boilingspot

Indonesia to require loggers prove their concessions free of overlapping claims

2012-02-04T00:29:00.001+07:00

Applicants for forest concessions in Indonesia will soon be required to prove there aren't overlapping claims on their holdings, reports The Jakarta Globe

mongabay.com | February 02, 2012

The move, which offers the potential to reduce land disputes between forest developers and local communities, could complicate investments in the forestry sector in Indonesia.

The Ministry of Forestry announced the new decree Tuesday. The process will be handled by the Agency for Forestry Area Consolidation (BPKH), a unit of the Forestry Ministry.

"The Forestry Ministry is determined to assist in accelerating the process of comprehensively determining the boundaries of forests by appointing the BPKH as technical assistant," Hadi Daryanto, the secretary general of the Forestry Ministry, was quoted as saying by The Jakarta Globe.

Any area found to have overlapping claims "may be taken out of the concession to be awarded, designated as an enclave, recognized as a customary forest or designated as a forest with special purposes," according to the report. Local communities may be allowed to jointly manage contested areas with the concession-seeker.

The decree could have far-reaching implications in Indonesia, where disputes over forest land are common and sometimes turn violent.
Logging concessions and large-scale plantation development -- including oil palm and wood-pulp plantations -- have often displaced traditional forest users. The Ministry of Forestry, which controls roughly 70 percent of Indonesia's forest estate, generally doesn't recognize traditional land claims, despite laws requiring it to do so. Instead, the ministry grants these community lands to developers, who pay for the privilege of converting the forest. When conflicts arise, developers may rely on state security forces to intimidate or even forcibly displace villagers.

Last year, Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, head of the Indonesian President’s REDD+ Task Force, said the government would immediately work to implement a decade-old law that requires recognition of adat or customary rights. The effort will include developing a land tenure map so government agencies can better understand how communities are using land and delineating the legal status of the Indonesia's forest area. Only 12 percent of the Indonesia's forest area has been legally delineated, according to Kuntoro.

Copyright mongabay 2010

Less bank-bashing, more action: time to Move Your Money!

2012-02-04T00:23:00.001+07:00

A call is going out to every British citizen who wants the financial sector to clean up their act. Move your money from the big banks to local, ethical or mutual alternatives and send them a message in a language they'll understand

by Louis Brooke | Feb 2 2012 by OpenDemocracy in Energy Bulletin | Feb 2 2012

Move Your Money UK campaign video

But should we be? Should the public submit themselves to the benevolence of individual bankers in the hope that, as bonus season continues, there are more Phillip Hammonds than there are Fred Goodwin’s in the City?

It was always going to be politically unacceptable for Hester to accept his bonus. A public sector worker can't walk away with a £1million bonus and a ‘long-term incentivisation plan’ worth up to four times that whilst the public face austerity cuts, a squeeze on real incomes and growing unemployment.

But politicians won’t be able lean on Barclay’s Chief Executive, Bob Diamond, when his bonus is announced. Barclays never received direct support from the state; neither did Santander or HSBC for that matter...

The outpouring of public anger over Hester’s bonus went beyond the fact that the state has an 82% stake in RBS. People are genuinely shocked that the bonus culture in the City still hasn’t changed.

If we want to see real change in the culture of British banks, not just a media frenzy and political scrum about one man at RBS, it’s up to us, as citizens, consumers and investors, to take action.

The banking system plays a systemically central role in our economy and society - it provides essential services for households, business and governments. And just like with the utilities, the public have a clear interest in ensuring it functions properly. The continued practice of awarding big bonuses on the basis of relatively short-term performance hardly inspires confidence.

Clearly regulatory and structural reform is needed. The implementation of the Vickers report may shield the taxpayer from the worst effects of future financial crises, and the overhaul of the FSA and Bank of England are likely to improve oversight and consumer protection.

But if there is one thing that the financial crisis should have taught us, it is not to underestimate our own myopia. When the sums involved are large enough, there is always a risk that self-interest will win out over stability and fairness.

The only way of securing a fair and sustainable financial system in the long term is through a paradigm shift in cultural attitudes both inside and outside of the sector.

We need to create a dialogue between the public and the financial system that helps ensure it responds better to the needs of wider society. That’s why Move Your Money, a new grassroots campaign encouraging people to move their money from the big banks to ethical, local and mutual alternatives, launched yesterday.

The campaign is not about bringing down the big banks. The UK has one of the most consolidated banking sectors in the developed world; there is no danger of sparking the collapse of the likes of RBS, Barclays and Lloyds.

But Moving Your Money to an ethical, local or mutual alternative will send a clear message to the big banks that their behavior must change.

We hope that the big banks will see the campaign as an opportunity to engage with the pubic on constructive terms. By being transparent, developing ethically responsible lending policies and adopting business models and governance structures that internalize the needs of customers and wider society – they can regain credibility and trust.

To find out more or get involved visit www.moveyourmoney.org.uk. The next action is A Better Bail-Out: Break Up with Barclays. February 10th will see Barclay's bonus announcements so at 8.30am we will be lining up outside the Barclays branch, 56 Southampton Road, London, WC1B 4NB to close accounts, sign letters of complaint, speak to the manager and discuss the issues with other Barclays customers. If you can’t make it to London why not organise your own Better Bail-out from Big Bad Barclays outside your local branch?

Euro Parliament backs low-carbon road map

2012-02-04T00:13:00.001+07:00

A European Parliament committee this week approved an EU "road map" to a low-carbon economy that seeks to go beyond current greenhouse gas reduction targets

United Press International | Feb. 3, 2012

The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment Tuesday passed a report written by British MEP Chris Davies that backs the European Commission's "Road map for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050," giving it a key legislative victory.

The plan seeks to boost renewable energy sources from providing 20 percent of Europe's electricity called for in current targets for 2020 to between 55-75 percent by 2050, thus cutting greenhouse gas emissions up to 95 percent less than 1990 levels.

It sets carbon dioxide reduction "milestones" of at least 40 percent by 2030 and at least 80 percent by 2050 -- minimum scientists say is necessary to avoid global warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius.

"Europe needs a huge increase in investment to boost the economy and create jobs, but investors must have long-term policy direction to shape their decisions," Davies, of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, said in a statement.

The committee vote was close, with 32 votes in favor, 24 against and five abstentions. A plenary vote on the measure is set for the Parliament's March 12-15 session.

Its passage endorses the idea the "European Union should be prepared to provide leadership on the issue of global warming," Davies wrote on his blog. "It will mean that, even in the absence of a binding international treaty of the kind that we seek, Parliament accepts that the EU should accept the role of first mover, and must take the steps necessary to build a low carbon economy by 2050."

The vote came as the Danish EU presidency is preparing to ask the bloc's 27 environmental ministers to endorse the long-term CO2 reduction goals of the 2050 roadmap, the Brussels weekly EurActiv reported.

The publication said a leaked draft of Denmark's environmental agenda calls for implementation of a 40 percent CO2 emissions reduction by 2030, which will presented to ministers at a March 9 meeting.

The Danish EU presidency will urge the European Commission "to present timely options for delivering the reductions" of the road map for the period to 2030, the document indicates.

The adoption of such long-term targets could help to boost the languishing price of carbon under the EU's emissions trading system, Marcel Van Dun, a spokesman for the Dutch power company Eneco, told EurActiv.

"It would put Europe back in the driving seat in the worldwide transition to a future-proof, independent energy supply for our companies and citizens," he said.

The MEPs sought to address the low carbon price and the need to secure investment in green technologies in the bill by calling for a "significant" number of ETS allowances "to be set aside and changes to be made to the annual rate at which they are taken out of trading."

© 2012 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

100 die in European deep freeze

2012-02-03T23:56:00.000+07:00

Europe's Siberian freeze spread to France and Italy, with snow covering Corsica, Bologna and Milan, while the European death toll topped 100, officials said

UPI in Disaster News Network | February 2, 2012

An estimated 30 people in eastern and central Europe froze to death Wednesday in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine, officials said.

Ukraine's death toll Wednesday was 13 -- and topped 40 since the arctic cold started Friday, the Euronews channel reported.

Temperatures were so low in parts of Romania that parts of the Black Sea near the shoreline froze, the BBC reported.

Istanbul, Turkey, which rarely gets snow, got 20 inches and double-digit sub-zero temperatures Wednesday. The national flag carrier Turkish Airlines canceled at least 183 flights in and out of Istanbul's Ataturk International Airport, the official state Anadolu news agency reported.

Temperatures in Istanbul broke freezing Thursday and were expected to reach into the 40s F Friday.

Temperatures in northern Greece hovered above freezing.

Europe had enjoyed a relatively mild winter until Friday, when a Siberian cold front came in from the northeast, plunging temperatures to minus-25 degrees Fahrenheit and colder in some places.

Eastern and central Europe were hardest hit, but the chill spread south and west Wednesday.

Widespread snow in northern and central Italy disrupted travel. Trucks were banned from roads in several regions, including Tuscany. Dozens of airline flights, and even some soccer matches, were canceled, Euronews said.

Mountain roads on the French island of Corsica were shut by heavy snow and 50,000 customers lost power.

© 2012 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © Village Life Company . All Rights Reserved

Water leak shuts CA nuclear plant

2012-02-03T23:53:00.001+07:00

A water leak led to the shutdown a California nuclear power plant, and officials said an "extremely small" amount of radiation may have been released

UPI in Disaster News Network | February 2, 2012

A sensor detected a steam generator tube leak Tuesday in one of the two units of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Plant in San Diego County Tuesday, prompting the shutdown of the nuclear reactor, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Because the building containing the tube is not airtight, it is possible radioactivity escaped into the environment, KNBC-TV, Los Angeles, reported.

"It would have been very, very small, low level, which would not pose a danger to anyone," Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks said.

An evacuation was not required, and none of the radiation detectors located throughout the facility reported any measurable amount of radioactivity, Southern California Edison spokesman Gil Alexander said.

Southern California Edison operates the facility, which is in the northwestern corner of San Diego County, near San Clemente.

After the problem is resolved, it will take several days to restart the reactor, KNBC-TV reported.

© 2012 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © Village Life Company . All Rights Reserved

Turning Point: What future for forest peoples and resources in the emerging world order?

2012-02-03T23:27:00.000+07:00

Reports about REDD tend to focus on the forests. It’s unusual for a report about REDD to start with an analysis of the economic crisis in Europe and the way in which the world is changing. Yesterday, the Rights and Resources Initiative released a new report that does precisely that

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 2nd February 2012

The report is titled, “Turning Point: What future for forest peoples and resources in the emerging world order?” Written by author and journalist Fred Pearce, the report is a fascinating overview of where REDD currently stands in the context of the economic crisis, collapsing carbon markets, climate change, population and consumption growth, inequality, land-grabbing, infrastructure, development and protests.

Pearce writes that “Nothing demonstrated the historic shift in economic power in 2011 more than the European Union going to China, hat in hand, asking for a bailout.” The report points out that investment in infrastructure and mining is booming in Asia and Latin America. The investment is spreading to Africa, “potentially locking in unsustainable development for decades”. In many poorer countries, development aid is being largely replaced by new players, such as the sovereign wealth funds of the Persian Gulf, China’s Ex-Im Bank, and Brazil’s National Bank of Economic and Social Development.

In November 2011, Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, told theGuardian, that, “The door is closing. I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever.” But the signs are that we are continuing in the wrong direction. In 2006, 25% of the world’s primary energy came from coal, in 2011, the figure was expected to reach 30%.

The UN climate meeting in Durban committed the world to a “lost decade”, with little chance of preventing global warming of at least 2°C. In this context, “REDD is unlikely to play a substantial role before 2020 without a major injection of funds, the prospects of which seem dim.”

Without secure promises of funds, developing countries were reluctant in Durban to cede oversight of their REDD activities. As a result, talks on creating international safeguards to protect the interests of forest communities made little progress. Governments that might host REDD projects agreed to provide summary information on safeguards but refused to accept rules on the collection of data or other specifics that would allow them to be held to account. “Without such rules”, said Louis Verchot, CIFOR’s principal scientist at the talks, “we cannot talk about sustainability of REDD”.

The report refers to research demonstrating that “community control is the best long-term insurance for forests.” But adds that asserting community control could prove difficult, “under an international REDD regime designed to ensure carbon integrity”.

Indonesia is reported as an example of one government that has shown, “increased determination to help communities benefit from REDD”. This is based in part on a speech by Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, head of the President’s Special Delivery Unit, given at a Rights and Resources Initiative conference in July 2011. In the speech, Kuntoro referred to The People’s Consultative Assembly Decree (Tap MPR) No. 9/2001 on Land Reform and Natural Resources Management, which mandated the review and revision of all land tenure regulations:

“The People’s Consultative Assembly Decree also instructs to conduct land reform with considerations on conflict resolutions and resolve land inequality for land-less peasants; to develop inventory and registry of land tenure comprehensively and systematically; to resolve and anticipate land tenure and natural resources management conflicts; and all should be implemented based on the principle to recognize, to respect, and to protect adat customary rights.”

As RRI points out, this statement is “the highest-level government pledge to recognize indigenous land claims made in Indonesia’s history”. Of course, Kuntoro’s statement should be welcomed, as should President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s statements on protecting Indonesia’s forests. But many problems remain regarding the recognition of the rights of forest communities and reducing deforestation in Indonesia. Logging, mining, oil palm and pulpwood plantations have not gone away, despite the two-year moratorium on new forest concessions.

The report highlights the impact of infrastructure development on forests, with descriptions of road-building projects in Pakistan, Bolivia and the Mekong Region. Land-grabbing is also an important driver of deforestation. In the last decade, according to both Oxfam and the International Land Coalition, about 200 million hectares has been bought or leased by agribusiness. In Liberia, most of the country’s land is under some form of concession. Six million hectares of land in Mozambique has been declared open to foreign investors. And South Sudan “was handing out land even before it raised its national flag for the first time”. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, 33.5 million hectares of forest are under timber, diamond or mining concessions. In Gabon and the Central African Republic the figures are 5.4 million hectares and 18.9 million hectares, respectively.

The report also looks at population growth. The world’s population reached 7 billion in 2011. But consumption is the crucial problem. “The global consumption bomb is ready to go off,” Pearce writes. “Consumption drives resource demand and use, and the number of people living consumerist lifestyles in the world’s burgeoning urban areas is rising fast.”

The report considers the importance of protests against the destruction caused by land-grabs, plantations and hydropower dams. Protests in Liberia, Indonesia, Sudan, Brazil and China are highlighted:

Something is afoot. Frustrated by global financial forces and the abuse of their local rights and resources, the most unlikely people are rising up against authorities once seen to be too powerful to challenge.

The report refers to a speech by Arundhati Roy in New York in November 2011, in which she points out that the Occupy Movement, allied to movements in the South, can challenge conventional models of development. “The Occupy movement has joined thousands of other resistance movements all over the world,” she says, “in which the poorest of people are standing up and stopping the richest corporations in their tracks.”

The report ends with a series of questions:

Will 2012 see the end of effective global action on climate change?
Will REDD be reformed or overtaken?
Where will Indonesia’s tenure reform road take them?
Will Rio get real?
Will respect for local rights be the hallmark of 2012?

For the answers to these questions, read RRI’s report. It’s well worth it.

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Once, men abused slaves. Now we abuse fossil fuels

2012-02-03T23:18:00.000+07:00

Pointing out the similarities (and differences) between slavery and the use of fossil fuels can help us engage with climate change in a new way

Jean-François Mouhot | guardian.co.uk | 3 February 2012

'That US Congressmen tend to rationalise fossil fuel use despite climate risks to future generations just as southern congressmen rationalised slavery despite ideals of equality is perhaps unsurprising'. Photograph: Joseph Sohm/Corbis

In 2005, while teaching history at a French university, I was struck by the general disbelief among students that rational and sensitive human beings could ever hold others in bondage. Slavery was so obviously evil that slave-holders could only have been barbarians. My students could not entertain the idea that some slave-owners could have been genuinely blind to the harm they were doing.

At the same time, I was reading a book on climate change which noted how today's machinery – almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels like coal and oil – does the same work that used to be done by slaves and servants. "Energy slaves" now do our laundry, cook our food, transport us, entertain us, and do most of the hard work needed for our survival.

Intriguing similarities between slavery and our current dependence on fossil-fuel-powered machines struck me: both perform roughly the same functions in society (doing the hard and dirty work that no one wants to do), both were considered for a long time to be acceptable by the majority and both came to be increasingly challenged as the harm they caused became more visible.

The history of slavery and its abolition shows how blurred the frontier between what is considered good and evil can be, and how quickly it can shift. We have a mental image of slave-owners as cruel, sadistic, inhuman brutes, and forget too easily the ordinariness of slave ownership throughout the world. To many, slavery seemed normal and indispensable. In the US, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Lifestyles and healthy incomes were predicated upon it, just as we today depend on oil. Similarly, many slave-owners lived with the impression that they were decent people.

Obviously, there are differences between the use of slaves and of fossil fuels. Fundamentally, slavery is a crime against humanity. Fossil fuel use is not a moral evil, but burning coal or oil contributes to global warming, already causing widespread harm: it now directly or indirectly kills 150,000 people per year according to a 2004 World Health Organisation study. States and energy companies' lust for oil also leads to wars and the toppling of democratically elected governments. Our addiction to fossil fuel is increasingly destructive.

Unlike the harm caused by slavery, the harm in the use of fossil fuels is of course indirect, long range, even unintended. It seems at first glance to be a fundamentally different kind of harm, and the unintended consequences of ongoing use of fossil fuels have only recently become understood. Initially, their use was seen as positive and progressive. But now that we know the consequences, and continue, globally, to increase emission levels, how can we still consider these consequences "unintended"?

Consumers of goods made by slaves or absentee plantation owners who lived in Britain in the 18th century also benefited from the slave system without maintaining direct connections to it. Those beneficiaries can certainly be said to have committed a morally comparable sort of human transgression to that of people who benefit from fossil fuels today.

Why is all of this relevant for climate change policy? Our contemporary economies have become extremely dependent on fossil fuels, just as slave societies were dependent on their slaves – indeed far more than the latter ever were. As one scholar remarked: "That US Congressmen tend to rationalise fossil fuel use despite climate risks to future generations just as southern congressmen rationalised slavery despite ideals of equality is perhaps unsurprising."

It should thus come as no surprise that there is so much resistance to climate science. Our societies, like slave-owning societies, have a vested interest in ignoring the scientific consensus. Pointing out the similarities between slavery and the use of fossil fuels can help us engage with the issue in a new way, and convince us to act, as no one envisages comfortably being compared with a slave-owner.

Furthermore, because of the striking similarities between the use of slaves and of fossil fuels, policymakers can find inspiration from the campaigns to abolish slavery and use them to tackle global warming. For example, the history of the abolition of slavery, in the UK at least, suggests that an incremental approach and the development of compromises worked better at moving the cause forward than hardline stances.

The evidence also implies that slavery came to be challenged and finally abolished when people became aware of an alternative. This alternative – steam power – was of course a great moral improvement until we came to know the consequences of fossil fuel consumption. This, in turn, suggests that we will restrain our use of fossil fuels if we can favour a new energy transition and find clean sources of energy – and that we should concentrate our efforts on developing "green" technologies at the same time as reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.

If we do not change, the human family will pay heavily for the consequences of our reckless activity. Moreover, future generations will look back at us and wonder how our civilisation could have been so backward and have lived in such appalling moral blindness. Will the next generation have any awareness that industrialised societies had mitigating circumstances? Probably not. They are more likely to curse us for the irreparable damage we have done to the planet. Surely, they will say, we were a barbarian people.

• Jean-François Mouhot is a visiting researcher at Georgetown University. He is the author of Past Connections and Present Similarities in Slave Ownership and Fossil Fuel Usage, published in the journal Climatic Change, and the book Des Esclaves Energétiques: Réflexions sur le Changement Climatique.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved

CIFOR Newsletter Deconstructs COP 17 for Forests

2012-02-03T21:41:00.001+07:00

The latest newsletter of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) provides an assessment of the outcomes of the 17th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 17) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), concluding that it delivered mixed results for forests

Climate Change Policy & Practice | 31 January 2012

The January 2012 issue of the CIFOR newsletter cites progress on carbon accounting for REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries), but highlights a weak decision on social and environmental safeguards at COP 17.

The CIFOR blog posting underlines that REDD+ negotiations centered around finance, safeguards, reference levels and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). CIFOR scientists note that, while the decision on finance leaves the door open for markets, funds or a combination of both, the rules are not certain enough to generate market confidence. In contrast, CIFOR underscores that the meeting provided a decision on robust reference levels. The newsletter also provides an overview of Forest Day 5 and calls on readers to fill out a survey on priorities for Forest Day 6 at COP 18.

In addition, the publication features an article on a CIFOR workshop on conservation of great apes, with a call for ape conservation to be integral to REDD+. CIFOR is a member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

[Publication: CIFOR Newsletter January 2012]

All content copyright © 1990 - 2012 - IISD

BUY OR SELL-Is there still a market for U.N. carbon permits?

2012-02-03T21:33:00.001+07:00

U.N.-backed carbon permits were among the worst performing commodities in 2011 and trading volume fell more than 35 percent in January this year from December as the benchmark contract became very illiquid, renewing concerns about lack of demand

By Nina Chestney | Reuters Africa | Feb 2, 2012

Prices for United Nations carbon credits, called certified emissions reductions (CERs), have sunk by more than 60 percent since January last year.

In a poll by Reuters last month, carbon analysts cut price estimates for benchmark CERs in the first half of 2012 by over a quarter.

Under the U.N.'s Clean Development Mechanism, countries and companies buy CERs to meet emissions caps agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, paying for cuts in developing country projects instead.

A certain number of CERs can be used to comply with carbon caps under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

CER buyers are seeking ways to renegotiate purchase agreements or annul them after market prices crashed far below their wholesale credit costs, traders told Point Carbon.

Current levels are now more than 10 euros a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) below the purchase prices agreed in some contracts.

SELL

Front-year CERs hit a record low of 3.28 euros on Jan. 16 as prices of the EU Allowances (EUAs) used in the EU scheme fell and the U.N. continued to issue massive amounts of credits.

The consistently high level of supply has muted prices, and another 12 million tonnes were issued last week.

Traded volume has also dropped. A total 107.5 million CERs and Emissions Reduction Units (ERUs) - credits issued under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation schemes - were exchanged last month, down 36 percent from December.

This compares to a rise in the volume of EUAs of 11 percent month-on-month to 509.1 million permits.

"Compared to EUAs, the CER market is harder to trade. It has a wider bid-offer spread, which makes profit taking more difficult," said brokers at Jefferies Bache.

"With quality and quantity restrictions (...) and post-2012 uncertainty, the CER market needs buy-side to survive."

From May 1, 2013, the EU plans to ban CERs from industrial gas projects for use in its emissions trading scheme, which has affected the CER forward curve. The closer to May 1, 2013 the contract maturity is, the less attractive the contract is for CER buyers.

On Thursday the Dec-12 contract was around 4.30 euros, 0.80 euros lower than the Dec-13 contract and 1.10 euros lower than the Dec-14 CER contract.

New market entrants like airlines are more interested in purchasing "green" CERs, or those that will be eligible in the ETS in the third trading phase (2013-2020), rather than "grey" CERs which will not, traders said.

"Green CERs have been gaining some ground lately, and that definitely reflects the risk associated with 'old' CERs. The green premium is likely to rise in the coming weeks, but the fact that green CERs' liquidity is close to zero is not a good sign," said Matteo Mazzoni, analyst at Nomisma Energia.

Speculators in the carbon market have declined overall but those who remain prefer the EU market, which is less risky.

Most industrial firms have already cashed in a large part of their surplus permits and they are waiting to see what the third phase will look like before they think of selling or swapping carbon permits, said Mazzoni.

"Too much uncertainty, too many credits and too many in the hands of operators with no compliance obligations. If utilities don't step up soon I believe this is going to get worse and worse," he added.

BUY

Even though the price of green and grey CERs is expected to diverge further, some traders are more optimistic about CER recovery.

"I don't see the CER market dying as fast as some other players see it," said one emissions trader.

Others expect the market for green CERs to recover even though supply is expected to increase this year which could widen the EUA-CER spread further.

"As soon as EUAs rise above 10 euros the spread will narrow again and CERs will be a valuable option for compliance," one carbon analyst said.

If an EU Parliament industry committee votes in favour of withdrawing a proportion of carbon permits from the market on Feb. 28, in a bid to prop up low prices, it could help boost prices.

"This is impacting the market even now, lifting prices a little. If the vote is positive it will be bullish for EUAs meaning it is better not to sell now," another trader said.

"Even if it isn't positive, CERs still have compliance value so they shouldn't fall to zero. Grey CERs haven't got much future so the price could drop to around 3 euros. But there is been a lot of interest in green CERs over-the-counter," another trader said.

(Additional reporting by Henning Gloystein and Thomson Reuters Point Carbon; Editing by Anthony Barker)

© Thomson Reuters 2012 All rights reserved

Setting the record straight: Climate change experts respond

2012-02-03T21:24:00.000+07:00

Do you consult your dentist on your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field, and on published, peer-reviewed work

ABC.net.au | 3 February 2012

If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

On January 27, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed on climate change by the climate science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming. Thus, climate experts also know what Kevin Trenberth actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.

The National Academy of Sciences of the US (set up by president Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Research shows that more than 97 per cent of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human-caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

Sincerely,

Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Richard Somerville, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

Katharine Hayhoe, PhD, Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University

Rasmus Benestad, PhD, Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute

Gerald Meehl, PhD, Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Michael Oppenheimer, PhD, Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University

Peter Gleick, PhD, co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

Michael C. MacCracken, PhD, Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington DC

Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

Steven Running, PhD, Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana

Robert Corell, PhD, Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation

Dennis Ojima, PhD, Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior's Climate Science Center at Colorado State University

Josh Willis, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Matthew England, PhD, Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

Ken Caldeira, PhD, Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Warren Washington, PhD, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Terry L. Root, PhD, Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia

Jeffrey Kiehl, PhD, Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Donald Wuebbles, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois

Camille Parmesan, PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK

Simon Donner, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada

Barrett N. Rock, PhD, Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire

David Griggs, PhD, Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia

Roger N. Jones, PhD, Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia

William L. Chameides, PhD, Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University

Gary Yohe, PhD, Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT

Robert Watson, PhD, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

Steven Sherwood, PhD, Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Chris Rapley, PhD, Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK

Joan Kleypas, PhD, Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

James J. McCarthy, PhD, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University

Stefan Rahmstorf, PhD, Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany

Julia Cole, PhD, Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

William H. Schlesinger, PhD, President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

Eric Rignot, PhD, Senior Research Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine

Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France

This response first appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

© 2012 ABC

Emissions from palm oil biodiesel highest of major biofuels, says EU

2012-02-02T02:38:00.001+07:00

Greenhouse gas emissions from palm oil-based biodiesel are the highest among major biofuels when the effects of deforestation and peatlands degradation are considered, according to calculations by the European Commission

mongabay.com | January 30, 2012

The emissions estimates, which haven't been officially released, have important implications for the biofuels industry in Europe.
As reported by EurActiv, the data from the E.U. shows emissions from biofuels produced from palm oil (105g of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule of fuel), soybeans (103g CO2e/mj), and rapeseed (canola) (95g CO2e/mj) are higher than conventional gasoline (87.5g CO2e/mj).

WHEAT: (1) process fuel not specified (2) as process fuel natural gas used in CHP (3) straw as process fuel in CHP plants.

Sunflower (86g CO2e/mj) and biodiesel produced from palm oil with methane capture (83g CO2e/mj) are only slightly better than conventional crude oil, according to the data.

Wheat (47-64g CO2e/mj), corn (maize) (43g CO2e/mj), sugar cane (36g CO2e/mj), and sugar beet (34g CO2e/mj) were substantially lower in terms of emissions. All four were bested by "second generation" biofuels.

Fuel produced from tar sands ranked the worst of all fuels at 107g CO2e/mj. The U.S. recently blocked the Keystone pipeline, which would have enabled faster exploitation of tar sands oil.

But the findings are bound to be controversial. Emissions estimates depend heavily on assumptions on how biofuels are produced. Palm oil producers who have established plantations without converting rainforest or draining carbon-rich peatlands are bound to have lower emissions than those who destroyed forest.

The palm oil industry has traditionally opposed any effort to include indirect land use change in emissions estimates, arguing that environmental concerns over palm oil production is merely thinly veiled protectionism. Environmentalists and carbon scientists however usually disagree, arguing that conversion of forests and peatlands is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Wall Street Journal under attack for climate op-ed

2012-02-02T02:34:00.001+07:00

The Wall Street Journal is under scrutiny for publishing an op-ed attacking climate science last Friday, while turning down another op-ed explaining climate change and signed by 255 researchers with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which was eventually published in the journal Science

Jeremy Hance | mongabay.com | January 31, 2012

The op-ed last Friday first garnered attention because it was signed by 16 scientists, however other journalists have shown that most of these signatories are not climatologists (the list includes an astronaut, a physician, and an airplane engineer), many are well-known deniers, and at least six have been tied to the fossil fuels industry.

The Wall Street Journal op-ed claimed that there has been a "lack of warming for more than a decade." However, such statement flies-in-the-face of temperature recordings: the last decade (2000-2009) was the warmest yet on record. While scientists don't expect every year to be warmer than the last due to climate change, they do expect to see a warming trend over decades: the past 35 years have been above average. To date global temperatures are 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.44 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the Industrial Revolution average.

The New York Times reports that the op-ed also misrepresented economic studies on climate change, claiming that there would be no economic benefit to tackling climate change and that the world should wait for 50 years before doing anything. The op-ed's authors cited research by William D. Nordhaus, economics professor at Yale, to back them up. However, Nordhaus toldthe New York Times: "The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value [...] I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue. I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings."

At the same time, Forbes reports that the Wall Street Journal rejected publishing another op-ed , this one signed by 225 scientists with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, that outlines the basic science behind climate change, including that the Earth is warming due to human activities which have "overwhelmed" natural climate impacts.

"The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more," the letter published in Science reads.

Copyright mongabay 2010

Resilient people, resilient planet: a future worth choosing

2012-02-02T02:26:00.000+07:00

Today our planet and our world are experiencing the best of times, and the worst of times. The world is experiencing unprecedented prosperity, while the planet is under unprecedented stress. Inequality between the world’s rich and poor is growing, and more than a billion people still live in poverty

by the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability | United Nations in Energy Bulletin | Jan 31 2012

The Report of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, entitled Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, contains six sections in its entirety:

Section I - The Panel’s vision
Section II - Progress towards sustainable development
Section III - Empowering people to make sustainable choices
Section IV - Working towards a sustainable economy
Section V - Strengthening institutions
Section VI - Conclusion: A call for action.

This overview reproduces Section I from the Panel’s report. The Summary of Sections and the Call for Action are taken from the report’s Executive Summary. The Panel’s recommendations are reproduced in full.

[For the complete Overview, see here. The complete report is available online. ]

1. Today our planet and our world are experiencing the best of times, and the worst of times. The world is experiencing unprecedented prosperity, while the planet is under unprecedented stress. Inequality between the world’s rich and poor is growing, and more than a billion people still live in poverty. In many countries, there are rising waves of protest reflecting universal aspirations for a more prosperous, just and sustainable world.

2. Every day, millions of choices are made by individuals, businesses and governments. Our common future lies in all those choices. Because of the array of overlapping challenges the world faces, it is more urgent than ever that we take action to embrace the principles of the sustainable development agenda. It is time that genuine global action is taken to enable people, markets and governments to make sustainable choices.

3. The need to integrate the economic, social and environmental dimensions of development so as to achieve sustainability was clearly defined a quarter of a century ago. It is time to make it happen. The opportunities for change are vast. We are not passive, helpless victims of the impersonal, determinist forces of history. And the exciting thing is that we can choose our future.

4. The challenges we face are great, but so too are the new possibilities that appear when we look at old problems with new and fresh eyes. These possibilities include technologies capable of pulling us back from the planetary brink; new markets, new growth and new jobs emanating from game-changing products and services; and new approaches to public and private finance that can truly lift people out of the poverty trap.

5. The truth is that sustainable development is fundamentally a question of people’s opportunities to influence their future, claim their rights and voice their concerns. Democratic governance and full respect for human rights are key prerequisites for empowering people to make sustainable choices. The peoples of the world will simply not tolerate continued environmental devastation or the persistent inequality which offends deeply held universal principles of social justice. Citizens will no longer accept governments and corporations breaching their compact with them as custodians of a sustainable future for all. More generally, international, national and local governance across the world must fully embrace the requirements of a sustainable development future, as must civil society and the private sector. At the same time, local communities must be encouraged to participate actively and consistently in conceptualizing, planning and executing sustainability policies. Central to this is including young people in society, in politics and in the economy.

6. Therefore, the long-term vision of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability is to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality and make growth inclusive, and production and consumption more sustainable, while combating climate change and respecting a range of other planetary boundaries. This reaffirms the landmark 1987 report by the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common Future” (United Nations document A/42/427, annex), known to all as the Brundtland report.

7. But what, then, is to be done if we are to make a real difference for the world’s people and the planet? We must grasp the dimensions of the challenge. We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 per cent more food, 45 per cent more energy and 30 per cent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

8. The current global development model is unsustainable. We can no longer assume that our collective actions will not trigger tipping points as environmental thresholds are breached, risking irreversible damage to both ecosystems and human communities. At the same time, such thresholds should not be used to impose arbitrary growth ceilings on developing countries seeking to lift their people out of poverty. Indeed, if we fail to resolve the sustainable development dilemma, we run the risk of condemning up to 3 billion members of our human family to a life of endemic poverty. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable, and we must find a new way forward.

9. A quarter of a century ago, the Brundtland report introduced the concept of sustainable development to the international community as a new paradigm for economic growth, social equality and environmental sustainability. The report argued that sustainable development could be achieved by an integrated policy framework embracing all three of those pillars. The Brundtland report was right then, and it remains right today. The problem is that, 25 years later, sustainable development remains a generally agreed concept, rather than a day-to-day, on-the-ground, practical reality. The Panel has asked itself why this is the case, and what can now be done to change that.

10. The Panel has concluded that there are two possible answers. They are both correct, and they are interrelated. Sustainable development has undoubtedly suffered from a failure of political will. It is difficult to argue against the principle of sustainable development, but there are few incentives to put it into practice when our policies, politics and institutions disproportionately reward the short term. In other words, the policy dividend is long-term, often intergenerational, but the political challenge is often immediate.

11. There is another answer to this question of why sustainable development has not been put into practice. It is an answer that we argue with real passion: the concept of sustainable development has not yet been incorporated into the mainstream national and international economic policy debate. Most economic decision makers still regard sustainable development as extraneous to their core responsibilities for macroeconomic management and other branches of economic policy. Yet integrating environmental and social issues into economic decisions is vital to success.

12. For too long, economists, social activists and environmental scientists have simply talked past each other — almost speaking different languages, or at least different dialects. The time has come to unify the disciplines, to develop a common language for sustainable development that transcends the warring camps; in other words, to bring the sustainable development paradigm into mainstream economics. That way, politicians and policymakers will find it much harder to ignore.

13. That is why the Panel argues that the international community needs what some have called “a new political economy” for sustainable development. This means, for example:

radically improving the interface between environmental science and policy;
recognizing that in certain environmental domains, such as climate change, there is “market failure”, which requires both regulation and what the economists would recognize as the pricing of“environmental externalities”, while making explicit the economic, social and environmental costs of action and inaction;
recognizing the importance of innovation, new technologies, international cooperation and investments responding to these problems and generating further prosperity;
recognizing that an approach should be agreed to quantify the economic cost of sustained social exclusion — for example, the cost of excluding women from the workforce;
recognizing that private markets alone may be incapable of generating at the scale necessary to bring about a proper response to the food security crisis;
and requiring international agencies, national Governments and private corporations to report on their annual sustainable development performance against agreed sustainability measures.

We must also recognize that this is a core challenge for politics itself. Unless the political process is equally capable of embracing the sustainable development paradigm, there can be no progress.

14. The scale of investment, innovation, technological development and employment creation required for sustainable development and poverty eradication is beyond the range of the public sector. The Panel therefore argues for using the power of the economy to forge inclusive and sustainable growth and create value beyond narrow concepts of wealth. Markets and entrepreneurship will be a prime driver of decision-making and economic change. And the Panel lays down a challenge for our Governments and international institutions: to work better together in solving common problems and advancing shared interests. Quantum change is possible when willing actors join hands in forward-looking coalitions and take the lead in contributing to sustainable development.

15. The Panel argues that by embracing a new approach to the political economy of sustainable development, we will bring the sustainable development paradigm from the margins to the mainstream of the global economic debate. Thus, both the cost of action and the cost of inaction will become transparent. Only then will the political process be able to summon both the arguments and the political will necessary to act for a sustainable future.

16. The Panel calls for this new approach to the political economy of sustainable development so as to address the sustainable development challenge in a fresh and operational way. That sustainable development is right is self-evident. Our challenge is to demonstrate that it is also rational — and that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action.

17. The Panel’s report makes a range of concrete recommendations to take forward our vision for a sustainable planet, a just society and a growing economy:

a. It is critical that we embrace a new nexus between food, water and energy rather than treating them in different “silos”. All three need to be fully integrated, not treated separately if we are to deal with the global food security crisis. It is time to embrace a second green revolution — an “ever-green revolution” — that doubles yields but builds on sustainability principles;

b. It is time for bold global efforts, including launching a major global scientific initiative, to strengthen the interface between science and policy. We must define, through science, what scientists refer to as “planetary boundaries”, “environmental thresholds” and “tipping points”. Priority should be given to challenges now facing the marine environment and the “blue economy”;

c. Most goods and services sold today fail to bear the full environmental and social cost of production and consumption. Based on the science, we need to reach consensus, over time, on methodologies to price them properly. Costing environmental externalities could open new opportunities for green growth and green jobs;

d. Addressing social exclusion and widening social inequity, too, requires measuring them, costing them and taking responsibility for them. The next step is exploring how we can deal with these critical issues to bring about better outcomes for all;

e. Equity needs to be at the forefront. Developing countries need time, as well as financial and technological support, to transition to sustainable development. We must empower all of society — especially women, young people, the unemployed and the most vulnerable and weakest sections of society. Properly reaping the demographic dividend calls on us to include young people in society, in politics, in the labour market and in business development;

f. Any serious shift towards sustainable development requires gender equality. Half of humankind’s collective intelligence and capacity is a resource we must nurture and develop, for the sake of multiple generations to come. The next increment of global growth could well come from the full economic empowerment of women;

g. Many argue that if it cannot be measured, it cannot be managed. The international community should measure development beyond gross domestic product (GDP) and develop a new sustainable development index or set of indicators;

h. Financing sustainable development requires vast new sources of capital from both private and public sources. It requires both mobilizing more public funds and using global and national capital to leverage global private capital through the development of incentives. Official development assistance will also remain critical for the sustainable development needs of low-income countries;

i. Governments at all levels must move from a silo mentality to integrated thinking and policymaking. They must bring sustainable development to the forefront of their agendas
and budgets and look at innovative models of international cooperation. Cities and local communities have a major role to play in advancing a real sustainable development agenda on the ground;

j. International institutions have a critical role. International governance for sustainable development must be strengthened by using existing institutions more dynamically and by considering the creation of a global sustainable development council and the adoption
of sustainable development goals;

k. Governments and international organizations should increase the resources allocated to adaptation and disaster risk reduction and integrate resilience planning into their development budgets and strategies;

l. Governments, markets and people need to look beyond short-term transactional agendas and short-term political cycles. Incentives that currently favour short-termism in decisionmaking should be changed. Sustainable choices often have higher up-front costs than business as usual. They need to become more easily available, affordable and attractive to both poor consumers and low-income countries.

18. This Panel believes it is within the wit and will of our common humanity to choose for the future. This Panel therefore is on the side of hope. All great achievements in human history began as a vision before becoming a reality. The vision for global sustainability, producing both a resilient people and a resilient planet, is no different.

19. In 2030, a child born in 2012 — the year our report is published — will turn 18. Will we have done enough in the intervening years to give her the sustainable, fair and resilient future that all of our children deserve? This report is an effort to give her an answer.

[For the complete Overview, see here. The complete report is available online. ]

Disclaimer: The members of the Panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the Panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual Panel members. Panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. If each Panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The Panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged.

Suggested citation:

United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012). Resilient people, resilient planet: A future worth choosing, Overview. New York: United Nations.

Enemies of the State

2012-02-02T02:19:00.001+07:00

Almost exactly nine years ago, opposition to the US invasion of Iraq was reaching a fever pitch. On February 15, 2003 millions of people around the world rallied to protest the inexorable march to war, including in over 150 cities in the United States

by Asher Miller | Post Carbon Institute in Energy Bulletin | Feb 1 2012

The case for war — coming from the Bush White House and its supporters through every pore of the mainstream media complex — was fierce and demanding, an hourly barrage of breathless warnings that at any moment Saddam Hussein could unleash nuclear or biological terrorism on Americans. And yet, while the vast majority of Americans (wrongly) believed the Administration's claims that Iraq held WMDs, most still favored diplomacy over invasion.

A month later, of course, after the US and its "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq, public opposition to the war became unpopular. Vocal opponents were regularly vilified by pundits and politicians as somehow being unpatriotic, traitors, appeasers, cowards, or "blame America 1st"ers. It was not an easy time to stand on principle.

The current debate in Canada over the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline reminds me a little of those days.

Think I'm being bombastic? Well, check out this ad and this ad by the oil industry front group, Ethical Oil, and then decide who is being bombastic.

The theme of these ads, apparently, is that we shouldn't get oil from Saudi Arabia since they persecute women and gays there, and they destroy their natural environment in the process of producing oil.

Now, let me be perfectly clear, the human rights issues in Saudi Arabia are very real and very grave. But is this really the only choice at hand? And I have yet to see Ethical Oil raise concerns about human rights abuses in China, the primary market for Northern Gateway Pipeline oil.

BTW, this is what Ethical Oil wants us to believe tar sands production looks like.

And this is what tar sands extraction looks like in reality.

Ok, so tar sands proponents are stretching the truth about the environmental impacts of oil production. What else is new?

What's new is the sinister tone that the conservative government in Canada and pipeline supporters have taken to defining their opponents. In the hours before an independent review panel began hearings on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver published an open letter warning of "environmental and other radical groups" that:

... threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.

(I hope Oliver managed to wipe off some of that unseemly bitumen before draping himself in the Canadian flag.)

This line of attack has been pursued further, as exemplified brilliantly by Ethical Oil spokesperson Kathryn Marshall on a recent CBC news show:

This is becoming a battle between reasonable, everyday, hardworking Canadians and foreign special interests and their deep pockets and their puppet groups who are trying to hijack and gum up a Canadian process.

(Kathryn Marshall mysteriously failed to respond to repeated attempts by the host to inquire about the sources of Ethical Oil's funding, and whether any of it comes from oil companies.)

Last week, Andrew Frank signed a sworn affadavit claiming that the Prime Minister's Office threatened the charitable status of Tides Canada for providing funding to ForestEthics, a vocal opponent of the pipeline. In this open letter, Frank claimed that:

... no less than three senior managers with TidesCanada and ForestEthics (a charitable project of Tides Canada), have informed me, as the Senior Communications Manager for ForestEthics, that Tides Canada CEO, Ross McMillan,was informed by the Prime Minister’s Office, that ForestEthics is considered an “Enemy of the Government of Canada,” and an “Enemy of the people of Canada.”

After the letter was published, Frank was fired for "violating the confidence of ForestEthics."

A government spokesperson denied Frank's claim and Tides Canada CEO, Ross McMillian, published an an op-ed yesterday stating that "Frank had the wrong facts but the right idea."

We may never know the truth, but the larger point remains: The rhetoric directed at opponents of the pipeline is deeply troubling. History has shown time and time again what happens when nations rush to judgment or paint their fellow citizens as "enemies," "radicals," or "puppets of foreign interests." In the US, we don't have to think back too far.

If, like me, you're not a Canadian, you may not think this pertains much to you. I'm afraid you're wrong.

For one thing, the energy and environmental impacts of tar sands production are not limited to within the borders of Canada. The tar sands extracted in Alberta, piped across indigenous lands and pristine wilderness to British Columbia, and shipped on tankers to be burned in China or India is part of an ecological, energy, and economic web to which we are all attached.

For another, I fully expect the debate over US unconventional fossil fuels (shale gas, shale oil, oil shales, etc.) to heat up as we near the 2012 elections — that is, if the environmental community can get it together enough to from a strong opposition.

Candidates on both sides of the aisle — including President Obama — are endorsing more drilling, and the American Petroleum Institute has launched a campaign to equate domestic unconventional oil and gas drilling with economic and energy security. Congressional Republicans hope to force Obama's hand on the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would bring tar sands down from Canada to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, to either paint him as putting the environment over jobs or risk losing the support of one of his key bases.

As long as we allow proponents of unconventional oil and gas to claim a false choice between energy and economic security and the environment, and as long as we allow them to vilify opponents as being somehow unpatriotic or radical, we run the very real risk of losing a battle where the future of our planet and species is at stake. Ok, so maybe I am being a little bombastic. But am I wrong?

photo credit: tar sands photo copyright Garth Lenz.

Indigenous communities in Peru condemn the further adventures of an Australian carbon cowboy

2012-02-02T02:13:00.001+07:00

In April 2011, the Inter-Ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon (AIDESEP) published the Declaration of Iquitos which opposed the proposed forest carbon trading activities of a Hong Kong registered company called Sustainable Carbon Resources Limited

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 31st January 2012

In November 2011, reports came out of Peru that a company called CISSA (Conservación e Inclusion Social Sostenible en la Amazonía) had signed an agreement for timber operations and carbon credits with communities of the Ampiyacu River Basin in Peru. CISSA appears not to be registered on the public register in Peru. In fact, another company, also registered in Hong Kong and called Amazon Holdings Limited, is actually behind the deal. According to this report, between 5-12 December 2011, Amazon Holdings Limited spent about US$40,000 on health care for local communities living in the area of the proposed project.

The man behind all three companies is an Australian. His name is:

Click on the image above for more information about his activities in Peru and his past record. This article from the Sydney Morning Herald sums up the problems: “Carbon Cowboys”.

Practically no information is available on the internet about Amazon Holdings Limited, but it appears to have been registered in Hong Kong on 31 August 2011.

wife’s name is Polly Lau. Her role seems to have been to sell the timber in China from the logging operation part of the deal. Polly Lau and are advertised to give presentations about real estate investment at an event in China in 2010. In the google translate version of the event website, is described as being an “experienced real estate investor with over 30 years experience in property development in Australia,” and as the “Australian Formula One racing team director in Asia”.

The signing of the agreement in Peru seems to have been between Amazon Holdings Limited and Javier Fasanando Julca, the President of the Federation of Yaguas People of the Apayacu River (FEPYRA). In a 5 November 2011 statement, FECONA, the Federation of Native Communities of the Ampiyacu, strongly rejects the forest carbon deal for the forests of the Ampiyacu River Basin. The statement is translated to English below (the original Spanish version is here). REDD-Monitor looks forward to publishing response to FECONA’s statement.

PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF NATIVE COMMUNITIES OF THE AMPIYACU – FECONA

Against the sale of the natural resources and land of the native communities of the Amazon in Loreto, Peru and the rejection of the companies that are dividing and pressuring the people to sign agreements without an opportunity for free, prior and informed consent

Assembled in the communal headquarters of native communities of the Pucaurquillo Boras and the Pucaurquillo Huitotos, the leaders of FECONA, the communal authorities, the supporters and other aides; We discussed that 6 months have passed since the signing of the Declaration of Iquitos, and about the recent uncounseled actions of the President of the Federation of Yaguas People of the Apayacu River – FEPYRA, Mr. Javier Fasanando Julca and the statements of Dr. Edwin Floret of the Sub Management of Indigenous Nationalities of the Regional Government of Loreto, about the signing (of an agreement) by the Federation of the Ampiyacu – FECONA with a private company called CISSA, we declare the following:

We clarify that the Federation of the Ampiyacu, called the Federation of Native Communities of the Ampiyacu – FECONA, we have not signed any contract with the private enterprise CISSA. We call on Dr. Edwin Floret to learn more about the associations which have signed the agreement, as his statements to the newspaper La Región of the 04 November 2011 implicate this prestigious Federation of the Ampiyacu.

We reject the uncounseled actions of the President of the FEPYRA, Mr. Javier Fasanando for signing an agreement without the knowledge of his constituents, without knowing the content of the signed document, and without carrying out the consultation process which by law entitles native communities around the world and by the recent approval by the Peruvian Government of the new law for Free, Prior and Informed Consent for the indigenous peoples or natives.

We declare that it is our understanding that the events that have divided and pressured the Matsés people into signing a business contract for carbon offsets where our brothers would have ceded the wealth of their land in favor of a private company, the terms of the agreement have been made known and some people have been condemned for this fact; we believe that the terms of the contract that they wanted the Matsés to sign demonstrates the bad faith of their company Sustainable Carbon Resources Limited and of their representatives to the natives of the Loreto region.

We alert that the persons who have been involved and are members of the company Sustainable Carbon Resources Limited are the same as the company CISSA, and that they have entered the basin of the Apayacu River, area of the Federation of Indigenous Peoples of the Yaguas River – FEPYRA, with the same offers that they made to the Matsés, and that it is possible, that the President of the FEPYRA has signed a contract which is disadvantageous to his people, as similar attempts were made to have the leaders of Matsés sign, an inappropriate action which we reject.

We ask the President of the Region Government of Loreto, Ivan Vásquez Valera, to publicly define or accept his links with Walter Cambero, , Jim King and Gerardo Arrieta Pastrana, likewise with the companies CISSA, Sustainable Carbon Resources Limited, Amazon Plantation Holdings, SAC and Amazon Holdings Limited. We also request the termination of the employment of Dr. Edwin Floret, the Sub Manager of Indigenous Nationalities of the Regional Government of Loreto for his statements in favor of those involved in the unsuccessful scam of the Matsés people and for supporting the signing of a contract that he says he knows and has read, that might be the same that was detrimental to the Matsés people and now it could adversely affect the people of the Apayacu, therefore demonstrating his friendly relationship with these individuals as he stated in his declarations of November 04, 2011 in the newspaper, La Region.

We support the statements of the Secretary of Records and Archives of FEPYRA, Mr. Ángel Yaicate Murayari, who calls for the reading and discussion of the written agreement between the Federation and the company that was not signed in the manner as to reveal the facts, by trampling on the right to free, prior and informed consent as required by law that protects native communities. We call on national, regional and local authorities, the Office of the Defender of the People, the Bar of Attorneys, universities, indigenous organizations, and indigenous and human rights NGOs to heed complaints issued regarding these events.

We support the request of our central organization AIDESEP through the Declaration of Iquitos dated April 27, 2011, ordering of expulsion from our country of Australian citizen , for the multitude of complaints of his defrauding indigenous peoples under the guise of providing benefits by using carbon credits, lands and natural resources. The information about this citizen in the media (press, radio, websites, etc.) are not positive, and therefore raises a reasonable doubt in order to demand his ouster from our country, we call upon the immigration authorities to complete an investigation of this person in other countries.

We call upon our brothers of the Yaguas peoples of the Apayacu to become informed before signing any document that might compromise their wealth and territory. We call upon them for the sake of the future of their children and other generations, let us fight together for our development, lifestyle, ancestral culture and wealth that rightly belongs to us; do not let malicious people divide us and pressure and seduce us with false promises that ultimately end up bringing disgrace to our people and the seizing our forest and its benefits.

Finally, we invite all the trade union organizations and civil societies to join this pronouncement in support of indigenous peoples and against the bad intentions of foreign and domestic individuals, corrupt authorities and indigenous leaders who are blinded by the easy money, poorly led and seduced with promises of development that never come to his people. FECONA will not cease the struggle for the defense of their territories, riches, rights of its indigenous peoples until we make them respect us. An act signed in good faith of what has been understood to be the policy of the Federation, communal authorities and people attending the meeting.

Pucaurquillo, November 5, 2011

Zoila Gloria MERINO ROQUE
President of FECONA

Lino FLORES BUTUNA
Vice President of FECONA

Rafael MOSQUERA ROQUE
Secretary of Health of FECONA

Lorgia DANA DIAZ
Treasurer of FECONA

Wilio RENGIFO LOPEZ
Press Secretary of FECONA

Safria BUTUNA DIAZ
Spokesperson for FECONA

Sra. Dalia Lorenza Flores Butuna
Justice of the Peace of the Native Community
Boras of Pucaurquillo – District of Pevas
Ramón Castillo – Loreto

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

WEF Addresses Energy Poverty, Rio+20

2012-02-02T01:11:00.001+07:00

The World Economic Forum (WEF) held its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, from 25-29 January 2012, gathering industry, business, government and other world leaders to discuss current issues, where UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns “we cannot build a green economy on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable people.”

Climate Change Policy & Practice | 30 January 2012

The World Economic Forum (WEF) held its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, from 25-29 January 2012, gathering industry, business, government and other world leaders to discuss current issues. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon participated in two panels, on ending energy poverty and on the perspectives for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio+20), warning “we cannot build a green economy on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable people.”

On perspectives for Rio+20, participants called on the private sector to play a greater role in engaging with sustainability, and proposed specific benchmarks to be adopted at the UNCSD, such as: creating a new measurement called the Green Gross Domestic Product that will take into account environmental and sustainability factors; eliminating subsidies that contribute to environmental degradation, such as those for fossil fuels; and establishing sustainability criteria for development financing.

A panel on "Reshaping Green Agendas" considered whether the sustainable consumption discourse needs to be reshaped. Participants noted the plethora of “green” labels on products despite the lack of a reliable, universally-acceptable definition of what constitutes an environmental sustainable product or a reliable life-cycle analysis.

A panel on the "Sustainability Context," which included Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia, highlighted failures of the current model of economic growth, calling for more public-private partnerships and “draconian” rules and regulations setting restraints and limits on consumption. Regarding Africa's situation, panelists stressed the urgency of adaptation in agriculture to face the inevitable consequences of climate change in the region. Participants underscored that since "Africa is being priced out of fossil fuels, it has no choice but to follow the 'green path' of development, including finding alternative sources of energy."

A panel on the "Natural Resources Context" highlighted that natural resource use must be evaluated as a whole, as some proposed green alternatives consume more natural resources than their conventional counterparts. Participants emphasized that water will be the critical resource issue facing the world in the near term.

The issue of water also was taken up in a panel on the "Energy Context," which highlighted the trade-offs between shifting to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fossil fuels, such as natural gas, and the vast quantities of water used during the extraction or "fracking" of natural gas. This panel also highlighted that renewables are growing steadily and are expected to reach 20 percent of China's energy mix by 2020.

Finally, a panel addressed the question of what to do if a major biological system collapses, with the directors of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) cautioning that ecosystem reconstruction, though possible, is significantly more costly than ecosystem conservation.

All content copyright © 1990 - 2012 - IISD

What the Occupy movement must learn from Sundance

2012-02-02T01:02:00.000+07:00

These great documentary films have a simple lesson: effective political protest needs good organisation and smart messaging

Naomi Wolf | guardian.co.uk | 31 January 2012

Trailer for Half Revolution, a documentary film about the protests in Egypt, by Omar Shargawi and Karim el-Hakim. Video: YouTube

So, late last year, I said – to some controversy here – that the violent crackdown against the Occupy movement in the United Statesrepresented the first salvos of a civil war initiated by political and allied economic elites against protesters in a nascent movement whose still-not-fully articulated agenda would represent a threat to their unmediated and untransparent hold on profits. And a civil war it has indeed turned out to be.

Over the weekend, 2,000 citizens marched in support of Occupy Oakland – and were met by flash grenades and, some witnesses assert, rubber bullets. The Los Angeles Police Department is engaging in training exercises with the US military. At a parallel march in support, in New York City, a new apparition – large groups of masked men – joined the protesters, which is, globally, a sign that provocateurs intent on violence have joined the scene; and journalist Tim Pool was assaulted.

And reports continue to surface around the nation, most recently from Atlanta, of heightened local law enforcement investment in military-style hardware to use against domestic dissent. Predictably enough, after theNDAA created a clause allowing for the indefinite detention of domestic terrorists, Oakland council member referred to the Occupy protesters as"domestic terrorists".

In the midst of this escalation, some important lessons have emerged – from, of all places, the glittery and snowy Sundance film festival in Park City, Utah. I was there to appear on a panel titled "Loving the Masses", and in the course of my visit, had the chance to see some of the riveting and important documentaries about grassroots protest movements that distinguished this year's offerings: these included the powerful Never Sorry, about the Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei, directed by novice 27-year-old filmmaker Alison Klayman; Half Revolution, presenting edge-of-your-seat reportage from the front lines of Cairo's revolution, by young Palestinian-Danish director Omar Shargawi and Egyptian-American director Karim el-Hakim; David France's compelling How to Survive a Plague, about Act Up's rise and fall; the historically significantA Fierce Green Fire, detailing 30 years of the environmental movement, by Mark Kitchell; and the truly infuriating doc about how US corporations cycle their profits out of the country, hiding them routinely in offshore accounts or in their Irish subsidiaries, so as to avoid paying any US taxes whatsoever – and doing so in collusion with their hired hands in Congress – We're Not Broke, by Karin Hayes and Victoria Bruce. The news is bittersweet and the lessons are timely.

One thing that emerges from watching these documentaries, in aggregate, is that this narrative is global. As the power of global corporations transcends the political power of nation states, global corporations are simply rewriting legislation in advanced democracies behind closed doors, and leaving the people – of Greece or the UK, America or Italy – out of the decision-making process altogether; then presenting the need for cutbacks as a fait accompli. It is this lack of financial transparency and accountability that Occupy's movement threatens, and there are truly billions of dollars – in untaxed US profits alone – at stake if they become successful.

Also apparent from these films is that the crackdowns against dissent are now globally coordinated: Acta, which allows corporations to block access to certain sites online, was signed recently by a series of governments. In Half a Revolution, Cairenes hold up bullets and tear gas canisters marked "Made in America". As Twitter and Facebook became global routes for "revolutionary" sentiment used by dissidents such as Ai Weiwei – who documented, via Twitter, footage of his being beaten by secret police in a hotel room, as well as tweeting his brain scan images that showed proof of the damage done by the beating – and as Facebook drove the protests in Tahrir Square, both social media have both recently announced policies that limit their usefulness as tools for organizing, that weaken privacy protections, and that can help to put in jeopardy dissidents who run afoul of local censors.

On the organizing side, the lessons are profound from these documentaries, as well. It was heartbreaking to sit on the panel watching clips from A Fierce Green Fire and How to Survive a Plague and see that most of the forms of effective peaceful protest used by these successful movements are now illegal, or else extremely dangerous. Lois Gibbs, a citizen leader in the Love Canal pollution scandal, spoke of holding government officials hostage until the groups' demands were met. Well, these days, that would get you ID'ed as a "domestic terrorist" and shipped to abusive detention.

Act Up successfully put a condom around Senator Jesse Helms' house, blocked access to the FDA, and showed up to disrupt meetings about drug trials that had been held in secret. Especially affecting to me was how long they were given to make their points before being silenced – and how they faced brief arrest processes, at most, but no violence. Act up was, of course, successful and their activism on fast-tracking Aids drugs has saved millions of lives.

Important lessons also emerged, especially from Act Up. Occupy – a movement I love and respect, and which represents our last best hope – also fills me with distress because of how difficult it is for a movement committed to "no spokespeople" to get their message out. Act Up, which was founded by a group that included people who worked in the media and in advertising, were not so self-hobbled: they created a memorable "brand" (the pink triangle) and coined a powerful soundbite ("silence equals death"); and activists accepted media training from a member who was also a news anchor. They were "on message" – labeling the Catholic Church, for instance, "murderers" when it opposed condom use. And it was effective, so the word "murderer" was repeated in dozens of voices and entered the news stream. The Church lost that round; the soundbite won the day.

Also clear was that Act Up did not get bogged down in consensus decision-making – which has derailed every single group I have ever studied that has committed to it – and went with a clear agenda voted on by majority rule. (They also appeared, from footage of meetings, to have been following Robert's Rules of Order.) Most importantly, they worked what every successful grassroots movement needs to create: an outside, disruptive pressure strategy, and a talk-to-and-negotiate-with-the-decision-makers-under-pressure "inside" arm, creating a pincer movement. So Act Up protesters would disrupt drug trials outside the FDA or a private drug company building, or occupy St Vincent's Hospital. Then, after the disruption had smoked out the leadership of the institution under fire, a few designated Act Up representatives would make themselves available to present their clear demands to those in power in those institutions and negotiate outcomes, with more protest and disruption implied if demands were not met.

Again and again, How to Survive a Plague shows that this tactic is effective. Right now, though, the Occupy movement has an ideological reluctance to creating both arms of the pincer. Many see it as "contaminating", in the words of one young activist, to even talk to the decision-makers they are protesting against, or to deal with the mainstream media. I would argue – as I did at Sundance – that the house is burning and we do not have time for this preciousness. The evidence from the French documentary, as well as from the Tahrir Square footage, is that the images in the news media let the world be a witness and, to some extent, protect protesters. But without journalists present, Syria is free to mow down citizens without intereference. That shows that disorganization and a policy of shunning media communication equals political death

Media exposure, a clear message, smart soundbites, clearly stated demands, and, most importantly, tasked, empowered negotiators working on the inside in concert with mass disrupters applying pressure from without – this equals political life.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved

Can carbon finance protect forests and prevent climate change?

2012-01-31T14:30:00.001+07:00

Some of our clients will remember that The CarbonNeutral Company started business in 1997 trading as Future Forests, and will know that our services have always recognised the central role played by ecosystems in maintaining a stable climate. Planting and protecting forests makes perfect sense because “trees suck up carbon dioxide and turn it into wood and oxygen”

By Jonathan Shopley | Eco-business | January 25th, 2012

However, 15 to 20 per cent of global carbon emissions still arise from deforestation. So let’s look at the important issues of what is carbon finance’s ability to protect and enhance forest ecosystems, and what would make it more successful.

Climate benefits undervalued

Carbon finance has not made an impact on forest ecosystem protection because forests have been given a bit-part in the market mechanisms of the UN’s Kyoto Protocol (KP). That is unfortunate because forest ecosystem destruction deals a double blow to climate stability – the carbon dioxide emissions from forest destruction (specifically, when burned); and, the loss of their ability to soak up CO2 from the atmosphere on an ongoing basis (their sequestration potential). Conversely, when new forests are established CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are reduced as carbon is sequestered, and when established forests are protected the sequestration capacity of forest ecosystems increases.

Climate regulation too weak

The largest regulated carbon market, created under the KP, contains a mechanism for accounting for carbon sequestered through land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities, such as reforestation, in developed countries with reduction targets under the KP.

However, the mechanism is voluntary, and it’s complicated: faced with this combination, it seems member countries have largely chosen to ignore it. Developed countries with specific KP targets may elect whether or not to measure their LULUCF reductions, but if they do so, it must be over the full commitment period under the KP. As the first KP commitment period comes to an end in December 2012, only a few developed countries with positive LULUCF balances are logging their forest carbon reductions against their Kyoto targets.

The KP is now extended until 2020, but has lost two of the most heavily forested signatories along the way – Canada and Russia. So, very little capital will find its way to protecting and extending forests in developed economies because the regulatory drivers for doing so are weak and weakening.

CDM throttles carbon finance

What of forest ecosystem protection in the developing economies that have signed up to the KP but which do not have reduction targets? The KP’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) enables developing economies without targets to host reduction projects and sell Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) to entities and countries with targets. Carbon credits traded in this way generate capital funding for the developing country’s reduction projects, and allows the purchasers of the credits to offset any emission shortfall with respect to their KP targets.

However, the difficulty in assuring the permanence of forestry projects led to CDM rules that issue temporary carbon credits (tCERs) to forestry projects. These tCERs have to be confirmed at the end of the KP commitment periods, or replaced. The risks and transaction costs associated with this tortuous approach has stifled interest and investment in CDM forestry projects. Consequently, forest carbon is the ‘bonsai’ of the KP market, accounting for less than 1 per cent of the primary market in carbon credits.

Voluntary Carbon Market standards crack the toughest problems

The Ecosystem Marketplace’s State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2011 reported record investments in forestry and land-use projects in the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) in 2010. Its figures show that historically forest carbon finance in the VCM is five times greater than across regulated markets, and growing. This is because the VCM has tackled two thorny issues when it comes to forestry: permanence and land ownership rights.

In the VCM, the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) introduced its Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use (AFOLU) methodology for generating carbon credits in 2006. Under this approach, the permanence of AFOLU Verified Carbon Units (VCUs) is secured through a buffer pool of credits created, maintained and used to replace credits in projects if and when their carbon gains are reversed. While too early to say definitively, this is looking like a sound fix for the permanence issue.

The second thorny issue that plagues carbon finance in the forestry and land-use sectors is the fact that, unlike technology projects (think of a renewable energy project, say a solar installation), it can be difficult to determine & respect land and carbon ownership rights — particularly in virgin rainforests and communal lands in developing countries, which are the very regions where carbon finance has the most relevance. Although this issue is not fully solved, work by the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) to set standards for the non-carbon aspects of carbon projects is being applied and improved as land-based carbon projects grow in the VCM.

What is needed to unleash the potential?

Relying entirely on the VCM to generate carbon finance anywhere near the level required to make a dent on emissions from deforestation just ain’t going to happen. The VCM is simply too small to generate the $ billions required. However, the progress made in the VCM can and should be scaled-up. More importantly, it should now be used in the building blocks for forest and land-use carbon finance in the successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. That way, the phenomenal progress in the VCM can be used to deploy carbon finance sufficient to make a positive impact on global climate stability.

Jonathan Shopley is managing director of UK-based The CarbonNeutral Company.

© eco-business.com

Muara Tae’s last stand against big palm oil

2012-01-31T12:57:00.000+07:00

The fate of a Dayak community deep in the interior of East Kalimantan demonstrates how Indonesia must safeguard the rights of indigenous people if it is to meet ambitious targets to reduce emissions from deforestation

Environmental Investigation Agency | January 24, 2012

The Dayak Benuaq of Muara Tae, in West Kutai Kabupaten, today face a two-pronged assault from palm oil companies aggressively expanding into their ancestral forests. Together with Indonesian NGO Telapak, the community is manning a forest outpost around the clock in a last ditch attempt to save it from destruction.

The London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has witnessed at first-hand the Dayak Benuaq’s struggle, and how their sustainable use of forests could help Indonesia deliver on its ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

EIA Forests Team Leader Faith Doherty said: “There are more than 800 families in Muara Tae relying on the forests for their food, water, medicine, culture and identity. Put simply, they have to keep this forest in order to survive.

“The rhetoric from the President of Indonesia on curbing emissions by reducing deforestation is strong but on the front line, where indigenous communities are putting their lives at risk to protect forests, action is sorely missing.

“Giving these communities, such as the Dayak Benuaq, the rights they deserve is a vital step to reduce catastrophic levels of deforestation in Indonesia.”

President Yudhoyono has pledged to reduce carbon emissions across the archipelago by 26 per cent by 2020 against a business-as-usual baseline, alongside delivering substantial economic growth.

Plantation expansion will inevitably be a significant element of growth, but it has historically been a major driver of emissions and it is widely acknowledged that in order avoid them, expansion must now be directed to ‘degraded’ lands.

As a result of weak spatial planning, however, the forests of Muara Tae are identified as ‘APL’, a designation meaning they are not part of the national forest area and are open to exploitation. The theft of indigenous forests also raises serious questions as to what form of ‘development’ these plantations offer.

In indigenous communities such as the Dayak Benuaq of Muara Tae, Indonesia has perhaps its most valuable forest resource. It is due to their sustainable methods, honed over generations, that the forest even remains.

Telapak president Ambrosius Ruwindrijarto said: “Together with the community, we have not only been protecting the last forests but also planting new Ulin and Meranti saplings to enhance it. These people are the true guardians of the forest and their fate is entwined with it.”

Muara Tae has lost more than half of its land and forests during the past 20 years to mining companies. The impact has been tangible; the villagers’ water source has dried up and they must now routinely make a 1km journey to collect clean water.

The remaining forest is home to a large number of bird species including hornbills, the emblem of Borneo. There are about 20 species of reptiles and it is also a habitat for both proboscis monkeys and honey bears.

The latest land-grabs have taken place since January 2010, when the local Bupati (regional government official), Ismail Thomas, issued plantation permits to two palm oil companies: Malaysian-owned PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa (PT MWJP) and PT Borneo Surya Mining Jaya, a subsidiary of Sumatran logging, mining and plantation conglomerate Surya Dumai.

While the Norwegian Government has been instrumental in financially backing efforts to reduce deforestation in Indonesia through the REDD+ initiative, it has also invested in the parent company of PT MWJP through its sovereign wealth fund.

Pak Singko, a leader of the Dayak Benuaq of Muara Tae, said: “We are calling for help from people everywhere in protecting our forests and ancestral land. We are being squeezed from all sides by mining and plantation companies.

“This is the last remaining forests that we have and the only land we have to survive. If my forests are gone, our lives will end.”

New images and interviews are available on request from:

• EIA Forests Team Leader Faith Doherty via faithdoherty@eia-international.org, telephone +62 812875 31771
• EIA senior campaigner Jago Wadley on jagowadley@eia-international.org, telephone +44 20 7354 7960
• Telapak Director Ambrosius Ruwindrijarto on mbajing@telapak.org, telephone +62 81111 02208
• Telapak Forests Campaign Co-ordinator Abu Meridian on abu.meridian@gmail.com, telephone +62 857157 66732

EDITORS’ NOTES

1. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) is a UK-based Non Governmental Organisation and charitable trust (registered charity number 1040615) that investigates and campaigns against a wide range of environmental crimes, including illegal wildlife trade, illegal logging, hazardous waste, and trade in climate and ozone-altering chemicals.

2. Telapak is an independent environmental organisation based in Bogor, Indonesia. Visit here for more information.

3. Read further background to the conflict in Muara Tae here.

Environmental Investigation Agency
62-63 Upper Street
London N1 0NY, UK
www.eia-international.org
Tel: +44 207 354 7960
Fax: +44 207 354 7961

'Peak timber' concerns in tropics

2012-01-31T10:23:00.001+07:00

Current tropical timber practices are not sustainable and nations should consider the "implications of 'peak timber'", a study has suggested

By Mark Kinver | BBC News | 24 January 2012

Tropical timber production exceeds forests' ability to replace the felled trees, the study says

A team of researchers says the standard cutting cycle of 30-40 years is too short to allow trees to grow to a volume required by commercial loggers.

As a result, they add, the pressure to harvest primary forests will continue, leading to ongoing deforestation.

The findings have been published in the journal Biological Conservation.

The scientists used logging on the Solomon Islands as an example because it was, in some respects, "a microcosm of the challenges facing sustainable forest management in the tropics".

They said the industry had been a major source of government revenue for a number of years.

Yet, they added: "For nearly a decade, the nation had been warned that the volume of timber annually harvested from native forests was too high and, if unchecked, that timber stocks would be seriously depleted by 2012.

"In 2009, the Central Bank of the Solomon Islands asserted that (the) exhaustion of timber stocks had arrived even earlier that predicted and its economic consequences were likely to be severe."

Pushing the limit

The team - made up by Dr Phil Shearman and Jane Bryan from the Australian National University, and Prof William Laurance from James Cook University, Australia - said the trajectory of the country's timber production (a rapid increase in production, followed by a peak and then a decline) was akin to the 'Hubbert curve', which has been observed in the exploitation of non-renewable resources, such as oil.

"It is occurring in the Solomons because timber extraction has occurred at a rate far in excess of the capacity of the forests to regenerate commercial timber stocks," they wrote.

The researchers suggested that there were three main factors that made it difficult to find examples of sustainable forestry in the tropics:

Low level of marketable timber production - many tree species having unsuitable wood properties, and the slow growth rate of commercially viable specimens is another factor
Collateral damage - while logging in the tropics tends to focus on a small fraction of the trees, many others are damaged or killed as a result of the network of access roads to the area being logged
Second-wave clearance - the "labyrinths of logging roads have opened up vast swaths... for colonisation, hunting, illegal mining and other destructive activities"

As well as these factors, the problem of illegal logging was also threatening primary forest cover in many nations.

Deforestation accounts for up to 20% of annual greenhouse gas emissions from human activities

A joint World Bank and Interpol project called Chainsaw produced a report in 2010 that highlighted the widespread nature of the problem.

"Illegal logging is one, very significant, component of a complex array of problems that are leading to a worldwide crisis of forest loss and degradation," it reported.

It went on to say that Interpol estimated that an area of forests "equivalent in size to the territory of Austria" disappeared worldwide every year as the result of illegal logging.

The report added: "They also estimate that the percentage of timber marketed worldwide of illegal origin stands at between 20% and 50% of all marketed timber products."

Prof Laurance and the team said that the Redd (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) concept could be an avenue that offered some hope in the future.

Redd is essentially a way of paying developing countries or communities within them to preserve their forests.

"We believe that some Redd+ funds should be directed at initiatives designed to keep loggers and their associated road networks out of forests, rather than merely modifying logging operations," they wrote.

The team concluded with a stark warning: "Unless something fundamental changes... we believe that logged tropical forests will continue to be over-harvested and, far too frequently, cleared afterwards, leading to an inevitable global decline in native timber supplies.

"It has become common these days to speak of 'peak oil'. In the tropics, we assert, we should also begin to seriously consider the implications of 'peak timber'."

BBC © 2012

Japan emissions rising after atomic crisis: report

2012-01-31T10:16:00.001+07:00

Japanese manufacturer's greenhouse gas emissions are rising after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster, hurting the country's carbon reduction goals, a report said Sunday

AFP in Google News | 30 Jan 2012

Japanese manufacturer's greenhouse gas emissions are rising after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster (AFP/POOL/File, David Guttenfelder)

The trend will deal a blow to Japan's target of reducing emissions by six percent from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol, the Nikkei business daily reported.

Emissions by 399 leading manufacturers are projected to rise 0.2 percent year-on-year to about 388 million tonnes in the year to March 2012, the second straight annual rise, according to a Nikkei survey.

Total estimated emissions for all industries, excluding the power and gas sectors, reached 442 million tonnes, the report said, nearly equal to emissions recorded in fiscal 2010.

Japan's economic activity shrank in the wake of the March 11 earthquake-tsunami disaster and record flooding in Thailand, which pounded the supply chains of manufacturers with operations in the country.

But the closing of Japan's nuclear power plants sent emissions upwards as manufacturers started running their own generators to secure additional power and supply electricity to utilities, the Nikkei said.

Emissions also rose amid a jump in resources needed to produce power through other means such as thermal plants, the daily added.

The problem could get worse since Japan's nuclear plants are expected to suspend operations by April, about a year after the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986, the report said.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved

Q+A: When will the EU raise its green ambitions?

2012-01-31T10:12:00.001+07:00

The European Commission's latest analysis on moving beyond its existing set of 2020 green goals, to be published on Monday, finds raising its environmental ambitions would be cheaper than originally thought

By Barbara Lewis | Reuters | Jan 30, 2012

Details have already emerged in a draft of the working paper seen by Reuters earlier this month.

It found, however, the cost of raising the current target of a 20 percent cut in carbon emissions to 30 percent would be more expensive for newer EU member states such as Poland, which relies heavily on coal and would need to invest in green infrastructure.

Such nations also have greater potential to benefit, however, from improvements in efficiency and the extra jobs that would be created, the working paper said. They could also receive higher revenue from auctioning carbon allowances under the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The Commission's working paper is meant only to feed into ongoing debate and is far from becoming policy.

The European Union has said it will move up to a 30 percent carbon reduction goal on condition that other major economies carry out their fair share of emissions reduction. At the same time, EU roadmaps looking beyond existing legislative goals envisage virtually carbon-free power generation by 2050.

Following are some questions and answers about moving on from the three 2020 goals agreed in 2007 of a 20 percent cut in carbon emissions, a 20 percent increase in energy efficiency and a shift to drawing 20 percent of energy from renewable sources.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CARBON MARKET?

The price of carbon allowances on the European Union's ETS has sunk to record lows under the pressure of surplus allowances as the region's economic crisis has eroded demand.

The market has recovered slightly from December's lows of below 7 euros ($9.19), but at about 8 euros is still nowhere near the 20-to-50 euro level analysts say is needed to encourage investment in low-carbon technology.

In the European Parliament, there has been support from across the political divide for intervention to shore up the carbon market by removing allowances.

But at the level of the Commission and the EU Council of governments, there is no obvious movement yet to agree on that. Draft conclusions ahead of a meeting of European environment ministers in March only noted the need for "a robust allowance price."

Raising the carbon emissions cut target to 30 percent from 20 percent, just like intervention, would have the effect of boosting the carbon market.

The surplus availability of allowances would shrink and the carbon price in 2020 would climb to 30 euros from 16.5 euros per tonne assumed under the 20 percent scenario, according to the working paper.

HOW CONTROVERSIAL ARE THE TARGETS?

Economic crisis has left many businesses arguing that this is no time for raising environmental ambitions that can increase costs in terms of implementation and in reduced revenues for energy companies.

Green campaigners and Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, with the support of Denmark, current holder of the EU presidency, say now is precisely the time to seize the opportunity for green jobs.

They are pushing for progress on Europe's Energy Efficiency Directive, which Hedegaard has said could lead to the creation of about half a million jobs up to 2020 in making improvements to buildings to make them more energy efficient.

But even the pro-environmental Danish presidency has said it could be politically difficult to persuade all 27 EU member states to agree swiftly to raise their green targets.

The Danes hope to make good progress during their six months at the EU helm but are unlikely to get as far as legislative change.

Poland, while it was holding the rotating presidency last year, blocked a move to set a 25 percent carbon reduction goal.

The target to improve efficiency by 20 percent is the only one of the 2020 targets that is not binding and is the only one the EU is unlikely to meet, unless it changes its ways.

If the efficiency target is met, one effect could be to depress the carbon market further as demand for carbon allowances to offset the use of dirty fuel would fall.

That prospect has increased pressure from both industry and green campaigners for intervention to support the carbon market, while the green lobby also wants a more aggressive carbon cutting target.

HOW MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE NOW?

Compared with assumptions made in 2008, a 20 percent emissions reduction target is now less costly, which also means that the additional cost of climbing from a 20 to a 30 percent reduction would also be lower.

In 2008, the additional costs in 2020 of getting to 30 percent were estimated to be at least 70 billion euros a year. Now they are estimated at 48 billion euros.

At the same time, however, the short-term capacity of operators to invest in low-carbon technology has been constrained by the economic crisis, although this can be offset for poorer nations through the allocation of carbon allowances and revenues from a strengthened carbon price.

The Commission's analysis also details cost savings in terms of reduced fuel imports, reduced pollution and improved health.

For the EU as a whole, moving to a 25 percent domestic reduction in 2020 would save an average of about 20 billion euros each year over the period 2016-2020.

Of this, 9 billion euros would result from reduced oil and gas imports, air pollution control costs would be 2.7 billion euros lower and there would be additional EU-wide health benefits of 3.4 billion to 7.9 billion euros a year because of reduced mortality.

The health benefits and air pollution control savings would be greatest in lower income member states, the working paper says. ($1 = 0.7615 euros)

(editing by Jane Baird)

© 2012 THOMSON REUTERS

Cuba seeks new socialist model

2012-01-30T09:00:00.001+07:00

The Sixth Congress of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC), held in April, “endorsed for the first time a fundamental change in the political and economic model”, said Cuban political scientist and Temas editor Rafael Hernandez

By Marce Cameron | Green Left Weekly | January 28, 2012

This does not mean abandoning Cuba’s socialist project, but renewing this project after two decades of the post-Soviet “Special Period”. This is a deep structural crisis in Cuba’s post-capitalist, centrally-planned economy and an ideological and ethical crisis of the nation’s socialist vocation.

The changes point to a socialist-oriented society purged of excessive idealism, elements of Soviet bureaucratic “socialism”, the crisis-driven improvisation of the Special Period and the pernicious habits caused by the struggle of individuals to survival amid the crisis.

Contrary to the notion that political processes can be only “top down” (as in the Greek austerity measures) or “bottom up” (as in the Arab Spring), Cuba’s socialist renewal unites revolutionary leaders and masses in a common struggle to “change everything that must be changed”.

This is the fruit of a democratic national debate of unprecedented candour, depth and detail over the draftEconomic and Social Policy Guidelines for the Party and the Revolution.

The final version of the Guidelines, adopted by the Sixth Congress and Cuba’s national assembly, bears the imprint of this consultative process.

Special Period

In the late 1980s, Cubans enjoyed the highest living standards in Latin America thanks in part to Soviet fair trade. Then the USSR and its satellite states — and the dogmatic certainties of Soviet “Marxism-Leninism” — abruptly crumbled.

A bitter truth was revealed: Soviet bureaucratic “socialism” was a brittle caricature of the real thing.

The Fourth PCC Congress, held in 1991, resolved to continue the “Rectification” process launched in 1986. At the heart of Cuba’s “recification of errors and negative tendencies” was the abandonment of elements of the Soviet “model” that had been uncritically assimilated.

But the search for a new Cuban model of socialist development was overtaken by the needs of survival. The collapse of Cuba’s foreign trade with the Soviet bloc meant industrial paralysis, shortages and queues.

Cuba’s leaders were preoccupied with ensuring that what little there was was shared as equitably as possible, no schools or hospitals closed, and idled workers were not left destitute.

In a word, that social solidarity prevailed over selfishness.

For example, they had to ensure every Cuban child continued to receive a litre of highly subsidised milk each day.

Cuba had bartered lobsters for East German powdered milk. With East Germany absorbed into the capitalist West and the tightening of the US economic blockade, milk had to be bought at market prices from as far away as New Zealand.

The concessions to the market made during the 1990s to stimulate economic recovery, from the opening to foreign tourism to turning huge state farms into cooperatives under state tutelage, were emergency measures rather than building blocks of a new socialist model.

The building of socialism had to be put on hold. The Cuban Revolution had to preserve its core social achievements, above all free and universally accessible health care and education at all levels, and adjust to a new world in which US imperialism had emerged as the hegemonic superpower.

Cuba’s revolutionaries had to come to terms not only with the Soviet debacle and its political lessons for Cuba, but with the revolution’s own errors, some of which date back to the 1960s.

The spectacular rise of capitalism “with Chinese characteristics”, and Vietnam’s tightrope walk between socialist commitment and capitalist restoration, also had to be studied critically.

Finally, no overhaul of Cuba’s socialist model — the concepts, structures, methods and mentalities that seek to embody its socialist objective — could proceed without striving for political consensus, first among the PCC leadership and then among its broad social base, the big majority of Cuba’s working people.

All this has taken two decades.

Persuasion

Contrary to the nonsense peddled by the corporate media, Cuba is not a police state; its repressive forces have never been used against the people. It is the force of persuasion, rather than the persuasion of force, that is the outstanding feature of Cuban politics since 1959.

This is in stark contrast to Stalinist totalitarianism and capitalist “democracy”.

Unlike capitalist politicians, who may resort to state violence to persuade citizens to accept “what’s good for the country”, Cuba’s communist leaders have to explain and convince.

This is why Fidel Castro used to give such long speeches, interrupting baseball telecasts and soap-operas for hours on end. As Havana University’s Jesus Arboleya noted, Fidel has been the revolution’s sternest loyal critic.

Striving for consensus, while acknowledging that differences of opinion are healthy and inevitable, will become even more important, when the first generation of revolutionary leaders — whose personal authority was forged in heroic struggle against the Batista dictatorship — are no longer around.

Cuba today is not the same as in 1989. The market concessions have succeeded in stimulating a partial economic recovery amid a growing social differentiation based on access to convertible currency.

A substantial minority of Cubans can live relatively comfortably thanks to remittances, theft from the socialist state and other black market activities and employment in sectors linked to tourism and foreign investment.

With state salaries insufficient to cover all basic living costs, most Cubans have had no choice but to turn to the black market to make ends meet.

When workers are obliged to steal from their workplaces to live with dignity, they tend to turn a blind eye to corrupt administrators. How to instill a sense of individual and collective responsibility for socially-owned productive property when it has come to be viewed by many workers and administrators as a source of illicit personal enrichment?

Convergence

This touches on an old problem that predates the Special Period. Hyper-centralised management of Cuba’s centrally-planned economy reduces the scope for worker participation, while excessive egalitarianism in the sphere of wages tends to breed contempt for social property: less politically conscious and committed workers may think, “Why bother working hard when I’ll get paid the same low wages?”

This is one example of the convergence of elements of Soviet bureaucratic “socialism” with excessive revolutionary idealism.

Others are Cuba’s wholesale expropriation of urban small businesses in 1968, a policy that is now being reversed, and the all-pervasive nature of the socialist state, which is now retreating to its appropriate functions and dimensions in a society that envisages its eventual “withering away”.

Cuban President Raul Castro told the National Assembly in July 2008: “For the worker to feel like the owner of the means of production, we cannot rely solely on theoretical explanations — we have been doing that for about 48 years — nor on the fact that his opinion is taken into consideration in the workplace meetings.

“It is very important that their income corresponds to their personal contribution and to the work centre’s fulfillment of the social objective for which it was constituted.”

In a panel discussion on work in Cuba published by Cuba’s Bohemia magazine on October 13, 2010, Cuban researcher Jose Ramon Fabelo asked: “If I'm not able to decide what is produced, nor to what end, nor participate in management, in planning, and much of the time what I earn is not related to what I do, what sense of ownership am I going to have, am I going to extract this out of pure ideology? Sometimes yes, but not in the majority of cases ...

“We've often debated between these two extremes, between moral or material incentives, consciousness or money. I consider this contraposition to be very anti-dialectical.

“We need to harmonise the two, and I would caution: today we cannot go to the extreme of hoping that economic mechanisms by themselves will stimulate and restore the value of work to its rightful place. Educational, pedagogical, political and juridical work is very important in the here and now.”

[Marce Cameron maintains the Cuba's Socialist Renewal blog.]

Eurozone Fears Permeate Davos

2012-01-30T08:52:00.001+07:00

The ongoing eurozone sovereign debt crisis has dominated the start of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, with many private sector business leaders urging Germany to do more to alleviate Europe's fiscal woes. German Chancellor Angela Merkel formally opened the summit on Wednesday, calling on Europe to become "more European" (DeutscheWelle) and implement the fiscal compact agreed upon late last year by EU leaders

Christopher Alessi | Council on Foreign Relations | January 27, 2012

However, she resisted calls for Germany to provide more financing to weaker eurozone states and defended her approach of encouraginggreater austerity (Bloomberg) and debt reduction in order to resolve the crisis.

What's at Stake

Eurozone market fears have been at least temporarily eased by policy responses in debt-laden Italy and Spain, sending borrowing costs down and stock markets up. Moreover, market actors have been relatively unfazed by Greece's inability to establish a bond swap agreement with private creditors, which was part of a second EU bailout agreement from last year.

But the newfound, if fragile, confidence in the eurozone is being undermined by what many see as the lack of a long-term European growth strategy (Reuters)--a view reinforced by the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook, which predicted a eurozone GDP contraction of 0.5 percent for 2012. Citing eurozone uncertainty as a driving factor, the IMF downgraded its 2012 growth projection for the global economy to 3.3 percent from 4.1 percent.

The Debate

Austerity measures being proposed by Germany--including budget cuts, tax increases, and pension reform--have prompted much debate among economists, many of whom caution that excessive austerity without a plan to stimulate growth could damage the already slow global economic recovery.

Some EU policymakers, particularly Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, are also indirectlychallenging Merkel's approach (NYT). Monti has called for greater financial support from Europe's wealthier countries through the doubling of the eurozone's permanent bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism, which is set to come into effect in July.

However, Merkel has shied away from Monti's prescriptions; during her Davos speech, shewarned, "What we don't want is that we promise something that we can't deliver." At the same time, she has supported reforming EU labor laws as a means of generating new employment and triggering growth.

Policy Options

Speaking at Davos, investor George Soros also warned that the austerity measures being mandated by Germany for weak eurozone states could accelerate deflationary pressures andunravel the EU (SpiegelOnline). "The economy will contract and tax revenues will fall," Soros said. "So the debt burden will actually rise, requiring further budget cuts and setting in motion a vicious cycle." Soros recommended that in addition to fiscal discipline, the EU--namely, Germany--should provide more stimulus and share the eurozone debt burden in the form of euro bonds (WSJ).

World Bank President Robert Zoellick says Germany's plan for a fiscal compact should be expanded to offer "incentives and support" to eurozone states that implement the necessary budgetary cuts. "The European Commission, backed by the European Investment Bank, should deploy underutilized funds to match investments to countries' structural reforms," Zoellick writes in the Financial Times.

Background Materials

The eurozone is a buffeted by a sovereign debt crisis of nations whose membership in the currency union has been poorly policed, explains this CFR Backgrounder.

Whether the euro survives depends on Frankfurt finally assuming its role as leader, write Matthias Matthijs and Mark Blyth in Foreign Affairs.

Policymakers and market actors are increasingly concerned about a disorderly Greek default, while many analysts question the wisdom of Germany's strict austerity approach to the escalating eurozone sovereign debt crisis, says this CFR Analysis Brief.

© Copyright 2011, Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved

Palm oil does not meet U.S. renewable fuels standard, rules EPA

2012-01-30T08:47:00.001+07:00

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled on Friday that palm oil-based biofuels will not meet the renewable fuels standard due to carbon emissions associated with deforestation, reports The Hill

mongabay.com | January 27, 2012

Oil palm plantations and rainforest in Malaysia

According to a notice published Friday in the Federal Register, palm oil-based biodiesel fails to meet a requirement that renewable fuels offer a 20 percent reduction in emissions relative to conventional gasoline:

Biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from palm oil have estimated lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of 17% and 11% respectively for these biofuels compared to the statutory baseline petroleum-based diesel fuel used in the RFS program. This analysis indicates that both palm oil-based biofuels would fail to qualify as meeting the minimum 20% GHG performance threshold for renewable fuel under the RFS program.

The decision means that palm oil-based biofuels can't be used to meet national renewable fuel standards. It therefore won't win favorable treatment relative to other fuel sources.

The EPA's ruling comes after extensive lifecycle analysis of palm oil production. While oil palm has the highest yield of any commercial oilseed its production is at times linked to conversion of tropical forests, which is a large source of greenhouse gas emissions. A number of studies have shown that deforestation significantly undercuts the climate benefits of palm oil as a biofuel source.

The EPA has opened a comment period on the decision. The palm oil industry is expected to weigh in on the findings.

The renewable fuels standard targets 7.5 billion gallons of 'renewable' fuels to be blended into gasoline by the end of 2012. The initiative aims to reduce dependence on foreign oil and cut emissions from transportation, but some analysts have questioned the effectiveness of the program, since the bulk of 'renewable' fuel is expected to come from corn ethanol, which environmentalists say has mixed climate benefits.

Copyright mongabay 2010

No oil for old countries

2012-01-30T08:33:00.001+07:00

I THINK my colleague is right to take some encouragement from the latest Energy Information Agency outlook. As one would expect to occur amid a period of sustained, high oil prices, American oil consumption has fallen from 2005 while its production has risen

The Economist | Jan 24th 2012

That, in turn, has led to a decline in the quantity of oil imports (though not necessarily or consistently in the value of imports, given the volatility in oil prices). A better balance between oil production and consumption is likely to be an important part of the process of adjusting America's total current account balance. And given the havoc dear oil has wrought on the American economy in recent years, a better production balance is economically useful. Less consumption will mean less of a blow to demand when prices soar, and greater production will mean an American windfall that could conceivably help offset any decline in household spending.

It's difficult to get too excited about the figures, however, for a couple of reasons. The EIA does not project sustained drops in consumption of the sort seen since 2005; indeed, consumption in 2035 is expected to be more or less where it was in the early 2000s, when prices were quite a bit lower. And while I suppose it's nice that CO2 emissions are expected to grow at a slower pace between 2010 and 2035 than they did between 1990 and 2005, a forecast of essentially no improvement in American emissions over the period is nonetheless quite depressing. The EIA can't do much more than extrapolate from recent trends, of course; they're sadly unable to project the development of remarkable new technologies in 2017. What this shows, however, is that present trends in growth or demographics won't bail us out of our oil dependency or climate problems; it will take technology and policy to accomplish that.

I think it's worth adding a bit more to the discussion based on a new NBER working paperby James Hamilton, who does great work on the relationship between oil prices, production, and economic growth. Mr Hamilton notes that, all else equal, better technology and higher real oil prices lead to higher levels of oil production, as we'd expect. Over the whole of the past century, however, production in individual fields has tended to follow a simple trajectory, despite rising prices and better technology: oil output rises, peaks, and then drops. And both within America and globally, long-run improvements in oil output are primarily due to the development of new fields, rather than more intense extraction from oil fields. In the American context, for example, production generally rose for much of the 20th century even as production from individual states often peaked and fell, because America was able to develop progressively more of its continental expanse—from the East Coast, to the Midwest, to the Plains, the West Coast, Alaska and the Gulf.

You can see the net trajectory in the chart above. Eventually, you run out of new land to develop. The last little uptick at the far right represents new production from the Gulf (itself a product of marvelous technological advances that allow wells to be driven miles beneath the sea floor) and from the northern Plains, especially North Dakota. That's a nice addition to supply, but it leaves America well short of its previous peak. Those fields, too, will eventually be exhausted. Globally, new discoveries are being made all the time. Over the past half decade, however, new production has not offset declining output at older fields. Meanwhile, global demand has soared.

Mr Hamilton writes:

However, my reading of the historical evidence is as follows. (1) For much of the history of the industry, oil has been priced essentially as if it were an inexhaustible resource. (2) Although technological progress and enhanced recovery techniques can temporarily boost production flows from mature fields, it is not reasonable to view these factors as the primary determinants of annual production rates from a given field. (3) The historical source of increasing global oil production is exploitation of new geographical areas, a process whose promise at the global level is obviously limited. The combined implication of these three observations is that, at some point there will need to be a shift in how the price of oil is determined, with considerations of resource exhaustion playing a bigger role than they have historically.

Mr Hamilton goes on to recapitulate arguments he's made elsewhere, on the impact of oil shocks on growth. Recent American experience is not particularly encouraging. Rising American energy output is a useful macroeconomic development. But it might well be a good idea to reduce American oil consumption and raise net oil exports through via an increase in America's petrol tax. That's never a popular notion, but oil-induced recessions aren't much fun either.

Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2012. All rights reserved

Renewable energy deals hit record high in 2011-PwC

2012-01-30T08:27:00.000+07:00

Global deals climbed 40 pct to $53.5 billion in 2011. More consolidation as renewables markets mature. EU economy uncertainty could dampen deal flow in 2012

By Nina Chestney| Reuters | 30 January 2012

Global renewable energy deals climbed 40 percent to a record high of $53.5 billion last year from $38.2 billion in 2010, as solar, wind and energy efficiency overtook hydropower as the main deal drivers for the first time, a report said on Monday.

Historically, hydro power has dominated renewables deal flow, but deals worth $1 billion or more in wind, solar, biomass and energy efficiency have outnumbered hydro by seven to one, the PriceWaterHouse Coopers report said.

The renewables market is maturing, fuelling more consolidation, and a rethink of the role of nuclear in many countries after the Japanese nuclear crisis last year provided an extra boost to renewables generation in certain markets.

"Sustained high deal numbers and record total value reflect a maturing of the sector," said Paul Nillesen, PwC renewables partner.

"The trend is all the more noteworthy given the uncertainty in the market and in government policies on renewables. We believe that deal flow will continue to be significant in the medium term."

Global clean energy investment hit a record $260 billion in 2011, which was mainly driven by a solar boom, a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report showed.

But renewable energy, excluding hydropower, will account for just 5 percent of the world's total energy production by 2030, according to BP estimates.

WHAT LIES AHEAD?

Solar and energy efficiency deals accounted for 79 percent of the $15.3 billion rise in the total value of renewables deals. One in three deals last year was solar and the overall deal value for the solar sector was up 56 percent to $15.8 billion from $10.2 billion in 2010.

Falling solar prices are making solar power more economic and closer to grid parity in some markets.

The entry of pension and insurance funds, most notably a $1.1 billion investment by Danish pension insurance groups in a 50 percent stake in Dong Energy's Anholt offshore wind project, shows the renewables market is maturing and secondary markets have been created, with assets sold for a second or third time.

But the renewables sector could face a tough 2012.

U.S. and European manufacturers will be under increasing cost pressures and some Chinese manufacturers will also face heavy debt and feel competitive strain, PwC said.

Significant overcapacity in China could result in a succession of tie-ups within and between the main manufacturing territories of the United States, Germany and China, leading to a smaller number of big global players.

As well as a smaller number of global players in the solar market, PwC expects consolidation among larger players in the wind power sector. Recent profit warnings from Danish company Vestas are the most high profile example of the challenges facing some wind power companies.

Continued uncertainty about the eurozone economy will make the deal environment much more difficult for 2012. A deeper crisis would dampen deal flow further, but Nillesen said market uncertainty might not block the biggest deals.

"The potential for further destabilisation domestically, or at an inter-governmental level cannot be ruled out, but if a deal is highly strategic, and mission critical, then parties will still feel it is worth doing on the right terms," he said.

(Editing by Keiron Henderson and Alison Birrane)

© 2012 THOMSON REUTERS

Cutting Climate Change is Simple: Just Stop Subsidising Fossil Fuels

2012-01-30T07:15:00.000+07:00

I knew that this was true but I didn’t realise the effect was so great. The simple way to cut climate change is to stop subsidising fossil fuels

Tim Worstall | Forbes | 29 January 2012

According to IEA research, 37 governments spent $409bn on artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels in 2010. Critics say the subsidies significantly boost oil and gas consumption and disadvantage renewable energy technologies, which received only $66bn of subsidies in the same year.

Birol and the IEA said that a phase-out would avoid 750m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2015, potentially rising to 2.6 gigatonnes by 2035, a level sufficient to provide half the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, considered the limit of safety by many scientists. “Fossil fuel subsidies are a hand brake as we drive along the road to a sustainable energy future,” he said. “Removing them would take us half way to a trajectory that would hold us to 2C.”

The thing is though we cannot just pass a law in Europe or the US and ban these subsidies. For it’s not actually Europe or the US which pays these subsidies. It’s largely oil producing and developing countries that do provide the subsidies. Iran, Russia, China, Nigeria, these sorts of places.

Things are getting better, slowly, this is true. Iran has begun to overhaul their subsidies (and they are by far the largest) by replacing below market price gas and petrol with cash grants to poor families. Nigeria shows how difficult it can be though: the government just last week backed off from a removal of petrol subsidies in the face of a general strike.

But even given those difficulties this is good news, isn’t it? Half of the action required to stave off the generally agreed level of dangerous climate change is simply to get governments to stop wasting the taxpayers’ money on unsuitable subsidies. Even with difficulties such as those in Nigeria, this is bound to be a lot easier than trying to change the way our entire economies work, isn’t it?

2012 Forbes.com LLC™ All Rights Reserved

Japan finds water leaks at stricken nuclear plant

2012-01-30T07:12:00.001+07:00

Japan's stricken nuclear power plant has leaked more than 600 liters of water, forcing it to briefly suspend cooling operations at a spent-fuel pond at the weekend, but none is thought to have escaped into the ocean, the plant's operator and domestic media said

Reuters | Jan 29, 2012

The crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's No.4 reactor building is seen before the removal of debris on the upper side of the unit in Fukushima prefecture, in this handout picture taken on September 22, 2011. Credit: Reuters/Tokyo Electric Power Co./Handout

The Fukushima plant, on the coast north of Tokyo, was wrecked by a huge earthquake and tsunami in March last year, triggering the evacuation of around 80,000 people in the world's worst nuclear crisis in 25 years.

The operator of the complex, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), reported two main leakages on its Web site on Sunday, one from a pump near the plant's office building and another from a back-up cooling system at reactor No.4.

"The cooling water is from a filtrate tank for fire extinction and doesn't contain radioactive materials," Tepco said of the incident at reactor No. 4. It added that some water from the other leakage had flowed into a drain and "we are examining whether this water has flowed into the ocean or not."

The Nikkei newspaper Monday quoted Tepco as saying around 40 liters had leaked from the pool-cooling system of the No. 4 reactor Sunday morning, with probably 600 liters of purified water leaking from another point. Water had also leaked at other facilities within the complex, the Nikkei added.

However, the Nikkei newspaper quoted Tepco Monday as saying that it believed no water had escaped into the sea.

"The leakage is believed to have been caused by freezing due to cold weather, and the leaked water included radioactively contaminated water that has been purified," the Nikkei said in its online edition, quoting Tepco.

"The contamination level is low."

(Reporting by Mark Bendeich; Editing by Kavita Chandran)

© 2012 THOMSON REUTERS

Can REDD save the forests of Muara Tae in East Kalimantan, Indonesia?

2012-01-27T22:36:00.000+07:00

The Dayak Benuaq Indigenous People of Muara Tae in East Kalimantan are defending their last remaining area of forest against two palm oil companies. “This is the last remaining forests that we have and the only land we have to survive. If my forests are gone, our lives will end,” says Pak Singko, a leader of the Dayak Benuaq of Muara Tae

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 26th January 2012

The villagers of Muara Tae have lost more than half of their land and forest to mining and plantation companies. There are currently five companies with concessions in Muara Tae’s forests. The destruction started in 1971, with a logging company called PT Sumber Mas. In 1995, PT London Sumatera cleared forests for oil palm plantations. The following year, a coal mining company PT Gunung Bayan Pratama Coal started operations in the forests around Muara Tae. In January 2010, the local authorities issued concessions to two palm oil companies: Malaysian-owned PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa and PT Borneo Surya Mining Jaya, a subsidiary of Sumatran logging, mining and plantation conglomerate Surya Dumai.

The plantation companies cleared the forest replacing it with oil palm monoculture. The coal mining company excavated a huge hole in the ground, destroying the forest and their rivers. “The Gunung Bayan’s mining areas got rid of many rivers,” Petrus Asuy a community leader in Muara Tae told Indonesian NGO Telapak.

“The Nayan River had Jebor, Tae, Telonyok, Telaga, Tengeliwai as its tributaries, so many of these rivers are completely closed. Quite sad if we look back to the times before the mining company came we had a peaceful life. The forest was vast, we found plenty of animals and fish to catch and the river was still all it was.”

Last year, Telapak produced a video about the villagers of Muara Tae and their struggle to protect their forests:

Our Forest, Our Lives: A Story from Muara Tae from Gekko Studio on Vimeo.

Telapak is working with the local community. In a November 2011 article that broke the story about Muara Tae, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) explained that according to Telapak, PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa does not yet have a Commercial Usage Right permit issued by the National Land Agency (Badan Pertanahan Nasional, or BPN). Telapak “is seeking to work with the BPN to accommodate the community’s land claims in any final permit,” EIA wrote.

In theory at least, recognising the community’s land rights should be straightforward. In July 2011, at an international conference in Lombok, Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, head of both the Indonesian President’s Special Delivery Unit (UKP4) and the REDD+ Task Force, announcedthe Government’s intention to “recognise, respect and protect Adat [customary] rights”. He added that “Indonesia is committed to longer-term forest and land tenure reform.”

In an interview with Al Jazeera earlier this month, Hadi Daryanto, Secretary General at the Ministry of Forestry, explained that,

“If the provincial government has recognised this forest as an ancestral forest it means the government can take ownership on behalf of the community so nobody is allowed to sell these trees anymore, the government can intervene and tell the companies to stop working.”

Al Jazeera reported that the villagers “have applied for the special status, but the bulldozers are moving fast”.

The concessions in Muara Tae were awarded before Norway and Indonesia signed the Letter of Intent that established the US$1 billion REDD deal. The May 2011, two-year moratorium on new forest concessions cannot do anything about existing concessions (although the lack of a Commercial Usage Right permit must surely give some wiggle room for including at least one of the concessions in the moratorium).

Unfortunately, this is another example of Norway’s two-faced approach to forest protection. Norway actually stands to profit from PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa’s forest destroying operations. EIA reports that as of December 2010, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) had US$6.7 million invested in TSH Resources, a palm oil and timber-focused holdings group in Malaysia, which since 31 October 2011 has owned 90% of PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa.

EIA notes in its article from November 2011 that,

During the past year, EIA has been pressing Norway to address the serious conflicts of interest generated by GPFG’s financial investments. Muara Tae is a stark case in point, with GPFG having ethically compromising investments in the activities of the very firm carrying out deforestation.

In October 2011, EIA and Rainforest Foundation Norway wrote to Jens Stoltenberg, Norway’s prime minister, requesting that Norway takes action to address the issue of GPFG investing in rainforest destroying companies. Action is long overdue.

Meanwhile, the destruction of the forests in Muara Tae raises many issues of importance in the REDD debate in Indonesia, particularly the issue of land rights. While land rights is a complex issue, Muara Tae would be as good a place as any to implement the following clause in theLetter of Intent: “Take appropriate measures to address land tenure conflicts and compensation claims.”

Faith Doherty, EIA Forests Team Leader sums up the situation:

“The rhetoric from the President of Indonesia on curbing emissions by reducing deforestation is strong but on the front line, where indigenous communities are putting their lives at risk to protect forests, action is sorely missing.

Giving these communities, such as the Dayak Benuaq, the rights they deserve is a vital step to reduce catastrophic levels of deforestation in Indonesia.”

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

Finance for biodiversity is a “new face for capitalism”: Sign on letter to CBD from Acción Ecológica

2012-01-27T22:27:00.001+07:00

“Conserving the planet’s species and habitats is central to sustainable development yet the global decline in biodiversity is accelerating,” says UN Secretary General, Ban-Ki Moon

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 27th January 2012

“The United Nations decade on biodiversity is an opportunity to reverse this trend, under the theme living in harmony with nature.”

From 6-9 March 2012, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Governments of Ecuador, India, Japan, Norway and Sweden will be holding a Global Dialogue Seminar on Scaling up Finance for Biodiversity. The meeting will take place in Quito, Ecuador.

But not everyone is convinced that the UN’s approach to protecting biodiversity is going to work. Acción Ecológica is launching a call to collect signatures for the letter below, to be presented to the participants at the meeting in Quito. Acción Ecológica sees the UN approach to financing biodiversity as part of a “new face for capitalism” through the creation and marketing of new commodities. And REDD is part of “A tangled web of proposals that essentially seek control over land, forests, water and biodiversity as means to compensate for the loss of biodiversity or as raw materials for new technologies.”

To sign on to Acción Ecológica’s letter, please send an email to iramos@accionecologica.orgwith a copy to ivonney@accionecologica.org. If you want to take part in the meeting in Quito, the deadline for nominations for participants is 31 January 2012 – see the CBD Secretariat’snotification about the meeting for details. REDD-Monitor welcomes discussion in the comments about the letter and the issues it raises.

OPEN LETTER

TO THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF JAPAN, INDIA, NORWAY, SWEDEN AND ECUADOR

On 6 to 9 March 2012 the Global Dialogue Seminar on Scaling Up Finance for Biodiversity, co-hosted by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Governments of Ecuador, India, Japan, Norway and Sweden, will be held in Quito, Ecuador with the aim of exploring financial mechanisms and resources for biodiversity. This is part of an agreement among the signatory countries to the Convention on Biological Diversity to mobilize financing to facilitate implementation of a strategic plan and the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, in which Strategic Goal D aims to enhance the benefits from biodiversity as a commodity and from environmental services. The meeting in Quito is one more step in this direction.

In the midst of the current environmental, financial and economic crisis, biodiversity has gained enormous importance because of the role it can play for the “green economy”, which will be consolidated through the agreements reached at the upcoming Rio+20 summit. This economic proposal is nothing more than a new face for capitalism, through which biodiversity, water, soils, biogeochemical cycles, photosynthesis, and all the other functions and structures of nature can be converted into commodities.

Forming part of this process are the false solutions to climate change such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and so-called TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). A tangled web of proposals that essentially seek control over land, forests, water and biodiversity as means to compensate for the loss of biodiversity or as raw materials for new technologies.

In practice, they promote the implementation of neoliberal measures to address the climate problem, biodiversity management and protection of forests. They extol the paradigm that the solution lies in the market, in property rights, in the proper assignment of prices and the commodification of all of nature, traditional knowledge and cultures associated with it, to the detriment of justice, sovereignty and respect for human rights and the rights of nature.

At the meeting in Quito, as well as during the run-up to Rio+20 and at the CBD COP-11 in India, steps will be taken to define the financial instruments, policies and public-private partnerships needed to achieve the biggest land grab and trampling of people’s rights ever seen in the history of humanity. Due to the scale and sphere of action, what is proposed will have devastating effects on territories and rights.

Just as the Green Climate Fund is aimed at promoting market mechanisms to ineffectively confront the climate crisis, financing for biodiversity is being diverted towards means of privatization and control of biodiversity.

With the same discourses of poverty relief, conservation and sustainability that have benefited the industrial, military and financial sectors, they are once again trying to convince us that the “green economy”, promoted by the same actors, is the solution.

In view of this situation, we the undersigned organizations, networks and social movements urge the governments hosting the meeting in Quito to stop the commodification of nature; likewise, we call on the participants in the meeting to prevent the further advance of the green economy that is being hatched and to act instead in line with models of society that differ from the capitalist system and are built on the principles of community and on relationships with nature based on the protection of life.

SIGNATURES

…/

To sign on to the letter please write to:
iramos@accionecologica.org
with a copy to:
ivonney@accionecologica.org

CARTA ABIERTA A LA SECRETARÍA DE LA CONVENCIÓN DE DIVERSIDAD BIOLÓGICA Y A LOS GOBIERNOS DE JAPÓN, INDIA, NORUEGA, SUECIA Y ECUADOR

Entre el 6 al 9 de marzo de 2012 se llevará a cabo en Quito-Ecuador el “Seminario de Diálogo Global sobre el Aumento del Financiamiento para Biodiversidad”, co-convocado por la Convención de Diversidad Biológica y los Gobiernos de Ecuador, Suecia, Noruega, India y Japón, con el fin de acordar “mecanismos y recursos financieros” para la biodiversidad. Esto hace parte de un acuerdo entre los países signatarios del Convenio de Diversidad Biológica para incrementar los recursos económicos que permitan la aplicación efectiva de un plan estratégico y alcanzar las metas de Aichi, cuya Estrategia D incluye cómo mejorar los beneficios de la biodiversidad como mercancía y de los servicios ambientales. La reunión de Quito, es un paso más es este camino.

En medio de la actual crisis ambiental, financiera, económica, la biodiversidad ha cobrado una enorme importancia por el papel que ella puede jugar para la “economía verde” que quedará consolidada a través de los acuerdos de la Cumbre Rio+20. Esta propuesta económica no es sino una nueva cara del capitalismo en la que la biodiversidad, el agua, los suelos, los ciclos biogeoquímicos, la fotosíntesis, las funciones y estructuras de la naturaleza podrán ser convertidas en mercancía.

Parte de este proceso son las falsas soluciones al cambio climático, como los Mecanismos REDD (Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación Evitadas) o la economía llamada TEEB (Economía de los Ecosistemas y la Biodiversidad). Marañas de propuestas que buscan en esencia el control de tierras, bosques, agua y biodiversidad como recurso de compensación por la pérdida de biodiversidad, o como materia prima de nuevas tecnologías.

En la práctica, se pretende profundizar la aplicación de medidas neoliberales frente al problema del clima, al manejo de la biodiversidad o a la protección de los bosques. Exalta el paradigma de que la solución está en los mercados, en los derechos de propiedad, la correcta asignación de precios y la mercantilización de toda la naturaleza, de los conocimientos tradicionales o las culturas asociadas a ella, en desmedro de la justicia, las soberanías y el respeto a los derechos humanos y de la naturaleza.

Tanto en la reunión de Quito, como durante el camino hacia Rio+20, y en la COP11 de la CDB de la India, se darán pasos para definir instrumentos financieros, políticas y asociaciones público-privadas que se requieren para obtener la mayor apropiación de territorios y despojo de derechos de los pueblos como jamás se ha dado en la historia de la humanidad. Debido a su escala y ámbito de acción, lo que se propone tendrá efectos devastadores en los territorios y los derechos.

Al igual que con el Fondo Climático se pretende continuar con los mecanismos de mercado para enfrentar ineficazmente la crisis climática, el financiamiento para la biodiversidad está derivando hacia formas de privatización y control de la biodiversidad.

Con los mismos discursos de alivio de la pobreza, conservación y sustentabilidad que beneficiaron a los sectores industriales, militares y financieros, tratan de convencernos nuevamente que la “economía verde”, impulsada por los mismos actores, es la solución.

Ante esta realidad, las organizaciones, redes y movimientos sociales abajo firmantes exhortamos a los gobiernos convocantes a la reunión de Quito a que detengan la mercantilización de la naturaleza; de igual manera, hacemos un llamado a los participantes en el evento a impedir el avance de la Economía Verde que se está fraguando y actuar en concordancia con modelos de sociedades distintos del sistema capitalista depredador y que son construidos sobre principios comunitarios y formas de relación con la naturaleza basadas en el cuidado de la vida.

SIGUEN FIRMAS

…/

Para suscribir la carta puede escribir a:

iramos@accionecologica.org
con una copia a:
ivonney@accionecologica.org

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Wind power: Clean energy, dirty business?

2012-01-27T22:19:00.000+07:00

In the developing world, where land-intensive wind turbines are being rapidly constructed, wind power has often turned clean energy into dirty business

By Erik Vance | Christian Science Monitor | January 26, 2012

Wind power is sweeping the globe: It's clean energy, but it does have some dirty business aspects that hit the developing world particularly hard. This is part of the cover story package in the Jan. 30 issue of The Christian Science Monitor magazine. Reuters photo

Like the oil drilling rig that became an icon of the Industrial Age, the giant, spinning wind turbinehas become a global image of clean power.

No longer a futuristic dream of environmentalists, wind power has become a big business: Since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 1998, wind-generated electricity has grown 20-fold: from only enough to power the equivalent of two New York Cities, to 200,000 megawatts today – enough to power six Britains. (In an address today about "American energy," linking clean energy to economic and national security,President Obama said that his administration would allow the development of green energy such as wind and solar on enough public lands to power 3 million homes.)

Wind's biggest impact may be in the developing world – indeed, according to the Global Wind Energy Consortium, 2011 was the first year the developing world installed more wind power facilities than the developed world. India is now fifth in wind power production. China, the global wind leader, installed more wind power in 2009 than existed on the planet prior to 2003. Morocco recently finished its first wind farm (200 megawatts) and, with plans to grow its capacity 10-fold by 2020, expects to export electricity to Europe.

IN PICTURES: The dirty side of wind energy

For all the hope that wind energy offers a world eager to move away from costlier, more environmentally disruptive forms of electric power production, the industry is barreling into some of the same controversies and conflicts that its predecessors in natural resource exploitation faced, particularly in the developing world.

On one hand, says Paul Veers, chief engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: "The wind business is doing something no new electricity source has done in almost half a century – it's beginning to make an impact."

On the other hand, says Dan Kammen, a University of California, Berkeley, renewable energy scholar working on leave at the World Bank: "The conflicts that come up [with wind] are exactly the same ones that come up in basically every other land-based activity. We have done this in the past over Manifest Destiny and national security. The issue of the moment happens to be green energy, but there has been a history of this."

Towering turbines, often with blades as long as 30 yards, are installed in huge groups – wind farms – and require large tracts of land. Acquisition of that land has been a sometimes violent flash point in the new "wind rush," as explained in detail in the accompanying Monitor case study ofMexico's wind-rich Isthmus of Tehuantapec.

While energy and environmental experts note that the conflicts are still relatively few, they are cautionary lessons for the industry.

Wind takes off

"Much of Africa, Asia Pacific, and Latin America – as far as we see it – is on the verge of taking off," says Shruti Shukla, policy director of the Global Wind Energy Council.

The growth of wind power is driven partly by demand: China's electric power demand has doubled in just a decade, and India's peak demand is 12 percent higher than its available supply.

But also, national and international subsidies and incentives – such as carbon offsets that allow companies to invest in clean energy to "offset" carbon emissions in their dirtier businesses – have driven wind industry growth. Critics of the incentives say that every new turbine represents a blank check to pollute elsewhere. Supporters say it's a market-based solution meant to ease business into clean energy.

For Kyoto signatory nations it has meant a global rush to acquire land for wind turbines. Wind projects have been successful – notably, in Tamil Nadu, India, which experts like Ms. Shukla and Mr. Kammen cite as a model of responsiveness to local need and manageable scale.

Indeed, wind energy projects do generally inject economic benefits wherever they're built, but the development process often sparks anger, especially among poor landowners.

"What we see in many places, if not most places around the world, is very much what I would describe as the colonial model, where Europeans would go to Africa and other places and they say 'OK, we are going to develop this,' " says James Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. "And the deal that is being offered, in the end, is not a good one."

In 2001, Mr. Anaya won a landmark case in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that involved logging rights in Nicaragua and established that indigenous people have exclusive right to their lands. He says that too often a government or business acquires land through unequal negotiations, in which indigenous people aren't given all the information or options.

Negotiating any wind contract is complex. Often in the developing world, communities are poorly educated or largely illiterate and don't understand the implications of a contract. They may simply have no access to legal and technical advice and they may be powerless to negotiate. And because parcels are small, they can be destroyed by turbine construction.

Kammen, a strong supporter of wind power, says that by comparison, biofuels have a far worse record than wind development for land grabs. Rampant abuses in Tanzania, he says, recently led to a ban there on all new biofuel investment. He says that most conflicts involving wind energy deal with land occupied – but not owned – by indigenous groups, such as in the Kutch District of India, where a case pitting local herders against Indian wind giant Suzlon Energy Ltd. went to the high court there. He worries about such conflicts arising with Morocco's nomadic herders.

Monitor reports abuse in India

In 2010, the Monitor documented a case in Dhule, India, where 2,000 adivasi – or tribesmen – were forced to accept hundreds of wind turbines on their traditional lands. They'd lived on the land for generations but had dubious title. The government gave the land to Suzlon, which, in some cases, bought out owners.

However, ownership doesn't guarantee fair treatment. In Honduras a wind energy company recently forced indigenous Lenca people who did have land title to take on a wind farm, paying each farmer as little as $80 per year to lease the land. In many cases, the owners were barred from their land.

Cases like this, in which landowners are either coerced into a contract or don't understand what they are signing, are beginning to worry indigenous rights activists.

"You are talking about land that is the basis for the existence and survival of cultures – of entire social-culture dynamics that define a people," says Anaya. "You are talking about the cultural survival of these people."

Elsewhere, it's not clear what effect the wind boom is having on civil rights. China has doubled production capacity in each of the past five years. It has a history of driving people from land for hydropower, but wind experts say China's grip on information makes it hard to know if the same goes for wind projects.

Asked about the conflicts cited here, Shukla says her industry organization is unaware of any wind development projects that have caused poor landowners any strife.

As the wind boom continues, indigenous ownership is a key issue.

Taking wind into their own hands

In the Great Plains of the United States, many native American communities have joined a movement to direct all development on their lands.

"The tribes were no longer satisfied with business as usual ... other people coming in, building some economic development project, owning it, taking the profits out, and leaving the tribe with it at the end of its life," says Robert Gough, a consultant with the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, which represents 10 Great Plains tribes.

Many tribal communities there say they pay high electricity costs or have no electricity at all. So the council decided no wind farms will be built on tribal land unless the tribe has controlling interest.

Mr. Gough says the tribes have struggled to find partners because of these demands and because federal investment incentives are designed for businesses, not municipalities or reservations.

But communal bargaining is catching on. In southern Wyoming, 2,000 owners have pooled 2 million acres in "wind associations."

Many countries are trying to start domestic wind industries. For example, 15 years ago, foreigners built China's turbines; now Chinese corporations do it.

"At the end of the day, developing countries are energy deficient. And they do need power," says Shukla. "You want to be able to give them energy that is cleaner than what we have been providing across the world."

© The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved

Green economy and growth: Fiddling while Rome burns?

2012-01-26T00:45:00.001+07:00

“Fiddling while Rome burns” may seem a stale analogy, but when talking of “green growth” and “green economy” (GGE, for short), it is appropriate. Despite assertions to the contrary, the only thing innovative about the GGE concepts is the buzz that surrounds them

by Manu V. Mathai | OurWorld 2.0 | January 25, 2012

Getting excited about them when they are hardly new or creative notions blithely ignores their critical limitations for dealing with the social and ecological challenges facing us today.

The modern environmental movement emerged in the 1960s as a reaction to two centuries of industrial growth that produced everything in varied and vast quantities — including pollution. As political scientist Albert Weale has helpfully discussed, the initial policy strategy to emerge from this disquiet was confrontational. Governments sought to regulate corporations whose effluents despoiled nature and human health. Regulations were designed to mandate certain practices and penalize pollution in an attempt to change business behaviour. The confrontational arrangement of the 1970s was obviously problematic, inefficient and even ineffective.

The alternative was to frame environment and economic growth as mutually supportive partners. Indeed, “Our Common Future” (the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Report) of 1987 observed, somewhat inexplicably, that “poverty reduces people’s capacity to use the environment in a sustainable manner; it intensifies pressure on the environment” and therefore suggested that rapid economic expansion is essential for a healthy environment. In the same breath, though, the report also recognized that there are “ultimate [biophysical] limits” and pinned its hopes of resolving this contradiction and realizing sustainability in the world on “ensuring equitable access to resources and reorienting technological efforts to relieve the pressure” long before these limits are reached.

The practical implementation of this prescription relied on realizing greater efficiencies and technological sophistication, and the appropriation of nature under expert management and market-based allocation. The report was less explicit — and subsequent policy even more so — on exactly how to enable “equitable access to resources” in practice.

The sustainable development agenda has been around for more than two decades. However, apart from some successes at cleaning up air and water, largely at the local level in affluent societies, its accomplishments in bringing about an arrangement of nature–society relations that is on the whole equitable and sustainable still appears limited. The basic problem is that the implementation of sustainable development unevenly emphasizes economic growth, and equity is seen as a managed outcome of applying modern science and technology to expand the economic pie and its subsequent allocation through free markets.

This approach has been unable to engage equity as a politically negotiated arrangement of fair social relationships. It should be evident to a casual observer today that while this strategy has succeeded in growing the economic pie, it has failed in arriving at a fair allocation of affluence and it effluents.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the recent attention to “green growth” and “green economy”. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) describes GGE as an economic arrangement that “enhances growth, social progress and environmental stewardship”. It recognizes biophysical limits and notes that the “objective of the green economy is to ensure that those limits are not crossed”. It proposes a “Great Green Technological Revolution” to make technologies “more efficient in the use of energy and other resources and minimize the generation of harmful pollutants”.

In a similar vein, UNEP’s Toward a Green Economy observes that GGE is an arrangement where “growth in income and employment should be driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services”. Reviewing these foundational assumptions of GGE, one must ask: What has changed in over two decades?

These ideas were innovative in 1987 when“ Our Common Future” was released. But to talk of them in 2011 as new solutions for persistent, unresolved problems is, to put it generously, unhelpful. They are good strategies, and policy must continue to emphasize them and expand their applicability. However, efficiency is a necessary but insufficient condition today, when the imperative is to find sufficiency in a finite and deeply inequitable world.

The scope of this challenge is unprecedented. The recent “great recession” revealed our inability to arrange an acceptable society without constant economic growth. Prevailing against this challenge requires a wellspring of imagination and creativity. Focusing on more efficient growth without situating questions of ecological limits, equity and distribution into the foundations of these discussions is rather futile.

Science and technology for sustainable societies

Ideally, the puzzle that GGE should help solve is how sufficiency can be approached practically, creatively and institutionally. Toward that end, some reflection on the dynamic interrelationships between technology and society is helpful.

Developing countries, especially low-income ones, with relatively low rates of electricity usage, may be able to “leapfrog” into electricity generation based on renewable forms of primary energy, for instance. As this assertion from UNDESA illustrates, the GGE discourse holds that developing countries and transition economies can advance directly to a green economy. The problem with the assertion of “leapfrogging”, however, is it fails to recognize that putting in place more efficient technology does not necessarily bring about the goals of equity and sustainability. This is because technology implicitly embodies normative positions and engenders patterns for mediating the interaction between nature and society.

Modern human’s encounter with fossilized energy illustrates this attribute of technology and the unprecedented social, political and economic dynamics that ensued. Long ago, Lewis Mumford eloquently reported on this sudden encounter that put “mankind in a fever of exploitation”, so much so that the logic of mining pervaded the “economic and social organism” and became the norm for subsidiary economic and industrial organization. This logic of “disorderly exploitation and wasteful expenditure” acquired a life of its own and continued to propagate quite independently of whether or not the initial mine of energy was depleted.

Two attributes of the relationship between technology and society must be highlighted here. First is their reciprocal influences, wherein a portfolio of technical capabilities and an accompanying economic logic lit that “fever of exploitation” and subsequently the “animus of mining affected the entire economic and social organism.”

The second attribute is the phenomenon characterized as “technological momentum” by Thomas Hughes (1994), wherein “disorderly exploitation and wasteful expenditure remained, whether or not the source of energy itself disappeared”. Whether we consider a specific instance such as breaking the addiction to oil, or the considerable difficulties of figuring out a steady-state economic arrangement, the momentum of past choices is evident.

In this context, the common duality of technology as socially “neutral” (its impacts are largely accidental and, therefore, society only needs to focus on fiddling with it so as to avoid or mitigate its unwanted consequences), or of society as being “technologically determined” (its social impacts are inherent to its design) are half-truths that reduce it to a spectator sport controlled by the key players in the field. Yet, the evolution of technology choices ought to be anything but a spectator sport.

In certain forms, technology holds the potential to be liberating and emancipatory and is at par with, or even more influential than, politics and legislation in shaping society. Thus, it is imperative for society to have at least a comparable (if not greater) influence on its evolution and form.

As Andrew Feenberg eloquently offered in 1991, “the design of technology is thus an ontological decision fraught with political consequences. The exclusion of the vast majority from participation in this decision is the underlying cause of many of our problems”. He further notes that “technology is not a thing in the ordinary sense of the term, but an ambivalent process of development suspended between different possibilities. It is a social battlefield … a parliament of things on which civilizational alternatives are debated and decided”.

Thus, fundamentally, what appears to be lacking is the ability for society to influence the evolution of technology and to impart to it values of sufficiency that are already visible in some conceptions and practices of human development and economic organization. The crucial need is for emerging green technology infrastructure to be able to embody these changes from the status quo. An attendant emergent requirement for green technology innovation, then, is that it be “democratic” as opposed to being “authoritarian” (after Lewis Mumford).

A democratic technological infrastructure

In addition to addressing the question of scale (discussed above), a democratic technological infrastructure is also crucial for pursuing equality. Democratic technologies are particularly helpful in distributing means to generate wealth, a theme that was central to Mahatma Gandhi’s critique of modern technology.

This vision was eloquently captured by the gifted polymath D. D. Kosambi in the context of debates over the choice of civilian nuclear power in India. In 1960, Kosambi reasoned that there were significant difficulties in centralized generation and subsequent supply of electricity to a population as vast and dispersed as that of the sub-continent. In this context, he noted that the solar energy brought with it the distinctive advantage of “decentralization”, not just from the technical point of view but for a political and economic perspective as well. He argued that solar power was particularly conducive to “dispersed small industry and local use…” and that “if you really mean to have socialism in any form, without the stifling effects of bureaucracy and heavy initial investment, there is no other source so efficient”.

Going forward, our great faith in technological fiddling must be balanced by the burning fact that an unconditionally expanding economy (efficiency notwithstanding) is no longer feasible, not least because of the biosphere’s energy and material limits and the inequality it presupposes. Thus, as countries seek material infrastructures to mediate nature-society relations, the focus must move so that designs being considered can internalize and engage valuations of sufficiency, and realize a realignment of control over production and consumption arrangements from capital to community.

A truly green economy, in short, must be a revolution of democracy and equality as manifest in the technology infrastructure that is shaped by society, and which, in turn, is shaped by it.

Fracking: Anatomy of a free market failure

2012-01-26T00:34:00.001+07:00

A recent New York Times article reported that rural landowners who had signed leases with gas and oil companies exchanging drilling rights on their property for royalty payments have discovered that they may have been misled

By Robin Hahnel | Real Climate Economics | January 12, 2012

Many are now experiencing buyers regret. A review of more than 111,000 leases, addenda and related documents by The New York Times revealed:

Fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins. And only about half the documents have language that lawyers suggest should be included to require payment for damages to livestock or crops.
Most leases grant gas companies broad rights to decide where they can cut down trees, store chemicals, build roads and drill. Companies are also permitted to operate generators and spotlights through the night near homes during drilling.
In the leases, drilling companies rarely describe to landowners the potential environmental and other risks that federal laws require them to disclose in filings to investors.
Most leases are for three or five years, but at least two-thirds of those reviewed by The Times allow extensions without additional approval from landowners. If landowners have second thoughts about drilling on their land or want to negotiate for more money, they may be out of luck.

If all this sounds reminiscent of ex post revelations about predatory lending in the housing market that contributed to our recent housing bubble and crash, it should. It is the classic tale of fast-talking salesmen working for well-heeled companies taking advantage of disadvantaged individuals who are less than fully informed about the options presented to them.

A follow-up article in The Times detailed the battle between town and state governments over who will, or will not police the exploding market in fracking leases. “As energy companies move to drill in densely populated areas from Pennsylvania to Texas, battles are breaking out over who will have the final say in managing the shale gas boom. The fight, which pits towns and cities against energy companies and states eager for growth, has raised a fundamental question about the role of local government: How much authority should communities have over the use of their land?” A second interesting question addressed in the article is what communities are opposing fracking and why? “Only a small minority of towns in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale area — about 80 of approximately 1,800 — had, or were developing regulations, and most of them were affluent.” The spectacle of only the wealthy proving capable of protecting themselves from predatory businesses is as old as capitalism itself.

A Living Experiment in Economic Decision Making

Social scientists often cite the handicap that we are not permitted to conduct experiments on humans as an excuse for why social science advances more slowly than the physical sciences. But fracking provides an interesting social experiment playing out right before our eyes. In Pennsylvania, gas and natural resource companies have been sufficiently powerful to prevent passage of a statewide ban on fracking; as a result 8000 permits have been issued and 4000 wells dug since 2008. Just across the Delaware River, New York State has issued a temporary ban on fracking in Marcellus Shale pending release of a study and new regulations by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.The issue has become so controversial that the NYSDEC report may now be delayed until 2013.

As a result, south of the Delaware River in Pennsylvania some private landowners are signing fracking leases with gas companies, some are refusing to do so, and where the latter outnumber the former, some towns have begun to pass their own local, anti-fracking laws putting them on a collision course with the state over who has the legal right to regulate. North of the Delaware River in New York there is no fracking, some residents are pleased that what they consider to be an environmental and health hazard has been prevented, while others are complaining that their freedom to contract however and with whomever they please has been stolen from them. We have a classic case of government regulation in one state vs. market freedom in another state. Which arrangement for making decisions is proving to be more democratic, more efficient, more fair, and last, but not least, more environmentally sustainable?

The Economics

Many cite economic theory to support claims of market efficiency. The fundamental theorem of welfare economics states that markets allocate scarce resources and distribute goods and services efficiently – but only under very restrictive conditions. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. As the market for fracking leases reveals, we neglect the necessary assumptions behind “fundamental theorems” at our peril. What any economist can tell you is that the efficient markets theorem is true only if: (1) All markets are in equilibrium. (2) All buyers and sellers have perfect knowledge. (3) All buyers and sellers behave rationally. (4) All markets are perfectly competitive. And last, but not least, (5) there are no “externalities” in any markets. The real world conditions that satisfy these conditions are the exception not the norm. Moreover, the first theorem of welfare economics says nothing about whether or not outcomes will be fair. Even if an outcome is “efficient”, it still may well be grossly unfair if efficiency gains are distributed inequitably.

Market Bubbles: Right now everybody knows that energy sources are key to our economic future, but nobody knows what sources will turn out to be the “winners” or “losers” in the short, medium, or long-run. Unless renewable sources dominate in the long-run, most knowledgeable observers believe we are in a lot of trouble. But what energy sources will dominate in the medium and short-run is very much up in the air. Again, scientists may tell us that unless renewables are playing a dominant role in the medium-run, and a much more important role in the short-run than they currently do, we are in more trouble than we should find comfortable. But betting odds on whether that will prove to be the case are much less certain than scientific opinion about what needs to happen.

What role does natural gas play in this scenario? To make a long story short: Oil has peaked, coal is plentiful but most likely to lead to cataclysmic climate change, and natural gas is cleaner than coal but a fossil fuel nonetheless. Which is what makes betting odds on the role natural gas will – as opposed to should play – in our energy future so difficult to predict. If wise political forces seize control over energy policy it will play a limited role, and only as a “bridge technology” as renewables replace all fossil fuels ASAP. If the fossil fuel industry continues to exert as much political power as it has over the past hundred years, natural gas may become the new “king” for many decades.

This is the stuff that market bubbles – and crashes – are built on. So, get ready for a roller coaster ride! The odds that we will see a great deal of volatility in the natural gas market are high. Economics tells us that market bubbles and crashes leave a great deal of economic inefficiency in their wake.

Perfect Knowledge: Perfect knowledge means actors know what all relevant prices are and will be, and correctly predict what the consequences of any choice they make will be for them. In light of the uncertainty explained above about what role natural gas will play in the short, medium, and long-run as a source of energy, clearly energy companies as well as landowners must operate with less than perfect knowledge about key prices. It is also surely the case that energy companies can predict more accurately what the consequences of drilling will be than landowners can. So we not only have imperfect knowledge about prices for both buyer and seller in the market for fracking leases, we have asymmetric knowledge about consequences of drilling as well. Economic theory predicts that imperfect knowledge creates inefficiency and asymmetric knowledge creates additional inefficiency along with inequity.

Rational Behavior: Many take economic theory to task for assuming actors will behave rationally – defined as behavior that best serves a decision maker’s own interests – when sometimes it is obvious they do not. I believe we can rely on large energy companies to more consistently behave in accord with their own self interest than small rural landowners always do. However, in this situation I suspect that when landowners fail to act “rationally” they do more good than harm! The most prevalent irrational behavior rural landowners are exhibiting in Pennsylvania is refusing to sign fracking leases out of solidarity with their neighbors who would be harmed, even though a lease would benefit them individually. Such individually irrational behavior promotes more, rather than less efficient outcomes by preventing leases with negative expected net socialbenefits from being signed – as explained below.

Market Power: Landowners in rural New York and Pennsylvania are often hard pressed to make a go of it as farmers, and alternative employment in the rural Northeast is hard to come by, particularly since the onset of the Great Recession. In Eastern Oregon where many farmers are also hard pressed, there are energy companies offering to pay royalties to farmers to allow them to erect wind turbines on their property. In both cases powerful corporations who will play a big role in tomorrow’s energy markets are negotiating via an army of smooth talking salesmen with landowners, many of whom are desperate for income and know far less about the true market value of what they are selling than energy companies do about the true market value of what they are buying. In both cases large corporations will more than likely get the better of many deals, which will generate inequities — like the buyer’s regret stories reported in the New York Times.

Both wind turbines and fracking operations disturb what we might call a landowner’s rural solitude to some extent, albeit in different ways. However, in the case of fracking the downside risks for landowners are greater since fracking can also pollute one’s own well water. Presumably, any negative personal consequences are what landowners weigh in the balance when negotiating and deciding whether or not to sign leases. So we would expect landowners to require somewhat greater compensation to allow fracking than wind turbines on their property. But if the knowledge and market power asymmetry is the same in Oregon and Pennsylvania one would expect roughly the same degree of inequity in the contracts negotiated in both cases.

The importance of knowledge and power asymmetries is illustrated by the fact that most of the communities in Pennsylvania attempting to ban fracking through local regulations are affluent. Affluent communities can afford the time and money to investigate the risks of fracking more thorougly to reduce knowledge asymmetry. Affluent communities are also not so desperate for additional income that they are willing to risk damaging their health and high property values.

Externalities: But far and away the most important reason the free market solution to fracking yields undesirable outcomes is because there are significant external costs unaccounted for in the market for fracking leases:

As a fossil fuel, natural gas contributes to global warming even if it is cleaner than burning coal. And if methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leaks from wells as new studies suggest, the effects on global warming may be even worse.
Fracking has also been associated with earthquakes.
The risk of contaminating well water is not confined to the land of the lease, but extends to neighbors’ wells and can potentially damage an entire aquifer. A major reason the NYSDEC report is delayed is concern over contaminating the water supply for New York City.

In contrast, when leases for wind turbines are signed in Oregon there are significant positive externalities associated with substituting a clean renewable source of energy for a dirty fossil fuel. So while there are positive externalities associated with erecting wind turbines there are multiple negative externalities associated with fracking, and consequently when all the external effects are taken into account wind turbines yield more social benefits than the market signals, whereas fracking yields less social benefits than the market would lead us to believe. Therefore, economic theory predicts that when we leave the decision about fracking to individual negotiations between energy companies and landowners many deals will be struck with expected negative net social benefits. (Economic theory also predicts that absent any subsidy, when we leave the decision about leasing wind turbines to individual negotiations between energy companies and landowners, many deals will fail to be struck even though they have expected positive net social benefits.)

If economic theory predicts that because of asymmetries in information and market power the free market solution to fracking will lead to inequitable outcomes; if economic theory predicts that because of multiple externalities the free market solution to fracking will lead to inefficient and possibly dangerous outcomes; if economic theory predicts that numerous external parties with significant interests at stake will be disenfranchised by the free market solution to fracking, what are we to do instead? Common sense would suggest we should proceed as New York State has thus far.

Common Sense Solutions

(1) Undertake more research to investigate how great the negative consequences from fracking may be, how high the probability of damage is, and place the burden of proof on those who argue that dangers are minimal. In other words, apply the precautionary principle. This is a situation where there is no need to rush. The gas trapped in the shale is not like a crop that could rot in its silo, but will only become more valuable with time.

(2) Only if it turns out that the dangers are minimal and the benefits of natural gas as a transition fuel are substantial, should the technology known as fracking be allowed. Otherwise – as is quite likely the case – fracking technology should remain banned just as we ban other technologies where the risk to the public interest is simply too great.

(3) If, after careful research and testing the state determines that fracking should be permitted, it should be strictly regulated by government to ensure that it is done safely. The safety of fracking operations should be guaranteed by the state, not left to be negotiated by energy companies and individual landowners since landowner ignorance about possible consequences is too great, and many more than the landowner will be affected if something goes wrong. And of course, to avoid moral hazard energy companies should be held fully liable for any and all damages due to unforeseen events.

(4) If fracking is permitted standard leases should be negotiated between the state government and energy companies specifying that most of the royalties go to the state treasury, with only enough to compensate for inconvenience going to individual landowners and affected communities. This is the only lease individual landowners should be free to sign or not sign. Moreover, if local communities wish to pass ordinances banning such contracts they should be free to do so.

In the case of fracking the resource we are talking about possibly exploiting — if and only if we are sure it can be done safely — is gas trapped in shale rock deep under tens of thousands of square miles of land owned by hundreds of thousands of landowners. Hydaulic fracking on a piece of property is drilling into this vast shale formation to insert pressurized water and chemicals to break open pockets of trapped gas for capture. Increasingly “horizontal drilling” extends past property lines, and even when drilling is “vertical,” much of the gas captured is gas released from an area extending far beyond the property lines of the lease. Moreover, the amount most owners paid for their property does not reflect its potential value as a fracking site because this possibility was not widely foreseen when the land was purchased. An unforeseen technology has generated a large potential windfall gain for any who happen to own land through which a hole can be punctured. There is no reason the public at large should not seize this windfall. Capturing this windfall for the citizens of the state is not unfair to property owners and generates no perverse incentives. One could even make a good case that the bulk of the royalties should go to the national rather than state treasuries, but we can leave that to be debated later.

In conclusion, New York State, which has chosen to ban a dangerous new technology with very large potential risks to the environment and human health until such time as it is proved safe beyond reasonable doubt, is pursuing a much more equitable, efficient, and environmentally sustainable course than is Pennsylvania, which is allowing fracking to proceed under free market conditions that a careful reading of economic theory predicts will lead to unfair, inefficient, and quite likely dangerous outcomes that are irreversible.

Robin Hahnel is Professor Emeritus at American University and Visiting Professor of Economics at Portland State University.

New video: “A Darker Shade of Green: REDD Alert and the Future of Forests”

2012-01-26T00:26:00.000+07:00

A new video by the Global Forest Coalition and the Global Justice Ecology Project is deeply critical of REDD. Much of the criticism focusses on carbon trading, but through interviews with communities in Chiapas, Mexico, the video illustrates the perverse impacts that REDD can have on the ground

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 25th January 2012

A Darker Shade of Green: REDD Alert and the Future of Forests

The video starts with a description of the impacts of climate change. “We call it the climate crisis,” says the narrator. “And we understand its primary cause,” she says over a shot of a chimney’s emissions silhouetted by the sun. REDD is a false solution, because it does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

The introduction to the video questions the whole idea of REDD, arguing that “REDD appears to be more about making money than about protecting forests or saving the climate.” To illustrate this point, the video includes a clip from Pavan Sukhdev former head of Head of UNEP’s Green Economy Initiative speaking on a UN video, “REDD as part of the solution”:

“We should have the developed world allocate significant funds in this direction because it is to the benefit of their future economies as well as to the benefit of the local communities and economies of the developing world. In fact studies have been done which estimate that the value of ecosystem goods and services from the hundred thousand odd protected areas on earth are somethign of the order of four and a half to five trillion dollars per annum. That’s four and a half to five million, million dollars per annum. That’s a huge amount of the economy.”

The video moves to drumming protesters in Cancún, with banners reading “No REDD” behind them. Alberto Saldamando of the International Indian Treaty Council explains that,

“REDD is a programme, is supposed to create this gigantic market for carbon sequestration in trees. But who owns the trees? What are they buying when they buy the carbon in the trees? Are they going to restrict indigenous life ways? Are they going to restrict subsistence? It turns out that yes, that’s part of the plan.”

Much of the video focusses on the REDD agreement signed in 2010 between the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the governors of Chiapas, Mexico and Acre, Brazil. With video footage and interviews from each of the three states, it illustrates how REDD has impacts on local communities livelihoods (particularly in Chiapas) and through the offset mechanism on local communities living near polluting industry in California.

The strongest part of the video is the footage from Chiapas. “The governor plans to put the entire surface of the state of Chiapas into the carbon market,” says the narrator. Under this programme, the governor plans to evict so-called illegal settlers from the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve. The video features several interviews with villagers in Amador Hernádez, Chiapas. The interviews demonstrate the strong feelings against REDD and put the carbon market proposals clearly in the context of a complex, ongoing struggle between indigenous communities and the state:

Abelardo: “Our grandparents suffered for many years, ever since they were on the plantations, but after a while they couldn’t tolerate the exploitation there, so they had to decide to look for a place. So they came to this community. They had to suffer many illnesses, and a lot of injustice from the government. And we’re still living this way. The government doesn’t support us. They treat us as if we’re not human beings, as if we’re not part of Mexico. The government doesn’t give us the things that the people really need. Instead, they give us projects that don’t give life, but that bring death. They are projects that want us to plant oil palm and all of this, to reforest, to plant trees that we don’t even recognize. This doesn’t serve us, we don’t need it.”

Francisco: “They see our Mother Earth as a business, and for us you should never see it like that, it’s our Mother, she can’t be sold. Now they’re developing this REDD Project that’s about carbon capture, it doesn’t serve us. We struggle simply to feed ourselves.”

Santiago: “They have always blamed us as destroyers. They have always looked for ways to speak badly about us. Now it’s not only the government that is thinking about this, these are international plans. Our grandparents struggled for many years, and they’ve always resisted and they’ve always continued living here. As our grandparents always said, there is nothing else, this land is our home, and without our home we can’t live.”

The video moves on to the Amazon and the state of Acre in Brazil. “REDD is not being discussed with the indigenous movement,” says Jose Luis Kassupá, First Secretary of the Indigenous Movement of Rhodonia. “They are not informing the village about the intention of REDD. This project comes imposed from above to below.”

Osmarino Rodriguez, President of the Rubber Tappers Union, says,

“Here in our region, we are receiving a new mechanism, called REDD, which is yet another way of putting the environment into the market. . . . Whoever is promoting REDD today, is proposing the privatisation of the natural world, is proposing the privatisation of water, forests, wood, is promoting the merchandising of nature.”

The video returns to California, to look at the impact of the polluting industries that are hoping to benefit from cheap REDD offsets. Alegria de la Cruz, an attorney at the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment explains why she opposes offsets:

“California is one of the richest places in the world. And at the same time, communities that live near sources of pollution are overburdened by those costs. Those costs come out in their health and their enjoyment of the places where they live, work, play and pray. . . . Carbon offsets recreate the injustices that happen on a local level for communities that are overburdened by pollution and puts those, and externalises those costs that are similarly vulnerable outside of California.”

Dr. Henry Clark, of the West County Toxics Coalition, Richmond California adds that,

“From an environmental justice community perpective, we want polluting companies like Chevron here and others in our community to not to produce the pollution in the first place and reduce it.”

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

The scientist: Jim Hansen risks handcuffs to make his research clear

2012-01-26T00:21:00.001+07:00

NASA's chief climate scientist built his career studying Earth's atmosphere and modeling humans' potential impacts on climate. Then he realized that laboratory work was only part of the equation

Interview conducted and condensed by Douglas Fischer | DailyClimate.org | Jan. 24, 2012

James E. Hansen never thought his decision to study atmospheric models would lead to his arrest. But there he was in handcuffs last summer, protesting at the White House against a pipeline that would carry crude oil from Alberta's oil sands to the Gulf of Mexico.

It wasn't the first arrest, either. Hansen, who has directed NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 31 years, earned the sobriquet "father of global warming" after testifying before Congress in 1988 on the dangers of global warming. He appeared again in 1989. Then he quietly returned to his work, turning aside television and media requests for the next 15 years because, as he said, "you have no time to do the science if you're talking to the media."

That approach changed in 2004, when he realized government climate policies worldwide failed to reflect the dangerous story his science was telling. Emerging from his lab, Hansen attacked Bush Administration officials for censuring and watering down climate findings. In 2008 he testified in British court on behalf of the "Kingsnorth Six," a group of Greenpeace activists who successfully claimed their effort to shut down a power plant was justified under British law because it prevented the greater harm of climate change. In 2009 and 2010, Hansen was arrested protesting mountaintop-removal coal mining.

DailyClimate.org editor Douglas Fischer caught up with Hansen in December at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, where the scientist previewed findings about impacts the world courts with its unslacked appetite for carbon-based fuels.

Do you fear you have lost some of your scientific credibility by protesting at the coal plants or by becoming more of a voice in the climate debate?

If I was not publishing papers in the peer reviewed literature, then that would be a valid criticism. But I am still publishing. I'm trying to make that science clear to the public. It's not easy: The scientific evidence has really become very clear, and we're not doing a very good job of communicating that.

Climate policy has become less a scientific question and more a cultural marker. How can science influence those values and attitudes?

We need to make clear to the public what's really going on. If they just listen to politicians, they don't understand the story because nothing is being done.

Do reporters ever say, "Look, I can't touch you as a source because you're involved in 350.org or the coal plants or these protests"?

The fossil fuel industry and those who prefer business as usual – they will use that. But look at my coauthors. I've got some of the best scientists in the world.

Let's flip the question: Do scientists ever say, "Jim, I wish I could get out there the way you are, but I'm afraid, I don't have the support"?

There are consequences of becoming a target. Look at the people who have been the principal targets: Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ben Santer. Their science has been confirmed. And yet (the attacks) took a toll on them. Of course that's going to cause other scientists not to step out.

Failure to develop a climate policy isn't a fault of just one party or one person.

That's right, and that's not understood. If you say, "Democrats are the ones who favor doing something," look at the records of the last several administrations: Emissions increased fastest during the Clinton/Gore administration. And (Democrats) proposed a policy that is not going to do anything significant. It's designed by big banks and it favors big oil and big coal and big utilities.

You've never liked a "cap-and-trade" approach.

The only way you can solve the problem is with a simple, honest price on carbon. There's no reason to bring banks into this.

Where's the clear climate message?

Obama could've done it if he had started out when he had 70 percent approval and if he followed a policy like Franklin Roosevelt and had fireside chats. It's not that difficult. It can be explained.

How long can emissions increase before we risk serious impacts?

We really should be aiming to keep CO2 no higher than about 350 parts per million and possibly somewhat less than that if we want to maintain stable ice sheets and stable shore lines and avoid many other issues. That would require starting today. We'd have to reduce CO2 emissions at six percent a year if we began next year. If we began five years ago, it would've been three percent. If we wait until 2020, it becomes 15 percent.

So if we're hoping to maintain a planet that looks like the one that humanity has known, we're out of time right now.

Editor's note: Climate Query is a semi-weekly feature offered by Daily Climate, presenting short Q&A's with players large and small in the climate arena. Read others in the series here.

This work by The Daily Climate is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Only Civil Society Can Save Rio+20, Say Activists

2012-01-26T00:11:00.001+07:00

Large-scale social mobilisation, including street protests and parallel activities, is the only thing can save the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) from ending in nothing but frustration, according to activists and analysts

By Mario Osava* | Inter-Press Service | Jan 24, 2012

Environmental activists from around the world will be gathering in Porto Alegre this month. Credit:Clarinha Glock/IPS

A repeat of the failure of recent conferences to negotiate an international climate change pact seems inevitable, said Cândido Grzybowski, the director general of the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analysis (IBASE) and one of the founders of the World Social Forum, the largest global civil society gathering.

Grzybowski based his pessimistic outlook on a number of factors. Chief among them is the economic/financial crisis in the wealthy nations, combined with the fact that this a year of elections in many of them, including France and the United States, moving international commitments to the bottom of their leaders’ agendas. He also blamed what he calls the limited convening power of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, particularly when it comes to environmental issues.

Only strong pressure from civil society as a "unified voice" at parallel events to Rio+20 can potentially force clearer commitments out of the world’s governments to tackle global imbalances, beginning with "financial hegemony", Grzybowski told Tierramérica.

The Thematic Social Forum taking place Jan. 24-29 in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre will bring together representatives of social movements and organisations from around the world to prepare for their participation in the UN summit to be held Jun. 20-22 in Rio de Janeiro.

The meeting in Porto Alegre is one of the many local forums or gatherings addressing a specific theme that are linked to the World Social Forum (WSF) and take place in even-numbered years. The WSF itself is now held every two years.

However, according to Eduardo Viola, a professor at the University of Brasilia who studies the consequences of climate change on international relations, the WSF movement has lost strength and will be unable to attract the numbers needed for a march that could make Rio+20 more than a "mega-meeting" devoted exclusively to declarations and have a "major impact on Brazil" in terms of environmental awareness.

Bringing together "a million demonstrators on the streets" is a "rather unlikely but not impossible" feat that could revive the impact of the original 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which first brought environmental issues to the attention of the Brazilian public in a major way, Viola commented to Tierramérica.

He sees little chance of the Rio summit making a significant impact internationally, however. It will be a largely "reiterative" conference with "diffuse" objectives, at a time of "enormous international impasses," he said.

But civil society actions must not be limited to Rio de Janeiro, say activists. The Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and Development (FBOMS) is planning to promote demonstrations in many other cities around the world, with the aid of the internet and social networks.

"Rio has global significance," and a great deal of successful experience has been accumulated in the organisation of large mobilisations through social networks, stressed FBOMS activist Ruben Born.

The Thematic Social Forum in Porto Alegre will help to coordinate these initiatives, with the participation of representatives of civil society movements like the Indignados (Indignant) movement in Spain and the Occupy movement in the United States, Born told Tierramérica.

Civil society attendance at Rio+20 is to be facilitated by the Brazilian government, which is reportedly interested in promoting strong "popular" participation at least, given the likely absence of heads of state and government at the conference’s official activities.

The People’s Summit, a parallel event to Rio+20 being held Jun. 15- 23, will bring together three times the number of participants in the intergovernmental conference, according to observers. Its slogan, like that of the Thematic Social Forum this month, is "Social and Environmental Justice".

"To propose a new way of life, in solidarity, against the commodification of nature and in defense of the commons" is the objective of the summit, according to the Brazilian Civil Society Facilitating Committee for Rio+20, which is organizing this major international event.

The People’s Summit aims to build a Permanent People’s Assembly with the goal of "reinventing the world" through the convergence of the different struggles against capitalism, class divisions, racism, patriarchy and homophobia. It is highly critical of the agenda of the official conference, which focuses on the so-called green economy and a global institutional framework.

But these views do not enjoy a consensus of support from civil society. Born, who is also the founder of Vitae Civilis, a non- governmental group active in climate-related issues, highlighted the ideological discrepancies with those who consider environmental initiatives that do not begin with the overthrow of capitalism to be "false solutions".

Grzybowski stressed the divergence of focus between those who place priority on environmental or social justice, categorising his organisation, IBASE, among the latter.

Chico Whitaker, another World Social Forum founder and radical defender of its egalitarian and participatory principles, was critical of the name chosen for the parallel event: "People’s Summit" maintains a traditional hierarchical vision as opposed to the horizontal structure defended by the WSF from its very inception, he said.

But all of them concur in their rejection of the current world order, described as the "large-scale production industrial model" by Whitaker, as capitalism by the members of the Civil Society Facilitating Committee, and as financial hegemony by Grzybowski, who also attacked such current world "disorders" as transporting millions of tons of Brazilian iron ore to Asia and then bringing it back in the form of steel.

And they are all critical of the official Rio+20 conference itself and the recently released "zero draft" meant to serve as a starting point for a final declaration, because they believe it evades the real challenges.

The whole format of big United Nations summits is no longer viable, said Viola. It is impossible for over 190 countries with "different perceptions of vulnerability" and divergent interests to reach a consensus on climate issues, he explained.

In the meantime, indigenous activists plan to express their cultural and ethnic identity at Rio+20 by calling on their counterparts around the world to participate in the Carioca Village to be set up in Rio de Janeiro.

Around 350 indigenous representatives from different regions of Brazil and 700 from abroad will gather in four "ocas" (traditional houses), one of which will be used for plenary meetings, while another will be equipped for videoconferencing with indigenous peoples in other countries and continents, Marcos Terena told Tierramérica. Terena is one of the organisers of indigenous participation at Rio+20, reprising a role he played 20 years ago at the Earth Summit.

*The writer is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.

In Famatina, Water Is Worth Far More Than Gold

2012-01-26T00:05:00.000+07:00

Thousands of people in the northwest Argentine province of La Rioja are mobilising to stop an open-cast gold mining project in the Nevados de Famatina, a snowy peak that is the semi-arid area's sole source of drinking water

By Marcela Valente | Inter-Press Service | Jan 24, 2012

La Rioja "is a dry province and we have just enough clean water to live on, but not to share with miners," one of the protesters, Héctor Artuso, a resident from the small town of Villa Pituil, in the Famatina area, told IPS.

Residents of Famatina and neighbouring Chilecito have set up a partial roadblock at Alto Carrizal, a stop located 4,000 metres above sea level on a gravel road leading up to the highest point of this mountain chain, Cerro General Belgrano (better known as Nevados de Famatina), which stands at 6,250 metres.

Still visible in Famatima as historical reminders of nineteenth- century mining activities is the abandoned mining site "La Mejicana", which includes a tramway system built by a British company in 1905 to transport gold and other metal extracted for export.

Back then mining was done in underground pits. Today, modern mining methods require large explosions, huge volumes of water, and the use of cyanide to extract the mineral, which is why local residents are protesting.

The activists maintain the Alto Carrizal roadblock day and night, but are selective in whose passage they block. Local residents and tourists are allowed through, while provincial authorities are stopped, along with anyone representing the Canadian company authorised by the Argentine government to mine the area.

Protesters are backed by a number of national and international environmental NGOs, including Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Greenpeace, and Los Verdes, which in recent days voiced their concern about the activists' safety, reporting threats and harassment. Political parties from the opposition and celebrities are also stepping forward to support the anti-mining campaign.

The conflict was sparked in October 2011, when local residents learned that the La Rioja state-owned mining and energy company Energía y Minerales Sociedad del Estado (EMSE) had signed an agreement with the Quebec-based Osisko Mining Corporation, to mine Nevados de Famatina.

The agreement was never made public, and the government failed to hold the public hearings and perform the environmental impact studies stipulated under the 2002 General Environmental Act. Even Famatina authorities were left out of the agreement.

Mayor Ismael Bordagaray, in fact, supports the demonstrations against the mining project. "I'm doing it basically because I have to stand by my community and this is what the majority of the community wants," he told IPS.

But the mayor said he was also concerned as a citizen. "I have the same fears and misgivings about the risks of pollution, indiscriminate use of water, and lack of controls that come with this kind of project," he said.

Bordagaray also said he had read the agreement, which he found very vague, and does not know why it has not been made available to the public. It was Osisko that gave him a copy, and not the provincial government, which is headed by Bordagaray' own political group, the Frente para la Victoria, the majority faction of the centre-left Justicialist Party of President Cristina Fernández.

La Rioja Governor Jorge Beder Herrera's position on mining has shifted since coming into office. During his 2011 campaign he had spoken against it, but after the election he announced the agreement signed with the mining corporation.

Now, despite overwhelming opposition, EMSE Director Héctor Durán Sabas declared that they will be going ahead with the project "because it's a state decision and a matter of public policy".

In Argentina, provinces have jurisdiction over their natural resources, and the national government's regulatory role is limited to setting basic guidelines on which each province then bases its own specific legislation.

Héctor Artuso explained why the local population opposes the project. "We're not environmental or anti-mining activists. We're just regular people who reject this foreign-led model of natural resource extraction, which uses cyanide and large volumes of water."

"Our community is fully aware (of what the project entails) because we've been through this before," he said, recalling how in 2006 the local population succeeded in stopping a similar project by another Canadian mining company, Barrick Gold Corporation, and later a Chinese venture.

Many people who are participating in the current demonstrations were also involved in the anti-mining rallies, marches and roadblocks that began in 2006, and the reasons are the same: the fear their water will be polluted.

However, there are also groups that have been won over by the mining companies and claim they support the project. "The worst problem is the social contamination these projects generate, because they create deep rifts in these small communities," Artuso said.

According to Artuso, while a great deal needs to be improved in terms of production in this part of La Rioja, the region has excellent vineyards and produces world-class wines for export, as well as "the country's finest nuts", and olives, peaches, apricots, plums, figs, and quinces.

"We also have enormous untapped potential for mountain tourism, which is an activity that is sustainable in the long-term, unlike mining, which will be here 10 or 20 years, contaminating, and then it will be gone," he said.

In addition to blocking the road and garnering support across the country - with marches and rallies held in eight other provinces and Buenos Aires - on Jan. 16, the protesters organised a large caravan from the city of Famatina to the site of the roadblock.

Some 6,400 people live in Famatina and Monday's demonstration attracted more than 4,000 people from the district and from Chilecito, which is also sourced by water from the glaciers and the mountain's eternal snows.

Carina Díaz Moreno, a teacher from Famatina who has two pending lawsuits against her for opposing the large mining projects in her province, spoke to IPS on the phone, as she came off the night shift at the Alto Carrizal roadblock.

"We take turns, and we're going to hold our ground until the government and the company drop this project," she said.
Díaz is one of the people singled out as a leading activist by the company, according to a list found by chance in a folder left behind by company officers and government officials after hastily leaving a meeting in a public building.

When a local resident started spreading the word that a meeting was underway, Father Omar Quintero, a Catholic priest who supports the protest, rang the church bells in the Famatina parish, attracting some 200 people who gathered spontaneously to voice their disapproval.

"We started chanting slogans like 'Hands off Famatina' and they had to wrap up the meeting quickly. In their rush to leave they forgot a folder, which is where we found the list," Díaz said.

The list contains the names and personal information of several activists, and next to each name is a phrase describing what the company claims they are after: "economic compensation", "fame" or "a government position".

Another activist, Jenny Luján, told IPS that "negotiating with them means settling for more or less contamination, more or less benefits for the community, and we're not interested in that."

"We know there's gold in Famatina, and rare earth and other minerals, but we've made our decision. We're not lifting the roadblock; they'll have to clear us out of Alto Carrizal by force," Luján said.

In Brazil, Fears of a Slide Back for Amazon Protection

2012-01-25T23:58:00.001+07:00

Brazil has made great strides in recent years in slowing Amazon deforestation and showing the world it was serious about protecting the mammoth rain forest

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times | January 24, 2012

Deforestation in Brazil, driven largely by clearing land for cattle, as in Mato Grosso, above, has lessened. But there has been a shift under President Dilma Rousseff. Damon Winter/The New York Times

The rate of deforestation fell by 80 percent over the past six years, as the government carved out about 150 million acres for conservation — an area roughly the size of France — and used police raids and other tactics to crack down on illegal deforesters, according to both environmentalists and the government. Brazil’s former environment minister, Marina Silva, became an internationally respected defender of the Amazon. She ran for president in 2010 on the Green Party ticket and won 19.4 percent of the votes.

But since Dilma Rousseff was elected president in late 2010, there have been signs of a shift in the government’s attitude toward the Amazon. A provisional measure now allows the president to decrease the lands already created for conservation. The government is granting more flexibility for large infrastructure projects during the environmental licensing process. And a proposal would give Brazil’s Congress veto power over the recognition of indigenous territories.

The government has used police raids, as in the state of Pará, above, to find illegal deforesters. Paulo Santos/Reuters

“What is happening in Brazil is the biggest backsliding that we could ever imagine with regards to environmental policies,” said Ms. Silva, who now devotes her time to environmental advocacy.

Now, a bill seeking to overhaul the 47-year-old Forest Code, a central piece of environmental legislation, is the most serious test yet of Ms. Rousseff’s stance on the environment.

The debate over the law has revealed the stark disconnect between a population that is increasingly supportive of conserving the Amazon and a Congress in which agricultural interests in the country’s rural north and northeast still hold sway. The furor comes as Brazil is set to hold a United Nations conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro in June.

Before taking office last January, Ms. Rousseff promised to veto any revision of the Forest Code that granted amnesty to landowners who had previously deforested illegally. Then her government negotiated a version of the code, approved by the Senate in December, that would give amnesty to farmers who broke the law before 2008 — provided they agreed to plant new trees. The House is expected to debate the legislation once again in March, with Ms. Rousseff holding final veto power.

The fight over the Forest Code has stoked the age-old struggle over development versus conservation in Brazil, a country that bears the weight of international pressure to protect the Amazon from deforestation because its sheer scale could affect global climatic conditions. Ms. Rousseff, a former energy minister, has so far flashed a more pro-development stance, environmentalists say, shifting the balance from the administration of her predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who appointed Ms. Silva.

Agriculture represents 22 percent of Brazil’s gross domestic product. The so-called ruralists in Congress say that the old code is holding back Brazil’s agricultural potential and that it needs updating to allow more land to be opened up to production. Environmentalists counter that there is already enough land available to double production and that the proposed changes would open the door to a surge in deforestation.

Last May, the House approved a more sweeping amnesty for those who had illegally deforested, outraging environmentalists and scientists. It did not help that the deputies refused to receive a group of respected Brazilian scientists that issued a report condemning the changes.

“In the House, there was very little consultation with scientists,” said Carlos Nobre, a scientist at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research who specializes in climate issues. Still, he said, scientists “waited too long to realize that the House wanted to radically change the Forest Code, creating a broad and unrestricted license to deforest.”

Ms. Silva, who was raised in the Amazon, resigned in 2008 after a backlash by rural governors to restrictions on illegal deforestation she had put in place. But she left what environmentalists consider an effective policy to control Amazon deforestation. Among other tactics, Mr. da Silva’s government used satellite images to home in on deforesters, organized police raids and blacklisted the worst offenders.

“The ruralists have pushed so much to change the Forest Code because the government actually started enforcing it under Marina Silva,” said Stephan Schwartzman, director for tropical forest policy at the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington.

The vote in the House showed how heavily represented the less developed north and northeast are in Brazil’s Congress, a relic of the military dictatorship.

“The skewed proportional representation in Brazil has shown that the environmentalists have much less power in Congress than they have in public opinion,” said Gilberto Câmara, director of the National Institute for Space Research, which monitors Amazon deforestation.

Days after the House vote last May, a poll by Datafolha showed that 85 percent of Brazilians believed the reformed code should prioritize forests and rivers, even if it came at the expense of agricultural production.

After weeks of debate, the bill the Senate approved in December was somewhat more palatable to environmentalists. Rather than outright amnesty for past illegal deforestation, the Senate version lets farmers replant to avoid fines. The legislation now goes back to the House.

“We have to reconcile the generation of income with sustainability,” Izabella Teixeira, the current environment minister, said after the vote.

For Marcos Jank, president of the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, a major reason to change the code is to legalize countless Amazon properties lacking land titles that have complicated the tracking of illegal activity. “When you have a Forest Code that legalizes land titles, then that has the effect of reducing deforestation, not increasing it,” he said.

The government claims the code will reforest about 60 million acres, much of it in the Amazon, which the Environment Ministry calls “the largest reforestation program in the world.” But who will pay for all those new trees? And will the government enforce the replanting requirements?

“The small producers don’t have the money to replant,” Mr. Jank said. “You need to develop programs to help them.”

There are also questions about the size of lands being exempted from the legal requirement to preserve 80 percent of the trees in Amazon properties. The new law would exempt “small” properties of up to four “fiscal modules,” which in the Amazon are almost 1,000 acres combined.

“That is a large property in any part of the world,” Mr. Nobre said. “I see great risk here if this definition is maintained.”

Despite the concerns, there is no denying that deforestation in Brazil, driven largely by clearing land for inefficient cattle grazing, has been on a downward trend. Beyond that, a new generation of satellites over the next two years will give Brazil access to images from seven satellites, up from the current two.

If people abide by the law — a big if — Mr. Câmara and other scientists are predicting that the Brazilian Amazon has a chance by 2020 to become a “carbon sink,” in which the amount of forest being replanted is larger than the amount being deforested.

“President Rousseff is extremely aware of this,” Mr. Câmara said. “When I told her, she almost fell off her chair.”

But to make that happen, “there has to be very strong government financing and support for people to recover the forest,” he said.

FAO/UNEP Asia-Pacific Forest Meeting Identifies Climate Change Adaptation Strategies

2012-01-25T09:39:00.001+07:00

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and RECOFTC - The Centre for People and Forests have released a policy brief resulting from a meeting on forests and climate change adaptation in Asia, held in October 2011

International Institute for Sustainable Development | 18 January 2012

The brief stresses that forest adaptation activities that assist migration should be eligible for carbon financing, and that the adaptive capacity of forest-dependent people can be improved by the allocation of forestland use rights, local-level capacity building and improving forest-based products' access to markets. It also underscores that national adaptation strategies should address adaptation within a broader framework of sustainable forest management (SFM) activities.

The brief highlights the impacts that climate change will have on the forest ecosystems of Asia. It also outlines key components of a forest-based climate change adaptation strategy for the region, which includes use of forest services and improved access for local communities, implementing SFM, and inter-sectoral planning. [Publication:Forests and Climate Change Adaptation in Asia]

Complications of Hacking the Planet

2012-01-25T09:33:00.000+07:00

As scientists, with some reluctance, begin to study the idea of “geoengineering” the planet to slow or halt global warming, they are finding that any such program would quite likely have a complex array of effects, not all of them to humanity’s benefit

Green Blog NY Times | January 23, 2012

Laborers in Suchate Garh, India, near the border with Pakistan, planting rice seedlings. European Pressphoto Agency

In a paper released on Sunday by the journal Nature Climate Change, four California researchers used computer analysis to test the idea of managing incoming sunlight and predicted what that would do to crop yields. As an example of the strategies that might be employed, some sunlight could be deflected away from the earth by using planes or rockets to scatter sulfur compounds into the upper atmosphere on a routine basis, mimicking the effect of big volcanic eruptions. It is a potential response to global warming so cheap that it fascinates even some groups that have tried to block action on reining in carbon dioxide emissions.

Fears have long been expressed, however, that while a strategy like this might slow the overall warming, it could wreak havoc on global food security by altering rainfall patterns and other aspects of climate. Particular concern centers on the effects that such a strategy might have on the Asian monsoon, the source of water for crops that feed billions of people. The monsoon is driven by heating over land from strong sunshine in the summertime.

The new work, led by Julia Pongrantz of the Carnegie Institution for Science, found the opposite of these longstanding fears: managing incoming sunlight would probably benefit crop yields over all. The reason is that the technique would limit some of the damaging climate changes that are expected to hurt yields, like excessive temperatures in the growing season, but would nonetheless allow plants to benefit from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The latter are rising, of course, because of fossil-fuel burning and are the main reason for global warming in the first place, but extra carbon dioxide does act as a kind of plant fertilizer.
The sunlight-limiting strategy would indeed weaken the Asian monsoon, the paper found, but not enough to offset the other benefits of the approach.

Despite their findings, the researchers suggested that much more work would be needed to understand the likely effects of a sunlight management strategy on agriculture. And they pointed out that the true consequences of such a program would be hard to foresee, producing regional winners and losers even if overall food output did increase. “The safest option to reduce the climate risks to global food security may be to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases,” they wrote.

(Aside from the paper itself, a news release is available here, and short videos with some of the authors can be viewed here and here.)

In contrast to that work, another recent paper found potentially severe problems with using geoengineering to limit the effects of sea-level rise.

The ocean is rising as the planet warms and land ice melts, and scientists expect that rise to accelerate in the future — perhaps to the point of becoming a global crisis, given that many of the world’s major cities are in low-lying coastal regions. So a complex set of questions revolves around whether a geoengineering approach could slow the rise.

The new paper, published online on Jan. 8 by the journal Nature Climate Change, was led by Peter J. Irvine at the University of Bristol in Britain, working with collaborators at Pennsylvania State University. They found that a sunlight-limiting strategy would pose a potentially major conflict between managing air temperatures and managing sea level.

That is because air temperatures are believed to respond quickly to changes like reduced sunlight, whereas sea level — involving the slow melting of land ice and the gradual absorption of heat by the ocean, causing it to expand — responds much more slowly. In the language of the paper, “surface air temperatures react faster than sea levels to changes in earth’s radiative balance.”

That means that to halt sea-level rise quickly, a program of managing sunlight would have to be so aggressive that it would produce a rapid cooling of the planet’s air temperature — perhaps too fast for organisms and agriculture to adjust well. Conversely, a sunlight management program designed to produce a gentler reduction in the air temperature might fail to halt sea-level rise.

The scientists doubt that any optimal strategy could be found that would benefit all of humanity. Instead, they foresee potential conflicts between countries that care most about sea level (think of the Netherlands, for instance) and those that care most about temperature changes (think of tropical countries where higher temperatures would be a severe risk for agriculture).

The bottom line of these studies is that even as they dive into research questions on geoengineering, scientists are perhaps inevitably coming to the conclusion that we would be better off limiting our emissions now rather than handing future generations a mess that may not be at all easy to clean up.

Featured video: music in Madagascar to protest illegal logging

2012-01-23T07:50:00.000+07:00

A new video highlights the plight of Madagascar's protected tropical forests, which are falling prey to illegal logging and foreign contractors. Featuring Razia Said, Malagasy singer and songwriter, the video shows concerts to raise awareness about illegal logging, especially near Maosala National Park

Jeremy Hance | mongabay.com | January 22, 2012

In February 2007, musician Razia Said returned to Madagascar to reconnect with the land she left as an eleven year-old child. For 6 weeks Razia and her band traveled around the island, and discovered the environmental damage taking place as the result of unfettered slash and burn agriculture, illegal logging and climate change

Said has recently founded the group Musicians Against Illegal Logging to support the Lacey Act, which prohibits the sale and importation of illegally logged wood in the U.S.

"Illegal logging for wood used in guitars and other instruments is helping to eat away at the irreplaceable forests of my country and the communities that depend on them. Why would musicians want to weaken laws that ensure the continued supply of our instruments?" Said stated in a recent press while protesting at the NAMM Show (the National Association of Music Merchants), which is lobbying for a law, known as the RELIEF Act (HR 3210), that would undercut essential provisions in the Lacey Act.

Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable

2012-01-23T07:42:00.001+07:00

7 signs the corporatocracy is losing its legitimacy ... and 7 populist tools to help shut it down

by Sarah van Gelder | YES! Magazine | Jan 20, 2012

A parody of corporate personhood in D.C.

You may remember that there was a time when apartheid in South Africa seemed unstoppable.

Sure, there were international boycotts of South African businesses, banks, and tourist attractions. There were heroic activists in South Africa, who were going to prison and even dying for freedom. But the conventional wisdom remained that these were principled gestures with little chance of upending the entrenched system of white rule.

“Be patient,” activists were told. “Don’t expect too much against powerful interests with a lot of money invested in the status quo.”

With hindsight, though, apartheid’s fall appears inevitable: the legitimacy of the system had already crumbled. It was harming too many for the benefit of too few. South Africa’s freedom fighters would not be silenced, and the global movement supporting them was likewise tenacious and principled.

In the same way, the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life. Some examples:

Powerful corporations socialize their risks and costs, but privatize profits. That means we, the 99 percent, pick up the tab for environmental clean ups, for helping workers who aren’t paid enough to afford food or health care, for bailouts when risky speculation goes wrong. Meanwhile, profits go straight into the pockets of top executives and others in the 1 percent.
The financial collapse threw millions of Americans into poverty. 25 million are unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work; four million have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Poverty increased 27 percent between 2006 and 2010. And students who graduated with student loans in 2010 had borrowed 5 percent more than the previous year’s graduating class—owing more than $25,000. Meanwhile, those who caused the collapse continue the same practices. And the unwillingness of the 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes means the the public services we rely on are fraying.
Scientists say that we are on the brink of runaway climate change; we only have a few years to make the needed investments in clean power and energy efficiency. This transition could be a huge job creator—on the order of the investments made during World War II, which got us out of the Depression. But fossil fuel industries don’t want to see their investment in dirty energy undermined by the switch to clean energy and conservation. So far, by paying millions to climate deniers, lobbyists, and political campaigns, they’ve succeeded in stymieing change.
Agribusiness get taxpayer subsidies for foods that make us sick; for farming practices that destroy rivers, soils, the climate, and the oceans; and for trade practices that cause hunger at home and abroad.
Through ALEC, the private prison industry crafts state laws that boost the numbers behind bars, lengthen sentences, and privatize prisons.
Big Pharma jacks up prices; insurance companies raise premiums and delivers fewer benefits; the burden of inflated care drags down the economy and bankrupts families. But only a very few politicians stand up to the health care industry's war chests and advocate for Canadian-style single-payer health care, which would go a long way toward solving the cost problem.
Corporations and wealthy executives fund an army of lobbyists and election campaigns, spreading untruths and self-serving policy prescriptions.

It’s not that we, the people, haven’t noticed all this.

In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans said too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations. In a poll by Time Magazine, 86 percent of Americans said Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

And 80 percent of Americans oppose Citizens United, the pro-corporate Supreme Court ruling that turns two years old today. Eighty percent—that’s among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

Some say corporations have such a strong grip on politicians and big media that it is impossible to challenge them, no matter how many of us there are.

But I believe we can do it. In the past few months, YES! Magazine has been researching ways that ordinary people can challenge corporate power (look for strategies in our spring issue, out in February). And we found that there are actually a lot of tools at our disposal:

Corporations were created by public law to provide a public benefit. If we the people no longer feel that a corporation is providing a benefit—or if we feel that it is operating in a lawless and destructive manner—we can revoke their charter. That’s what Free Speech for People has asked the attorney general of Delaware to do to Massey Energy, which has been one of the worst culprits in mountaintop removal and which has operated its mines in a lawless and negligent manner, resulting in 29 deaths at the Upper Big Branch Mine.
We can insist that, in exchange for use of our public airwaves, broadcasters provide free airtime to candidates for public office. If they don’t need to raise millions for media buys, they don’t need to be as beholden to the 1 percent.
We can get our governments to quit banking with Bank of America and Chase, and start our own state banks—14 states, including California and Washington, are considering such a move. And while we're at it, we can localize food, energy, and other aspects of our economy so local, independent businesses and cooperatives can thrive.
We can stand up to specific parts of the corporate agenda by engaging in the sort of direct action that halted the KXL Pipeline.
We can call for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, corporate personhood, and the ridiculous notion that money is the same thing as speech. So far, Los Angeles, New York City, and about 50 other towns and cities have done so far.
We can use mechanisms like clean elections, electoral transparency, citizen review of legislation, and recalls to keep corporate control of our democracy in check.
Finally, the reason I am most hopeful today: We can take a cue from Occupy Wall Street and continue to name the source of political corruption—something the political establishment and mainstream media have refused to do. We can occupy homes that are slated for foreclosure, as people have been doing all over the country. We can mic check places like Walmarts that intimidate and fire workers who want to unionize. We can set up tents in public places and in other ways join with the Occupy movement to take a stand for a world that works for the 100 percent—a world where we all benefit.

None of these actions will be easy. It will take time—potentially years of work—to make big change. But just as the legitimacy of apartheid crumbled well before the institutions of apartheid went down, the legitimacy of corporate rule is crumbling. So I’m convinced that, with you and me and all the others out there creating alternatives and taking a stand, we will see change.

Sarah van Gelder will deliver these comments at Seattle's rally on the second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling. Sarah is YES! Magazine's co-founder and executive editor, and editor of the new book: "This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement."

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Wind Power Without the Blades: Big Pics

2012-01-22T22:24:00.001+07:00

Noise from wind turbine blades, inadvertent bat and bird kills and even the way wind turbines look have made installing them anything but a breeze. New York design firm Atelier DNA has an alternative concept that ditches blades in favor of stalks. Resembling thin cattails, the Windstalks generate electricity when the wind sets them waving

By Alyssa Danigelis | January 22, 2012

The designers came up with the idea for the planned city Masdar, a 2.3-square-mile, automobile-free area being built outside of Abu Dhabi. Atelier DNA’s "Windstalk"project came in second in the Land Art Generator competition a contest sponsored by Madsar to identify the best work of art that generates renewable energy from a pool of international submissions.

The proposed design calls for 1,203 "“stalks," each 180-feet high with concrete bases that are between about 33- and 66-feet wide. The carbon-fiber stalks, reinforced with resin, are about a foot wide at the base tapering to about 2 inches at the top. Each stalk will contain alternating layers of electrodes and ceramic discs made from piezoelectric material, which generates a current when put under pressure. In the case of the stalks, the discs will compress as they sway in the wind, creating a charge.

“The idea came from trying to find kinetic models in nature that could be tapped to produce energy,” explained Atelier DNA founding partner Darío Núñez-Ameni.

In the proposal for Masdar, the Windstalk wind farm spans 280,000 square feet. Based on rough estimates, said Núñez-Ameni the output would be comparable to that of a conventional wind farm covering the same area.

“Our system is very efficient in that there is no friction loss associated with more mechanical systems such as conventional wind turbines,” he said.

Each base is slightly different, and is sloped so that rain will funnel into the areas between the concrete to help plants grow wild. These bases form a sort of public park space and serve a technological purpose. Each one contains a torque generator that converts the kinetic energy from the stalk into energy using shock absorber cylinders similar to the kind being developed by Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Levant Power .

Wind isn’t constant, though, so Núñez-Ameni says two large chambers below the whole site will work like a battery to store energy. The idea is based on existing hydroelectric pumped storage systems. Water in the upper chamber will flow through turbines to the lower chamber, releasing stored energy until the wind starts up again.

The top of each tall stalk has an LED lamp that glows when the wind is blowing -- more intensely during strong winds and not all when the air is still. The firm anticipates that the stalks will behave naturally, vibrating and fluttering in the air.

“Windstalk is completely silent, and the image associated with them is something we're already used to seeing in a field of wheat or reeds in a marsh. Our hope is that people living close to them will like to walk through the field -- especially at night -- under their own, private sky of swarming stars,” said Núñez-Ameni.

After completion, a Windstalk should be able to produce as much electricity as a single wind turbine, with the advantage that output could be increased with a denser array of stalks. Density is not possible with conventional turbines, which need to be spaced about three times the rotor's diameter in order to avoid air turbulence. But Windstalks work on chaos and turbulence so they can be installed much closer together, said Núñez-Ameni.

Núñez-Ameni also reports that the firm is currently working on taking the Windstalk idea underwater. Called Wavestalk, the whole system would be inverted to harness energy from the flow of ocean currents and waves. The firm’s long-term goal is to build a large system in the United States, either on land or in the water.

Why are convicted criminals driving the EU’s defence agenda?

2012-01-22T22:16:00.001+07:00

Spare a thought these icy days of January for the arms industry. Recession has had such a devastating effect on makers of tanks and warplanes that the European Defence Agency is holding a conference later this month to mull over what can be done

David Cronin | New Europe | JANUARY 21, 2012

According to the EDA, military spending has been “declining steadily” on this continent since 2005. Pause for a moment. Is that really something to be exercised about? There is little to celebrate about the economic downturn but lower expenditure on the tools of war and oppression might offer one reason to be cheerful.

Unfortunately, the EDA’s own data hints that the situation is not as dramatic as the words “declining steadily” imply. In 2006, the 26 countries belonging to the agency spent €201 billion on the military. That fell to €194bn in 2010.

Significantly, though, the figure for 2010 was the same as that for the previous year. You don’t need to be a mathematical whizz-kid to discern a pattern here: rather than declining steadily, expenditure appears to be levelling off. The EDA’s number-crunchers have calculated that at €520bn, the US spent 2.7 times more on the military than the agency’s participating states in 2010.

The suits and uniforms of Brussels seem to regard this imbalance as a bad thing. I, on the other hand, take solace in the fact that Europe isn’t aping that imperial Leviathan across the Atlantic as wholeheartedly as it could.

My solace is nonetheless slender. Over the Christmas break, I read Andrew Feinstein’s book The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade. It traces how the firms which pushed for the establishment of the EDA have become bywords for corruption. When the EDA was launched in 2004, the three giants of Europe’s weapons industry – Thales, EADS and BAE Systems – issued a joint statement predicting that the agency would play a “vital role” in stimulating greater investment in war (OK, I have resorted to paraphrasing).

Feinstein devotes several chapters of his 672-page tome to the shenanigans of BAE. In 2010, BAE was fined $400 million in the US, the largest ever penalty imposed on a British corporation. That followed BAE’s admission of guilt that it had written false letters to the American authorities ten years earlier. The authorities were investigating kickbacks that the company had paid while seeking deals in Saudi Arabia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Feinstein explains meticulously how BAE not only gave bribes, it was granted permission to do so by Britain’s powers-that-be. Back in 1977, Britain issued the 'Cooper Directive' – named after an official in its ministry of defence – which authorised the payment of secret commissions by British firms angling for government-togovernment contracts. The directive was a response to an official memo, stating that the Saudi royal family expected money under the table if they were to buy weapons from the West.

A one-time member of parliament for the African National Congress, Feinstein indicates that the human cost of arms sales can’t merely be totted up using casualty figures from the battlefield (where such figures exist). As a legislator, he took part in a probe over a major arms purchasing decision announced by the South African government in 1999. Feinstein calls BAE

“the villain in the piece”, citing estimates that $300m was paid in bribes and commissions to senior politicians, middlemen, civil servants and the ANC itself (Feinstein came under intense pressure from party colleagues not to cause them embarrassment but – pun intended – stuck by his guns).

By 2018, the total price tag for this deal could exceed $6bn. In the five years following the decision, 365,000 South Africans perished from AIDS; for every rand spent on keeping people with HIV alive, 6.75 rand went on buying weapons. Do you remember how Tony Blair
decided that eradicating African poverty should be the central theme of Britain’s presidencies of the EU and G8 in 2005? Blair doubled up as a “saviour” of Africa and a salesman for BAE during his term as prime minister.

One of his most disgusting acts was to persuade the president of Tanzania, one of the world’s poorest countries, to spend $40m on a radar system for military aircraft. BAE is not the only company on Feinstein’s radar screen (pun intended, once again). He highlights how Thales of France was ordered in 2010 to pay a fine of more than $800m to Taiwan after being convicted of inflating the price of frigates supplied as part of an arms deal struck in the early 1990s.

On paper, the European Union’s institutions and offices have a strong policy against fraud. Yet they remain happy to court arms companies, even when those firms are implicated in large-scale corruption. Thales recently gave a demonstration to Frontex, the EU border management agency, of a pilotless drone (or unmanned aerial vehicle) in a Greek military base. Named theFulmar, the plane in question is Spanish-owned but uses equipment designed by Thales. Intriguingly, it can be launched from a catapult, rather than a runway.

Frontex sees its role as keeping foreigners out of Europe and doesn’t appear perturbed by how the people in question are usually impoverished and in need of help. It comes as no surprise, then, that its racist endeavours are being aided by others who are far better known for corruption than compassion.

David Cronin is an Irish journalist and political activist living in Brussels. His book Europe’sAlliance With Israel: Aiding the Occupation is published by Pluto Press. He is a contributing editor with The Electronic Intifada, an online publication focused on Palestine

The future of food

2012-01-22T22:11:00.000+07:00

By 2050 there will be another 2.5 billion people on the planet. How to feed them? Science's answer: a diet of algae, insects and meat grown in a lab

John Vidal | The Observer | 22 January 2012

Seaweed harvesting in Bali. From seaweed to slime, algae is the future of food, says Professor Mark Edwards Photograph: Ed Wray/AP

How can we feed the 2.5 billion more people – an extra China and India – likely to be alive in 2050? The UN says we will have to nearly double ourfood production and governments say we should adopt new technologies and avoid waste, but however you cut it, there are already one billion chronically hungry people, there's little more virgin land to open up, climate change will only make farming harder to grow food in most places, the oceans are overfished, and much of the world faces growing water shortages.

Fifty years ago, when the world's population was around half what it is now, the answer to looming famines was "the green revolution" – a massive increase in the use of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilisers. It worked, but at a great ecological price. We grow nearly twice as much food as we did just a generation ago, but we use three times as much water from rivers and underground supplies.

Food, farm and water technologists will have to find new ways to grow more crops in places that until now were hard or impossible to farm. It may need a total rethink over how we use land and water. So enter a new generation of radical farmers, novel foods and bright ideas.

Algae

How do you free up huge amounts of farmland to grow more food for humans? Easy – switch to commercial algae farms. Algae are simple, single-cell organisms that can grow very rapidly at sea, in polluted water and in places that would normally kill food crops. Major airlines and shipping companies are now investigating a switch to algae oil, and smart clean tech money is pouring in to the nascent technology.

The prize is huge: scientists say that under optimum conditions, commercial algae farms can produce 5,000-10,000 gallons of oil per acre, compared to just 350 gallons of ethanol biofuel per acre grown with crops like maize. In addition, algae could feed millions of animals and act as a fertiliser. Replacing all US ethanol (biofuel) production with algae oil would need around 2m acres of desert, but, says Arizona State university professor Mark Edwards, it would potentially allow 40m acres of cropland to be planted with human food, and save billions of gallons of irrigation water a year.

Algae are at the bottom of the food chain but they are already eaten widely in Japan and China in the form of seaweeds, and are used as fertilisers, soil conditioners and animal feed. "They range from giant seaweeds and kelps to microscopic slimes, they are capable of fixing CO₂ in the atmosphere and providing fats, oils and sugars. They are eaten by everything from the tiniest shrimp to the great blue whales. They are the base of all life and must be the future," says Edwards.

Artificial meat

It looks like meat, feels like meat and it is meat, although it's never been near a living, breathing animal. Instead, artificial or "cultured" meat is grown from stem cells in giant vats.

Scientists say the hunt for meat substitutes is critical because western eating habits are now spreading to China and other rapidly emerging economies, putting intense pressure on governments and farmers to fell more forests and open up new farmland. Cattle now occupy nearly one quarter of all cultivable land, and growing crops for animal feed takes up another 25%. In the US, nearly 70% of the grain and cereals grown are now fed to farmed animals.

Much of the research into artificial meat is being done in Europe with scientists in Holland and Britain developing edible tissue grown from stem cells in laboratories. But while the first artificial hamburger could be developed next year, it might taste of nothing at all. Meat needs blood and fat to give it colour and taste, and while stem cells for blood and fat have been identified, this is slow, complex and expensive work.

Nevertheless, studies show that artificial meat wins hands down in the environmental stakes, using far less water, energy and land. In addition, few ethical objections have been raised, largely because mass production of animals in factory farms and use of growth hormones and antibiotics is already considered questionable.

New crops

Few people have heard of Zhikang Li, but history may judge the Chinese plant breeder to be one of the most important people of the century. Last year, after 12 years' work with the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, he and his team developed "green super rice", a series of rice varieties which produce more grain but which have proved more resistant to droughts, floods, salty water, insects and disease .

Zhikang Li achieved this without GM technology, working instead with hundreds of researchers and farmers in 16 countries and using only conventional plant breeding techniques to cross-breed more than 250 rice varieties.

Green super rice, which could increase yields in Asia enough to feed an extra 100 million people, will be rolled out in the coming years. But better plant breeding – with or without GM – will be key to increasing the yields of all other crops.

However, most research money has gone into GM in the past 20 years. Here, the global agrichemical industry has promised new crops enriched with extra vitamins, enzymes or healthy fatty acids, as well as drought-tolerant corn, and crops that can save carbon emissions. But while it looks ahead to bananas that produce human vaccines, fish that mature more quickly and cows that are resistant to disease, its promise to feed the world has been patchy in terms of results.

Last year more than 350m acres – about 10% of global cultivated area, or the same area as Germany, France and the UK together – were planted with GM crops, but this mainly covered only three big foods – maize, oilseed rape and soya – most of which went to animal feed.

Desert greening

Much of the world is arid, with its only nearby water being the sea. So could a technology be found to green coastal deserts in places such as Chile, California, Peru and the Middle East using salt water?

Charlie Paton, a British inventor, has a vision of vast "seawater greenhouses" to grow food and generate power. The idea is simple: in the natural water cycle, seawater is heated by the sun, evaporates, cools to form clouds, and returns to earth as refreshing rain. It is more or less the same in Paton's structures. Here, hot desert air going into a greenhouse is first cooled and then humidified by seawater. This humid air nourishes crops growing inside and then passes through an evaporator. When it meets a series of tubes containing cool seawater, fresh water condenses and is then collected. And because the greenhouses produce more than five times the fresh water needed to water the plants, some of it can be released into the local environment to grow other plants.

Seawater greenhouses have been shown to work and this year a large-scale pilot project backed by the Norwegian government will be built near Aqaba in Jordan. The Sahara Forest project will combine different technologies to grow food and biofuel crops and be up and running by 2015.

But this is just one of many technologies being developed to enable food to be grown in unlikely places. One of the simplest, but most ambitious plans, may be the long-mooted Great Green Wall of Africa. This linear forest would be 15km wide and 7,775km long, and stretch from Senegal in the west to Djibouti in east Africa. It would, say the 11 countries through which it would pass, help to stop the southward spread of the Sahara, slow soil erosion and wind speeds, help rain water filter into the ground and create micro-climates to allow fruit, vegetables and other crops to be grown.

Insects

Locusts, grasshoppers, spiders, wasps, worms, ants and beetles are not on most European or US menus but at least 1,400 species are eaten across Africa, Latin America and Asia. Now, with rising food prices and worldwide land shortages, it could be just a matter of time before insect farms set up in Britain.

Not only are many bugs rich in protein, low in fat and cholesterol and high in calcium and iron, but insect farms need little space. Environmentally, they beat conventional farms, too. The creatures are far better at converting plant biomass into edible meat than even our fastest growing livestock, they emit fewer greenhouse gases and they can thrive on paper, algae and the industrial wastes that would normally be thrown away.

The advantages of "micro-livestock" farming are great, say the UN and EU, both of which are keen to see if insect rearing could be greatly expanded. The Dutch government is studying how to set up insect farms. But aware of western squeamishness, they have asked researchers to see if they can just extract the protein that many bugs contain.

Meanwhile the EU is offering its member states $3m to promote the use of insects in cooking, and has asked food standards watchdogs to investigate their potential to supplement diets.

Theme and variations

2012-01-21T21:50:00.000+07:00

State capitalism is not all the same. It is easy for a casual visitor to China to be fooled into thinking that he is in a normal capitalist country. The big cities are dotted with Starbucks and Kinkos. The newspapers run stories about small businesspeople falling prey to loan sharks

The Economist | Jan 21st 2012

Business executives are whisked around in Mercedes cars with blackened windows. Their wives and mistresses idle their afternoons away in doga classes—yoga that includes the pet dog.

But the form of capitalism on display is highly idiosyncratic. Company bosses are routinely moved to rival companies without any explanation. Company headquarters have space set aside for representatives of the armed forces. And the deeper you look, the queerer things become. In his indispensable book, “The Party”, Richard McGregor points out that the bosses of China’s 50-odd leading companies all have a “red machine” sitting next to their Bloomberg terminals and family photographs that provides an instant (and encrypted) link to the Communist Party’s high command.

What might be called “the party state” exercises a degree of control over the economy that is unparalleled in the rest of the state-capitalist world. The party has cells in most big companies—in the private as well as the state-owned sector—complete with their own offices and files on employees. It controls the appointment of captains of industry and, in the SOEs, even corporate dogsbodies. It holds meetings that shadow formal board meetings and often trump their decisions, particularly on staff appointments. It often gets involved in business planning and works with management to control workers’ pay.

The party state exercises power through two institutions: the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) and the Communist Party’s Organisation Department. SASAC, which holds shares in the biggest companies, is the world’s largest controlling shareholder and the state-capitalist institution par excellence. It has been spearheading the policy of creating national champions by consolidating and pruning its portfolio: the number of companies under its supervision has declined from 198 in 2003 to 121 today. It has also been implementing the party’s policy of creating a “harmonious society” by regulating pay. In 2009 the average SOE boss earned $88,000 and the highest-paid, the chairman of China Mobile, $182,000. High pay in SOEs has been a big source of disharmony.

SASAC can be something of a paper tiger. It has been trying for years to force the SOEs to pay higher dividends to the government, with only limited success. Similarly, nobody believes that the SOE bosses’ nominal pay bears any relation to their real remuneration. However, nobody would apply the term “paper tiger” to the Organisation Department. Created by Chairman Mao in 1924, it has become the world’s mightiest human-resources department. It appoints all the senior figures in China Inc. In 2004 it reshuffled the heads of the three biggest telecoms companies. In 2009 it rotated the bosses of the three biggest airlines. In 2010 it did the same to the chiefs of the three biggest oil companies, each of which is a Fortune 500 company. Even the most successful top executives of China’s SOEs are cadres first and company men second. They care more about pleasing their party bosses than about the global market.

The party state has reinforced its power by creating “vertical” business groups. In most emerging markets (including Hong Kong next door) business groups are “horizontal”: companies sprawl into adjacent businesses—telecoms companies into hotels, shipping companies into property—in order to exploit their local connections. In China business groups focus on particular industries. The party state encourages companies to band together into industry clusters by giving them preferential access to contracts and stockmarket listings. It also encourages them to establish subdivisions such as a domestic holding company, a finance company, a research institute and a foreign division. SASAC typically owns 100% of the shares in the holding company. The holding company in turn owns a smaller proportion of shares—say 60%—in the foreign division. This makes it possible for business groups to present lots of different faces—for instance, an inward-looking one in the form of the holding company and an outward-looking one in the form of the international division. It also allows the party state to exercise control of an entire chain of companies. Thus PetroChina might look like a regular Western company, with a listing on the New York Stock Exchange. But in fact it is the international division of a huge group called China National Petroleum Corporation, the foreign head of a dragon whose body and raison d’être lie in Beijing.

The Kremlin as capitalist-in-chief

In Russia the past decade has seen a remarkable strengthening of the power of the state, which during Boris Yeltsin’s period of “wild privatisation” looked as if it might crumble. The Kremlin has turned scattered companies into national champions. Aeroflot reabsorbed regional airlines spun off in the 1990s. Russian Technologies rolled up hundreds of state companies, many of which had little to do with technology, into a vast conglomerate. The government has also renationalised industries that were privatised in the 1990s. Rosneft, an oil company, took over most of Yukos from Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia’s richest man, and Gazprom bought Sibneft from Roman Abramovich.

As a result the Russian state once again controls the commanding heights of the economy—only this time through share ownership rather than directly. The state holds huge chunks of the shares of the country’s biggest and most strategic companies, including Transneft, a pipeline company; Sukhoi, an aircraft-maker; Rosneft; Sberbank; Unified Energy Systems, an electricity giant; Aeroflot; and Gazprom.

The Kremlin has also established control over Russia’s oligarchs, reducing once-mighty rottweilers to shivering chihuahuas and transforming supposedly private companies into organs of the state. The brutal persecution and imprisonment of Mr Khodorkovsky helped to instil obedience, and periodically the state waves a bloody stick at the oligarchs to keep them in their place. They dutifully pick up the tab for public works (such as the 2014 Winter Olympics) and keep out of politics.

The private-sector oligarchs have been replaced at the heart of the economy by state-sector bureaugarchs, most of them former KGB officials who have close ties with Vladimir Putin and have spent the past decade steadily accumulating power (though not personal stakes in the businesses). Mr Putin, currently the prime minister, is chairman of the supervisory board of Vnesheconombank, a state development bank. Igor Sechin, the deputy prime minister, was chairman of Rosneft until Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, ordered government ministers to step down as chairmen of state companies’ boards of directors last year to tidy things up. Such people form the board of Russia Inc, a company that is headed by Mr Putin, dominated by the KGB and dedicated to controlling the country’s most lucrative assets, from oil and gas to nuclear power, diamonds, metals, arms, aviation and transport.

The result is a highly unusual form of capitalism, dominated by a handful of gigantic firms and controlled by a clique of security officials. Two state-controlled companies, Sberbank and Gazprom, account for more than half of the turnover of the Russian stock exchange. Russian capitalism would have been concentrated even if the Kremlin had not been so ruthless. Oil and gas companies, which account for 20% of the country’s GDP and 60% of its exports, thrive on economies of scale and scope. Poor infrastructure encourages vertical integration; for example, metal companies have been buying ports to ensure that they can get their goods out on time. Still, having so much political power in so few hands has enormously increased this concentration.

This quintessentially Russian form of state capitalism has nevertheless been embracing the global market. Oil and gas companies have been buying similar firms abroad or listing on foreign stock exchanges. In July 2006 Rosneft raised $11 billion by selling 15% of its shares on the London stock exchange. Russia’s sovereign-wealth funds have been particularly keen on buying foreign companies, in part because Russia’s own business practices are so murky. And Russian businesspeople have bought lots of property abroad, particularly in London.

Petrostate capitalism

Oil and water may not mix, but oil and royalty mix very well to create petrostate capitalism. Middle Eastern monarchs have been using oil to keep themselves in funds for decades. But these days some of them are taking a remarkably sophisticated approach to managing their economies, embracing professional management.

The al-Maktoums, who rule Dubai, created Dubai World, a huge state-owned holding company, to run their projects. The Saudis have handed the day-to-day management of their biggest companies, Saudi Aramco and Saudi Basic Industries, to professional managers. The petro-royals have also become enthusiastic practitioners of state-sponsored modernisation. The al-Maktoums have been trendsetters because they never had much oil to begin with. It now accounts for under 5% of the emirate’s GDP. They have provided Dubai with a world-class airport, an important financial hub and a scattering of “knowledge villages” and “silicon centres”. Even conservative Saudi Arabia claims to be building four tech-enabled cities.

But the Gulf model of modernisation from above has been plagued by two familiar curses, cronyism and bubbles. There is only so much that professional managers can do to prevent the local royals from damaging the region’s companies. Bahrain’s Gulf Air and Kuwait Airways have been albatrosses. Dubai World accumulated $80 billion in debt building the world’s tallest skyscraper and a palm-shaped artificial island. The state of Dubai had to be rescued by neighbouring Abu Dhabi.

The problems of cronyism and corruption have proved even more toxic in other parts of the Middle East. In Egypt Hosni Mubarak, the president until the Arab spring, handed the management of the state companies to incompetent people while making sure his cronies did well out of privatisation. In Algeria SOEs are notorious dens of patronage and typically run at only 50% of capacity. In Syria the overwhelming majority of the country’s top 250 SOEs have been in the red for many years.

Leviathan as a minority investor

Brazil is the most ambiguous member of the state-capitalist camp: a democracy that also embraces many of the features of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. But it is worth examining for two reasons. First, it is a weather vane for state capitalism, a leading privatiser in the 1990s that is now forcing its biggest mining company, Vale, to keep workers it does not need, and obliging a bunch of smaller companies to embark on subsidised consolidation. And second, it has invented one of the sharpest new tools in the state-capitalist toolbox.

Brazil has spent most of its modern history in pursuit of state-driven modernisation. A survey in the early 1980s showed that it had more than 500 SOEs. Brazil launched a privatisation drive in the 1990s to deal with hyperinflation, surging deficits and general sclerosis. But more recently it has moved in a new direction. The government has poured resources into a handful of state champions, particularly in natural resources and telecoms. It has also produced a new model of industrial policy: replacing direct with indirect government ownership through the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES) and its investment subsidiary (BNDESPar); and swapping majority for minority ownership by acquiring shares in a broad spectrum of different companies. Sergio Lazzarini, of Brazil’s Insper Institute of Education and Research, and Aldo Musacchio, of Harvard Business School, have christened this model “Leviathan as a minority shareholder”.

This minority-shareholder model has several advantages. It limits the state’s ability to use SOEs to reward clients or to pursue social policies. Private shareholders have just enough power to kick up a fuss. But it also gives the state more influence for its money. By 2009 BNDESPar’s holdings were worth $53 billion, or just 4% of the stockmarket. Yet the state spoke with a loud voice across corporate Brazil. Messrs Lazzarini and Musacchio have also shown, in a detailed study of 296 firms traded on the São Paulo stock exchange between 1995 and 2003, that this model can increase firms’ returns on their assets. Brazilian companies typically underinvest in productivity-boosting equipment because the capital markets are so underdeveloped. State holdings provide them with money that they cannot get elsewhere.

Yet this clever version of state capitalism is currently in danger of overreaching itself. Petrobras’s discovery, in November 2007, of huge deposits of oil buried deep beneath the Atlantic seabed has filled politicians’ heads with dreams of grand projects. The shift in the world’s balance of power from America to China has also helped to persuade many Brazilians that the future lies with state capitalism. The result has been a burst of unwise interventionism. The government is trying to force Petrobras to use expensive local equipment suppliers despite doubts about their competence. It removed Roger Agnelli from his post as CEO of Vale despite his outstanding record. It has also taken to creating national champions through forced mergers: BRF (Sadia and Perdigão) in the food sector; Oi (which was made to buy Brasil Telecom) in telecoms; Fibria (VCP and Arucruz) in pulp and paper. Even the most sophisticated models of state capitalism are not safe from over-zealous politicians.

The new elite

These varieties of state capitalism all have one thing in common: politicians have far more power than they do under liberal capitalism. In authoritarian regimes they can restructure entire industries at the stroke of a pen. Even in democratic ones like Brazil they can tell the biggest companies what to do. In China party hacks can find themselves running the country’s biggest companies (and SOE bosses sometimes get big jobs in the party). In Russia they may be running the biggest companies while also sitting in the cabinet. But there are nevertheless limits to Leviathan’s power.

State-owned enterprises often have a good deal of operational freedom. Edward Steinfeld, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who spent many years serving on the board of China National Offshore Oil Corporation, recalls that the company’s relationship with its political bosses had “less to do with rigid top-down control than with mixed signals, ambiguity and even outright silence”.

Such enterprises can also wield a lot of influence over their supposed political masters. China’s SOEs have successfully frustrated attempts to make them pay more dividends. State-owned energy companies arguably have more influence over energy policy in state-capitalist countries than private energy companies have in liberal countries. Over a drink Russians will happily speculate about whether the Kremlin runs Gazprom or Gazprom runs the Kremlin.

State-owned enterprises are also producing a more sophisticated generation of managers: people who have learned about business in the world’s best business schools, who have worked abroad and have a far less blinkered view of the world than their predecessors. Katherine Xin, of China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) in Shanghai, says that many SOEs want their managers to have a world-class business education. Baosteel has been sending its senior managers on executive MBA courses for more than a decade. It also brings in academics from Switzerland’s IMD business school to provide tailor-made courses. CNPC has been sending high-flyers to get MBAs in America since 1999. Ms Xin points out that the Chinese version of the Harvard Business Review is a must-read in the upper echelons of state-owned companies.

Members of this new generation of managers are changing the management of the public sector, too, as they alternate between the corporate domain and government. There are currently 17 prominent Chinese political leaders who have held senior positions in large SOEs. Conversely, 27 prominent business leaders are serving on the party’s Central Committee. If state capitalism allows politicians to shape companies, it also allows companies to shape politicians.

Why now? What’s next? Naomi Klein on Occupy

2012-01-21T21:43:00.000+07:00

Naomi Klein in discussion with Occupy Wall Street activist Yotam Marom

Naomi Klein, Yotam Marom | Red Pepper | January 2012

Naomi Klein: One of the things that’s most mysterious about this moment is “Why now?” People have been fighting austerity measures and calling out abuses by the banks for a couple of years, with basically the same analysis: “We won’t pay for your crisis.” But it just didn’t seem to take off, at least in the US. There were marches and there were political projects and there were protests like Bloombergville, but they were largely ignored. There really was not anything on a mass scale, nothing that really struck a nerve. And now suddenly, this group of people in a park set off something extraordinary. So how do you account for that, having been involved in Occupy Wall Street since the beginning, but also in earlier anti-austerity actions?

Yotam Marom: Okay, so the first answer is, I have no idea, no one does. But I can offer some guesses. I think there are a few things you have to pay attention to when you see moments like these. One is conditions—unemployment, debt, foreclosure, the many other issues people are facing. Conditions are real, they’re bad, and you can’t fake them. Another sort of base for this kind of thing is the organizing people do to prepare for moments like these. We like to fantasize about these uprisings and big political moments—and we like to imagine that they erupt out of nowhere and that that’s all it takes—but those things come on the back of an enormous amount of organizing that happens every day, all over the world, in communities that are really marginalized and facing the worst attacks.

So those are the two kind of prerequisites for a moment like this to take place. And then you have to ask, What’s the third element that makes it all come together, what’s the trigger, the magic dust? Well, I’m not sure what the answer is, but I know what it feels like. It feels like something has been opened up, a kind of space nobody knew existed, and so all sorts of things that were impossible before are possible now. Something just got kind of unclogged. All sorts of people just started to see their struggles in this, started being able to identify with it, started feeling like winning is possible, there is an alternative, it doesn’t have to be this way. I think that’s the special thing here.

NK: Do you feel that there is an organic discussion happening about fundamentally changing the economic system? I mean we know that there is a strong, radical, angry critique of corruption, and of the corporate takeover of the political process. There’s a really powerful calling out happening. What’s less clear is the extent to which people are getting ready to actually build something else.

YM: Yeah, I definitely think we’re in a unique moment in the development of a movement that’s not only a protest movement against something but also an attempt to build something in its place. It is potentially a very early version of what I would call a dual-power movement, which is a movement that’s—on the one hand—trying to form the values and institutions that we want to see in a free society, while at the same time creating the space for that world by resisting and dismantling the institutions that keep us from having it. Occupation in general, as a tactic, is a really brilliant form of a dual-power struggle because the occupation is both a home where we get to practice the alternative—by practicing a participatory democracy, by having our radical libraries, by having a medical tent where anybody can get treatment, that kind of thing on a small level—and it’s also a staging ground for struggle outwards. It’s where we generate our fight against the institutions that keep us from the things that we need, against the banks as a representative of finance capitalism, against the state that protects and propels those interests.

It’s surprising and it’s really encouraging because that’s something that has been missing in a lot of struggles in the past. You usually have one or the other. You have alternative institutions, like eco-villages and food coops and so on—and then you have protest movements and other counter-institutions, like anti-war groups or labor unions. But they very rarely merge or see their struggle as shared. And we very rarely have movements that want to do both of those things, that see them as inseparable—that understand that the alternatives have to be fighting, and that fighting has to be done in a way that represents the values of the world we want to create. So I do think there’s something really radical and fundamental in that, and an enormous amount of potential.

NK: I absolutely agree that the key is in the combination of resistance and alternatives. A friend, the British eco-and arts activist John Jordan, talks about utopias and resistance being the double helix of activist DNA, and that when people drop out and just try to build their utopia and don’t engage with the systems of power, that’s when they become irrelevant and also when they are extremely vulnerable to state power and will often get smashed. And at the same time if you’re just protesting, just resisting and you don’t have those alternatives, I think that that becomes poisonous for movements.

But I’m still wondering about the question of policy—of making the leap from small-scale alternatives to the big policy changes that allow them to change the culture. A lot of people have come to the realization that the system is so busted that it really isn’t about who you get into office. But one of the ways of responding to that is to say, “Okay, we’re not going to form a political party and try to take power, but we are going to look at this system and try to identify the structural barriers to real change, and advocate for political goals that might begin to mend those structural flaws.” So that means things like the way corporations are able to fund elections and the role of corporate media and the whole issue of corporate personhood in this country. It is possible to find a few key policy fights that could conceivably create a situation where, ten years down the road, people might not feel so completely cynical about the idea of change within the political system. What do you think about that?

YM: Well, I think you’re right that we have to find ways to do that, but ways that don’t compromise what’s been so successful about this movement and this moment so far, which is that it’s so broad that so many different people can find themselves in it.

I think that within the broader movement, we do have different roles, and there is a particular role for Occupy Wall Street. I personally don’t want to have anything to do with people lobbying or running for office right now, nor do I want to focus all of my time winning small policy changes, and I don’t think that’s the role of Occupy Wall Street. But I sure as hell hope the people whose terrain that is do go and do it. I hope that they can recognize that what’s happening now is the creation of a climate where it’s possible for them to push left and win more. I’m not going to be happy with all the compromises those people have to make, and I don’t think we’re going to survive on reforms alone, but we need that too. If we want a real, meaningful social transformation, we need to win things along the way, because that’s how we provides people the foundations on top of which they can continue to struggle for the long haul, and it’s how we grow to become a critical mass that can ultimately make a fundamental break with this system.

And in the meantime, our role as Occupy Wall Street should be to dream bigger than that. I think it’s our job to look far ahead, to assert vision, to create alternatives and to intervene in the political and economic processes that govern people’s lives. We need to recognize that the institutions that govern our lives really do have power, but we don’t necessarily need to participate in them according to their rules. I think Occupy Wall Street’s role is to step in the way of those processes to prevent them from using that power, and to create openings for the alternatives we are trying to build. And then if politicians or others who consider themselves in solidarity with this movement want to go get on that, then they should use this moment to win the things that will help make us stronger in the long run, and they have a chance now to do that.

NK: You know, I’m torn about this. On one hand, OWS is so broad that a huge range of people has found a place in the tent. And there is certainly value in just having a very broad movement that is able to intervene in the political narrative at key junctures. Particularly because, looking at what is happening in Europe at the moment, I think we have to brace for the next economic shock. It’s a very big deal that when the next round of austerity measures comes down in the US, there will be a mass movement ready to say: “No way. We won’t pay—if you need money, tax the 1 percent and cut military spending, don’t cut education and food stamps.”

But we should be clear: that’s not making things better, it’s just trying to keep things from getting a whole lot worse. To make things better, there has to be a positive demand.

Look at the Chilean student protests, for instance. That’s a remarkable movement, and it’s historically hugely significant, because this is really the end of the Chilean dictatorship more than twenty years after it actually ended. Pinochet was in power for so long, and so many of his policies were locked in during the negotiated transition, that the left in Chile really did not recover until this generation of young people took to the streets. And they took to the streets sparked by austerity measures that were hitting education hard. But rather than just say, “Okay, we’re against these latest austerity cuts,” they said, “We are for free public education and we want to reverse the entire privatization agenda.” And that may seem like a narrow demand, but they were able to make it about inequality much more broadly. They did it by showing how the privatization of education in Chile, and the creation of a brutal two-tiered education system, deepened and locked in inequality, giving poor students no way out of poverty. The protests lit the country up, and now it’s not just a student movement. So that’s a completely different circumstance from OWS because it started with a demand. But it shows how, if the demand is radical enough, it can open up a much broader debate about what kind of society we want.

I think it’s more about vision than it is about demands. My worry is that there are so many groups trying to co-opt this movement, and trying to raise money off of its efforts, that the movement risks defining itself by what is not, rather by what it is or, more importantly, might become. If the movement is constantly put in a position of saying, “No, we’re not your pawn. We’re not this. We’re not that,” the danger is getting boxed into a defensive identity that was really imposed from the outside. I think some of that happened to the movement opposing corporate globalization post-Seattle, and I’d hate to see those mistakes repeated.

YM: I think you’re right about that. And you’re right about the question of demands versus vision. We don’t have demands in the way that other people want to hear them. But of course we have demands, of course we want things. When we reclaim a foreclosed home for a foreclosed-on family, or organize students to do flash mobs at the banks keeping them in debt, or environmental activists to do die-ins at banks that invest in coal, these are ways of speaking our demands in a new language of resistance. Occupy Wall Street is a really big tent that doesn’t have one voice, but that doesn’t mean all of our other groupings disappear when we enter it. There are still housing rights groups demanding an end to foreclosure, or labor unions demanding good jobs, and so on. We are trying to build a movement where individuals and groups have the autonomy to do what they need to do and pick the battles they need to pick, while being in solidarity with something much broader and far-reaching, something radical and visionary. And that’s part of the reason vision is so important, since it connects all those struggles.

But I do think we have to win things, you’re absolutely right about that. I guess the way I look at it is that we’re now about to make a transition, hopefully, from the symbolic to the real, both in the realms of creating the alternatives and fighting back. We need to reclaim homes, not just as symbols, but for people to live in them. Open the shut-down hospitals and put doctors in them. And same with the fighting: to actually disrupt business as usual, to move from protest to resistance. We’ll have an actual impact when Congress cannot pass those bills because there’s too much resistance, because there are people in the streets. We’ll have a real impact when it’s not only bank branch lobbies that we’re dancing around in but when we’ve blockaded the doors of the headquarters where they make their policies. We need to force policy-makers to re-evaluate their decisions, and we need to build power to eventually replace them altogether, not only in content but in form. If this is just about changing the narrative and it stops there, then we’re going to end up having missed an incredible opportunity to really affect people’s lives in a meaningful ways. This is not a game. A society where there are empty homes but people who don’t have homes is a fundamentally revolting thing and it’s unacceptable, can’t be allowed. You can say that for all the other things: for war, or for patriarchy, racism. We have an incredible responsibility.

NK: And nobody knows how to do what we’re trying to do. You can point to Iceland or something that happened in Argentina. But these are national struggles, somewhat on the economic periphery. No movement has ever successfully challenged hyper-mobile global capital at its source. So what we’re talking about is so new that it’s terrifying. I think people should admit that they’re terrified and that they don’t know how to do what they dream of doing, because if they don’t, then their fear—or rather our fear—will subconsciously shape our politics and you can end up in a situation where you’re saying, “No, I don’t want any structure,” or, “No, I don’t want to be making any kind of policy demands or have anything to do with politics,” when really it’s that you’re just completely scared shitless of the fact that you have no idea how to do this. So maybe if we all admit we are on unmapped territory, that fear loses some of its power.

YM: Yeah, that’s really important. We’re all just making it up. What you just said kind of reminded me of this moment that we had that was really a turning point for me. About three weeks in, sitting and talking with a bunch of people I had only just met, we were thinking about the movement and where it might be headed, and I remember this crazy moment when it hit me: “Oh, we’re winning.” It was surreal. And then that thought was immediately followed by the question: “So what do we want?” You know, we hadn’t won much, and we still haven’t, and we’re nowhere near the society we want to live in, but it was still that feeling—that the narrative was shifting, that the whole world was watching, that there was a lot of possibility before us. It was the first time that I’ve ever experienced that and I think probably the first time that a lot of people who are alive today have. And that was an incredibly empowering moment, really changed my life, but it was also an unbelievably terrifying moment, because, holy shit, that means it’s real, this is high stakes, this is no joke.

So, then, following that thread of what’s possible: all of this was impossible a few months ago. All of this was inconceivable. And I felt that very personally and I was cynical and I learned a lot from that. Turns out we know very little about what is possible. And that’s really humbling and important and it opens a lot of doors. What do you think is possible?

NK: First of all, it’s a moment of possibility like I’ve never seen because we never had as many people on our side as this moment does. I mean in the Seattle moment, we didn’t. We were marginal. We always were because we were in an economic boom. Now, the system has been breaking its own rules so defiantly that its credibility is shot. And there’s a vacuum. There’s a vacuum for other credible voices to fill that, and it’s very exciting.

Personally, I think the greatest possibility lies in bringing together the ecological crisis and the economic crisis. I see climate change as the ultimate expression of the violence of capitalism: this economic model that fetishizes greed above all else is not just making lives miserable in the short term, it is on the road to making the planet uninhabitable in the medium term. And we know, scientifically, that if we continue with business as usual, that is the future we are heading towards. I think climate change is the strongest argument we’ve ever had against corporate capitalism, as well as the strongest argument we’ve ever had for the need for alternatives to it. And the science puts us on a deadline: we need to have begun to radically reduce our emissions by the end of the decade, and that means starting now. I think that this science-based deadline has to be part of every discussion about what we’re going to do next, because we actually don’t have all the time in the world.

We should also be aware that this kind of existential urgency could be a very regressive force if the wrong people harness it. It’s easy to imagine autocrats using the climate emergency to sa, “We don’t have time for democracy or participation, we need to impose it all from the top.” Right now, the way the urgency is used within the mainstream environmental movement is to say, “This problem is so urgent that we can only ask for these compromised cap-and-trade deals, since that’s all we can hope to achieve politically.” Talking about the links between economic growth and climate change is pretty much off the table because, supposedly, we don’t have time to make those kinds of deep changes.

But that was a pre-OWS political calculation. And as you pointed out, OWS is in the business of changing what is possible. So what I’ve been saying when I speak to environmental groups is: start to imagine what would be possible if the climate movement were not out there on its own but part of a much broader political uprising fighting a greed-based economic model. Because in that context, it is practical to talk about changing this system. It’s much more practical, in fact, than pushing corrupt plans like cap-and-trade, which we know don’t stand a chance of getting us where science tells us we need to go.

I’m also excited about the fact that, over the past ten years since the peak of the so-called anti-globalization movement, a lot of work has been done that proves that economic re-localization and economic democracy are both feasible and desirable. Look at the explosion of the local food movement, of community-supported agriculture and farmers markets. Or the green co-op movement. Or community-based wind and solar energy projects. And then you have cities like Detroit, Portland or Bellingham, which are working on multiple fronts to re-localize their economies. The point is that there are living examples that we can point to now of communities that have weathered the economic crisis better than those places that are still dependent on a few large multinational corporations, and could just be leveled overnight when those corporations shut their doors. Most importantly: many of these models address both the economic and ecological crises simultaneously, creating work, rebuilding community, while lowering emissions and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

Coming back to the idea of resistance and alternatives being the twin strands of DNA, I see a possible future where the resistance side of OWS could start to support the policies these economic alternatives need to get to the next level.

So, yeah, that’s where I see a lot of potential—both potential strength and also potential loss, lost opportunities. You?
YM: I think there is more possibility right now than I could have ever imagined. I think in the not-so-distant future, we can win a lot of things that actually improve people’s lives, we can continue to change the political landscape, and we can grow into a mass movement with the strength to propose another kind of world and also fight for it. I think we’re only in the beginning of that, and I think there is a ton of potential. And I also see that kind of possibility in the long term. I think we can win a truly free society. I think it’s totally possible to have a political and economic system that we have a genuine say in, that we democratically control, that we participate in, that is equitable and liberating, where we have autonomy for ourselves and our communities and our families, but are also in solidarity with one another. I think it’s possible, and necessary. That’s kind of the amazing thing about this moment and this movement, I guess. Right now, sitting here, I can’t even imagine the limits of possibility.

This piece first appeared in The Nation.

From Davos to Dystopia

2012-01-21T21:34:00.001+07:00

Not long ago the World Economic Forum (WEF) found itself in the sights of the global economic justice movement. At the turn of the last century, before anyone was “occupying” public spaces in protest at the growing inequalities between the top strata of society and the rest, a broad global coalition of environment, development, and peace activists were targeting the public meetings of major institutions such as the WTO, the IMF, and the G8

By Ben Zala | Foreign Policy in Focus | January 19, 2012

World Economic Forum in Davos

In September 2000, activists shut down the opening of the WEF’s Asia-Pacific Summit in Melbourne, Australia in protest against an unrepresentative and unaccountable elite gathering to set the economic agenda for the year in a region marked by enormously uneven income distribution.

A mere 12 years later, in an intriguing reversal, the WEF has released a new report calling for a “shift in mentality” to address a looming crisis typified by rebellion, protest, and political violence sparked by inequality and marginalisation across the world. The seventh edition of the organization’s Global Risks report highlights the increasing importance of marginalization as a security issue over the coming decades. It describes the “seeds of dystopia” threatening both social and political stability across the world.

“As the world grows increasingly complex and interdependent, the capacity to manage the systems that underpin our prosperity and safety is diminishing,” the report declares. This conclusion presents perhaps the most radical call to arms from what would normally be considered a key player of the global political “establishment,”

After decades of entrenched poverty, massive debt and struggling against an unfair global trading system, those who languish on the margins of the global communityare in revolt. Yet our existing frameworks and reference points for building a response to this sort of global insecurity provide little assistance. To put it simply, Washington, Brussels, even Beijing and New Delhi have been caught off guard. The time for some radical thinking is upon us. That such calls are now coming from one of the engine rooms of neoliberal economics is a sign that we may be reaching a tipping point.

Revolt of the Masses

A number of actors in the defense and security realm have begun to explicitly make the connection between marginalization and insecurity. For example the U.S. National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends: 2025 report predicts that in the years ahead “increasing interconnectedness will enable individuals to coalesce around common causes across national boundaries, creating new cohorts of the angry, downtrodden, and disenfranchised.” Similarly, the chief of the UK Defence Force, General Sir David Richards has discussed the Naxalite insurgency that has spread rapidly across India in recent years as a conflict with a “sense of hopelessness and economic envy at its core.” The effects are no longer merely local. Richards warns that “these are powerful instincts that today can be inflamed and communicated to other similarly dispossessed groups across the world at the touch of a button.”

Yet, thus far, the guardians of the global economic order have not begun to think through the long-term and serious consequences for peace and security of prolonged inaction on global inequality. This new analysis of the risks associated with the “seeds of dystopia” in the WEF report could be Davos finally catching up.

The WEF describes dystopia as “a place where life is full of hardship and devoid of hope.” The reality is that after years of unequal growth and a growing divide between elites and non-elites both between and within countries, this description has become a reality for the majority of the world’s population. The neoliberal economic consensus which has dominated the WEF’s own discussions for so long has finally come up against the long-term consequences of a global free market unable to effectively price externalities (be they social, environmental or even now, strategic).

The report’s analysis of the interconnections between a number of risks reveals “a constellation of fiscal, demographic and societal risks signalling a dystopian future for much of humanity.” This echoes the work a number of more progressive and forward-looking think tanks such as the Oxford Research Group,Institute for Policy Studies, and the Center for American Progress over the last few years. These groups have focused not only on large-scale trends affecting global politics but also on the ways in which these trends interact and the implications for policymakers trying to make sense of a more complex world. For example, dealing with a growing division between elites and non-elites on a global scale is difficult enough without the effects of a warming global climate. As The Nation’s Christian Parenti puts it:

Between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer lies what I call the Tropic of Chaos, a belt of economically and politically battered post-colonial states girding the planet’s mid-latitudes. In this band, around the tropics, climate change is beginning to hit hard…as a result, in this belt we find clustered most of the failed and semifailed states of the developing world.

Yet the risks are not just confined to the developing world. The WEF report warns that this dystopian future could extend to “developed economies where citizens lament the loss of social entitlements, emerging economies that fail to provide opportunities for their young population or to redress rising inequalities, or least-developed economies where wealth and social gains are declining.”

The report is part of a growing awareness of the linkages between events and flashpoints such as the Arab Spring, the Occupy movements worldwide, and civil unrest in countries from Thailand and Chile to Israel and India. The link, according to the report, is a common and “growing frustration among citizens with the political and economic establishment, and the rapid public mobilization enabled by greater technological connectivity.” This frustration and resulting mobilization together create a much larger global trend. As such, ad-hoc national approaches are no longer sufficient for genuinely addressing the challenges of a marginalized majority world.

Beyond Davos

It is one thing to examine a number of interlinked global trends which add up to a dangerous – or dystopian – global picture. It is quite another to have the courage to genuinely rethink the foundations of the global order that has produced them. Unfortunately there are no easy answers to the question of how to reverse these trends, particularly at a time of truly global economic crisis when the temptations of short-term, voter-friendly fixes are sotempting.

This makes the potential role of organizations such as the WEF aimed at promoting dialogue and leadership even more important if used in the right way. A summit focused not on growth and competitiveness but on practical steps on issues such as debt reduction and institutional reform would be a good first start. Central to this must be real attempts to tackle the seeds of dystopia at their source – even if this means asking difficult questions and hearing uncomfortable answers in the major financial capitals of the world.

If the dominant response to the risks outlined in the WEF report follows the formula of the last decade’s ‘war on terror’-- attempts to control insecurity through the use of high-tech military power -- then we best get used to living in a dystopian world. If however, global leaders and the citizens they represent can create responses that are aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of disenfranchisement and violence, then 2012 could be seen as the year that gives rise to a truly sustainable security. Then, when the powerful meet in Davos, they won’t simply be trying to save the old order but working cooperatively to create the new.

This work by Institute for Policy Studies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

Indonesia to set aside 45% of Kalimantan for conservation

2012-01-21T17:16:00.001+07:00

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) on Thursday announced a regulation that would protect 45 percent of Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Borneo, according to a statement issued by his office

mongabay.com | January 19, 2012

Rainforest in West Kalimantan

The regulation, which was issued January 5, aims to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of Kalimantan, and while light on details is ambitious in its goals, which include preservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecosystem services; energy independence, including oil, gas, and coal development; sustainable oil palm and rubber plantations; expansion of ecotourism; improved transportation networks; and food self-sufficiency.

On the conservation front, the regulation calls for a network of conservation areas linked by ecosystem corridors and new efforts to limit expansion of monoculture plantations into protected zones. It seeks restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems, although it doesn't specify what ecosystems will be protected.

Area deforested for oil palm in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia's pilot province for its REDD program. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.

But as noted inThe Jakarta Globe, the conservation target may be difficult to achieve given the current state of Kalimatan's forests and seemingly conflicting goals of the regulation.

"It is unclear how this plan will fit in with a government push to see Kalimantan become self-sufficient in energy and a national energy producer by 2025," wrote Fidelis Satriastanti ofThe Jakarta Globe.

Deddy Ratih of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi) told Satriastanti that "real forests" only cover 30 percent of Kalimantan, a fact that isn't acknowledged by the central government. Furthermore, some of the authority necessary to implement the regular lies in the hands of local governments, which doesn't always go along with central government pronouncements. For example district heads have the power to issue mining and plantation permits, while the Ministry of Forestry controls logging concessions.

Nevertheless, the emphasis on the conservation elements of the regulation reflect the Indonesian President's increasingly vocal support for reducing deforestation and promoting greener development through his 7/26 plan which aims to grow the Indonesian economy by seven percent annually while reducing emissions 26 percent from a projected 2020 baseline. Roughly 80 percent of Indonesia's emissions result from deforestation, forest degradation through logging, and peatlands loss.

Last year President SBY vowed to dedicate the rest of his term to protecting forests. He also issued an instruction banning new concessions in primary forest areas and peatlands, although that regulation was substantially weakened by interests in the forestry sector, which have fought reform efforts.

FAO-EC project to promote climate-smart farming

2012-01-21T17:06:00.001+07:00

Malawi, Vietnam and Zambia will benefit from collaborative effort

FAO | 16 January 2012

Farmers participating in an FAO land and water management project in Guthi, India, check a new drip irrigation system

FAO and the European Commission announced today a new €5.3 million project aimed at helping Malawi, Vietnam and Zambia transition to a "climate-smart" approach to agriculture.

Agriculture — and the communities who depend on it for their livelihoods and food security — are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. At the same time agriculture, as a significant producer of greenhouse gases, contributes to global warming.
"Climate-smart agriculture" is an approach that seeks to position the agricultural sector as a solution to these major challenges.

It involves making changes in farming systems that achieve multiple goals: improving their contribution to the fight against hunger and poverty; rendering them more resilient to climate change; reducing emissions; and increasing agriculture's potential to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon.

"We need to start putting climate-smart agriculture into practice, working closely with farmers and their communities," said FAO Assistant Director-General for the Economic and Social Development Department, Hafez Ghanem. "But there are no one-size-fits-all solutions — better climate-smart farming practices need to respond to different local conditions, to geography, weather and the natural resource base," he added.

"This project will look closely at three countries and identify challenges and opportunities for climate-smart agriculture and produce strategic plans tailored to each country's own reality," Ghanem said. "While not all solutions identified will be universally applicable, we can learn a lot about how countries could take similar steps and begin shifting to this approach to agriculture."
Tailor-made solutions

The EU is providing €3.3 million to support the effort; FAO's contribution is €2 million.

Working closely with agriculture and other ministries in each of the partner countries, and collaborating with local and international organizations, the three-year project will:

Identify country-specific opportunities for expansion of existing climate-smart practices or implementation of new ones
Study the constraints that need to be overcome to promote wider adoption of climate-smart agriculture, including investment costs
Promote integration of national climate change and agricultural strategies to support the implementation of climate-smart agriculture
Identify innovative mechanisms for linking climate finance with climate-smart agriculture investments
Build capacity for planning and implementing climate-smart projects capable of attracting international investments

FAO will take the overall lead on the project, working in partnership with national policy and research institutions, as well as global organizations such as the Global Crop Diversity Trust.

By tackling the urgent need to incorporate climate change concerns into agricultural development planning, this new project represents a concrete step forward, said Ghanem. "The problems of climate change are increasingly being felt on the ground, and thus early actions to address the problem are needed, even as international negotiations continue in the search for a global climate agreement," he said.