EcoRadio

Author: Neville

  • World Bank warns global warming woes closing in

    World Bank warns global warming woes closing in

    AFPUpdated June 19, 2013, 6:34 pm

    WASHINGTON (AFP) – The World Bank on Wednesday warned that severe hardships from global warming could be felt within a generation, with a new study detailing devastating impacts in Africa and Asia.

    The report presents “an alarming scenario for the days and years ahead — what we could face in our lifetime,” said World Bank President Jim Yong Kim.

    “The scientists tell us that if the world warms by two degrees Centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) — warming which may be reached in 20 to 30 years — that will cause widespread food shortages, unprecedented heat waves, and more intense cyclones,” he said in a statement.

    An update of the Bank’s November “Turn Down the Heat” climate report, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate said there was evidence in the past seven months that previous projections for greenhouse gas emissions had been too low.

    Now, it said, there was a growing chance that warming will reach or exceed four degrees Celsius in this century “in the absence of near-term actions and further commitments to reduce emissions.”

    The United Nations has proposed the goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels, setting for the first time measurable targets to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

    International negotiations are aimed at reaching an agreement on that limit by 2015, with the pact due to take effect by 2020.

    In the report, commissioned by the World Bank, scientists from around the world focused on the risks of climate change to development in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and South Asia, home to some of the world’s poorest people.

    They looked at the likely impacts from varying degrees of global warming in a range of areas, including agriculture, water resources, coastal erosion and vulnerability to flooding.

    The report noted that the current level of warming — 0.8 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial levels of the 18th century — already had increased drought in Sub-Saharan Africa and coastal erosion in Southeast Asia.

    The impact of two-degree warming, expected by the 2040s, would have grave and sweeping consequences, it said.

    Unusual and unprecedented heat extremes would hammer the three regions, cutting crop production and causing widespread food shortages.

    Many regions would see 20 percent declines in water availability and, for South Asia, disturbances in the monsoon could put water and food resources “at severe risk.”

    Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president for sustainable development, said the development lender has been working with some of the world’s burgeoning cities to mitigate the risks of global warming, for example helping Manila and Ho Chi Minh City on flood mitigation.

    She said the Bank was looking at a major initiative preparing cities to absorb investment for infrastructure projects that will help them deal with the impact of global warming, such as flood protection, and the report, by detailing risks, should encourage much-needed private investment.

    “When the investment community understands risks, then they always flip that into an opportunity in terms of investment vehicles,” she said in a conference call.

    Kyte said there was “a fundamental shift” in thinking at the World Bank that has put climate change at the heart of its development strategy.

    The World Bank doubled its investment in climate adjustment to $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2012 ending June 30 from $2.3 billion the prior year, she said.

    The report stressed that the risks were rising and a solution urgent, but there was a chance to avoid the worst of the crisis.

    “It is not too late to hold warming near two degrees Celsius, and build resilience to temperatures and other climate impacts that are expected to still pose significant risks to agriculture, water resources, coastal infrastructure, and human health,” the report said.

    “The window for holding warming below two degrees Celsius and avoiding a four degrees Celsius world is closing rapidly, and the time to act is now.”

    Oxfam welcomed the report but said the World Bank “must ensure its own lending meets the needs of the people who are most vulnerable to climate change.”

    Greenpeace pushed for the World Bank to stop funding fossil-fuels projects, which add to global warming.

    “Bold action is needed from all governments, and the World Bank must lead the way by shifting all its energy financing from fossil fuels to renewables and energy efficiency,” it said.

  • Labor risks majority crisis

    Labor risks majority crisis

    Date
    June 19, 2013
    • (0)
    Mark Kenny

    Mark Kenny

    Chief political correspondent

    View more articles from Mark Kenny

    Kevin Rudd.Pressure is building within Labor for a leadership showdown between Kevin Rudd and Prime Minister Julia Gillard Photo: Andrew Meares

    A late switch by Labor back to Kevin Rudd could provoke a constitutional crisis forcing Governor-General Quentin Bryce to consider options such as a sudden recall of Parliament to test Labor’s majority or even the appointment of Tony Abbott as prime minister.

    Another option would be the commencement of an immediate caretaker period before an early election.

    With pressure building within Labor for a leadership showdown between Mr Rudd and Prime Minister Julia Gillard, strategists on both sides of politics are waking up to the risk of unintended consequences of a leadership change in a party that does not have a majority in the House of Representatives. Legal experts say the Governor-General would be in uncharted waters because a new Labor leader would not necessarily command a parliamentary majority.

    Illustration: Ron Tandberg.Illustration: Ron Tandberg.

    University of NSW law professor George Williams said there would be several possibilities arising from a change, beginning with independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott ”grudgingly indicating their support”, in which case Mr Rudd would be signed in as prime minister. Another option would see the independents switch to Opposition Leader Mr Abbott, in which case he would be made prime minister, while a third possibility is that their allegiance becomes unclear.

    Advertisement

    That possibility could lead to an early election or a one-off sitting of Parliament to test the majority on the floor of the House.

    Another legal expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was possible that the Governor-General would conclude that Labor’s majority no longer existed and would consider ”letters” from the Labor and Liberal leaders making the case for their appointment.

    The uncertainty is likely to give pause to any Labor MPs believing that a switch to Mr Rudd could be done seamlessly next week.

    A Liberal source said the opposition was watching Labor’s internal leadership wrangling and was ”very much aware of the [constitutional] situation and giving it close consideration”.

    Mr Oakeshott said it was telling that the supposed architects of the move against Ms Gillard had not thought through the implications of their actions.

    ”They haven’t been on the phones and talking to us at all,” he said.

    Both pro-Rudd and pro-Gillard forces have been working on the assumption that the leadership stalemate would be brought to a head only after the final parliamentary question time on Thursday next week to avoid a parliamentary no-confidence vote.

    Ms Gillard addressed the caucus on Tuesday in an uneventful meeting in which the leadership was expressly not discussed.

    ”The elephant sat quietly in the corner,” was how one member characterised the meeting.

    The crossbench MPs have hinted previously that they would view their 2010 agreement with Labor on confidence and supply to be null and void if the leadership changed, because it had been struck with Ms Gillard personally.

    One of those MPs, Tasmania’s Andrew Wilkie, has already abandoned his formal agreement after being dudded on a commitment from Ms Gillard on poker machine reform.

    Asked on Tuesday what his attitude would be now if Labor changed its leader, Mr Wilkie said he did not know. ”I have a fairly neutral position and am genuinely open-minded,” he said.

    Follow the National Times on Twitter

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/labor-risks-majority-crisis-20130618-2ogwh.html#ixzz2WdsxsE6R

  • Post Growth Institute

    Post Growth Institute

    Inbox
    		 x
    Hamilton, Tim (K. Thomson, MP)
    11:18 AM (5 minutes ago)
    to Tim
    Dear All,
    ‘How on Earth? Flourishing in a Not-for-Profit World by 2050’ will be the world’s first book to explore the prospect of not-for-profit enterprise becoming the central model of local, national and international business, by 2050.
    You can watch a 2 minute overview video here:
    …you can find out more, and become a backer for this project, here:
    If you are able to contribute to this campaign, as little as $25 will get you an electronic copy of the book – the funding will support two of my Post Growth colleagues to do the writing.
    If you’re not in a position to contribute financially right now, sharing this:
    Support Post Growth Institute’s crowdfunding campaign http://bit.ly/how-on-earth outlining a system beyond economic growth, grounded in not-for-profit enterprise.
    …with your networks would also be a huge help to this team of volunteers who’ve worked hard at building a track record in this area since 2010.
    The campaign runs until 27 June.
    Regards,
    Tim
    YouTube – Videos from this email

  • Alan Jones lacks wind at protest

    Alan Jones lacks wind at protest

    AAP Updated June 18, 2013, 2:30 pm
    Pro and anti-wind farming activists will hold separate protests in Canberra on Tuesday.AAP © Pro and anti-wind farming activists will hold separate protests in Canberra on Tuesday.

    Alan Jones has lost a battle of the “wind wars”, with a rally against wind farms headlined by the radio shock jock failing to draw large crowds to Parliament House.

    The lacklustre attendance at Tuesday’s protest was seized upon by supporters of clean energy, who claimed victory in the “wind wars” by staging a much larger counter rally in Canberra’s city centre.

    The anti-wind farm website stopthesethings.com had encouraged participants to bring deckchairs for the event on the front lawn of parliament.

    But only about 100 people turned up to rally against the “fraud” of wind farms, which they claim destroy rural communities and cause illness through turbine noise.

    There were signs claiming “Wind Wrecks Health and Jobs” and “Wind Power Will Cost the Earth”, but none of the “Ditch the Witch” placards that caused a stir at the last major climate protest hosted by Mr Jones.

    The Sydney radio host paid tribute to those who attended but conceded numbers were down.

    “There aren’t a lot of people here,” he told the rally on Tuesday.

    “They don’t have the time, they don’t have the resources to be able to make the kind of statement they want to make.”

    Organisers of the counter rally claimed more than 1000 attendees in support of clean energy.

    The “Rally 4 Renewables”, staged by activist groups GetUp and Friends of the Earth, was attended by Australian Greens leader Christine Milne, independent MP Tony Windsor and parliamentary secretary for climate change Yvette D’Ath.

    Liberal senator Chris Back attended the anti-wind rally but independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon was a no-show, despite being invited to speak.

    Senator Xenophon said he remained “fully committed” to a bill he co-sponsored on wind turbine noise, and didn’t want his absence from the rally to be misinterpreted.

  • Do we need conclusive scientific proof to become concerned about an issue?

    Do we need conclusive scientific proof to become concerned about an issue?

    A weedkiller study has opened a debate on the merit of research by campaign groups versus peer-reviewed science

    Dandelion weeds

    A report found traces of weedkiller in the urine of 182 volunteers living in urban areas across Europe. Photograph: Julia Williams/Getty Images/Flickr RF

    Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue? A report released last week by Friends of the Earth and GM Freeze poses this exact question.

    The campaign groups were reporting the results of their small snapshot study that found traces of glyphosate, one of the most widely used weedkillers in the world, in the urine of 182 volunteers living in urban areas across Europe. Glyphosate is known under the brand name Roundup and produced by biotech giant Monsanto.

    The study was basic, the sample size was small, the report was unpublished. But could it point to an important issue for further investigation?

    Academics denounced the findings as “not scientific”, saying the results could not be taken seriously and that campaign groups should submit their work to peer-reviewed journals to provide a “genuine contribution to the debate”.

    Other scientists refused to comment on the study, saying that without it having gone through the review process there was simply no way of commenting on the findings. There is much to be said for peer-reviewing – having been through it myself I know how rigorous it can be. Though I found the process excruciating for its rigour, ultimately the end result was a far better paper based on more solid science.

    But charities and NGOs often don’t have the resources or expertise to undertake full scientific studies and publish them in journals. Is it even their role to do so? By producing snapshot studies that simply point to an issue, as long they don’t make any grand claims based on their findings, aren’t they simply doing their job of raising awareness of issues that affect society and the environment?

    Friends of the Earth think so. Vicki Hird, said: “This was never intended to be a scientific paper for peer review – it is a snapshot only and one intended to prompt those who do have the resources to do the necessary testing.” She added: “These tests highlight a need for government authorities across Europe to carry out rigorous testing with far bigger samples to discover how widespread this issue is and whether there are any health impacts from low-level exposure.”

    Some might argue that groups like FoE are our eyes and ears, giving a voice to people, species and issues that could otherwise go unnoticed. They hold powerful companies such as Monsanto to account and stand up for justice in a world where the priority is usually profit. With no profit to be gained from studies such as testing for weedkillers and pesticides in human urine, who else would conduct them?

    The role of such organisations is to point out the failings of the regulatory process, not to act as the regulatory process. This is the role of government.

    It is also worth noting that anyone can publish studies of this nature to support their agenda, as is often seen with industry research. Research carried out by industry and campaign groups is similar in that there is always the possibility of bias and data being used to support a political position. Does it matter that the two groups are likely to differ in their motives, with one being focused on private profit, sometimes at the expense of the environment or society, and the other geared towards creating positive change for little or no private gain?

    Many other reports, figures and statistics we are fed through the media and elsewhere are not peer-reviewed – government figures, industry reports, industry regulator information and even the Office of National Statistics data.

    Campaign organisations are campaign organisations, not research organisations or thinktanks. Their job is to raise awareness of issues that affect society, so that action can be taken. However those organisations need to be very careful about what they are claiming based on their findings. And journalists need to be very careful about how they interpret the claims of organisations. But I believe they should be given a voice, not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists. I’d be very interested in your views.

    • Kara Moses is a freelance journalist

  • Green groups warn government of national parks hunting backlash

    Green groups warn government of national parks hunting backlash

    Labor appears to have backed away from laws granting greater federal powers to protect Australia’s national parks

    uluru

    Environmentalists have pushed for greater federal government involvement in national parks due to pro-development decisions made by state governments. Photograph: Corbis

    Environmental groups have forecast a huge public backlash to proposed logging, shooting and prospecting within national parks, after the government backed away from adding federal oversight to conservation areas.

    The Greens put forward an amendment to a government bill – on protecting water tables from coal seam gas drilling – that would have given the commonwealth greater power to protect national parks.

    Under the current the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the federal government can intervene only if an endangered species, heritage area or place of “national significance” is affected by development.

    It is understood a proposal by federal environment minister Tony Burke to include a national parks trigger was rejected at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday night.

    A spokesperson for Burke said that the government supports its bill “as it stands” and that separate 2011 proposals, which would have brought most national parks under the commonwealth’s remit, were “still under consideration”.

    Environmentalists have pushed for greater federal involvement in national parks due to their dismay at pro-development decisions made by state governments.

    Last year, the New South Wales government said it would open up 77 of its national parks and reserves to amateur hunters to shoot feral animals, despite concerns over the safety to people.

    The Queensland government is conducting a review of all protected areas put aside since 2002, with a view to allow logging in certain parks, while the Victorian government has introduced 99-year private leases for tourism development in all of its national parks.

    Lyndon Schneiders, national campaign director of the Wilderness Society, said that the public was strongly against the erosion of national parks.

    “Millions of people use national parks,” he said. “Governments that are driving these changes to realise commercial opportunities don’t really realise they are biting their constituents. Most people out there can’t really believe what is happening is real and that it is being allowed to happen. The backlash is already there and it’s only going to get bigger.

    “The individual impacts of each development are bad, but what’s most disturbing is that there is now a section of politics that has decided that national parks aren’t worth it. This is a lost opportunity because the states have shown they can’t be trusted. We’ve encouraged the government to do something on this for three years, but they’ve dragged their heels and now they are barely functioning. This is a skirmish in what will be a much longer debate around nature conservation. We are at a crossroads moment about how we best protect national parks and other areas.”

    Matt Ruchel, executive director of the Victorian National Parks Association, said he was “disappointed” by the lack of federal oversight.

    “If the states go feral and undermine the integrity of national parks, who else will provide the checks and balances but the federal government?” he asked.

    “National parks are the cornerstone of conservation. They are well respected by the Australian community, they are a major draw card every day of the year, they clean air and water and draw carbon from the atmosphere.

    “Up until recently, protecting national parks was a bipartisan issue. I don’t understand why there’s been a shift away from that approach. It’s deeply concerning.”