Showing posts with label green energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green energy. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Congress Approved Research For Natural Gas Vehicles
Research approval for natural gas vehicles is all very well, but there is a better way: totally clean, emissions-free energy. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Global Emissions Goals
"G8 leaders to set emissions goals
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8135261.stm
The G8 leaders are set this week to deliver their strongest statement so far on global warming.
They are likely to agree that the world ought to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 - with rich nations reducing them by 80%.
The group will probably also say that any human-induced temperature rise should be held to 2C - a level considered to be a danger threshold.
The US has previously objected to such a clause.
But it looks as though the G8 will fall short of agreeing the short-term targets scientists say are essential to ensure that the 2C threshold is not breached.
Environmental campaigners accuse the G8 of willing the ends on climate change but not willing the means.
***
On Thursday, US President Barack Obama chairs a meeting of the G8 members with the leaders of the emerging economies, including India and China, under a process known as the Major Economies Forum (MEF).
That meeting will produce a declaration separate from the G8. Opinions among the emerging economies vary widely. India opposes commitments on cutting emissions. It has millions living in poverty and considers that the problem should be solved by rich nations. India is suspicious of signing up to the 2C warming threshold because it implicitly puts a cap on Indian growth.
China is committed to achieving a low-carbon economy, but slowly so as to cause minimum social and economic upheaval.
"We have to persuade China that it is in China's interests to move quickly to a low-carbon economy - that will be be key," a western diplomatic source said.
Brazil is the most significant of the emerging nations to sign up to the 2C threshold. "This is extremely significant," said the source. "It is an acknowledgement from political leaders to their peoples that there are scientific limits to how far we can push the planet."
***
A group of 22 leading climate scientists has written to G8 and MEF leaders calling for policies that would see global emissions peak by 2020, and shrink by at least 50% by 2050.
"Unless the burden of poverty in developing nations is alleviated by significant financial support for mitigation, adaptation, and the reduction of deforestation, the ability of developing countries to pursue sustainable development is likely to diminish, to the economic and environmental detriment of all," the scientists said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8135261.stm
Published: 2009/07/06 01:18:02 GMT
© BBC MMIX"
We've got the technology, a technology that will create jobs, not emissions. We want everyone everywhere to benefit. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8135261.stm
The G8 leaders are set this week to deliver their strongest statement so far on global warming.
They are likely to agree that the world ought to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 - with rich nations reducing them by 80%.
The group will probably also say that any human-induced temperature rise should be held to 2C - a level considered to be a danger threshold.
The US has previously objected to such a clause.
But it looks as though the G8 will fall short of agreeing the short-term targets scientists say are essential to ensure that the 2C threshold is not breached.
Environmental campaigners accuse the G8 of willing the ends on climate change but not willing the means.
***
On Thursday, US President Barack Obama chairs a meeting of the G8 members with the leaders of the emerging economies, including India and China, under a process known as the Major Economies Forum (MEF).
That meeting will produce a declaration separate from the G8. Opinions among the emerging economies vary widely. India opposes commitments on cutting emissions. It has millions living in poverty and considers that the problem should be solved by rich nations. India is suspicious of signing up to the 2C warming threshold because it implicitly puts a cap on Indian growth.
China is committed to achieving a low-carbon economy, but slowly so as to cause minimum social and economic upheaval.
"We have to persuade China that it is in China's interests to move quickly to a low-carbon economy - that will be be key," a western diplomatic source said.
Brazil is the most significant of the emerging nations to sign up to the 2C threshold. "This is extremely significant," said the source. "It is an acknowledgement from political leaders to their peoples that there are scientific limits to how far we can push the planet."
***
A group of 22 leading climate scientists has written to G8 and MEF leaders calling for policies that would see global emissions peak by 2020, and shrink by at least 50% by 2050.
"Unless the burden of poverty in developing nations is alleviated by significant financial support for mitigation, adaptation, and the reduction of deforestation, the ability of developing countries to pursue sustainable development is likely to diminish, to the economic and environmental detriment of all," the scientists said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8135261.stm
Published: 2009/07/06 01:18:02 GMT
© BBC MMIX"
We've got the technology, a technology that will create jobs, not emissions. We want everyone everywhere to benefit. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Economy, Environment, and Energy
"Conservation groups feel the strain
Richard Black 15:17 UK time, Monday, 15 June 2009
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
About nine months ago, I spent a fascinating (and very agreeable) week on a research boat in the Canary Islands, attempting to study the elusive family of beaked whales.
Lucky for me it happened last year; because the boat in question, Song of the Whale, is now being taken off such operations, for at least a couple of years, for financial reasons.
The group that runs Song of the Whale, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw), appears to have been hit particularly hard by the world's financial troubles. Mothballing the boat's research is one of several cuts it's had to make, including staff cutbacks.
Ifaw is certainly not alone. According to the head of one major UK conservation charity, most organisations in the field are feeling the pinch.
Over the past year, I'm told, UK green groups have seen their income fall by an average of 10-20% - some by more.
You might assume this was down to people withdrawing their membership or being less generous with their gift donations.
These trends are real; but they are regarded as minor compared with declining legacy income and adverse foreign currency movements.
The main component of a legacy donation is often the sale of a house; and often the legacy is worded along the lines of "person X gets so much and person Y so much, with the remainder going to charity Z" - in which case a fairly small dip in house prices can have a large proportional impact on the amount going to the charity.
It shouldn't come as any surprise to find the global financial situation impacting conservation groups - why should they be exempt from the general mayhem? - but it's worth having a quick think about what it might mean.
True, there's a strong propaganda element to much that environmental groups do, and you might either bemoan or applaud a decline in its intensity, depending on your political stance.
But projects such as Song of the Whale generate data that could prove important in understanding - and thus protecting - little-known species.
In developing countries, wildlife protection regimes often struggle for money and resources, certainly when compared to the poachers of valuable species and the industrialists who would expand the human footprint without restraint.
I came across a particularly stark example this week from India - wardens in tiger reserves working without simple equipment such as torches, without proper shoes, with meagre salaries often paid in arrears.
It's a common tale. And sometimes, Western-based groups fill this kind of funding gap, paying the human costs without which there can be no effective conservation.
The links between the world's ecological crisis and its economic woes are manifold and complex; and you can certainly argue that any slowing in the breakneck pace of human economic development is good news if it retards the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the expansion of human habitat into areas occupied by other species, and the depletion of shared resources such as water.
But conservation projects such as Song of the Whale will be casualties; and in a world where we are often struggling to understand what is already on the verge of being destroyed, they are losses we can ill afford."
We can have economic development without the rise in carbon and greenhouse emissions, without hurting wildlife and plantlife, and without using up resources. There is an alternative, totally green energy source. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Richard Black 15:17 UK time, Monday, 15 June 2009
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
About nine months ago, I spent a fascinating (and very agreeable) week on a research boat in the Canary Islands, attempting to study the elusive family of beaked whales.
Lucky for me it happened last year; because the boat in question, Song of the Whale, is now being taken off such operations, for at least a couple of years, for financial reasons.
The group that runs Song of the Whale, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw), appears to have been hit particularly hard by the world's financial troubles. Mothballing the boat's research is one of several cuts it's had to make, including staff cutbacks.
Ifaw is certainly not alone. According to the head of one major UK conservation charity, most organisations in the field are feeling the pinch.
Over the past year, I'm told, UK green groups have seen their income fall by an average of 10-20% - some by more.
You might assume this was down to people withdrawing their membership or being less generous with their gift donations.
These trends are real; but they are regarded as minor compared with declining legacy income and adverse foreign currency movements.
The main component of a legacy donation is often the sale of a house; and often the legacy is worded along the lines of "person X gets so much and person Y so much, with the remainder going to charity Z" - in which case a fairly small dip in house prices can have a large proportional impact on the amount going to the charity.
It shouldn't come as any surprise to find the global financial situation impacting conservation groups - why should they be exempt from the general mayhem? - but it's worth having a quick think about what it might mean.
True, there's a strong propaganda element to much that environmental groups do, and you might either bemoan or applaud a decline in its intensity, depending on your political stance.
But projects such as Song of the Whale generate data that could prove important in understanding - and thus protecting - little-known species.
In developing countries, wildlife protection regimes often struggle for money and resources, certainly when compared to the poachers of valuable species and the industrialists who would expand the human footprint without restraint.
I came across a particularly stark example this week from India - wardens in tiger reserves working without simple equipment such as torches, without proper shoes, with meagre salaries often paid in arrears.
It's a common tale. And sometimes, Western-based groups fill this kind of funding gap, paying the human costs without which there can be no effective conservation.
The links between the world's ecological crisis and its economic woes are manifold and complex; and you can certainly argue that any slowing in the breakneck pace of human economic development is good news if it retards the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the expansion of human habitat into areas occupied by other species, and the depletion of shared resources such as water.
But conservation projects such as Song of the Whale will be casualties; and in a world where we are often struggling to understand what is already on the verge of being destroyed, they are losses we can ill afford."
We can have economic development without the rise in carbon and greenhouse emissions, without hurting wildlife and plantlife, and without using up resources. There is an alternative, totally green energy source. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Progress, But We Can Do More
"Green energy overtakes fossil fuel investment, says UN
Clean technologies attract $140bn compared with $110bn for gas, coal and electrical power Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 June 2009
Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations"(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/renewables-energy).
Good. Very good. But more can be done. For information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Clean technologies attract $140bn compared with $110bn for gas, coal and electrical power Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 June 2009
Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations"(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/renewables-energy).
Good. Very good. But more can be done. For information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
If Things Don't Change
If things don't change:
"Report: CO2 Levels to Rise 40% by 2030
By AP / H. JOSEF HEBERT Wednesday, May. 27, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1901222,00.html
(WASHINGTON) — The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide seeping into the atmosphere will increase by nearly 40 percent worldwide by 2030 if ways are not found to require mandatory emission reductions, a government report said Wednesday."
But things can change. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
"Report: CO2 Levels to Rise 40% by 2030
By AP / H. JOSEF HEBERT Wednesday, May. 27, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1901222,00.html
(WASHINGTON) — The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide seeping into the atmosphere will increase by nearly 40 percent worldwide by 2030 if ways are not found to require mandatory emission reductions, a government report said Wednesday."
But things can change. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Climate Deals--Please Act Soon
"Ban Ki-moon calls for "green deal", says time short 21 May 2009 22:14:47 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Megan Davies (Edited by Philip Barbara)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21352527.htm
UNITED NATIONS, May 21 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a "green new deal" on climate change on Thursday and urged for a final push in negotiations ahead of a key summit to be held in Copenhagen in December.
"We absolutely must reach an agreement to reduce greenhouse gases and help millions of families adapt to climate change -- before our time runs out," Ban told an audience at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, according to a transcript made available at the United Nations."
But we really can't wait 'til December. Something needs to be done now. And something can be done now. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Source: Reuters
By Megan Davies (Edited by Philip Barbara)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21352527.htm
UNITED NATIONS, May 21 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a "green new deal" on climate change on Thursday and urged for a final push in negotiations ahead of a key summit to be held in Copenhagen in December.
"We absolutely must reach an agreement to reduce greenhouse gases and help millions of families adapt to climate change -- before our time runs out," Ban told an audience at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, according to a transcript made available at the United Nations."
But we really can't wait 'til December. Something needs to be done now. And something can be done now. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
We Can Do More
“http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-hails-efforts-on-clean-apf-15270418.html: Weeks of negotiations have led to the introduction in the House of an energy proposal that, for the first time, would mandate reductions in the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming and shift the country toward cleaner sources of energy.”
We can do more. See www.campaignforgreen.com.
We can do more. See www.campaignforgreen.com.
Labels:
clean energy,
energy proposal,
global warming,
green energy
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
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Time Is Now
With the administration and lots of other people wanting energy independence, an economic jumpstart, and solutions to high gas prices and global warming, the time is now to look to totally green, totally clean, totally independent alternative energy. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com. We can take care of this, together.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
More Pain At The Pump
Where I'm at, gasoline prices have gone up to $2.01. That's not as bad as it's been in a while, but still . . . .
Something needs to be done. And something can be done! Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Something needs to be done. And something can be done! Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Specific Solution
Apparently the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen did not yield any specific solutions. Here's a link to something specific: www.campaignforgreen.com.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Response to the National Clean Energy Project: Building the New Economy
Response to the National Clean Energy Project: Building the New Economy
The members of the panel at the National Clean Energy Project: Building the New Economy, discussed energy and environmentalism, economics, geopolitics, and engineering. Something has to be done about global warming, climate change, pollution, and health. In the process of doing something, the economy will create jobs and that will help everyone. We also need to be freed from the problems inherent in depending on other countries for fuel. There also has to be a way to get the electricity produced by alternative fuel to everyone, no matter where they live.
There is a solution. This solution is emissions free—our environment and our health won’t be plagued by pollution. This solution is also economically efficient: jobs will be created and energy will be less expensive. This solution is also domestic: we will not be dependent on any country for our energy source. Everyone will benefit, no matter where they live.
For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
The members of the panel at the National Clean Energy Project: Building the New Economy, discussed energy and environmentalism, economics, geopolitics, and engineering. Something has to be done about global warming, climate change, pollution, and health. In the process of doing something, the economy will create jobs and that will help everyone. We also need to be freed from the problems inherent in depending on other countries for fuel. There also has to be a way to get the electricity produced by alternative fuel to everyone, no matter where they live.
There is a solution. This solution is emissions free—our environment and our health won’t be plagued by pollution. This solution is also economically efficient: jobs will be created and energy will be less expensive. This solution is also domestic: we will not be dependent on any country for our energy source. Everyone will benefit, no matter where they live.
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/.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Endangered Species, Pollution, Alternative Energy
Endangered Species, plant and animal species that are in danger of extinction (dying out). Over 8,300 plant species and 7,200 animal species around the globe are threatened with extinction, and many thousands more become extinct each year before biologists can identify them. The primary causes of species extinction or endangerment are habitat destruction, commercial exploitation (such as plant collecting, hunting, and trade in animal parts), damage caused by nonnative plants and animals introduced into an area, and pollution. Of these causes, direct habitat destruction threatens the greatest number of species. *****
Species become extinct or endangered for a number of reasons, but the primary cause is the destruction of habitat by human activities (see Environment). As species evolve, most adapt to a specific habitat or environment that best meets their survival needs. Without this habitat the species may not survive. Pollution, drainage of wetlands, conversion of shrub lands to grazing lands, cutting and clearing of forests, urbanization and suburbanization, climate change due to global warming, and road and dam construction have destroyed or seriously damaged and fragmented available habitats. *****
Pollution is another important cause of extinction. Toxic chemicals—especially chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)—have become concentrated in food webs, the interconnected food chains that circulate energy through an ecosystem. These toxic chemicals strongly affect species near the top of the food chain. Both DDT and PCBs interfere with the calcium metabolism of birds, causing soft-shelled eggs and malformed young. PCBs also impair reproduction in some carnivorous animals. Water pollution and increased water temperatures have wiped out endemic species of fish in many habitats. Oil spills destroy birds, fish, and mammals, and may contaminate the ocean floor for many years after the event. Acid rain, the toxic result of extreme air pollution, has been known to kill organisms in freshwater lakes and destroy large tracts of forested land. *****
Reviewed By:
Reed F. Noss, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
Research Associate, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University. Courtesy Associate Professor, Fisheries and Wildlife Department, Oregon State University. Editor of Conservation Biology.
- - - - -
Pollution, climate change, global warming, deforestation . . . something can be done, using totally green, totally sustainable alternative energy. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Species become extinct or endangered for a number of reasons, but the primary cause is the destruction of habitat by human activities (see Environment). As species evolve, most adapt to a specific habitat or environment that best meets their survival needs. Without this habitat the species may not survive. Pollution, drainage of wetlands, conversion of shrub lands to grazing lands, cutting and clearing of forests, urbanization and suburbanization, climate change due to global warming, and road and dam construction have destroyed or seriously damaged and fragmented available habitats. *****
Pollution is another important cause of extinction. Toxic chemicals—especially chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)—have become concentrated in food webs, the interconnected food chains that circulate energy through an ecosystem. These toxic chemicals strongly affect species near the top of the food chain. Both DDT and PCBs interfere with the calcium metabolism of birds, causing soft-shelled eggs and malformed young. PCBs also impair reproduction in some carnivorous animals. Water pollution and increased water temperatures have wiped out endemic species of fish in many habitats. Oil spills destroy birds, fish, and mammals, and may contaminate the ocean floor for many years after the event. Acid rain, the toxic result of extreme air pollution, has been known to kill organisms in freshwater lakes and destroy large tracts of forested land. *****
Reviewed By:
Reed F. Noss, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
Research Associate, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University. Courtesy Associate Professor, Fisheries and Wildlife Department, Oregon State University. Editor of Conservation Biology.
- - - - -
Pollution, climate change, global warming, deforestation . . . something can be done, using totally green, totally sustainable alternative energy. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Geopolitics and . . . Natural Gas
In Europe, business problems between a country supplying natural gas and a country buying it have affected more than just the supplier country and client country--other countries are having problems too. But there is a way to avoid business problems connected with natural gas . . . and any other fuel, for that matter. Please see http://www.campaignforgreen.com/ for information about an energy alternative that people do not have to look to others to supply. And this self-sufficient energy is green, as opposed to natural gas or any other type of fossil fuel.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Are We Really Ready?
Are we really ready?
According to an article on the 5 November 2008 BBC Online News, most people are:
"Most ready for 'green sacrifices'
The poll suggests the public are more ready than politicians
Most people say they are ready to make personal sacrifices to address climate change, according to a BBC poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries.
Four out of five people say they are prepared to change their lifestyle, even in the US and China, the world's two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide.
Three quarters would back energy taxes if the cash was used to find new sources of energy, or boost efficiency.
Chinese respondents were more positive than any others about energy taxes.
BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath says the poll suggests that in many countries people are more willing than their governments to contemplate serious changes to their lifestyles to combat global warming.
According to the survey, 83% of respondents throughout the world agree that individuals will definitely or probably have to make lifestyle changes to reduce the amount of climate-changing gases they produce.
The poll also suggests that a large majority of people in each individual country surveyed believe that sacrifices will be necessary" (BBC Online News, 5 November 2008)
According to an article on the 5 November 2008 BBC Online News, most people are:
"Most ready for 'green sacrifices'
The poll suggests the public are more ready than politicians
Most people say they are ready to make personal sacrifices to address climate change, according to a BBC poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries.
Four out of five people say they are prepared to change their lifestyle, even in the US and China, the world's two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide.
Three quarters would back energy taxes if the cash was used to find new sources of energy, or boost efficiency.
Chinese respondents were more positive than any others about energy taxes.
BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath says the poll suggests that in many countries people are more willing than their governments to contemplate serious changes to their lifestyles to combat global warming.
According to the survey, 83% of respondents throughout the world agree that individuals will definitely or probably have to make lifestyle changes to reduce the amount of climate-changing gases they produce.
The poll also suggests that a large majority of people in each individual country surveyed believe that sacrifices will be necessary" (BBC Online News, 5 November 2008)
If we really are, let's begin. Cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Right Now We Can . . .
Right now we can . . .
recycle
carry canvas bags to the grocery store
collect rain water and use it to water plants
turn out the lights when we're not using them
use natural light when we can
be careful with water use . . . don't let the water run when we're doing the dishes, etc.
recycle
carry canvas bags to the grocery store
collect rain water and use it to water plants
turn out the lights when we're not using them
use natural light when we can
be careful with water use . . . don't let the water run when we're doing the dishes, etc.
Labels:
going green,
green energy,
green living,
recycling
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Green Energy Is Global
Green energy is global. Everybody everywhere needs green energy. Obviously!
And everyone, every one, can do something about it.
For more information, cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
And everyone, every one, can do something about it.
For more information, cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
Labels:
alternative energy,
global,
green energy,
inclusivity
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Green Energy Is Efficient With . . . Money
Green energy is efficient with money. Imagine not having to use the clothes dryer for only twenty minutes then hang up damp clothes just 'cause running the clothes dryer for longer is expensive. Imagine not having to keep the thermostat low in the winter just to save on heating bills. Imagine not having to keep the thermostat higher in the summer just to save on cooling bills. Imagine no pain at the pump . . . or no pump at all. Imagine energy for transportation not dependent on what goes on in other countries. Imagine not being dependent on other countries for energy at all. Ever again. It can be done. Cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
Labels:
energy prices,
finances,
gas prices,
green energy,
money
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)