farmers.

    “Why give it in foreign aid when we are struggling here?” he said.

    Mr Rudd, a former diplomat, has strenuously denied suggestions his eventual goal is to become the UN secretary-general.

    But Liberal Deputy Leader Julie Bishop accused the PM of sacrificing farmers’ interests in order to “support his job application” for the UN.

    “This is nothing more than an ego-driven campaign by Mr Rudd to buy himself a place on the world stage,” the foreign affairs spokeswoman said.

    The National Farmers Federation also criticised the decision to cut $60 million from the agriculture Budget while boosting overseas aid.

    “The priority is wrong to cut spending here, while increasing it overseas,” NFF chief executive Ben Fargher said.

    Foreign Minister Stephen Smith this week admitted the Government planned to “enhance” Australia’s diplomatic presence in Africa.

    “We are under-represented in Africa and we need to start the job now of fixing that problem into the longer term,” he said.

    Controversially, Governor-General Quentin Bryce undertook a three-week tour of 10 African countries in March and April, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Nationals leader Warren Truss said the Government was cutting $900 million from the agriculture Budget.

    “Labor wants a seat on the UN Security Council and they are prepared to pay any price,” he said.

    But Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said Mr Truss couldn’t count.

    “It’s a lie,” he said of the claim.

    Source: The Daily Telegraph 

  • Can the US Afford Cap-and-Trade ?

     

    In our latest report, Greenhouse Gases and the American Lifestyle: Understanding Interstate Differences in Emissions, we analyze interstate variation in per capita emissions from residential fuel use, electricity use and transportation. Our report finds that the variation in states emissions is the result of many factors, some more controllable than others.

    Some parts of the country are colder than others and face greater heating requirements; some are hotter and need more energy for cooling. People who live in rural, low-density states drive more than those who live in urban, high-density areas, resulting in more transportation emissions.

    But there are other factors well within states’ control that affect household emissions. The extent of public transportation in urban areas varies widely from state to state; the level of gasoline taxes differs as well. Both of these policies have a direct, measurable effect on automobile usage and thus on transportation emissions. The reliance on coal power for electricity generation has a large impact on residential. Energy efficiency is important too.

    The differences between states, though they look large at first glance, seem less so as the reasons why these differences exist become clearer. We can address the differences in impacts between states through smart climate and energy policies. A cap-and-trade program that auctions permits (or a carbon tax) will generate the revenue stream we need to invest in renewable energies, energy efficiency and assist the households that will be most impacted by climate policy.

    Above all, information about policies that have succeeded in reducing emissions in some states should be circulated to the rest of the country to demonstrate that it is possible to produce a comfortable American lifestyle with carbon emissions well below average. Following their example more widely is an important first step on the road to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to a sustainable level.

    Economists across the country are organizing themselves to demonstrate that the U.S. economy can afford to deal with climate change. This report is just one part of this larger national effort, initiated by Economics for Equity and the Environment Network and our partners at Stockholm Environment Institute – US and Ecotrust.

    We’ve launched a new website, RealClimateEconmics.org, that surveys the published literature in climate economics. It demonstrates that the weight of economic evidence supports immediate policy measures to address climate change. These studies show that the cost of preventing climate change can be addressed efficiently and fairly, and that the costs pale in comparison to the costs of inaction. Economics should not be used as the rationale for delaying action on climate change.

    Kristen Sheeran is the director of Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3), a nationwide network of economists developing new arguments for environmental protection with a social justice focus. Prior to her role with E3 Network, she was an Associate Professor of Economics at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, Maryland’s public honors college.

    Her research is primarily focused on the tension between equity and efficiency in climate change mitigation. She has published articles in Environmental and Resource Economics, Ecological Economics, Climatic Change, Journal of Economic Issues, Eastern Economic Journal, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, and Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. Her book, Saving Kyoto with Graciela Chichilnisky, will be published later this year by New Holland Press.

    To watch a video interview with Dr. Kristen Sheenan in which she discusses this report,  click here.

    Image Gallery (1)
  • PAUL EHRLICH AND THE POPULATION BOMB