Books Not Bombs

Since my life is all over the place… my blog post will be too.

1. In a follow up to my post on eco-friendly/fair trade shopping, I’ve discovered a new site called Hands Up, Not Handouts. The concept is similar to some of the others I’ve mentioned, but the focus is mainly on women and helping them create a better future for themselves. Here’s the shop!

2.  All of my for-fun reading in the past two or three years has almost exclusively been devoted to far-away countries I know nothing about. Currently I’m on Greg Mortenson’s second book, Stones into Schools, about building schools for girls in the Wakhan province of Afghanistan. It’s a hopeful story, but oftentimes the state of the country looks bleak. But they still made environmental news this week: a group of students from American University have helped Afghaniestan create its first endangered species list.

3. I withdrew my applications to the summer internships I applied to, and if everything works out will continue to work at SFS for the full year. Part of my decision is based on THIS wonderful little pdf: Challenges for Natural Resource Economics and Policy.  I want to go in the worst way. It’s in the beauuuutiful French Quarter in New Orleans, and I’ve already asked my WHOI advisor if I can present my paper on ocean zoning. Even if I can’t present (I have to be selected by a team at LSU), I’d love to go and meet people in the field and get even more excited about grad school. (I’ve been studyinng my vocabulary and re-learning algebra diligently for my GRE). Here’s hoping!

Off to the Garment District

Ocean Photo Contest

I don’t have an underwater camera (maybe in another life when I learn to scuba dive), but for those of you that do… the Ocean Conservancy has an annual Marine Wildlife and Seascape Photo Contest with some sweet cash prizes, or t-shirts.

Entries are due February 28, 2010!

Paydayyyy!

I tend to run amok on days like this. But now that I’m saving up for my first non-alternative spring break (TAMPA, BABY!), I’m trying to be better. Instead, here’s some of the fair trade and eco-friendly shopping places I like to visit online. Most are EXTREMELY well-priced and girly and they totally fit my non-vacationing budget.

Trade for Change – So the kid on the home page kind of sort of creeps me out… no matter. This site lists products for children, men, and women, including clothes, accessories, skin care products, and more.  Everything is made through an organization called Global Mamas, which sells fair trade goods in order to empower African women to increase the standard of living of their families.

Ten Thousand Villages – This is my favorite fair trade site. They have tons of great gift items – I’ve seen beautiful jewlery, handmade scarves, pottery, ornaments, all divided by price, recipient, and country. Each product explains the organization behind its creation, and they have a special section now devoted to Haitian artisans. If you’re lucky, you might even live near one of their stores or festivals; the locations and dates are listed on their website.

Global Exchange - Another fair trade site, it looks like they might have a similar range of things to sell. They seem to be featuring some Valentine’s day products…  not a bad idea! Flowers don’t last too long anyway (even though I love receiving them *ahem* haha)

Isoude - I drool. A lot. Nothing about the Isoude website indicates that the designer is environmental in any way, but Ms. Brierly covers all her bases. Treehugger calls it “slow fashion” - all the pieces are made locally in Rhode Island, hand-dyed with homemade natural dyes, and are generally made of silk and wild silk, organic cotton, wool, and hemp-silk. Seriously, take a look at what this woman can do with a sewing machine! I’m in love.

Isoude - Tree Hugger

Anywhere else I need to be checking bi-weekly?

Summer Internship in NC

What can I say, I’m attracted to island life!  I’m applying for an internship this summer at the Bald Head Island Conservancy in North Carolina. I might be a little over-aged (never thought I’d say that, haha) but this sounds like fun!

So here it is, I welcome the competition. I’d love some company down South. (PS – This is in addition to the Koch fellowships I applied for in Seattle, DC, and New Orleans).

http://bhic.org/intern2010.shtml

Heads Carolina, tails California….

Score One For Nemo

Living in New England, I’m familiar with a life that’s tied to the sea. Fishing has fueled our economy for centuries, and according to Mark Kurlansky’s Cod, we wouldn’t have traveled westward at nearly the rate we did without the amount of fish in the Atlantic. And we wouldn’t have any movies about perfect storms in Gloucester, either.

But in 2010, there are much fewer fishermen based in New England. Twelve of our 19 groundfish species are considered overfished, lobster is much harder to come by, and restrictions on catches and days at sea have dramatically reduced the number of people who can rely on fishing as a primary source of income.

On the other side of the world, however, fish are another story. Millions rely on fishing as their livelihood (employment, food source) for the countries of the Coral Triangle: Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Phillippines, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste. The Nature Conservancy says that it’s the “global center for marine biodiversity” (see last post!). An increase in tourism, ocean acidification, and increasing populations are all putting a strain on these pristine reefs, as the story goes in most parts of the world today. But these Coral Triangle countries are going to do something about it!

Posted on the WWF website:

More than 160 delegates gathered last week in the Philippine capital Manila for the Coral Triangle Business Summit to reach agreements on how their industries could contribute to the protection of the Coral Triangle and the 120 million livelihoods that depend on its marine resources…

In the seafood sector, fishing operators and buyers agreed to address the problem of overcapacity and overfishing through a number of measures including ensuring that fish are not sourced from illegal operations as well as implementing catch and trade documentation schemes to ensure traceability.

Participants also agreed to promote low carbon fish production methods and trade practices.

I like it! You always hear about how much carbon in produced in modern day agricultural practices, especially agriculture… I’ve never thought about the CO2 impact of fish production.

I searched for some pictures of the organisms living in this part of the world.  The first one is for fellow Avatar fans: the Christmas tree worm!

 

I say Avatar fans because when Jake Sully is first walking through Pandora at night, he sees these glowing plants that shrivel up when he touches them… here they are!

This one’s a sleepy little parrotfish. They’re super bright, just like most things in the reef. Reefs grow where waters are clearer and easier to see through, so the colors of your scales, spines, and fins matter a lot more when finding a mate (this is why freshwater fish look so boring, they don’t care enough to evolve into something attractive, haha).

This is a piece of Acropora, or table coral, which are important to building up a reef (along with staghorn coral, obviously my personal favorite. )

Lastly, here’s a map of the area that the delegates at the Coral Triangle Business Summit declared they would protect.

Importance of Biodiversity

Today was the EPIC election for the new Massachusetts state senator to take Ted Kennedy’s seat. I was completely overwhelmed by phone calls (including Curt Schilling), text messages, facebook posts, people with signs screaming. Unfortunately I realized I’m still registered to vote in Connecticut. OOPS.

Speaking of being overwhelmed (and yes you can laugh at this great transition)…

I read an article in the NY Times today about a summit occurring this fall in Japan, similar to the recent Copenhagen meeting, on the topic of biodiversity.  (2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. Happy IYOB.)

In this case, biodiversity is defined as either “the variability among living organisms on the earth, including the variability within and between species and within and between ecosystems.”

Preserving biodiversity may well be one of the major goals of environmental policy, but just think about that for a second. Every. Living. Organism. Estimates right now say we’ve only discovered 10% of all living things on this planet – there could be somewhere between 5 and 100 million living species on Earth. That’s inSANE. As of three years ago, we have named and classified about 2 million.

Diversity within species refers to genetic diversity. If you know your Darwin, genetic diversity promotes natural selection and “survival of the fittest,” so that the healthiest and hardiest of a species lives on. (PS – Happy belated birthday, old chap. He turned the big 200 last year.) Genetic diversity also allows ecosystems to bounce back more rapidly from disasters like fires and deforestation.

Biodiversity is also important because of that beautiful circle of life. The best analogy I ever heard (besides the Lion King of course) is that an ecosystem is like a brick wall – the more bricks there are, the sturdier it is. But as bricks are slowly removed – whether from disease, hunting, deforestation, whatever – even if it can withstand a few blows, the whole ecosystem can collapse in on itself without the right connections.

I mean, if you want to be selfish about it, think about your fridge. How many kinds of food products do you have in there? Not only is there the variety we eat, including what is being developed through biotechnology, but there are the pollinators and secondary or tertiary food sources that made it all possible.

Ok, so we realize how important biodiversity is. But how do we go about protecting things we can’t name or even imagine? That’s the part that overwhelms me, the magnitude of that task. Even if you want to deny the existence of global warming, you can’t deny that animals, plants, and insects are dying off at a much faster rate than their populations can handle. All around the world, people convert wild areas into places we can live, places where we can grow food, or places where we take resources we need and leave the rest for dead.

I had some trouble finding current rates/credible sources, but this is the most comprehensive data I saw: “Of the 40,168 species that the 10,000 scientists in the World Conservation Union have assessed, one in four mammals, one in eight birds, one in three amphibians, one in three conifers and other gymnosperms are at risk of extinction.”

Some progress has been made in the past on species preservation – the Endangered Species Act in the US, the international CITES treaty (Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), the Convention on Migratory Species, and finally the Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in 1992.

Now, delegates are debating whether it is more cost-effective to “halt species loss or to actually reverse it and start offsetting losses in other parts of the world,” before the fall convention.

Interesting. What is it worth to you?

 

Little Victories

At home and abroad…

This week my mom was finally convinced to convert one of our trash barrels to recycling… she didn’t realize how much was recyclable.  

And today, the Red Cross said that their fundraising through text messages ALONE has reached over $6 million dollars. Amazing. I’m still following news stories on the earthquake and seeking ways to help out locally. Any ideas, let me know!

If you’d like to donate, text “Haiti” to 90999 to make a $10 donation to the Red Cross. (It’ll be taken out of your cell phone bill).

Charities Present in Haiti

MSNBC has provided a list of charities active in Haiti. At this time it seems that most of the aid request is financial donations, rather than volunteers, but every little bit helps.

Again, thank you for your concern, and keep praying for everyone’s safety.  //

• Action Against Hunger
• American Red Cross
• American Jewish World Service
• AmeriCares
• Beyond Borders
• CARE
• Catholic Relief Services
• Childcare Worldwide
• Direct Relief International
• Doctors Without Borders
• Feed My Starving Children
• Friends of WFP
• Haitian Health Foundation
• Hope for Haiti
• International Medical Corps
• International Relief Teams
• Medical Teams International
• Meds and Food for Kids
• Mercy Corps
• Operation USA
• Oxfam
• Partners in Health
• Samaritan’s Purse
• Save the Children
• UNICEF
• World Concern
• World Vision
• Yele Haiti
  Wyclef Jean’s grassroots org
  Text Yele to 501 501 to donate $5 via your cellphone

More charities listed at itsjustlight.com.

Earthquake Strikes Haiti

I’ve been wanting to volunteer in Haiti for the past five years. Since a visit in 2005, I’ve always felt some kind of connection to that country, it’s very hard to explain. I met people from Port-au-Prince in my ESL class in Turks and Caicos; I can’t stop thinking of them now.

Just under two hours ago a massive earthquake struck just ten miles from the capital. All the reports are saying there are collapsed buildings everywhere and people crying for help. The Bahamas and the Dominican Republic are on tsunami watch as well, and many of my fellow SFS staff members are on South Caicos as we speak. Please keep everyone in your prayers.

Update: If you are looking for possible volunteer organizations for the earthquake, it’s too soon for me to know who is heading down for this reason specifically. But if you check the comments, I’ve listed a handful of organizations who have helped there in the past. I deeply appreciate people reaching out to Haiti in need -  look at what happened to my stats page in an hour!

volunteer haiti earthquake	2
how can i volunteer with haiti earthquak	2
humpback eye	2
carpenter bee diagram	2
volunteer for haiti earth quake	1
earthquake turks	1
volunteering for haiti earthquake	1
volunteer for haiti earthquake	1
volunteer earthquake haiti	1
earthquake haiti volunteer	1
g20 summit images high resolutiion	1
scientific drawing bee	1
volunteer in haiti earthequake	1
haiti earthquake volunteer	1
volunteer in haiti earthquake	1
turk and caicos, haiti earthquake	1

A Sea of Simmering Synthetic Soup…

I wish I had heard about this sooner! Northeastern’s Marine Science Center is hosting a lecture today in Nahant on plastic in the ocean (à la the Great Pacific Garbage Patch).

A Sea of Simmering Synthetic Soup…
The plastic concoction that is poisoning our oceans, our planet, ourselves.

Presented by Charles Moore
Part of the Northeastern University Marine Science Center Lecture Series

Tuesday, January 12, 2010
7:00 PM
430 Nahant Road
Nahant, MA 01908

Recipe for disaster: Take 5,000,000 square miles of ocean; mix in 850,000 pieces of colorful plastic per square mile; infuse all ingredients into the food web of fish, seabirds, marine mammals & microscopic organisms; simmer for a decade until plastic doubles; serve to humankind…  

You’ve likely heard it on the news by now – the northeastern Pacific is now home to an enormous swath of floating trash. Quite likely, Charles Moore was featured in the story you heard – in such sources as the U.S. News & World Report, CBS evening news, The Osgood File, Nightline, and NPR’s “All Things Considered”. Moore recently completed a 7,000 mile, 7-week journey in the Pacific aboard the research vessel “Alguita” to document the extent of this phenomenon. An expert in marine plastic pollution, Moore’s career accomplishments also include founding the Alguita Marine Research Foundation, assisting in the development of the Surfrider Foundation’s “Blue Water Task Force” chemical and bacterial monitoring protocols, and authoring numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Come and join us for an evening with this fascinating researcher and author.

This lecture is free to the public. Light refreshments served at 6:30PM.

The lecture begins at 7:00 PM and is roughly an hour long.
The Marine Science Center is wheelchair accessible.
 
430 Nahant Road, Nahant, MA 01908
Call Carole McCauley for more information
or email mscinfo@neu.edu
Phone:  781-581-7370 ext 321

Changing My Food Habits

For Christmas, I got a copy of Michael Pollan’s “In Defense of Food.” I’ve been trying to make some positive changes to my diet in the past year especially, and this book has been so hyped up in its field I have to check it out.

One of the changes (resolutions?) I want to make this year is to start paying attention to where my food comes from. It would be a zillion times easier if I did all my food shopping for myself, but when I do, I’ll be label checking religiously. Yes, it’s aggravating that I’ll end up paying more for food. But I once read that I can either pay the food store now, or my doctor later. It’s so important to be careful about how food is raised/grown. This is a really old article from Cornell, but it explains why hormones are used in food and what consumers concerns are regarding their effects. Sustainabletable.org is another great resource for healthy food habits.

The WordPress homepage featured an article today about eating responsibly. Out of Newsweek’s 500 greenest companies, only 28 are in the food industry, and the top of that list is only at #376.  College Candy then explains some issues with the worst offenders and gives healther choices for you and the environment.  Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Culprit #1: Tyson
Why it sucks: Tyson is one of the largest companies in the meat industry.  According to the movie Food, Inc. (which you all should see!), such large scale farming contributes to pollution, greenhouse gases, depletion of resources, antibiotic resistance and illness in workers and consumers, and poor employee treatment.
Don’t eat: Tyson’s fried chicken fillet sandwich. For so many reasons. Gross.
Eat instead: Gardenburger’s Original Veggie Burgers

Culprit #2: Smucker’s
Why it sucks: In environmental impact scores, Smucker’s ranks a lowly 463^rd out of 500 U.S. companies with a score of 7.8 out of 100.  I think if you got a 7.8% on a test you’d officially get an F-.
Don’t eat: Smucker’s Goober Jam/Peanut Butter sandwich
Eat instead: Trader Joe’s Organic Peanut Butter and banana sandwich

Culprit #3: Dr. Pepper Snapple Group
Why it sucks:  This beverage company, like most, use large amounts of plastic to make single-serving bottles of soda and juice.  Not only is soda linked to obesity and diabetes, but the plastic is also very energy intensive to make and often end up in landfills.  Yeah, Best Stuff on Earth, my a**.
Don’t drink: Dr. Pepper, Hawaiian Punch, Snapple, or any of that crap.
Drink instead:  Club soda with a squeeze of lime.

Culprit #4: Hormel
Why it sucks:  All of their products are heavily packaged in unnecessary amounts of plastic and glass, both of which use a lot of energy to make and never decompose.
Don’t eat: Hormel Compleats Microwave Meals
Eat instead: Amy’s Microwave Meals

I knew about Tyson, but I’m kind of disappointed about Snapple and Dr. Pepper. I love their drinks, they’re usually my first choices when I want something sweet or carbonated. Too bad I hate club soda.

Speaking of drinks, Sustainabletable.org also mentions rGBH in milk (I’m a big milk drinker), Monsanto (dubbed one of groovygreen’s ‘favorite corporate villains’), and possibile connections to cancer.  There’s some sketch involvement with the FDA, but here’s a little tidbit. Read on at their website!

Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains higher levels of IGF-1 (Insulin Growth Factor-1), which has been linked to colon and breast cancer. Even though no direct connection has been made between elevated IGF-1 levels in milk and cancer in humans, scientists have expressed concern.^xv

Faced with mounting evidence to the contrary, the FDA has stubbornly continued to assure consumers that rBGH is safe for cows and humans. In fact, in 1994, the FDA prohibited dairies from claiming there was any difference between milk from rBGH-injected cows and milk produced without the artificial hormone.^xvi

Scary, right? There has to be better ways to protect ourselves and our health then waiting for the FDA to come around.

c/o bentcorner.com

First Ocean Management Plan: Massachusetts

Massachusetts is the first state in the US to produce an ocean management plan, and it was released today. (Please forgive their typo, if they haven’t fixed it yet, haha).

No way can I read this whole thing, but I’ll report back when I’ve wrapped my head around what this mean for you and me.

Ending 2009 with a Splash

Here we are, the last week of December, and with the wind chill it’s feeling around, oh, zero degrees today. DELICIOUS. I swear my body’s not built for this weather. I need to move back to the Caribbean at some point – preferably sooner rather than later. Or maybe just find a happy compromise in the Carolinas. Either way I’m warmer and surrounded by palm trees (well, it’s more likely that they’re not neon or plastic, anyway).

TCI 08 <3

It seems like Congress has been daydreaming about living by the sea as well (or, you know, just taking their plane to their boat to their fourth home in St. Kitts), because there’s been a lot of headway made in ocean policy this past month or two. First port of call… ocean zoning!

Obama’s Ocean Policy Task Force announced mid-December that “nine new regional organizations would create master plans for federal waters by drawing on a massive database of scientific information.” AWESOME.  Awesome awesome awesome. This means policy makers are a. going to be listening to the scientists who have been working in these areas for years, b. that the plan will take into account the populations, pollutions, and uses of each particular area. There is no effective policy without science!

Right now one of the biggest problems in marine policy is the lack of communication between stakeholders – anyone who holds an interest in the waters. That could be fishermen, coastal residents, anyone interested in aquaculture, recreational boaters, windfarmers, people who need sand, people who need oil/LNG, people who just want something pretty to look at, and so on and so forth. But right now there is not much infrastructure that allows everyone to talk about what they see, what they need, and why they need it.

credit: davegranlund.com

In 2008, Massachusetts passed the Oceans Act which started a smaller-scale, similar project in our coastal waters. Stakeholders (including state senators and representatives, reps for commercial fishing, reps for environmental orgs, reps for offshore renewable energy [no one likes to say wind near Cape Cod], and reps for Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard, among others) are all brought to the table to hash out who gets to use what areas. The paper I wrote for WHOI described how difficult that process would be, and how it may be easier to let the stakeholders fight amongst themselves in a more decentralized fasion… but ANYWAY. I just googled it to see how it was coming along – the plan is going to be released THURSDAY. Holy crap. A year and a half later, nice timing on my part I guess.

As I was saying, all of the U.S. waters will now be completing a plan like this one, called “ecosystem-based management”. Policy makers will be listening to scientists about the particular needs and resources and issues of each area, and in turn coming up with a plan to addresses each piece in one giant plan. I imagine if it took one state 1.5 years it’ll take the whole country a lot longer, but I look forward to it.  (PS This is really where I see myself in five/ten years, I want to work on this!)

The second HUGE topic in ocean policy today is aquaculture. Most people don’t think of where their seafood comes from (or any of their food for that matter… but that’s a topic for a different day), but it’s becoming increasingly important because of the massive decline in wild fish. In response to the ever-smaller schools of fish being caught, fish farmers have started raising fish in pens in the ocean (aka aquaculture). This works with shellfish and shrimp too. I’m a little torn about this topic. It’s a plus that people recognize that continuing to fish commercially the way we do is not sustainable, but so far most of aquaculture isn’t either. Here’s a diagram from the Ocean Conservancy (lovelovelove) about the negative aspects of fish farming, and here are some positive choices.

And until two weeks ago, there was no national plan addressing these issues, either. Representative Lois Copps (D-CA) introduced a piece of legislation, the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009, to set standards that fish farmers will have to follow in order to prevent fish waste from settling on the bottom, predators from becoming entangled in nets, and chemicals and artificial growth hormones from being used on the fish. It will be included in Obama’s overarching ocean policy mentioned above, and nullify all previous piecemeal regulations now in place.

What a way to end the year! So when you’re out on Thursday night counting down the end of the decade, ask your servers where the caviar and salmon are from that you’re munching on. I’m going to keep dreaming of my warm weather until I can afford a plane ticket… here’s to a new resolution for travel!

COP15 A Cop-Out?

Hopefully what happened in Copenhagen won’t stay in Copenhagen.

After two crazy weeks of negotiations, walk-outs, protests, and too-many-planes-and-limos-you-hypocrites blogposts, the world leaders at COP15 finally came up with three pieces of paper that everyone could agree on. The conference ended (pdf) last Saturday, December 19^th. The Copenhagen Accord says that all the signers agree that we should not allow the earth to warm up more than 2º C, or 3.6º F above the pre-industrial average. At that point, some of the changes we could see include: rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctica, Africa turning into “a furnace,” and extreme rises in sea level that would flood many low-lying areas (and more than 50% of all Americans live on or near the coast, FYI). To prevent this from happening, the signers pledged to reduce their emissions and raise money for developing countries to do the same. 

Here’s the problem. The whole thing is non-binding. Non one actually has to do anything! Empty promises abound! Like I wrote earlier, they’re saving the “real work” for COP16 in Mexico City.

The number of divides that countries had to overcome to reach even this point is astronomical. It’s encouraging to see the names Jiabao, Obama, Singh, Zenawi, and Yang all on one document. But without sanctions, incentives and the like, what can we REALLY expect to come out of this meeting? Here are some reactions to the accord from the NY Times.

Some quotations from the text:

We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

This is one of the first lines of the treaty, and probably one of the most important. Common but differentiated responsibilities was a characteristic of the Kyoto treaty as well; even if we can’t (or shouldn’t) reduce the same amount of CO2 in each country, each country is still responsible for giving up something. CDR helps bridge the gap between rich and poor countries, and usually addresses the issue of developing nations not contributing as much CO2 to the atmosphere as the developed world. It’s a vague enough principle that everyone agrees until we put dollar values / tonnage amounts on the end of it .

We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity.

Fortunately, the fundamental science behind climate change was not questioned, at least by the end of the Conference. Many people thought the ClimateGate scandal might put a damper on the basis for any kind of treaty on global warming, but it looks like all the people who should still be on board with the IPCC, still are. And for good reason – it has highly-respected representatives from nearly every country in attendance.

Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

Now that’s what Africa wanted to hear! Well, sort of. Fortunately they walked back in on the conference before any permanent damage was done to the negotiations. The money pledged by the industrialized world up thus far is far below what is expected and needed, but we have to start somewhere! But like I mentioned last week, I’m personally concerned with developed nations slapping a long list of contingencies on the loans and traded technologies. The Accord designates the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund and a Technology Mechanism to help the process along.

Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020… Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years.

They are also required to be stronger targets than the former Kyoto Protocol required. This is why China joined the rest of the world, and probably some other countries: they’re allowed to choose their own targets and don’t have to answer to any international policing group. And since it’s nonbinding, there are no sanctions for not following their own commitments (yet). Non-Annex I parties are the nations still developing (including Brazil, India, and China).

We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests…

I don’t know if it’s true, but I recently heard that if you take all the CO2 emissions from every train, plane, boat, and car in this world, everything they emit in one year does not equal the GHG produced by a year of deforestation. EW. (Can’t find the source, but this article does say that preventing deforestation is the most significant change we can make to prevent climate change.)

Wednesday COP15 Update

Police Beat Back Massed Climate Protestors, John M. Broder and Tom Zeller, Jr., NY Times

Protests have reached new levels now that the world leaders have arrived in Denmark. Police aren’t allowing anyone into the Bella Center, where the negotiations are taking place, but the 50-100 delegates that wished to speak with the protestors weren’t allowed out, either.

This was casually dismissed as a side note in the article, but the President of the conference, Connie Hedegaard, has also stepped down. The Danish PM is taking her place, Lars Lokke Rasmussen. I hope it wasn’t anything more than ‘procedural,’ but Ms. Hedegaard said “with so many heads of state arriving it was appropriate that the Danish Prime Minister would preside over the summit.”

And in a side note to the side note… the poor Italian PM was attacked on Sunday! “The prime minister is recovering after the attacker hurled a souvenir model of Milan’s cathedral into the prime minister’s face.” He even lost teeth. Ugh. And we thought shoes were bad…

Mid-Conference Updates… Uh Oh.

The holidays are upon us, and I’ve completely neglected GSM for three weeks going now. My bad.

The COP15, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framwork Convention on Climate Change, is taking place this week and last in Copenhagen. I haven’t even had my own computer all week, so I haven’t been following the goings-on. Let’s figure this out. Here’s some quick summaries of articles recently posted online regarding the conference.

Copenhagen Talks Enter Final Phase, Darren Samuelsohn and Lisa Friedman of Climate Wire, NY Times,

This Wednesday through Friday, 115 world leaders, presidents, and prime ministers will be meeting to generate a new agreement that will take the place of 97’s Kyoto Protocol. They won’t be fleshing out all the details by any means, but it will be a major accomplishment if even some points can be seriously agreed upon.  There has been some debate leading up to their arrival, and some (including myself) believe that the more is resolved before their arrival the more we can achieve at this summit.

The divide between developing and industralized nations remains one of the most difficult hurdles to overcome. Samuelsohn and Friedman write that “As of early Monday morning, African countries working with other developing nations were threatening to stall talks until certain debates are resolved.” I could have predicted that something like that would happen, especially because these nations feel like they are being cheated as these talks progress, but hopefully there can be some arrangements made (ethically) to keep everyone happy enough to keep talking! I’m curious in particular about what the agreement will say not only for Africa, but also for India/China/Brazil; they are growing into serious economic powerhouses but don’t want to be “held internationally accountable” for what they do regarding global warming regulations.

(…Which is another problem in and of itself. The idea of international treaties is great for addressing problems that occur on a global scale (poverty, food and water scarcity, international trading), but many countries see these outside regulations as restrictions on their national sovereignty. When you fight as hard as many of these countries do to acheive the right to rule themselves, you’ll be reluctant to give up your sovereignty too.)

The article next addresses what will happen to the Kyoto Protocol – will we just add onto the current restrictions, or will we drop this treaty altogether in favor of another? Developing nations argue “so far… it’s the only legally binding instrument that exists to force countries to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” But the COP15 is so important because the attendees seek to address the failings of the 97 Protocol. Is it possible to keep the old treaty without all of its flaws?

U.S. Unveils Plan to Rev Up Clean Technology in Poor Nations, Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post

From the last article… a sign of progress? Or will this turn into an IMF-tinted disaster? “Today, governments rushed to make new key announcements on clean energy. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the Obama administration would pitch in $85 million toward a new five-year, $350 million effort to spread the deployment of clean energy technologies to developing countries. Other countries pitching in funds include Australia and Italy.”

Industrialized nations offering aid to developing countries isn’t a terrible idea, per se. In some cases, a little donated capital is the only way poor countries can effectively change their energy consumption patterns. However, when there are a list of “only if’s” attached to the donation then it might not be such a charitable gift after all.

I’m specifically thinking of all the Latin American countries that took loans out from the IMF. The loans have stipulations attached ['conditionality'], that ask the countries to make vast changes to their domestic and international financial policies.

This article makes a good point: in our economic crisis, the US is pushing us to spend more to jump start the economy. The IMF is pushing their debtor nations to cut spending (especially on programs for social welfare) and increase interest rates. Reuter’s labels their policies as “pro-cyclical,” in that they promote the need for more loans in the future, increasing debt and decreasing the financial independence of these nations.

Anyway, the offer to help underdeveloped nations will only be a component of the money going to reduce emissions worldwide. Clean energy technology is certainly a giant leap in the right direction; let’s pray ‘conditionality’ doesn’t get in the way.

Oh dear. Update. Africa has left the building.

COP15 Begins!

Today’s the opener for the Copenhagen climate change conference!

I’m still hopeful that something positive will come out of this meeting, even after all this Mexico City and Climategate stuff… we shall see.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_sc/climate

Also, FYI, carbon dioxide is now being declared ‘dangerous’ by the EPA (most likely today) http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091207-709708.html

…Real or Fantasy?

When my little brother and I were stuck together in the car 15 years ago, we used to play this game called  “Real or Fantasy.” It was essentially a variation of 20 Questions, but you first have to declare whether the thing you’re thinking of is real or not. For us, it was the most basic of questions: either something existed, or it did not. Elephant or unicorn. Take your pick. 

In the past several decades, the divide that has emerged between climate change proponents and skeptics has been along that central line. Is there such a thing as anthropogenic global warming, or not? It’s an endless tug-of-war in a global Real or Fantasy. This month, skeptics are jumping on a new scandal to prove to the world they were right all along: welcome to Climategate. 

 

The whole debate on climate change has ramped up in the past few months because of the upcoming conference in Copenhagen.  But now many policymakers may be less sure of their goals in Denmark because of memos leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. These thousands of memos portray climate change as an idea engineered by top climate scientists, not a reality created by carbon dioxide emissions. 

To explain themselves, the official statement from UEA was: “Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.  A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.  This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.” 

One skeptic on radio talk show host Alex Jones’ website writes that these memos “prove that climate scientists affiliated with the UN IPCC altered temperature data models in order to ‘hide the decline’ in global warming since the 1960’s, as well as engaging in academic witch hunts to ensure the work of skeptical scientists was blocked from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.”  [Note: Advertisements I saw on that page included promises of a free handgun and a t-shirt portraying Obama as the Joker.] 

To be fair, the pieces of the memos that I did read were very surprising, especially considering the magnitude of significance the IPCC has on international climate policy.  (Their scientific data are essentially the basis for recent global environmental policies [see previous post, 90 Days to Copenhagen]). But on the other hand, I’m sure that the emails were taken completely out of context, thereby changing the entire meaning of the writings. The use of the word ‘trick’ in particular has caught the attention of many right-wing bloggers because of its negative connotation, whereas other meanings (such as a method of simplifying one’s work) are left by the wayside. 

According to Andrew Revkin’s article on the scandal, skeptics have focused on the manipulation or omitting of relevant raw data that would disprove global warming, as well as preventing publications by climate change skeptics that oppose their views. “Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,’ Dr. Trenberth wrote.” 

Personally, I could not agree more with the statement issues by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at UAE: “One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.” 

WELL DUH. 

 

One of the most important qualities of accurate and valuable scientific data is its reproducibility. The nature of the IPCC’s reports alone guarantees that reproducibility (The stats on the Union of Concerned Scientists page says “Experts from more than 130 countries contributed to [the 2007] assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead authors have received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents”). 

I don’t care what these emails say now; until we get the whole picture of what these scientists were discussing, we can’t throw aside all the work we’ve done to get us to Copenhagen (whatever that may bring).  I’ll hedge my bets that we’re still dealing with reality, not fantasy.   

Speaking of Copenhagen, guess who decided to drop by… thank you Mr. President. 

Sharing the Wealth

Since I’m going to be seriously MIA this week (Happy Thanksgiving everyone!), I’ll just share a list of my favorite sites to get green news/updates/stories/anything from.

1. I could read articles on TreeHugger for days, even though the site is a little over-powering at times.
2. Grist.org calls itself “the beacon in the smog.” LOVE it.
3. Stop Dodo - thank you KL! Green job listings.
4. And on a related note… Green Dream Jobs!
5. Living green at Fairfield U… The Reluctant Environmentalist.
6. Sorry Boston… The New York Times wins hands down for their coverage of environmental topics (extra points for Revkin’s blog Dot Earth).
7. The WHOI Pictures of the Day never cease to take my breath away – for natural beauty or in amazement of the variety of research in one little place. No rhyme intended.
8. I don’t know much about these but they look fun! Environmental Graffiti and Earth Spark International.

You should also check out my friends page to see what else keeps me entertained. See you next week!

Victory for NOLA!

This may not be overtly environmental, but it’s something close to my heart. All pictures were taken in January 2009… three and a half years after Katrina.

US district judge Stanwood Duval ruled “negligent failure” to maintain the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet – a shipping channel – had led to flooding in the city’s Lower 9th Ward and nearby St Bernard Parish.

-BBC News

Duval said the corps was aware the MRGO could produce a funnel effect, which ultimately increased the height of Katrina’s storm surge and the magnitude of destruction. The canal acted as a funnel bringing water into the city and strengthening its force, Duval said.

The corps considered a remedial action to prevent this funnel effect in 1967, he said. “The plan was eventually rejected as not economically justified, detrimental to the economic interests of the local participants, and was so broad that it would require Congressional review,” he wrote.

-Bloomberg

For more than 40 years, the judge said, the corps had known that a crucial levee protecting suburban St. Bernard Parish and the Lower 9th Ward neighborhood would be compromised by the deterioration of the channel. The corps had “myriad” ways to address the problem, he wrote, but failed to do so.

Duval awarded a total of $719,000 to a small group of flood victims that sued the government in April 2006.

-LA Times