Saturday, June 28, 2014

Brazil and good news on deforestation

One of the hard things to make students understand is how to protect biodiversity. The usual answer we get is do not hunt endangered species, etc. What they fail to grasp is that the major way is to prevent habitat loss, especially by establishment of bioreserves and preventation of deforestation.

That is why I find this article to be interesting. It shows the effect of policies in Brazil in combating deforestation.

What has been happenning? In the last ten years, the amount of deforestation per year has been declining steadily. It is now only 70% of what it was in 2004.

The authors identify the following factors leading to this reduction: monitoring, frontier goverance, government policies, new protected areas, pressure from environmental groups, and macroeconomic trends. It points out that it was the combination of these things not any one specifically.

One interesting thing is that Brazil does not only establish national parks, but also has other "strict protection areas": sustainable use areas, indigenous territories (where large scale logging and plantations are not allowed), and agarian reform settlements.

One conclusion of the article is that in order to keep continuing this trend of reduced deforestation, farmers, ranchers, and other land users must be given further incentives.

This a good example of what is really neccessary for progress in reducing deforestation and therefore protecting biodiversity. Now if others would take this seriously.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

COP-19 A Disaster

I usually give a review of the big annual climate change conference - well here it is, albeit a couple of months late!

The 2013 edition was COP-19 held in Warsaw, Poland. The big news from COP-19 was the walk out by many activists from the meeting in protest of the slow pace of the negotiations.

The meeting  came just after two major reports on global warming. The first was the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A new report comes out every 4 years, and it now states that there is a 95% probability that humans have caused global warming. The other was a report by the International Energy Agency which states that the current path would lead to an increase of global temperatures from between 3.6 and 5.3 degrees, far above often stated goal of 2 degrees.

The one thing that came out of the meeting were the bad actors, especially Poland (the hosts), Australia, Canada, and Japan. Poland had a meeting with coal industry representatives the same time that the COP meeting was going on. Poland (and Australia) have a big coal industry and therefore want to protect a dirty and corrupt industry. Australia had just elected a new government led by a prime minister who is a climate denialist and who has dismantled many environmental agencies. His government has also proposed a huge coal port in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef.

Canada also has big interest in dirty fossil fuels in the form of tar sands. Japan has announced that its carbon emissions will rise instead of falling (there original pledge was a 25% reduction over 1990, now they have announced a 3% increase over the same baseline)

All of these countries, and many others, have used the economics mantra as an excuse for having taken these positions. In reality it is because fossil fuel and other companies control the governments and are often the ones formulating policy.

Probably the best example of this is the so-called "loss and damage issue", discussed at COP-19. This is where developed countries would pay less developed countries for the losses due to damage from climate change. The developed countries, while agreeing to the concept, are not willing to give any money to it, citing the "recession". Yet these countries can give out huge subsidies to the fossil fuel industries.

Other issues where essential no progress was made include equity and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV).

The one good thing that did come out of the meeting was the continued commitment to REDD+ (reduction in emissions from deforestation and degradation plus reforestation). The program is designed to help countries keep their forests and therefore their stores of carbon. See this article by the World Resources Institute.

Finally, I also note that since COP-19, very little additional progress has been made. I new agreement to replace Kyoto is to be finished by next year, but I do not think that we will have anything but a watered-down agreement that will do nothing to stop global warming. We need to have global action to get athything done.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Must Read: Indian Floods

This is a must read. This makes a good point about the floods that hit Northern India earlier this year. It shows how it was "runaway building projects, dams and official failures that made them catastrophic".

The last paragraph is also really telling: "The present EAC [Expert Appraisal Committee] has approved all 262 projects placed before it over six years, without seriously evaluating their impact or the rivers' carrying capacity."

Thursday, July 18, 2013

In-fashion phrases (on the environment)

Something that always bothers me is when my students are asked what should be done to save energy (or global warming, etc.) their answer is always the same - turn off the lights, turn off electronic equipment not being used, buy efficient equipment, blah, blah, ...

While these answers are good for themselves, I really wish they would consider the whole picture and think about what could be done to seriously help the environment.

Some examples:

Water How to conserve: "Don't run water when you brush your teeth". OK, but almost 80% of all water worldwide is used by agriculture. What we therefore need is a radical rethink of the way agriculture is done. Today's agriculture is mostly monoculture, highly irrigated, large-scale, corporate farms.

What we really need to look at is Water Security as the UN recently discussed.

Energy and Global Warming Turning off the lights is a good idea, but it does not address the large-scale inefficiencies of industry, utilities, etc. And to solve issues such as global warming we must phase out using fossil fuels as soon as possible. Other things include removing oil subsidies, improving power grids and using micropower instead of macropower.

Even though we try to push renewable energy the students still parrot the phrases such as "sun does not shine all the time" or "the wind does always blow", but ignore the developments in energy storage and distribution. On the other hand they seem not to understand that are some concerns about (first generation) biomass.

Solid Waste and Water Pollution "Don't throw trash in the water" (solves two things at once!). For water pollution this is a small part of the problem. Human waste (sewage) and effluents from factories are much more important. For solid waste it does not actually reduce the amount of waste generated and therefore does not solve the waste problem (it solves littering but that is another issue).

"Pass a law" - the cop out answer. I have seen it in everything from solid waste to air pollution to biodiversity. Of course my response is always what law should be passed, what specific aspects are to be regulated, enforcement, and numerous other issues.

My real goal is to make people understand the problem not simply give me memorized expressions that have no meaning.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Biodiversity - recent results

Even though climate change has been the big thing in the media, biodiversity is also an extremely important issue. Of course, the two are linked, as evidenced by the important role biodiversity played in the World Bank's recent report on climate change.

Actually, quite a bit has happened with the last five six months on biodiversity.

In October, 2012, we had the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP-11) of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). At the Conference we had a presentation by the executive secretary of CBD stating the there is a lack of the data necessary to achieve the targets which where agreed to at COP-10. There was no world-wide monitoring of biodiversity (only monitoring in specific areas) and much of the data was not open access.

One item agreed was to have more science-based policies. As a part of that we had the first meeting in January of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which will collect and review scientific data on biodiversity. It is modelled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is great news as it will give campaign for biodiversity better science background. There was some problem in getting experts on a world-wide basis, but otherwise a good development.

At COP-11 we also had a directive telling countries to take a precautionary approach to topics such as synthetic biology and geoengineering. I feel this is especially important considering all of the hype (much generated by the media) we have had over these topics.

The developed countries at the meeting also pledged to double financial resources to protect biodiversity. This would mean they would meet 75% of their biodiversity targets by 2020. However, as I said a number of times, without any specific dollar amounts this can be a lot of hot air.

During the meeting (but not part of COP-11 proper) there was some good news in the announcement of an agreement between the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the CBD secretariat to work together on deforestation and biodiversity. This allows for a coordinated approach to these issues instead of either agency simply doing things on their own accord.

One part of the CBD that is less well known is the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. COP-11 voted to include socioeconomic effects on issues related to living modified organisms (LMOs). This is very important as often the problem with this and related technology it is often not just the science that is important, but how it is used.

Lastly, we had a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES) in Bangkok last month. Some very interesting and good desicions we made at that meeting. The most interesting is the desicion to add some shark species to CITIES, What is significant about this is really the first time that CITIES has addressed fisheries, an area that previous has been considered off-limits. They have also added some major hardwood timber species (such as ebony) to the list. Further expanding into forestry issues.

Also 47 freshwater turtle and tortoise species (44 are native to Asia) have been added. Over half of all freshwater turtles are endangered, many due to the trade in exotic pets. Interestingly, this was proposed jointly by the USA and China.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Why we need Labor Day?

The recent tragedy in Bangladesh demonstrates the real need for international Labor Day, which was yesterday (May 1).

The event in Bangladesh is a good example of where the push for profits for a few has been detrimental to the well-being of the majority of the working class people. This report by Human Rights Watch demonstrates the whole problem.

In fact the need for the ideas behind labor day are more than ever. Businesses today are demanding that they have a right to do whatever they want with workers. They feel they have the right to fire people at will. They fight against minimum wages while giving huge salaries to top executives. They aer increasingly using temporary workers -- workers who have almost no benefits and little rights. And large companies are continuing to take over other companies. When these merges happen one of the first things that occurs is the laying off of workers.

Look at what is happenning in Greece and elsewhere in Europe. The greeks are being told they have to undergo "austerity cuts", that is, cuts in benefits which go to workers and their families and to those without work. All of this is being pushed by financial institutions, big business, and the the "markets".

A final note: It is interesting the difference in reaction to the events in Boston (terrorism) and Bangladesh (disaster). Many, many more people died in Bangladesh (400+ versus 3).

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Stern, Climate Change, and the IMF

Recently, there was an article by World Resources Institute (WRI) referring to a lecture given by Lord Nicholas Stern at a discussion between WRI and the IMF with the World Bank.

The economist Lord Stern is famous for his "Stern Review" outline the ecomonimc argument for climate change. At the meeting he said that his original report underestimated the effect of climate change. Lord Stern says that the obstacle to climate change is the lack of understanding in three areas: real risk of climate change, the benefits of an alternative pathway, and need for collaboration and mutual understanding.

Lord Stern is 100% right. But that is not the reason for this article. Rather, I object to the other participants -- the World Bank and especially the IMF. Yes the World Bank has made some progress recently, due in a large part to the new president of the bank who has come from the world of NGO's and not the financial world.

But the IMF! That is a joke. Just look at what they have been doing to Europe in the last six months. They have encouraged less control of the economy by the people and more toward big business without regards to the costs to the environment or to society (that is ordinary society, not the elite society).

For example, one item mentioned in the WRI article is that the IMF is opposed to oil subsidies. That is news to me! When the IMF discussed the poor US economy it made not one mention of the huge oil subsidies that the US spends. Nor has it made any mention of oil subsidies during the crisis in Europe. Indeed it seeems to support giving huge subsidies ("bailouts") to the banks which caused the problems in the first place.

Yes, I know that the IMF only gives loans to governments for building, "capital" and not for specific projects; however, it does require certain government policies. And as far as I know the IMF does not consider ennvironmental policy at all.