Is there such a thing as good climate change?
Well, there would be if there were no emissions to pollute the air and make global warming worse.
For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Showing posts with label air pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label air pollution. Show all posts
Monday, September 28, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Get It Done!
What we need to get done that will help everything else is switch to totally green, totally clean energy. Without emissions from fossil fuels, the air will be cleaner and there will be less respiratory problems. With new technology comes an expansion to the green economy.
And that's a lot but that's not all--we won't have to depend on anyone else, anywhere, ever.
It's past time.
We can do this.
And so can everyone else.
Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Thank you.
And that's a lot but that's not all--we won't have to depend on anyone else, anywhere, ever.
It's past time.
We can do this.
And so can everyone else.
Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Thank you.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Mass Transport Really Green?
"Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090608/sc_afp/climatewarmingtransportcarbonlifestyle Reuters Sun Jun 7, 8:02 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.
So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.
Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.
Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.
These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.
Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.
In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.
"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.
"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."
The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.
Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.
By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.
The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.
These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.
In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.
And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.
A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.
"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.
So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.
For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.
The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.
The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.
It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft."
But what if all types of transportation had no emissions? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090608/sc_afp/climatewarmingtransportcarbonlifestyle Reuters Sun Jun 7, 8:02 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.
So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.
Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.
Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.
These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.
Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.
In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.
"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.
"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."
The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.
Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.
By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.
The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.
These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.
In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.
And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.
A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.
"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.
So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.
For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.
The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.
The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.
It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft."
But what if all types of transportation had no emissions? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Pollution and Health
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/emissions-pollution-premature-deaths
Search: guardian.co.uk Environment Web
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 May 2009 12.33 BST
Cleaner air from reduced emissions could save millions of lives, says reportResearchers predict that 100 million early deaths could be prevented by cutting global emissions by 50% by 2050.
Tackling climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions could save millions of lives because of the cleaner air that would result, according to a recent study.
Researchers predict that, by 2050, about 100 million premature deaths caused by respiratory health problems linked to air pollution could be avoided through measures such as low emission cars. *****
The key air pollutants that can harm human health include nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and particulate matter and are produced by burning fossil fuels in power plants and vehicles. Children and the elderly, plus people with respiratory conditions such as asthma, are particularly at risk."
We've got to do something. We can take care of each other. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.
Search: guardian.co.uk Environment Web
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 May 2009 12.33 BST
Cleaner air from reduced emissions could save millions of lives, says reportResearchers predict that 100 million early deaths could be prevented by cutting global emissions by 50% by 2050.
Tackling climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions could save millions of lives because of the cleaner air that would result, according to a recent study.
Researchers predict that, by 2050, about 100 million premature deaths caused by respiratory health problems linked to air pollution could be avoided through measures such as low emission cars. *****
The key air pollutants that can harm human health include nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and particulate matter and are produced by burning fossil fuels in power plants and vehicles. Children and the elderly, plus people with respiratory conditions such as asthma, are particularly at risk."
We've got to do something. We can take care of each other. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Pollution and Life Expectancy
Pollution influences life expectancy. The BBC reports on a study done in the U.S. finds, unsurprisingly, that the more pollution, the shorter the life expectancy, and that when the air gets cleaner, life expectancy goes up: "It has taken a quarter of a century, but US researchers say their work has finally enabled them to determine to what extent city air pollution impacts on average life" (Hawkley, Humphrey, "City air pollution 'shortens life'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7946838.stm). The researchers' study, begun in the 1980s, concluded that life expectancy rose two-and-a-half years, and 15% of the improvement is caused by air quality improvement (ibid). But there is much to still be done to improve air quality, especially for people who are in high-pollution areas every day such as around commuter trains and highways that have high diesel truck traffic and who are thus more susceptible to allergies, asthma, cancer, and cardio-vascular trouble (ibid.)
It's good to lower pollution levels, but what if there were not any pollution at all because the energy for power and even transportation came from something other than fossil fuels? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.org.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Cap 'n Trade???
Cap 'n trade? Reduce emissions some places then let other places be polluted and have the pollutants pay and the money be used to fund clean technology? What about all the damage that pollution is doing? Why not right now focus on totally clean energy for every place? It can be done. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Pollution and Birth Weight
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7988619.stm
Pollution link with birth weight
Exposure to traffic pollution could affect the development of babies in the womb, US researchers have warned.
They found the higher a mother's level of exposure in early and late pregnancy, the more likely it was that the baby would not grow properly.
The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, looked at 336,000 babies born in New Jersey between 1999 and 2003
UK experts said much more detailed research into a link was needed.
Exposure
The researchers, from the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey, used information from birth certificates and hospital discharge records.
They recorded details including each mother's ethnicity, marital status, education, whether or not she was a smoker - as well as where she lived when her baby was born.
Daily readings of air pollution from monitoring points around the state of New Jersey were taken from the US Environmental Protection Agency
*******
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7988619.stm
Published: 2009/04/08 23:42:57 GMT"
We need to take care of each other at whatever age--a few weeks along or over 100, and one way to do that is to switch to emissions-free energy. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Pollution link with birth weight
Exposure to traffic pollution could affect the development of babies in the womb, US researchers have warned.
They found the higher a mother's level of exposure in early and late pregnancy, the more likely it was that the baby would not grow properly.
The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, looked at 336,000 babies born in New Jersey between 1999 and 2003
UK experts said much more detailed research into a link was needed.
Exposure
The researchers, from the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey, used information from birth certificates and hospital discharge records.
They recorded details including each mother's ethnicity, marital status, education, whether or not she was a smoker - as well as where she lived when her baby was born.
Daily readings of air pollution from monitoring points around the state of New Jersey were taken from the US Environmental Protection Agency
*******
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7988619.stm
Published: 2009/04/08 23:42:57 GMT"
We need to take care of each other at whatever age--a few weeks along or over 100, and one way to do that is to switch to emissions-free energy. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Climate Change and Environmental Damage
We all know the climate is changing, the globe is warming, seasons are overlapping. Carbon emissions have made the oceans more acidic, threatening ocean life, both animals and plants since oceans have absorbed "up to 50%" of carbons from fossil fuels for the past two hundred years and lessened "the pH value of seawater--the measure of acidity and alkalinity--by O.1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7936137.stm; Acidic seas fuel extinction fears By Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst, BBC News, Published: 2009/03/11 03:00:28 GMT). A bridge of ice between two islands in Antarctica has snapped, making an ice shelf vulnerable, and several more have broken over the past several years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm, Published: 2009/04/05 07:13:59 GMT). Pikas, a hamster-like animal that lives in the mountains, are losing their habitat as the climate warms in the American West; they move upslope but are running out of room (Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved, As West warms, some fear for tiny mountain dweller By MIKE STARK, Associated Press Writer Mike Stark, Associated Press Writer Sat Apr 4, 6:47 am ET). Frogs are disappearing as ecosystems decline, and since they "sit right in the middle of the food chain," and "without them, other creatures are disappearing too" (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/frogs-the-thin-green-line/introduction/4763/). And those are just a few examples of what's happening to plants and animals and the environment, aside from all the harm to people's lungs and hearts. Something that's got to be done.
And there's something that can be done: please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
And there's something that can be done: please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Oceans and Pollution
"http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30349272.htm
RPT-US asks UN to help cut ship emissions near coasts 30 Mar 2009 21:19:52 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Fixes typo in first paragraph)
By Timothy Gardner
(Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Marguerita Choy)
NEWARK, N.J., March 30 (Reuters) - The United States has asked the United Nation's International Maritime Organization to create a buffer zone around America's coastline to cut pollution from ocean-going ships that harms human health, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Monday.
The EPA estimates the plan would save up to 8,300 lives annually in the United States and Canada by 2020. Urban neighborhoods that surround ports, like the hubs of Newark, New Jersey and Los Angeles, have typically suffered the worst health problems, such as asthma and cancer, from the pollutants, according to EPA studies. Some 40 U.S. ports currently fail to meet federal air pollution standards."
But there doesn’t have to be any pollution to control. For more information, see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
RPT-US asks UN to help cut ship emissions near coasts 30 Mar 2009 21:19:52 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Fixes typo in first paragraph)
By Timothy Gardner
(Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Marguerita Choy)
NEWARK, N.J., March 30 (Reuters) - The United States has asked the United Nation's International Maritime Organization to create a buffer zone around America's coastline to cut pollution from ocean-going ships that harms human health, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Monday.
The EPA estimates the plan would save up to 8,300 lives annually in the United States and Canada by 2020. Urban neighborhoods that surround ports, like the hubs of Newark, New Jersey and Los Angeles, have typically suffered the worst health problems, such as asthma and cancer, from the pollutants, according to EPA studies. Some 40 U.S. ports currently fail to meet federal air pollution standards."
But there doesn’t have to be any pollution to control. For more information, see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Pollution, Biodiversity, Health, and Clean Energy
Diverse roots of human disease
Richard Black 23 Jan 09, 17:17 GMT Does loss of biodiversity affect human health?
"The United Nations Environment Programme believes it does - the notion was one of the top lines in the last edition of its massive five-yearly Global Environmental Outlook, which came out in 2007.
The nuts and bolts of the link, though, can come across as a bit tenuous - loss of species may affect the discovery of new drugs; biodiversity can impact water quality; and so on. They're not necessarily the most convincing arguments to those who pride themselves on having hard heads.
This week, I came across something a bit more concrete - and what makes it more interesting is that it relates to one of the really poor cousins of the medical research field, schistosomiasis.
Also known as bilharzia, this is a disease which receives so little attention and money that malaria is a rich prince by comparison. Yet it affects about 200m people and is said to be the second most devastating parasitic disease in the world - malaria being the first.
The parasites - flatworms of the genus Schistosoma - spend part of their lives in water-borne snails, and people - usually children - contract the infection from the water when the parasites swim free.
There's no vaccine, and there are really only two modes of attack - either giving regular doses of drugs such as praziquantel, or trying to eradicate the snails that carry the parasite, with chemicals such as copper sulphate.
Some people have looked at introducing crayfish to eat the snails - I hope something of an alarm bell rang there given the problems that invasive species have caused in some places around the world - or by introducing certain plants.
So Pieter Johnson, a researcher at the University of Colorado, asked a simple question; could the diversity of the snail population affect the number of parasites?
His team rigged up a series of experimental chambers in their lab. All had the same number of Planorbidae snails that carry the parasites, but he put in different numbers of other snail families that can't carry it.
As he reported in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings B this week, there was a definite impact. The number of Planorbidae infected fell by between a quarter and half when other types of snail were around.
The reason is probably what parasitologists call the "decoy effect". Some parasites will attempt to enter the wrong kinds of host - they can't, they die, and so there are fewer parasites around to infect the real hosts.
Now, this is a laboratory experiment - but if the results do hold true in the wild, here would be both a striking demonstration of the principle that biodiversity can beat disease, and something practical that the millions of people affected by schistosomiasis could use to protect themselves to some extent.
Simply keeping their ponds and streams in a state that preserves the range of native snails might reduce the number of people infected.
Implementing that remedy, however, might not be so straightforward given other environmental trends.
Agriculture is changing in many of the countries affected by schistosomiasis, even in its African heartlands.
Excess fertiliser running off farmland into water stimulates the growth of algae; and this appears to be an advantage to the disease-bearing snails, who can thrive on the green stuff, whereas other types die off.
(It's the same thing in microcosm that's happening to coral reefs; too much nutrition for algae brings the death of important native species - in this case, the coral polyps.)
You could argue, of course, that simply wiping out the wrong kind of snail would be more effective. But it's been tried, it has side effects, and it's a procedure that needs doing time and time again.
And wiping out the hosts wouldn't be an option for another condition where the link from biodiversity to human health has been demonstrated - Lyme disease.
Richard Ostfeld and his collaborators have shown that a diverse ecology reduces the number of white-footed mice, an important carrier of the ticks that transmit the disease.
Lyme disease is frequently in the news in North America, and I'm not surprised, having met a conservationist in Canada a few years ago who was still suffering the effects more than a decade after infection.
Schistosomiasis is rarely in the news anywhere. But it should be; it is one of the factors holding back the health and education of children in the poorest countries, and if simply keeping the right mix of snails alive would indeed help keep the parasite down, why not?
In the meantime, it's not my job to do the UN's publicity; but if they're looking for concrete evidence to show why biodiversity matters to the human race, perhaps the snail-ridden waters of Africa and Asia are places worth looking."
Pollution affects biodiversity. Biodiversity affects health. If there were no carbon emissions, there would be no pollution. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Richard Black 23 Jan 09, 17:17 GMT Does loss of biodiversity affect human health?
"The United Nations Environment Programme believes it does - the notion was one of the top lines in the last edition of its massive five-yearly Global Environmental Outlook, which came out in 2007.
The nuts and bolts of the link, though, can come across as a bit tenuous - loss of species may affect the discovery of new drugs; biodiversity can impact water quality; and so on. They're not necessarily the most convincing arguments to those who pride themselves on having hard heads.
This week, I came across something a bit more concrete - and what makes it more interesting is that it relates to one of the really poor cousins of the medical research field, schistosomiasis.
Also known as bilharzia, this is a disease which receives so little attention and money that malaria is a rich prince by comparison. Yet it affects about 200m people and is said to be the second most devastating parasitic disease in the world - malaria being the first.
The parasites - flatworms of the genus Schistosoma - spend part of their lives in water-borne snails, and people - usually children - contract the infection from the water when the parasites swim free.
There's no vaccine, and there are really only two modes of attack - either giving regular doses of drugs such as praziquantel, or trying to eradicate the snails that carry the parasite, with chemicals such as copper sulphate.
Some people have looked at introducing crayfish to eat the snails - I hope something of an alarm bell rang there given the problems that invasive species have caused in some places around the world - or by introducing certain plants.
So Pieter Johnson, a researcher at the University of Colorado, asked a simple question; could the diversity of the snail population affect the number of parasites?
His team rigged up a series of experimental chambers in their lab. All had the same number of Planorbidae snails that carry the parasites, but he put in different numbers of other snail families that can't carry it.
As he reported in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings B this week, there was a definite impact. The number of Planorbidae infected fell by between a quarter and half when other types of snail were around.
The reason is probably what parasitologists call the "decoy effect". Some parasites will attempt to enter the wrong kinds of host - they can't, they die, and so there are fewer parasites around to infect the real hosts.
Now, this is a laboratory experiment - but if the results do hold true in the wild, here would be both a striking demonstration of the principle that biodiversity can beat disease, and something practical that the millions of people affected by schistosomiasis could use to protect themselves to some extent.
Simply keeping their ponds and streams in a state that preserves the range of native snails might reduce the number of people infected.
Implementing that remedy, however, might not be so straightforward given other environmental trends.
Agriculture is changing in many of the countries affected by schistosomiasis, even in its African heartlands.
Excess fertiliser running off farmland into water stimulates the growth of algae; and this appears to be an advantage to the disease-bearing snails, who can thrive on the green stuff, whereas other types die off.
(It's the same thing in microcosm that's happening to coral reefs; too much nutrition for algae brings the death of important native species - in this case, the coral polyps.)
You could argue, of course, that simply wiping out the wrong kind of snail would be more effective. But it's been tried, it has side effects, and it's a procedure that needs doing time and time again.
And wiping out the hosts wouldn't be an option for another condition where the link from biodiversity to human health has been demonstrated - Lyme disease.
Richard Ostfeld and his collaborators have shown that a diverse ecology reduces the number of white-footed mice, an important carrier of the ticks that transmit the disease.
Lyme disease is frequently in the news in North America, and I'm not surprised, having met a conservationist in Canada a few years ago who was still suffering the effects more than a decade after infection.
Schistosomiasis is rarely in the news anywhere. But it should be; it is one of the factors holding back the health and education of children in the poorest countries, and if simply keeping the right mix of snails alive would indeed help keep the parasite down, why not?
In the meantime, it's not my job to do the UN's publicity; but if they're looking for concrete evidence to show why biodiversity matters to the human race, perhaps the snail-ridden waters of Africa and Asia are places worth looking."
Pollution affects biodiversity. Biodiversity affects health. If there were no carbon emissions, there would be no pollution. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Monday, January 19, 2009
"Setting out Obama's green agenda
VIEWPOINT
Peter Seligmann
Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the US as the world is engulfed in a global economic crisis, says Peter Seligmann. He calls on the new president not to ignore the environment, which is "rapidly reaching a tipping point".
What an odd juxtaposition of almost giddy anticipation and deep anxiety as we prepare for a US presidential inauguration that will be celebrated worldwide.
Hopes for a new year and a new global leader of vision and courage collide with a tremendous angst as people everywhere are engulfed by the global economic crisis.
Alongside the urgent action needed to keep the economy afloat, there is a course that President-elect Barack Obama can chart that will help our global society move into a new era of sustained security.
This security is not only for our economies, but also for our health and for present and future generations to thrive.
Another young US president, Theodore Roosevelt, summed up that course about 100 years ago when he said: "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem.
"Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."
'Tipping point'
As Mr Obama becomes the 44th president, one of his toughest challenges is also his greatest opportunity.
The global environment is rapidly reaching a tipping point, much like our global economy.
Once it passes that point, it will be all the more difficult to pull it back to stability.
Our Earth is being altered to the point where it cannot sustain much of the life that has thrived for millennia; species extinctions today are occurring at an estimated 1,000 times the normal rate.
When our landscapes, rivers and coral reefs can no longer sustain robust species populations, humans are also in trouble.
People depend on healthy ecosystems for the very fundamentals of survival: clean air, fresh water, soil regeneration, crop pollination and other resources that we often take for granted until they are scarce or gone.
Just as the current financial crisis reveals how the world's economies are interconnected, we also must recognise the fundamental links between human well-being and Earth's ecosystems.
When we abuse and degrade the natural world, it affects our health, our social stability and our wallets.
Natural capital
How great is the challenge?
Well, today, 25% of wild marine fisheries are over-exploited, while another 50% are highly degraded.
West African fisheries have declined by 80% since the 1990s, resulting in thousands of fishermen searching for jobs in Europe.
When the Newfoundland cod fisheries collapsed in the early 1990s as a result of overfishing, it meant the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost $2bn (£1.4bn) in income support and retraining.
Tropical deforestation and land degradation contributes more global greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's cars, trucks, planes and trains combined.
What is lost in Indonesia or the Amazon affects the climate in New York, Paris and Sydney.
More than a billion people lack access to safe drinking water. In the poorest countries, one in five children dies from a preventable water-related disease.
This is a crisis that is worsening as ecosystems are damaged, increasing droughts and floods.
Mismanagement and corruption tied to natural resource exploitation have fuelled violent conflict in many countries including Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Violence linked to natural resource loss and degradation has led to unimaginable human suffering in such places as Darfur.
Tensions in the Middle East are fed by conflict over water and oil, as well as religion and politics.
Under pressure
Now, climate change exacerbates the threats posed by over-consumption, pollution and habitat destruction.
We are already witnessing rising oceans, spreading disease, reduced freshwater sources and myriad other serious threats.
Recent studies show half of the world's population could face a climate-induced food crisis by the end of this century.
Yet as overwhelming as the global environmental crisis has become, it offers some of today's greatest opportunities.
First, we must make conservation of nature a core principle of development; they cannot be separated.
Often an unintended consequence of development projects is the depletion or degradation of natural systems. We must recognise the value of nature and invest to protect it.
Ecosystem destruction costs our global economy at least $2 trillion (£1.4 trillion) every year.
That is the value forests provide by storing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, cleansing fresh water supplies, and preventing soil erosion.
It includes the value oceans and coral reefs provide in food security for millions who rely on fisheries as their primary source of protein.
Overall, global ecosystems services have been assessed to be worth as much as $33 trillion (£22.6 trillion) a year.
Every home owner understands that restoring and replacing a plumbing system, or a heating unit, is far more expensive than taking care of the system properly.
Well, the same is true for nature's ecosystems.
Restoring a forest costs 10 times as much as maintaining what we have. Building a reservoir and filtration system is far more expensive than preserving the intact forest systems that naturally filter and cleanse our drinking water.
Traditional measures of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) do not reflect changes in the quality and quantity of a nation's natural assets.
Imagine measuring your personal financial condition without factoring in a dramatic and ongoing decline in your assets.
The world needs US leadership to begin honestly accounting for the state our natural assets.
The Obama administration can bring these issues into the mainstream during this critical time of reorienting the US's national priorities.
Initiatives to advance natural resource conservation in other countries have typically lacked strong political support and received only a small fraction of the total resources dedicated to international engagement.
Mr Obama and his team should fully integrate and fund ecosystem conservation priorities within US national security considerations, as well as foreign policy and development assistance.
By helping restore and protect developing nations' natural heritage throughout the world, the US will strengthen the bonds of friendship and trust through sustainable collaborations.
The stakes are high, and the benefits of bringing ecosystem conservation to the forefront of our foreign policy will be enormous.
As 2009 begins, we face a new era of unprecedented global economic, health and security challenges.
Confronting these challenges requires a bold new commitment to protect our most valuable joint asset - planet Earth.
Peter A Seligmann is chairman and chief executive of US NGO Conservancy International
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Do you agree with Peter Seligmann? Do you think Barack Obama's administration will take the environment seriously? Do you think the US will be a serious player in the global green agenda? Or are the problems facing the world too big for one nation to make a difference?"
Hunger. Water pollution. Air pollution. Global warming. Climate change. Geopolitical unrest. We can work together. There is an answer: please see http://www.campaignforgreen.com/.
VIEWPOINT
Peter Seligmann
Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the US as the world is engulfed in a global economic crisis, says Peter Seligmann. He calls on the new president not to ignore the environment, which is "rapidly reaching a tipping point".
What an odd juxtaposition of almost giddy anticipation and deep anxiety as we prepare for a US presidential inauguration that will be celebrated worldwide.
Hopes for a new year and a new global leader of vision and courage collide with a tremendous angst as people everywhere are engulfed by the global economic crisis.
Alongside the urgent action needed to keep the economy afloat, there is a course that President-elect Barack Obama can chart that will help our global society move into a new era of sustained security.
This security is not only for our economies, but also for our health and for present and future generations to thrive.
Another young US president, Theodore Roosevelt, summed up that course about 100 years ago when he said: "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem.
"Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."
'Tipping point'
As Mr Obama becomes the 44th president, one of his toughest challenges is also his greatest opportunity.
The global environment is rapidly reaching a tipping point, much like our global economy.
Once it passes that point, it will be all the more difficult to pull it back to stability.
Our Earth is being altered to the point where it cannot sustain much of the life that has thrived for millennia; species extinctions today are occurring at an estimated 1,000 times the normal rate.
When our landscapes, rivers and coral reefs can no longer sustain robust species populations, humans are also in trouble.
People depend on healthy ecosystems for the very fundamentals of survival: clean air, fresh water, soil regeneration, crop pollination and other resources that we often take for granted until they are scarce or gone.
Just as the current financial crisis reveals how the world's economies are interconnected, we also must recognise the fundamental links between human well-being and Earth's ecosystems.
When we abuse and degrade the natural world, it affects our health, our social stability and our wallets.
Natural capital
How great is the challenge?
Well, today, 25% of wild marine fisheries are over-exploited, while another 50% are highly degraded.
West African fisheries have declined by 80% since the 1990s, resulting in thousands of fishermen searching for jobs in Europe.
When the Newfoundland cod fisheries collapsed in the early 1990s as a result of overfishing, it meant the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost $2bn (£1.4bn) in income support and retraining.
Tropical deforestation and land degradation contributes more global greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's cars, trucks, planes and trains combined.
What is lost in Indonesia or the Amazon affects the climate in New York, Paris and Sydney.
More than a billion people lack access to safe drinking water. In the poorest countries, one in five children dies from a preventable water-related disease.
This is a crisis that is worsening as ecosystems are damaged, increasing droughts and floods.
Mismanagement and corruption tied to natural resource exploitation have fuelled violent conflict in many countries including Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Violence linked to natural resource loss and degradation has led to unimaginable human suffering in such places as Darfur.
Tensions in the Middle East are fed by conflict over water and oil, as well as religion and politics.
Under pressure
Now, climate change exacerbates the threats posed by over-consumption, pollution and habitat destruction.
We are already witnessing rising oceans, spreading disease, reduced freshwater sources and myriad other serious threats.
Recent studies show half of the world's population could face a climate-induced food crisis by the end of this century.
Yet as overwhelming as the global environmental crisis has become, it offers some of today's greatest opportunities.
First, we must make conservation of nature a core principle of development; they cannot be separated.
Often an unintended consequence of development projects is the depletion or degradation of natural systems. We must recognise the value of nature and invest to protect it.
Ecosystem destruction costs our global economy at least $2 trillion (£1.4 trillion) every year.
That is the value forests provide by storing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, cleansing fresh water supplies, and preventing soil erosion.
It includes the value oceans and coral reefs provide in food security for millions who rely on fisheries as their primary source of protein.
Overall, global ecosystems services have been assessed to be worth as much as $33 trillion (£22.6 trillion) a year.
Every home owner understands that restoring and replacing a plumbing system, or a heating unit, is far more expensive than taking care of the system properly.
Well, the same is true for nature's ecosystems.
Restoring a forest costs 10 times as much as maintaining what we have. Building a reservoir and filtration system is far more expensive than preserving the intact forest systems that naturally filter and cleanse our drinking water.
Traditional measures of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) do not reflect changes in the quality and quantity of a nation's natural assets.
Imagine measuring your personal financial condition without factoring in a dramatic and ongoing decline in your assets.
The world needs US leadership to begin honestly accounting for the state our natural assets.
The Obama administration can bring these issues into the mainstream during this critical time of reorienting the US's national priorities.
Initiatives to advance natural resource conservation in other countries have typically lacked strong political support and received only a small fraction of the total resources dedicated to international engagement.
Mr Obama and his team should fully integrate and fund ecosystem conservation priorities within US national security considerations, as well as foreign policy and development assistance.
By helping restore and protect developing nations' natural heritage throughout the world, the US will strengthen the bonds of friendship and trust through sustainable collaborations.
The stakes are high, and the benefits of bringing ecosystem conservation to the forefront of our foreign policy will be enormous.
As 2009 begins, we face a new era of unprecedented global economic, health and security challenges.
Confronting these challenges requires a bold new commitment to protect our most valuable joint asset - planet Earth.
Peter A Seligmann is chairman and chief executive of US NGO Conservancy International
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Do you agree with Peter Seligmann? Do you think Barack Obama's administration will take the environment seriously? Do you think the US will be a serious player in the global green agenda? Or are the problems facing the world too big for one nation to make a difference?"
Hunger. Water pollution. Air pollution. Global warming. Climate change. Geopolitical unrest. We can work together. There is an answer: please see http://www.campaignforgreen.com/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)