Indonesia asks Britain to take back 1,800 tons of 'illegal' waste

Indonesia has asked Britain to take back 1,800 tonnes of waste after inspectors found liquid and illegal mixed waste in containers marked as "scrap metal," Britain's Environment Agency has said

The Telegraph | 16 March 2012

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Getting planning right

We need a planning policy that reflects the competing interests of the economy, the environment and communities

By Telegraph View | The Telegraph | 06 Mar 2012

Green and, for now, pleasant: to regard the planning system as an arm of economic policy is deeply flawed Photo: ALAMY

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Annie Leonard: Creator of "The Story of Stuff" Shows What's At Stake with Commons Assets

Annie Leonard is one of the most articulate, effective champions of the commons today. Her webfilm The Story of Stuff has been seen more than 15 million times by viewers. She also adapted it into a book

Jay Walljasper | On the Commons | Feb 20 2012

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Earth Summit is doomed to fail, say leading ecologists

We can forget about fixing the planet's ecosystems and climate until we have fixed government systems, a panel of leading international environmental scientists declared in London on Friday. The solution, they said, may not lie with governments at all

by Fred Pearce | New Scientist | 10 February 2012

Concerted action 20 years back has produced few concrete results (Image: Sipa Press/Rex Features)

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Green economy and growth: Fiddling while Rome burns?

“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

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Whither environmentalism?

In the latest issue of Orion Magazine, environmental activists Derrick Jensen and Paul Kingsnorth both express their frustrations with the current environmental movement

by Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez | CommonDreams | Jan 8 2012

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Technological progress for dummies

Not you, CASSE signatory. You’re no dummy. You already know that the fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection can’t be overcome with technological progress

by Brian Czech | Jan 9 2012 by The Daly News in Energy Bulletin Jan 9 2012

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Environmental Priorities to Dominate UN Chief's Second Term

Ban Ki-moon began his second five-year term as secretary-general of the United Nations on Sunday with environmental issues high on his list of priorities

Environmental News Service | January 3, 2012

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon explains his priorities for the next five years over UN Radio, December 27, 2011. (Photo by Mark Garten courtesy UN)

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Global hunger for plastic packaging leaves waste solution a long way off

Despite measures to increase recycling, discarded plastic packaging continues to blight Earth

Juliette Jowit | guardian.co.uk | 29 December 2011

The "Plastic Bag Monster", a creation by Slovenian artist Miha Artnak, is displayed outside the European Commission headquarters in Brussels May 24, 2011. Photograph: Francois Lenoir/Reuters

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Why James Hansen is wrong on nuclear power

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Attributed to economist J.M. Keynes, that retort has always been good advice. Now that carrying on with “business as usual” greenhouse gas emissions has been revealed as a road to disaster, should environmentalists change their minds on nuclear power?

By Renfrey Clarke | LINKS | April 8, 2010

To be sure, the dangers of the nuclear industry have not gone away. A major nuclear war, by creating “nuclear winter” conditions, would end most life on Earth. Humanity, however, has managed the threat of nuclear war in the past, and the chances are that we will continue to do so.

If thousands of nuclear power reactors were in operation, reactor accidents would be frequent enough that they would almost stop being news. But deaths would probably be few, and other losses would be relatively minor compared to the dead oceans and scorched grainlands of the greenhouse future.

Consequently, it is not surprising that some prominent climate scientists have called for massive investment in nuclear power as a practical way to replace fossil-fuelled energy generation. “Going nuclear” is a key recommendation of renowned US climatologist James Hansen, head of NASA’s climate change research unit, who toured Australia in March. Among Australian climate scientists, an outspoken nuclear advocate is Adelaide University’s Professor Barry Brook.

Characteristically nuanced in his approach, Hansen poses nuclear power as one element in a policy triad that also includes economising in energy use and developing renewable energy sources. Nuclear power is indispensable, he argues, because the combination of economising and renewables will simply not meet energy demand, especially considering the need for rapid expansion of supply in developing countries.

Voicing no particular support for the current “second-generation” nuclear technology, Hansen instead calls for a combination of the (inherently safer) generations three and four. Third-generation reactors are in essence evolved versions of the pressurised-water installations that provide almost all of today’s nuclear energy. Now being built for the first time, “third-generation” plants are arguably still at the pre-commercial stage.

The technology of fourth-generation plants is very different, and these installations exist only in concept. Various experimental reactors, however, have provided insights into problems that the “fourth generation” will likely encounter.

With a variety of “passive” safety features, designed to make them shut down without human intervention in the event of accidents, third- and fourth-generation reactors should in theory have an incidence of contained core meltdown in the one-in-millions-of-years range. But in third-generation installations, at least, other dangers and drawbacks of second-generation plants will persist.

Like their forebears, third-generation reactors require energy-hungry enrichment of their uranium fuel, and induce fission in only about 1 per cent of it. As the world’s limited reserves of high-grade uranium ores are used up, these inefficiencies will make the greenhouse abatement advantages of third-generation plants increasingly unimpressive. Again like their precursors, third-generation reactors produce fiercely radioactive wastes that must be locked away from the environment for more than 100,000 years. Scores of thousands of tonnes of high-level waste are now in limited-term storage at reactor sites around the world.

Plutonium in the waste from third-generation reactors can be extracted and used to create nuclear weapons. A further danger is the possibility that ill-guarded waste could be stolen and used to make so-called dirty bombs, from which high explosives would disperse radioactive material.

Immature technology

When a technology is immature – as is the case with third-generation nuclear power generation – the time needed to make it fully operational is always an important question. And when the task is to replace fossil-fuelled energy generation, the timeframes for perfecting the new equipment and building it out are critically short.

Just how short emerges from work performed by James Hansen himself. If a basically recognisable natural world is to survive, the US climatologist has concluded, atmospheric carbon dioxide must be cut by the end of the century to a level below 350 parts per million (ppm). This will require ending net human-induced CO2 emissions by 2050.

How much CO2 can be emitted during this period, if the eventual concentration of 350 ppm is to be achieved? Other scientists have calculated the allowable “carbon budget” for the years until 2050 at a total of 420 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2, with other greenhouse gases in proportion. At present emission rates, this budget will be exhausted around 2021.

How might third- and fourth-generation nuclear plants fit these requirements? Highly complex, and still unproven, third-generation plants would not be operating in significant numbers before 2020, and probably for rather longer. This is indicated by experience with the plant now being built at Olkiluoto in Finland. Construction at the site is at least three and a half years behind schedule, and is plagued by cost overruns of some 60 per cent.

Compared to earlier installations, the projected fourth-generation plants – specifically, the “integral fast reactor” (IFR) designs that have drawn most attention – promise important advantages. Passive safety features would make the chance of core meltdown ultra-remote. Unlike most reactor designs, IFRs would use “fast” or high-energy neutrons, allowing them to create more fissile material – in this case, plutonium – than they consume. This would be achieved through the irradiating of depleted uranium, of which large stockpiles exist. Fresh mining of uranium would not be needed for hundreds of years.

Along with plutonium, the reactor products from IFRs would contain highly radioactive isotopes of minor transuranic elements. The “integral” reactor complexes would include facilities for extracting the plutonium from the reactor products for use as fuel, with long half-life transuranics also removed and included in the fuel mix. In this form, the fuel would be unsuitable for nuclear bomb-making without elaborate and easily detected reprocessing. Its attractiveness as a basis for weapons proliferation would arguably be slight.

High-level wastes from other reactors could also be incorporated into the IFR fuel, to be “burned” and transmuted into relatively manageable materials. The wastes left behind after the fuel extraction would initially be dangerous – and quite usable for dirty bombs – but within 200 years would be no more radioactive than natural uranium ores.

Energy bonanza?

Through the use of IFRs, proponents like Hansen maintain, huge quantities of energy could be created without major emissions of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, the costs and dangers of uranium mining and enrichment would be avoided. With plutonium and highly radioactive wastes never leaving the reactor sites, security would be easier to manage. From being a massive obstacle, end-product waste storage would become quite feasible.

Unfortunately, IFRs do not offer a solution to global warming. The catch, above all, is in the time lines. There is simply no way that IFRs can be designed, brought to practical operating status and built in massive numbers during the few years – barely a decade, if something like today’s natural world is to survive – that the greenhouse emissions budget allows us.

Developing workable IFRs would not be straightforward or quick, even if massive resources were assigned to the task. Since the 1950s nuclear engineers have acquired considerable experience of fast-neutron reactors. Mostly, this experience has been with so-called “fast breeder” reactors, designed to maximise plutonium output for bomb making and reactor fuel, rather than with “burner” reactors like IFRs. But the message is the same for both types: fast-neutron reactors are particularly complex, have a high rate of accidents and breakdowns, and are fiendishly difficult and time consuming to service and repair.

Needing to maintain high neutron energy levels, fast reactors cannot use water as a coolant, since this would slow the neutrons down. The coolant of choice is molten sodium metal. Sodium is highly reactive, burning readily in air and exploding on contact with water. If leaks are not to result in sodium-air fires, the reactor vessel and coolant pipes must be surrounded with inert argon gas, adding to complexity and costs. At a certain point, the sodium coolant must be used for steam generation; here, it is separated from high-pressure water by only a thin barrier of pipe metal, any flaw in which can have drastic consequences.

The sodium that passes through the reactor core becomes highly radioactive. This means that an extra coolant loop must be incorporated, isolating the reactor coolant from the steam-generating equipment so that an explosion cannot disperse radioactive sodium; again, the additional complexity raises capital costs. For various repair and maintenance procedures, the sodium must be drained and the pipes flushed. This has to be done with regard for the radioactivity, while taking care to prevent fires. Even minor malfunctions can result in months of down time.

Sodium fires

Between 1980 and 1997, Russia’s BN-600 fast reactor experienced 27 leaks, 14 of which resulted in sodium fires. Japan’s Monju reactor suffered a major sodium-air fire in 1995, and was still out of action at the end of 2009. The only attempt so far at a commercial-scale fast reactor, the French Superphénix plant, was shut down after a decade in 1996; it had a lifetime capacity factor – that is, actual as compared to designed output – of just 7 per cent.

The development of IFRs, if it goes ahead, will be expensive, difficult and prolonged. Wikipedia predicts a commercialisation date for fourth-generation nuclear plants of 2030. But we cannot wait that long before drastically curtailing greenhouse emissions.

With both third- and fourth-generation nuclear plants outside the time bracket, what is left for environmentalists who hanker after nuclear power? The only option for them is the one embraced by the French and Chinese governments, and now, it seems, by the Obama administration in the US: an accelerated roll-out of second-generation nuclear plants, built to standardised designs following rushed or non-existent consultation with the plants’ future neighbours.

There are no guarantees, however, that major savings of carbon emissions would result. The power-generating operations of nuclear plants emit virtually no greenhouse gases, but other parts of the nuclear cycle – uranium mining, milling and enrichment, and the construction of power plants – are fossil fuel-intensive. Estimates of the all-up carbon footprints of today’s nuclear plants are controversial, but whatever the actual emissions might be, they are considered certain to increase dramatically over time. High-grade deposits of uranium are few, and likely to be quickly exhausted. “If nuclear energy were to be expanded to contribute (say) half of the world’s electricity”,researchers Mark Diesendorf and Peter Christoff calculated in 2006, “high-grade (uranium) reserves would last less than a decade”.

Once these reserves are gone, second- and third-generation nuclear plants will depend for their fuel on low-grade ores some 10-20 times less concentrated than those which now grace the supply picture. The cost in carbon emissions will mount accordingly.

The renewable alternative

The only responsible course for human society is to cut its greenhouse gas emissions through combining stringent energy economies with accelerated roll out of the renewable energy technologies which are available now. These technologies are wind, solar, hydropower, biomass and conventional geothermal. To them may be added several others that are at the demonstration-plant stage, and which concerted development could make fully practical within a few years. In this category are wave and tidal power, and “hot dry rock” geothermal.

Hansen’s argument that renewables can never meet humanity’s demand for energy is contested by a growing list of studies. His view would not carry weight with the group Beyond Zero Emissions, which in February began releasing a program for meeting all of Australia’s stationary energy needs with renewables by 2020. Nor would it impress theDuke University researchers in the US who in March reported that 94 per cent of the electrical energy needs of their state of North Carolina could be met from in-state renewable sources. Equally unmoved would be people from the organisation Desertec, which proposes using low-loss direct current electrical transmission to link solar thermal energy plants in supply grids tracking the sun across and between continents.

A renewably powered future requires a good deal of “thinking outside the square”, along with a willingness to radically re-order social and fiscal priorities. But with renewables, the technologies required are mature, or quickly maturing. The obstacles are not of the same order as those which confront IFR nuclear plants.

If governments and electricity authorities around the world nonetheless swallow the nuclear industry’s lobbying, there is little chance of projections such as Desertec’s ever being realised. Typical prices cited for new nuclear plants in the US are in the region of US$3-5 billion each, and Stanford University’s Mark Jacobson puts the number of plants required for nuclear to meet all the world’s present electricity needs at 17,000. The opportunity costs of building even a fraction of these would surely smother any possibility of financing the parallel development of renewables.

In cases such as this, where spin threatens to outsell substance, influential scientists can play a big role in restoring rationality to government decision-making. Or, if they fail to inform themselves properly before pronouncing on topics outside their core expertise, they can add substantially to the problems.

Hansen is a formidable climatologist, and there is no doubting his intellectual courage. But on nuclear power, he is simply wrong. It would be a tragedy if his errors on this topic were to undo much of his contribution to the fight against global warming.

[Renfrey Clarke is a climate change activist and member of the Socialist Alliance in Adelaide, South Australia.]

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

The fight against eco-imperialism

It is not acceptable to use climate change as an excuse to limit growth in poor countries as the west's carbon emissions rise

Andrew Chambers | guardian.co.uk | 11 April 2010

Cooling towers of a coal-fired power plant in Beijing. South Africa has been criticised for its plans to build a similar power station. Photograph: Alexander F. Yuan/AP

Last Thursday the World Bank approved a £2.4bn loan to build a huge new coal-fired power station in South Africa. The issue has exposed the rift between two central international goals – alleviating poverty and preventing global warming. South African ministers claimed that the project was essential for their country's development, while a concerted environmental campaign lobbied international governments to block the scheme. Amid concerns about global warming, this question of development versus environment may become one of the most contentious international issues over the next few years.

Since the 1970s the green movement has acquired ever-greater prominence in international development. In the last decade, global warming concerns have refocused the emphasis of poverty reduction strategies away from development and towards the environment. This is portrayed as a win-win situation – where the interests of the local people are perfectly aligned with the interests of environmental campaigners. Sustainable technologies like wind turbines and solar panels improve the lot of the recipients while keeping their carbon emissions to a minimum. However, this approach has been criticised as a form of eco-imperialism – because western carbon considerations remain a limiting factor on developing world progress.

The Working Group on Climate Change and Development is a network of more than 20 NGOs including WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Founded in 2004, its "central message is that solving poverty and tackling climate change are intimately linked and equally vital, not either/ors".

The group's most recent report lists the overarching challenges as (1) how to stop and reverse further climate change, (2) how to live with the degree of climate change that cannot be stopped and (3) how to design a new model for human progress and development that is climate-friendly. The makes fascinating reading – and is illuminating as to the ideological backdrop to development policy.

These environmental groups, while spanning quite a large spectrum, tend to demonstrate an affinity with the pro-rural socialist left. The report describes climate change as not just a threat but also an "opportunity" to re-think the entire global system. It challenges western notions of development and growth and, most starkly, concludes that "mere reform within the current global economic system will be insufficient" to tackle poverty in a carbon constrained future. Indeed, members of these groups often seem to embrace rural village life as representing a pre-industrial idyll which should be preserved.

Such romantic ideology therefore seeks to largely maintain the status quo – where the African poor are kept "traditional" and "indigenous". It's hard to disagree with Lord May, former president of the Royal Society in his observation that "much of the green movement isn't a green movement at all, it's political".

With poverty redefined in terms of the environment and infused with pro-rural socialism, large-scale projects to industrialise or modernise are not the priority – indeed, western-style development and modernisation are seen as part of the problem. Instead there is a self-limiting bottom-up approach which subsidises underdevelopment not as a transitionary phase but as an end goal.

To effectively sideline the development strategy that every western country has undertaken in raising living standards is remarkable. Indeed, while India and China have lifted at least 125m people out of slum poverty since 1990, over the same period 46 countries have actually got poorer – the large majority of them African states.

It would be too simplistic to prescribe the industrialisation and modernisation agenda pursued by India and China as a panacea for the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, and the Indian and Chinese policies have not been without adverse consequences. Nevertheless, it is a staggering achievement which demonstrates that poverty alleviation should be pursued through a developmental agenda.

The truth is that African poverty is not a result of global warming. It is likely that the poor will be disproportionately affected by global changes in temperature – but this is not a reason to limit development. It is development which will allow countries to better cope with the consequences of a changing climate. For example, the Netherlands is better prepared to build dams to protect its coastline from rising sea levels than Bangladesh. Those that will be hardest hit by global changes to temperature will be those who are most exposed to the vagaries of the environment now – the rural poor.

Environmental policies that seek to reinforce the rural status quo as a means of limiting carbon emissions may be of benefit to the developed world, but they are detrimental to the long-term ability of the poor to cope with climate change. The planned South African power plant at Limpopo exposes the collision between these different policy aims. With the country going to the World Bank for a £2.4bn loan, international governments have been forced to weigh up developmental advantage versus environmental damage.

South Africa suffers major power shortages and insists that a new plant is essential to the country's economic progress. Environmentalists are horrified that the plant will emit 25m tonnes of carbon per annum, and point out that much of the new electricity will be used by heavy industry. Despite a concerted lobbying campaign from environmental groups, the loan was approved on Thursday – albeit with abstentions from Britain, America and the Netherlands. A US treasury spokesman explained that the abstention was due to an "incompatibility with the World Bank's commitment to be a leader in climate change mitigation and adaption". Considering that the World Bank's first affirmed purpose is to alleviate poverty, we can see how pervasive the reframing of poverty in terms of environment has become.

It is up to the developed world to produce the technologies for cleaner energy and implement policies to significantly reduce carbon emissions. It is not acceptable to use global warming as a way of limiting growth in poor African countries when our own climate emissions continue to rise.

Environmental movements certainly have a role to play in highlighting ecological degradation and its impact on local people, and in some cases the interests of protecting the environment will be perfectly aligned with the needs of the local community. However, it is unacceptable for poverty reduction in the developing world to become a staging post for ideological battles lost elsewhere. We should embrace whatever methods provide the best outcome in alleviating poverty – whether that be new roads or airports, power stations or renewables. To do otherwise is to be guilty of the worst kind of eco-imperialism – where the poor are held back for the benefit of the rich.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Monsoons send Asian pollution round the world

Asian pollution is a global problem. Millions of tonnes of soot, sulphur dioxide and other pollutants are fast-tracked into the stratosphere each year by the summer monsoon

by Fred Pearce | New Scientist | 06 April 2010

Pollution on the move (Image: Strdel/AFP/Getty Images)

"The monsoon is one of the most powerful atmospheric circulation systems on the planet, and it happens to form right over a heavily polluted region," says William Randel of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

The stratosphere begins about 12 kilometres up, above the troposphere where weather systems like the monsoon develop. Most pollution stays below the boundary between the two. However, by using satellite instruments to track hydrogen cyanide, a minor but telltale ingredient of the pollution, Randel and his colleagues found "pipes" of polluted air moving through the boundary.

They think that the exceptional updraughts of air inside the monsoon's giant clouds can bust through and send pollution deep into the stratosphere (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1182274). This is where the planet's ozone layer sits, filtering out ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

The findings will trigger a radical rethink about the state of the stratosphere. "Received wisdom has been that gases like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides don't make it into the stratosphere," says Peter Bernath of the University of York, UK, a member of the research team. "Nitrogen oxides in particular are of concern," he says, because they can destroy ozone. Sulphur dioxide can shroud the planet in a cooling haze.

John Pyle, a specialist on the ozone layer at the University of Cambridge, agrees that the research raises key questions. "How much will the transport of pollution change in the future, as emissions increase or the monsoon changes?" he says. It's unclear whether climate change will weaken or intensify monsoons.

In the lower atmosphere, pollutants like sulphur dioxide "rain out" of the air within days. But in the stratosphere they can stay aloft for years, spread by fast winds known as jets, meaning the threat is global. The effects may have already been unwittingly detected: researchers recently noted an increase in sulphate particles in the stratosphere around the globe, which could be linked to China's rapid industrialisation over the past decade.

© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Muslim world to promote ‘green haj’ concept

Muslim community representatives from 17 countries will hold an international conference on climate change to hash out tangible action to tackle global warming, including through the “green haj” concept

Adianto P. Simamora | The Jakarta Post | April 6, 2010

The April 9-10 conference in Bogor will feature around 200 participants, including 90 from Islamic boarding schools across Indonesia.

“This is an action-oriented conference to motivate Muslims to protect the planet from the threat of global warming,” organizing committee member Ismet Hadad said Monday.

“We want to show the world that Muslims are also doing their part to combat climate change, which affects all people regardless of religious or ethnic background.”

The conference will be held at the Bogor Institute of Agriculture’s convention center, and will be funded in part by Conservation Inter-national.

Environment Minister Gusti Muhammad Hatta and Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan are expected to open the conference.

The list of speakers includes Fazlun Khalid from the London-based Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environment Science; Muhammad Hassan from Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, and Moroccan Abdelkader Allali, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The inaugural Muslim conference on climate change was held in Kuwait in 2008.

At last year’s meeting in Istanbul, the conference adopted the “Muslim seven-year action plan for climate change”.

The plan includes proposals for a more environmentally management of the annual haj, eco-friendly mosques and publishing the Koran with paper from sustainable forests.

Ahmad Fauzi, the Forestry Ministry’s liaison for the conference, said organizers expected to come up with concrete results on how to implement the proposals agreed on in Turkey.

He said one of the more ambitious targets was the “green haj”, in which haj pilgrims would be encouraged to minimize and offset their carbon footprints from the pilgrimage.

“If each of the 250,000 or so Indonesian haj pilgrims set aside US$10 toward that end, we’d have a $2.5 million fund to combat climate change,” Ahmad said.

Another measure for adoption is to phase out the use of plastic bottles throughout the haj.

“The idea is for the pilgrims to bring back an understanding of caring for creation as an act of faith,” the action plan says.

It also calls on Muslim communities to build “green mosques” through energy-saving designs.

Ahmad said the conference would help boost awareness of environmental issues among Muslims at schools and universities, and help draw up guidelines on climate change issues to be distributed among Muslim scholars.

He added the Bogor conference was unlikely to see the establishment of the planned Muslim Association for Climate Change Action (MACCA), an umbrella organization to implement the action plan to mitigate the impact from climate change.

Conservation International’s Fakhruddin Mangunjaya said the conference would declare Bogor as a green city in the Muslim world.

The conference will select 10 such green cities in the Muslim world as models for other Muslim-majority cities to aspire to.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

What happened to China?: the nation's environmental woes and its future

China has long been an example of what not to do to achieve environmentally sustainability. Ranking 133rd out of 146 countries in 2005 for environmental performance, China faces major environmental problems including severe air and water pollution, deforestation, water-issues, desertification, extinction, and overpopulation. A new article in Science discusses the complex issues that have led to China's environmental woes, and where the nation can go to from here

Jeremy Hance | mongabay.com | April 01, 2010

"During the past 60 years, negative impacts have been stronger than positive ones, with most environmental conditions worsening and few improving," writes Jianguo Liu, MSU University Distinguished Professor of fisheries and wildlife who holds the Rachel Carson Chair in Sustainability.

Old Shanghai in the foreground, new Shanghai in the background. China's economic policies have brought with them environmental woes. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.

Beginning with Mao's Great Leap Forward, natural ecosystems were destroyed for agriculture, steel production, and more recently export goods. In 1994 'sustainable development' became a national strategy, but economic growth still won out, according to Liu.

"The widespread ideology of 'development first, environmental protection later' or 'pollute first, then clean up' is a root cause of China’s low ranking in environmental sustainability," Liu writes.

One of China's boldest plans to deal with environmental problems and overpopulation was the 'one-child policy' implemented in 1979. It is estimated that this policy slowed China's population growth by approximately 300 million people over twenty five years. Yet, changes in Chinese society have offset some of the environmental benefits one would expect from slowing population.

While China's population growth slowed, the number of new households increased faster than the nation's population. Between 1985 and 2000, China added 125 million new households due to social changes, such as increased divorces and less multigenerational households, cutting the average number of people living in each house.

"More households consume more resources and generate more waste, and smaller households lower the efficiency of resource use," Liu writes.

A solar-powered yurt in China. China is currently the largest investor in clean energy. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.

The lesson of the one child policy shows that "integrating natural and social science research can help us understand the complexity of the interactions among the forces that affect environmental sustainability so the desired results can be achieved," Liu says.

Moving forward the government should enact new policies to stem the growth of new households, according to Liu. "One idea may be to create government incentives such as tax credits or subsidies to promote multigenerational housing and housing shared by friends and other non-family members and to discourage divorce".

Liu points out that there has been some sizable movement towards sustainability recently: just over 15 percent of China is now protected as natural reserves; logging of natural forests has been banned since 1998; and the government has pledged to cut CO2 emissions intensity per unit of GDP by 40-45 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. China is moving aggressively on clean energy, outpacing both the US and the EU in green investments. Still, while the nation has put in place many environmental laws, Liu says these regulations need better implementation and monitoring.

"China is the most populous country with the fastest growing economy in the world—everything it does has a big impact," Liu adds. "Environmental sustainability in China is crucial, not just for China, but for the rest of the world."

Citation: Jianguo Liu. China's road to sustainability. Science. April 2nd, 2010, Volume 328. 10.1126/science.1186234.

Copyright mongabay 2010

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Forests May Depend on Survival of Native People

After the failures in Copenhagen to agree on a new climate protection treaty, and more recently at the Doha meetings on trade in endangered species to prevent bluefin tuna from going extinct, indigenous forest communities may offer examples of sensible governance for shared resources on a small planet

By Stephen Leahy | Inter-Press Service | Mar 29, 2010

A Bolivian man harvesting Tajibo, a lesser valued timber species, in a community forest. Credit: CIFOR/Kristen Evans

Hundreds of poor Mexican Zapotec indigenous farmers have become owners of a multi-million-dollar diversified forest industry, offering an important model of a community-based enterprise that supports local people and conserves the natural environment, says David Barton Bray, a professor and associate chair in the Department of Earth and Environment at Florida International University in Miami.

The farmers of Ixtlán de Juarez, a forest community in the Sierra Norte mountains of central Mexico, utilise their strong traditional community values and communal ownership of more than 21,000 hectares of pine and oak forest to run a successful business that benefits the entire community.

There is no private property, and rather than establishing a business to maximise profits, the people of Ixtlán, and in other Zapotec communities of Mexico with similar forest-based enterprises, focus on job creation, reducing emigration to cities and enhancing the overall well-being of the community, Bray told participants at the Smallholder and Community Forestry conference here in Montpellier.

"Communities will be more important in the years to come because they can address vital issues that the state and the market cannot," Bray, an expert on community forests in Mexico and Central America, told IPS.

The survival of much of the world's forests may well depend of the survival of local communities. A quarter of the world's remaining forests are controlled by about one billion local people, says Estebancio Castro Diaz of the Kuna Nation in Panama, who is executive director for the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests.

"Local control is good for the people and good for the forest," Castro Diaz told participants attending the conference organised by the Centre for International Forestry Research, headquartered in Indonesia, the French research institute for development and the French international research centre for agricultural development.

"The forest is a supermarket for us, it is not just about timber," he said.

For those reasons, more than 90 percent of the forests controlled by the Kuna people are still standing. "We need to communicate there are broad benefits to the larger society for local control of forests," Diaz said.

In sharp contrast to the usual nation-state or private enterprise overexploitation of commonly-held lands, oceans or other resources - characterised as the "tragedy of the commons" - local communities can set and enforce rules to maintain their landscapes, conserve biodiversity and improve livelihoods for the long term, Bray suggests.

The glue and the grease that makes this all work is social capital, he adds. Communal trust, deeply shared values that arise from long experience and knowledge are some of the ingredients of social capital.

In Mexico's Ixtlán, community service is obligatory but goes far beyond being a "volunteer" as understood in developed countries. Virtually everything in the community is run by local people as part of their 'duties' as a community member.

This includes being part of administration, neighbourhood, school and church committees to performing the actual roles of community policeman to municipal president, says Bray. At any one time, 10 percent of the adults are involved and everyone has physical labour obligations that require up to 20 days a year for things like road repair, fire fighting and so on.

All of this is overseen by an assembly of members of the community that meets four times a year in days-long sessions. Here, policy decisions and elections to fill the various roles are made as well as the election of leaders who hold three-year terms. In return community members receive extraordinary benefits compared to other poor regions, including health and social benefits, above-average wages for work in commercial enterprises, access to low-interest loans, old-age pensions and more, he says.

The Ixtlán forestry enterprise employs up to 280 people and includes a tree nursery, saw mill and furniture making factory. About 7,500 of the 21,000 hectares of community forest is under commercial use and certified by the Rainforest Alliance and WWF. That certification illustrates the need for support beyond the community including government, markets and NGOs.

Bray acknowledges the timber harvest, although well-managed, is changing the character of the forest and reducing the number and diversity of species. It's a tradeoff, he says. The local people need the income but they are managing forests for the long term.

"Done right, timber production can increase forest cover and incomes for local people," Bray says based on his studies.

Of the 2,300 local communities in Mexico who are involved in timber production, about one-third have their own equipment, saw mills or furniture-making facilities, which is unique in Latin America. Virtually everywhere else timber is harvested by commercial logging companies, often to the detriment of local people and the environment.

In an effort to change this, the World Bank, FAO, IUCN and others have formed a "Growing Forests Partnership" to find ways to support community-managed forests, said Chris Buss of IUCN. Not only is this partnership trying to ensure that indigenous and local people are involved in their national government's forestry policy, but also to find ways to channel financial investment into local forest management be it for timber, Brazil nuts or other uses.

Copyright © 2010 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Indonesia: Agriculture expansion plan under fire

The Indonesian government's plan to develop a food estate in Papua has come in for heavy criticism for potentially marginalizing small farmers and threatening the environment

By IRIN | SperoNews | March 28, 2010

The government hopes the 1.6 million hectare Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate in Merauke District will turn Indonesia into one of the world's biggest food producers.

The project will need between 50 and 60 trillion rupiah (US$5.5 billion-$6.6 billion) in initial investment and is expected to create thousands of jobs, Deputy Agriculture Minister Bayu Krisnamurthi said.

Some 36 local and foreign companies have expressed interest and the government will spend between 2.5 and three trillion rupiah on infrastructure, he said.

"We need major investors to come in first," Krisnamurthi told reporters this month.

Crops to be grown include rice, sugar cane, soya beans and maize, he said.

NGO activists have rejected the plan, saying the estate could bring more harm than benefit to the local population.

"Food is not just a commercial commodity but is also a basic human right, and leaving food provision to the private sector can hinder people's access to food because corporations are driven by profit," Elisha Kartini, an activist from the Indonesian Farmer Union (SPI), told IRIN.

The Papua region, comprising most of the western half of the island of New Guinea, is divided into two provinces – Papua and West Papua. They are the poorest of Indonesia’s 32 provinces, with 35 percent of its 2.6 million inhabitants living below the poverty line, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, against a national poverty rate of 14.15 percent in 2009.

A traditional food market in Papua, one of Indonesia's poorest regions. Photo: Jefri Aries/IRIN

Competition

Indonesia's leading environmental group, Walhi, warned that the project would amount to a land grab and cause local farmers to suffer because they would be unable to compete with major corporations.

"The foundation of our food security is still vulnerable," Muhammad Islah, Walhi's water and food campaigner, told IRIN

"Farmers are still struggling with scarcity of land in the face of market liberalization and government policy unfavourable to small farmers," he said.

"If this project goes ahead, it would amount to legalised land-grabbing when domestic and foreign businesses are allowed to compete with small farmers."

Agriculture Minister Suswono said Indonesian companies would control interests in the estate and foreign ownership would be limited to 49 percent.

Deputy Minister Krisnamurthi said the estate was expected to contribute one million metric tonnes in rice production annually and between 800,000 and 1.2 million metric tonnes of sugar. Indonesia produces about 60 million tonnes of rice annually.

Coordinating Minister for the Economy Hatta Radjasa said the project would start this year but details were still being worked out and tried to allay fears that it would damage the environment.

A local Papuan man tends to his sweet potato plants on a hillside in Papua. Photo: Jefri Aries/IRIN

"We have to really make use of idle land, so forest areas must remain intact and deforested areas will be converted into plantation areas," he said.

Environmental threat

But Walhi warned that the estate would threaten the ecosystem and its ecological balance.

"Large-scale land conversions in Merauke, which consists of predominantly low-lying land and marshes, could cause it to lose its land areas," Walhi said in a statement. "The decrease in forest and water catchment areas could result in a faster intrusion of sea water to the land."

The West Papua Advocacy Team, a Papuan pressure group, said the plan entailed an expansion of Merauke's population of some 175,000 people to up to 800,000.

The group warned that the project would likely involve a state-supported inflow of non-Papuans along the lines of decades of "transmigration policies" adopted by the government of former president Suharto.

The policy has in the past been blamed for ethnic conflict in the Indonesian part of Borneo and Sumatra islands.

"That conflict has arisen as local populations are marginalized in their own homelands as government supports programmes that favour the internal migrants to the disadvantage of locals," the group said in a statement.

"There is growing opposition to the scheme from small-scale Papuan farmers who say they fear their traditional livelihoods will be threatened by the large-scale, state-subsidized commercialization of agriculture," it added.

© Copyright Spero, All rights reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Native groups vow to fight pipeline

Aboriginal groups on Canada's Pacific Coast vowed on Tuesday to block Enbridge Inc's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to carry oil sands crude to export markets including China

Allan Dowd | Reuters | Mar 24, 2010

The groups said the environmental danger of oil tankers traveling through the coastal waters of British Columbia is too great, and the announcement could set the stage for a protracted legal and political fight over the pipeline.

"Some people are saying (the pipeline) is a done deal. It's not," Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations, a coalition of native Indian communities in the rugged wilderness area, often called the Great Bear Rainforest.

Canada's courts have ruled native groups must be consulted about projects built on their historic territories.

The proposed project would carry crude from the oil sands in northern Alberta to a port facility in Kitimat, British Columbia.

Aboriginal leaders said their opposition to the project was strong enough for them to continue the fight, even if Enbridge gets government and court permission to build it -- including blockading tankers.

"We are prepared to put boats across the channel," Gerald Amos, a director of the coalition and a native leader from the Kitimat area, told reporters at a news conference in Vancouver.

The groups announced their opposition on the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez tanker's massive oil spill in Alaska. And the Vancouver announcement was accompanied by national newspaper ads comparing the two events.

Steve Wuori, vice-president of liquids pipelines for Enbridge Inc, Canada's second-largest pipeline company, told the Reuters Canadian Oil Sands Summit in Calgary that he was frustrated by the comparison to the Valdez disaster.

"It's disappointing to see the dialogue over what is an important infrastructure project under stringent environmental standards and engineering practices reduced to a recounting of a 21-year-old incident," Wuori said.

Tankers used today are safer and the company has pledged to install an emergency response system, Wuori said.

The Exxon Valdez accident lead to restrictions on oil tanker traffic on Canada's Pacific coast. The aboriginal groups said Enbridge's line will bring as many as 150 ships to Kitimat each year.

Enbridge expects to file for regulatory approvals for the 525,000 bpd line by mid-year and expects a decision from federal regulators to take 18 months or more. The line would not be in service before 2015. the company said.

The aboriginal groups hope their unified opposition would encourage the British Columbia provincial government to also come out against the pipeline.

British Columbia energy minister Blair Lekstrom said on Tuesday he would not take a position until Enbridge presents its full plan to regulators, but he also noted the project could bring needed jobs to the region.

(For map of Canada's oil sands, click on: link.reuters.com/geh54j; For graphic on world's largest oil reserves, 2008 link.reuters.com/ceh54j; For oil and gas investment in Albertalink.reuters.com/beh54j; U.S. petroleum imports by country link.reuters.com/zah54j)

(Reporting Allan Dowd, additional reporting by Scott Haggett and Jeffrey Jones; editing by Rob Wilson and Carol Bishopric)

© Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Environmental 'Crisis' and Government Power

The IPCC's climate-change fearmongering is only the latest excuse to expand the public sector

By BARUN S. MITRA | The Wall Street Journal | MARCH 23, 2010

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted for the first time last month that it is facing a crisis of confidence. But the IPCC's failings go far beyond the recent spate of errors identified in its reports. The problem began with the global political climate that led to the formation of the IPCC two decades ago.

Contrary to popular perception, the IPCC is not a scientific organization. It does no research of its own. Composed of scientists nominated by different governments, its key function is to collate evidence of human-induced climate change, not just changes in climate.

It is hardly surprising that with such an inherently biased objective the scientists lost their objectivity. Many of them went on a crusade to support the political goal of proving anthropogenic global warming. Concerns about scientific objectivity and critical discourse were thrown overboard.

Why did political masters set such a nonscientific mandate for their scientists at the IPCC? Because over the past half century, governments have often ridden the green bandwagon to justify public-sector expansion.

Almost every decade we have witnessed the birth of a new green scare, apparently based on new scientific findings. First came the campaign against the pesticide DDT in the 1960s, followed by the population bomb in the 1970s. Then we had the campaign to protect forests and species in the 1980s, the ozone hole in the 1990s, and most recently the crescendo over climate change leading up to last year's Copenhagen summit.

IPCC chief Rajenda Pachauri. Associated Press

Each time, the scare was shown to be false or overhyped. For instance, millions of people in the developing world died of malaria because DDT was wrongly vilified. It took decades to overcome the blanket ban of the chemical, and now it is once again being used to control mosquitoes in Africa.

Predictions of a rising population depleting the world's resources have proven equally false and destructive. India today is enjoying the demographic dividend of a young workforce, while China is getting worried at the prospect that it may become the first society in history to grow old before it becomes rich. Likewise, forests are making a surprising comeback in many parts of the world, as the rise in agricultural productivity and economic growth are lowering demand for agricultural land.

Clearly, the track record of green prophecies has been pathetic. And with the collapse of the Soviet empire, and periodic economic turmoil, (such as the Asian economic crisis in 1997, and the dot-com bust in 2000), the public's confidence in their leaders' capacity to make effective economic policies has been shaken. It is in this context that climate change provided a new opportunity for many governments to legitimize their role, and expand their scope.

The formation of the IPCC and its apparent focus on the science of climate change allowed the political establishments to claim science as the basis for proposed climate policies that increased the power of government and curtailed the private sector. The time frame of the projected climate change was longer than earlier green crusades, typically from 50 to 100 years. This allowed policy makers to escape accountability for their misguided policies since they would be out of office by the time the consequences became apparent.

The relationship between a section of political leaders and scientists turned out to be mutually reinforcing. Policy makers justified their empire building on the basis of "scientific consensus," and scientists found a very profitable avenue for political influence and access to funding.

To sell this climate strategy, political leaders and scientists adopted the classic carrot-and-stick approach. The rich countries offered money to the poor ones in an attempt to buy support for the climate policies. More recently there is the threat of trade sanctions, which reflect the stick.

This approach was apparent in the build-up to the Copenhagen summit last December. The distinction between scientists and activists virtually disappeared as the scaremongering reached a new depth. The rich countries' carrots virtually broke the Group of 77 developing-world nations, as some of the poorest countries found the lure of easy money in hand more attractive than the fruits of economic growth in the future.

The grand design failed on three counts, and the world was saved from the onslaught of the climate crusade. Copenhagen coincided with the global economic slowdown, and therefore the promise of money seemed more like a mirage. Second, the scientific authority of the IPCC collapsed. And finally, deepening developmental aspirations in some of the major developing countries, such as Brazil, China, India and South Africa, meant that the leadership in these countries could not afford to barter their economic future for the sake of some small change today.

The current crisis in the environmental movement is not limited to a few leading climate scientists; its root lies in the political shifts taking place in many countries. Leaders are being forced to take their responsibilities more seriously, and not to outsource it to scientists. And scientists will have to regain public confidence by returning to their traditional values of objectivity and intellectual rigor.

Mr. Mitra is director of the Liberty Institute, an independent think tank in New Delhi, and a columnist for WSJ.com.

Copyright ©2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Gabon's green ambition for Africa

Africa has taken its place on the world stage but its future security depends on equitable, green development

Ali Bongo Ondimba | guardian.co.uk | 21 March 2010

This month Gabon holds the presidency of the UN security council. It has given me cause to reflect on the state of peace and security in the world today. The more I have thought about it, the more prominent I view the position of Africa within the global community.

The continent has been synonymous with armed conflict for more years than I care to remember – seven of the 17 current UN global peace and security missions are in Africa. If we analyse the origins of these conflicts, we see that illegal exploitation of renewable and non-renewable natural resources lies at the heart of most of them.

Africa has always been rich in natural resources, but that richness takes on additional significance today as competition among industrialised and emerging nations intensifies for access to food, water, energy and mineral resources. Recent land acquisitions by foreign companies for the purpose of growing food in Africa have been well publicised; so too have the mining and gas licenses acquired by Chinese companies.

More than half of the world's cobalt, manganese, coffee, cocoa, palm oil and gold are to be found in Africa, as well as vast quantities of platinum and uranium, and close to 20% of all the petroleum traded on the world market. Hardly a month goes by when new deposits of oil and gas are not uncovered somewhere in Africa. Uganda and Ghana are set to join the club of major oil producers in the next couple of years. The US plans to source almost 25% of its annual crude oil imports from Africa over the coming years.

Effective resource management is fundamental for realising the full value of this global interest in our continent and its riches. We must ensure we manage our resources well. We must establish the right regulatory systems to maximise our returns and ensure equitable development. Without development, there can be no guarantee of security. Where there is poverty, there will always be a greater risk of conflict. The need to build strong institutions of state and to develop and maintain professional and disciplined security forces is of paramount importance. We must avoid the illegal exploitation of Africa's resources, which inevitably results in a spiral into conflict.

Africa will be the continent most affected by climate change, and we must do everything in our power to mitigate its impact while urging the rest of the world to work alongside us in recognition of the fact that their carbon emissions affect us the most. African countries host 16% of the world's forests. 80% of my country, Gabon, is made up of tropical rainforest. We have designated 11% of this as national parks and a further 3% as other protected areas, and have more FSC certified sustainable managed logging concessions than Brazil. Avoiding deforestation in my country and the wider Congo Basin region, which is the largest carbon sink in the world after the Amazon, provides one of the most effective means available to minimise carbon emissions and combat climate change.

Furthermore, in 2009, the Africa Progress Panel predicted that dramatic climate change will result in armed conflict in 23 African countries in the next 10-20 years, and political instability in a further 13 nations. Global mechanisms must be put in place to reduce carbon emissions in all countries, including incentives rewarding nations for conserving their forests. That's why it's so important for us to agree a legally binding framework to govern emissions and address global climate change. Clear incentives will free up capital for investments in new clean energy technologies, conservation and afforestation. Alternatively, I can envisage a day when UN peace keepers – the "casques verts" of the future – are engaged not in maintaining the peace in Africa, but charged instead with protecting vital biodiversity and stopping deforestation.

The cohesion and common position achieved by African countries at the Copenhagen summit on climate change has awoken Africans and the world to the potential power of a collective African vote. If we as Africans can continue to find common positions on significant global issues, we can wield a lot more influence in multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank, something which has hitherto eluded us.

Peace and security are at the heart of Africa's future. The African Union has played a leading role in addressing them since its launch in 2002. The number of violent conflicts has been significantly reduced, and important advances, while still fragile, have been made. Our international partners have contributed in no small measure, and we owe them our thanks. The task before us now is to ensure that we do not bequeath the burden of conflicts to the next generation of Africans. Africa's future is at stake, and so too is the prosperity and security of the entire world. It is our collective responsibility to make peace happen.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Are new biofuels the ethical answer?

New biofuels offer a sustainable source of energy but we must consider the ethical and social implications, say Joyce Tait and Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka

Joyce Tait and Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka | SciDev.Net | 10 March 2010

Poplar trees could be genetically modified to provide a more accessible source of cellulose for bioethanol production. Flickr/Robert Crum

Biofuels were first pioneered in the early days of car manufacturing. Cheap fossil fuels soon overtook them as our fuel of choice, but concerns about climate change have revived interest in them — global biofuel production doubled between 2000 and 2007, and is expected to double again by 2011.

'First generation' biofuels, mainly produced from food crops, were initially regarded as a potential renewable and sustainable source of energy. But hopes faded as researchers found biofuels offer small or even negative greenhouse gas emission savings across their life cycle compared with fossil fuels.

Problems associated with environmental impact have also arisen. In Indonesia, for example, large areas of rainforest have been cleared to plant palm oils for biofuels. The country's total rainforest area will soon be about half of what it was in 1990 if current trends continue.

There have been social and economic effects too.

On the plus side, biofuel production has helped some farmers and workers boost their incomes and develop their businesses. But, as with many other types of agriculture, other workers and farmers have experienced inadequate working conditions and negative health effects from pesticide use, for example.

In Colombia, local communities have reportedly lost control of — or even been evicted from — their land to make way for biofuel production.

There is also an ongoing debate among campaigners and scientists about whether biofuel production diverts land and water away from food production, potentially limiting local food supplies and driving up prices.

A new generation of biofuels

Scientists are developing a new generation of biofuels to help avoid such problems. For example, research is exploring the use of plants' inedible, woody parts for biofuel production that would allow non-food crops such as bushes, trees and agricultural waste to be used. Trials are also underway in the United Stateson using algae to produce biodiesel.

Genetic modification is being used to introduce favourable traits into biofuel crops, such as higher yields or the ability to grow on non-arable land. For example, scientists are developing a genetically-modified poplar tree that is amore accessible source of cellulose for bioethanol production.

And the emerging field of synthetic biology is aiming to develop entirely new means of generating biofuels, for example by building microbes that produce hydrocarbons.

Stumbling blocks

Before we bring these new biofuels into wider use we must consider potential stumbling blocks.

One possible area of concern is intellectual property. Several of the new biotechnology techniques being developed for biofuel production have been, or will be, patented. If researchers or companies want to use these technologies, they will have to apply and pay for a licence.

Although patents protect the commercial interests of the patent holder and encourage investment, they can hinder further research and create barriers to using the technology particularly for poorer populations and countries.

The appropriation of traditional or local knowledge should also be carefully monitored as this has proved to be a problem in the past. In 1994, a US company was awarded a patent for neem oil as a method of controlling fungi yet this tree has been used in Indian agriculture for centuries. The patent was later revoked.

There are also governance issues to consider. Biofuels represent an opportunity to help control greenhouse gas emissions, improve rural employment, and provide new sources of much-needed energy. But the interrelated nature of these benefits can bring complex risks if we do not think carefully about the governance of these new technologies.

Small scale bio-energy production might benefit poor rural communities but if it becomes sufficiently profitable, communities risk losing control of both the production and their land to more powerful commercial interests. Most of Indonesia's palm oil plantations are subject to disputes, mainly because of conflicts between customary and state land ownership laws.

Environmental impacts also need to be considered. Some new biofuels have been specifically developed to address these. For example, higher-yielding biofuel crops that might reduce the need for resources such as water and land. On the other hand, biofuel production from non-food crops could put biodiversity at risk because they can be planted in biodiversity-rich areas previously unsuitable for crops.

Next steps

Much of the research into new types of biofuels is at an early stage. But it is important that we consider the potential ethical, environmental and economic issues nowto avoid the problems associated with their predecessors.

To this end, our new Working Party of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics is asking for people's views on the potential of new biofuels to meet our energy needs, support economic development and help address climate change in an ethical and sustainable way.

All the responses to our consultation will be carefully considered and a report of our findings will be published in early 2011. We hope to be able to advise policymakers on the most effective policies to promote, incentivise and regulate the ethical development of new biofuels. We very much look forward to hearing from you.

Joyce Tait is chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Working Party on Biofuels. She is scientific adviser to the Innogen Centre (ESRC Centre for Social and Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics) at Edinburgh University.

Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka is director of the Monitoring and Research Division at UN-Habitat in Nairobi and a professorial fellow at UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University.

© 2010 SciDev.Net

Read more... Sphere: Related Content