The European Union is teaming up with music channel MTV to raise awareness among teens about the dangers of climate change.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas says today's youth "will bear the brunt" of climate change, including rising temperatures and sea-levels.
The EU plans ads to air in 11 EU countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Denmark. Denmark is hosting the U.N. climate change conference aimed a getting a new global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The music channel will also hold special climate change concerts in Stockholm, Budapest and Copenhagen in the run-up to the U.N. conference, which starts Dec. 7.
The campaign's Web site, http://www.mtvplay4climate.eu was launched Wednesday.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Top UN climate expert faults G-8 goal without deed
he chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said Monday that the Group of Eight nations had "clearly ignored" taking any concrete action to accomplish its new goal of limiting climate change.
Rajendra Pachauri, whose scientific panel shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore in 2007, praised the G-8 summit in Italy this month for taking "a big step forward" by agreeing to limit the planet's average temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above levels recorded 150 years ago.
He faulted the world's wealthiest countries, however, because he said they "clearly ignored what the IPCC came up with" to reach that goal.
"It's interesting that the G-8 leaders agreed on this aspirational goal of (limiting) a temperature increase of (no more than) 2 degrees Celsius, which certainly is a big step forward in my view," he told reporters at U.N. headquarters. "But what I find as a dichotomy in this position is the fact that they clearly ignored what the IPCC came up with."
The question of which nations will agree to limit their heat-trapping gases mainly from fossil fuels is taking on increasing urgency at the United Nations, which is sponsoring the key round of talks in December to achieve a climate deal in Copenhagen, Denmark. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made it his No. 1 priority to persuade nations to agree to a successor treaty to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gases, which expires at the end of 2012.
Pachauri said the G-8 leaders also should have accepted the panel's conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions must peak no later than 2015 and then rich countries must reduce emissions from 2005 levels by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020. Doing that, climate scientists say, may help the world avoid the worst effects of warming, which they say will lead to widespread drought, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.
"Now if the G-8 leaders agreed on this 2 degree increase as being the limit that could be accepted, then I think they should have also accepted the attendant requirement of global emissions peaking by 2015," he said. "And if that were to be the case, then they should most categorically have said that ... by 2020 there would have to be deep cuts in emissions."
He said it also would have been helpful "if they had also spelled out what these deep cuts would be, but I'm afraid they haven't talked either about the deep cuts."
Pachauri, who also is director-general of India-based TERI, The Energy and Resources Institute, praised President Barack Obama for making it a priority of his administration to achieve a climate deal in Copenhagen. The Bush administration had been opposed to the Kyoto climate pact, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and unfairly excluded cuts by developing nations such as India and China — the latter of which is overtaking the U.S. as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter.
On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. and India had at least acknowledged their "different perspectives" on climate change. An Indian official told Clinton that India won't accept limits on its greenhouse gases.
Rajendra Pachauri, whose scientific panel shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore in 2007, praised the G-8 summit in Italy this month for taking "a big step forward" by agreeing to limit the planet's average temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above levels recorded 150 years ago.
He faulted the world's wealthiest countries, however, because he said they "clearly ignored what the IPCC came up with" to reach that goal.
"It's interesting that the G-8 leaders agreed on this aspirational goal of (limiting) a temperature increase of (no more than) 2 degrees Celsius, which certainly is a big step forward in my view," he told reporters at U.N. headquarters. "But what I find as a dichotomy in this position is the fact that they clearly ignored what the IPCC came up with."
The question of which nations will agree to limit their heat-trapping gases mainly from fossil fuels is taking on increasing urgency at the United Nations, which is sponsoring the key round of talks in December to achieve a climate deal in Copenhagen, Denmark. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made it his No. 1 priority to persuade nations to agree to a successor treaty to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gases, which expires at the end of 2012.
Pachauri said the G-8 leaders also should have accepted the panel's conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions must peak no later than 2015 and then rich countries must reduce emissions from 2005 levels by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020. Doing that, climate scientists say, may help the world avoid the worst effects of warming, which they say will lead to widespread drought, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.
"Now if the G-8 leaders agreed on this 2 degree increase as being the limit that could be accepted, then I think they should have also accepted the attendant requirement of global emissions peaking by 2015," he said. "And if that were to be the case, then they should most categorically have said that ... by 2020 there would have to be deep cuts in emissions."
He said it also would have been helpful "if they had also spelled out what these deep cuts would be, but I'm afraid they haven't talked either about the deep cuts."
Pachauri, who also is director-general of India-based TERI, The Energy and Resources Institute, praised President Barack Obama for making it a priority of his administration to achieve a climate deal in Copenhagen. The Bush administration had been opposed to the Kyoto climate pact, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and unfairly excluded cuts by developing nations such as India and China — the latter of which is overtaking the U.S. as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter.
On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. and India had at least acknowledged their "different perspectives" on climate change. An Indian official told Clinton that India won't accept limits on its greenhouse gases.
India stands firm on binding emissions limits
India stood firm Sunday against Western demands to accept binding limits on carbon emissions even as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed optimism about an eventual climate change deal to India's benefit.
"There is simply no case for the pressure that we — who have among the lowest emissions per capita — face to actually reduce emissions," India's minister of environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh, told Clinton and her visiting delegation in a meeting.
"And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours," he added
U.S. officials had expected the discussions to focus more on cooperation in related areas of energy efficiency, green buildings and clean-burning fuels.
The minister distributed copies of his remarks to reporters in a gesture aimed at underlining India's tough stance. The comments showed the political sensitivity in India of one of the Obama administration's foreign policy priorities.
Clinton said Ramesh presented a "fair argument." But she said India's case "loses force" because the fast-growing country's absolute level of carbon emissions — as opposed to the per capita amount — is "going up and dramatically."
Later, at an agricultural research site in a farm field outside the capital, Clinton told reporters she is optimistic about getting a climate change deal that will satisfy India.
"This is part of a negotiation," she said. "It's part of a give-and-take and it's multilateral, which makes it even more complex. But until proven otherwise, I'm going to continue to speak out in favor of every country doing its part to deal with the challenge of global climate change."
Clinton planned talks on Monday with Indian government officials on other issues, including curbing the spread of nuclear weapons.
In an interview with the TV station NDTV, Clinton said she wants to discuss what she called India's more benign interpretation of Iran's intentions, particularly regarding Iran's disputed presidential election and its nuclear program. Clinton was pressed to say whether she is worried that India has a different view of Iran, which is seen by the U.S. as a supporter of terrorist groups, an obstacle to Mideast peace and a threat to build a nuclear bomb.
"I'm not concerned yet. I want to understand why it is and why it is held," she said, referring to India's view.
Clinton's trip to India, which began with a two-day visit to Mumbai, reflects a push by the Obama administration to keep U.S.-India relations on the improving path they have followed for more than a decade. For example, two-way trade has doubled since 2004.
The two sides are working out the details of agreements that would give U.S. companies exclusive rights to sell nuclear reactors to India and to facilitate U.S. defense sales. Clinton could sign agreements Monday on one or both, as well as announce a broadening of U.S.-Indian cooperation on education, agriculture and counterterrorism.
India is widely viewed as an indispensable partner on climate change, along with China and Brazil. Those three countries and others in the developing world argue that the industrial world produced most of the harmful gases in recent decades and should bear the costs of fixing the problem.
Concerns about environment, economyAt a joint news conference with Ramesh, Clinton said the U.S. understands India's determination to resist measures, as part of a proposed international treaty on climate change, that unduly would restrict its economic growth.
"No one wants to stop or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions out of poverty," she said, adding that the U.S. "will not do anything that would limit India's economic progress."
Accompanying Clinton to India was the special U.S. envoy for climate change, Todd Stern. He is coordinating administration efforts to negotiate a climate change treaty by December, when nations from around the world are to gather in Denmark to negotiate a successor to the 1997 pact that expires in 2012.
CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT
Read more news from around the world
Countries such as China and India — the next generation of big polluters — want the industrial countries to pledge to reduce their carbon emissions by 40 percent over the next decade before they promise any reductions of their own.
Stern told reporters that it's clear that the U.S. and other developed countries will be asked to accept absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from a specific baseline number, whereas India and other developing nations would be expected to accept a slowing of the upward trajectory on which their emissions are now headed. Details are to be negotiated.
Clinton said that devising a comprehensive and strategic approach for achieving a clean energy future is an important topic of her India visit.
"I am very confident the United States and India can devise a plan that will dramatically change the way we produce, consume and conserve energy and in the process spark an explosion of new investment and millions of jobs," she said, without elaborating.
Energy legislation could bring deep change
Congress has taken its first step toward an energy revolution, with the prospect of profound change for every household, business, industry and farm in the decades ahead.
It was late Friday when the House passed legislation that would, for the first time, require limits on pollution blamed for global warming — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Now the Senate has the chance to change the way Americans produce and use energy.
What would the country look like a decade from now if the House-passed bill — or, more likely, a watered-down version — were to become the law of the land?
"It will open the door to a clean energy economy and a better future for America," President Barack Obama said Saturday.
But what does that mean to the average person?
Energy touches every corner of the economy and in countless ways can alter people's lives.
Such a law would impact how much people pay to heat, cool and light their homes (it would cost more); what automobiles they buy and drive (smaller, fuel efficient and hybrid electric); and where they will work (more "green" jobs, meaning more environmentally friendly ones).
'Jobs killer' may be jobs shifterCritics of the House bill brand it a "jobs killer." Yet it would seem more likely to shift jobs. Old, energy-intensive industries and businesses might scale back or disappear. Those green jobs would emerge, propelled by the push for nonpolluting energy sources.
That could mean making or installing solar panels, repairing wind turbines, producing energy-efficient light bulbs, working for an environmental engineering firm or waste recycler, making equipment that harnesses carbon from coal burning and churning out energy-saving washing machines or air conditioners.
Assembly line workers at factories that made gas-guzzling cars might see their future in producing the next generation of batteries or wind turbine blades — an emerging shift, though on a relatively small scale today. On Wall Street, commodity brokers would trade carbon pollution credits alongside oil futures.
Farmers would see the cost of fertilizer and electricity go up. More windmills would dot their pastures. And a new source of income could come from selling pollution credits by planting trees or changing farming methods to absorb more carbon dioxide.
Energy would cost more because it would become more expensive to produce. For the first time there would be a price on the greenhouse gas pollution created when coal, natural gas or oil are burned. Energy companies would have to pay for technologies that can capture the carbon emissions, purchase pollution allowances or shift to cleaner energy sources
It was late Friday when the House passed legislation that would, for the first time, require limits on pollution blamed for global warming — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Now the Senate has the chance to change the way Americans produce and use energy.
What would the country look like a decade from now if the House-passed bill — or, more likely, a watered-down version — were to become the law of the land?
"It will open the door to a clean energy economy and a better future for America," President Barack Obama said Saturday.
But what does that mean to the average person?
Energy touches every corner of the economy and in countless ways can alter people's lives.
Such a law would impact how much people pay to heat, cool and light their homes (it would cost more); what automobiles they buy and drive (smaller, fuel efficient and hybrid electric); and where they will work (more "green" jobs, meaning more environmentally friendly ones).
'Jobs killer' may be jobs shifterCritics of the House bill brand it a "jobs killer." Yet it would seem more likely to shift jobs. Old, energy-intensive industries and businesses might scale back or disappear. Those green jobs would emerge, propelled by the push for nonpolluting energy sources.
That could mean making or installing solar panels, repairing wind turbines, producing energy-efficient light bulbs, working for an environmental engineering firm or waste recycler, making equipment that harnesses carbon from coal burning and churning out energy-saving washing machines or air conditioners.
Assembly line workers at factories that made gas-guzzling cars might see their future in producing the next generation of batteries or wind turbine blades — an emerging shift, though on a relatively small scale today. On Wall Street, commodity brokers would trade carbon pollution credits alongside oil futures.
Farmers would see the cost of fertilizer and electricity go up. More windmills would dot their pastures. And a new source of income could come from selling pollution credits by planting trees or changing farming methods to absorb more carbon dioxide.
Energy would cost more because it would become more expensive to produce. For the first time there would be a price on the greenhouse gas pollution created when coal, natural gas or oil are burned. Energy companies would have to pay for technologies that can capture the carbon emissions, purchase pollution allowances or shift to cleaner energy sources
As Earth warms, move species to save them?
On naked patches of land in western Canada and United States, scientists are planting trees that don't belong there. It's a bold experiment to move trees threatened by global warming into places where they may thrive amid a changing climate.
Take the Western larch with its thick grooved bark and green needles. It grows in the valleys and lower mountain slopes in British Columbia's southern interior. Canadian foresters are testing how its seeds will fare when planted farther north — just below the Arctic Circle.
Something similar will be tried in the Lower 48. Researchers will uproot moisture-loving Sitka spruce and Western red cedar that grace British Columbia's coastal rainforests and drop their seedlings in the dry ponderosa pine forests of Idaho.
All of this swapping begs the question: Should humans lend nature a helping hand?
With global warming threatening the livelihoods of certain plants and animals, this radical idea once dismissed in scientific circles has moved to the forefront of debate and triggered strong emotions among conservationists.
About 20 to 30 percent of species worldwide face a high risk of becoming extinct possibly by 2100 as global temperatures rise, estimated a 2007 report by the Nobel-winning international climate change panel. The group noted that current conservation practices are "generally poorly prepared to adapt to this level of change."
eliberating moving a species has long been opposed by some, who believe we should not play God with nature and worry that introducing an exotic species — intentionally or not — could upset the natural balance and cause unforeseen ripple effects. It has happened before with dire results. Two decades ago, zebra mussels were accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes and millions are now spent every year removing the pest from water pipes.
Others counter that given the grim realities of a warming planet, it would be irresponsible not to intervene as a conservation strategy. Otherwise, trees may suffer from ravaging disease epidemics while critters unable to head north may find themselves trapped in a declining landscape.
British Columbia experiment"A tree that we plant today better damn well be adapted to the climate for 80 years, not just the climate today," said Greg O'Neill, a geneticist with the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. "We really have to think long term
O'Neill is heading the government-funded experiment that will transform certain North American forests into climate change laboratories. The large-scale, first-of-its-kind test involves purposely planting seeds from more a dozen timber species outside their normal comfort zone to see how well they survive decades from now.
It's more than just a brainy exercise. The findings are expected to guide the British Columbia government on forest management policies. While the experiment deals with moving seeds long distances into unaccustomed climates, O'Neill said any real-life action will not be as drastic.
Outsiders are also keenly watching the experiment as a test case for what is professionally known as "assisted migration."
"We'd all prefer species to move naturally," said Duke conservation biologist Stuart Pimm. But "sometimes you just can't get there from here. Some species are going to be isolated and they're going to get stuck."
The notion of relocating species as a pre-emptive strike against climate change has been largely theoretical. In recent years, some groups have tried assisted migration on a limited basis, most notably the effort by volunteers who last year planted seedlings of the endangered Torreya tree found in Florida to the cooler southern Appalachians.
The Canadian experiment currently under way will cover a broad swath, with tree plantings dotting the Yukon near Alaska to southern Oregon.
Past warmings have forced species to migrate to survive without human help. While some have learned to adapt to new surroundings, other have gone extinct. Faced with the possibility of much more rapid climate change, scientists say, some species may not be able to move fast enough to their new destinations and may need a little power boost to preserve biodiversity.
In North America, some critters have already started their march north. The Edith's checkerspot butterfly, which vanished from its southern range, is now fluttering 75 miles higher in elevation. Red foxes have encroached farther into northern Canada and evicted the arctic foxes.
On the plant side, spruce forests are invading the Arctic tundra and impacting caribou and sheep that live there. In the past century, aspen trees in Colorado have moved into the cold-loving spruce fir forests.
How trees will fare in a warmer world is a concern because they tend to be less flighty than animals. Trees depend on wind and pollinators to spread their seeds. And once a tree is planted, it's harder to move it.
Last year, the British Columbia government took the first steps toward ensuring that trees in the province are adapted to future climates by relaxing its seed rules for timber companies when they replant on logged land. Seeds of most tree species can now be planted up to 1,600 feet higher than their current location.
The government's latest experiment will study how humans can help trees move to more northerly spots where they do not currently grow, but may find themselves existing there years from now. It will not deal with introducing foreign tree species, O'Neill said.
This spring, crews fanned across rugged mountains and began the first dozen plantings on cleared forest land in British Columbia's southern interior and on a private plot near Mount St. Helens in Washington state.
Each test site contains some 3,000 seedlings, on average a foot tall, planted side-by-side on five acres. Fluorescent pin-flags and aluminum stakes dot the corners so that scientists can come back every five years to document their health.
The project will eventually include 48 plots around British Columbia, Washington state, Oregon, Montana and Idaho. It will test the ability of 15 tree species to survive in environments colder and hotter than they're used to.
O'Neill knows that some trees will die and others will go through erratic growth cycles. In fact, he estimates about 50 percent of the plantings may die, but he needs to collect the data to get an idea of how much they can tolerate.
"It will take several extreme climatic events to find out the winners and losers," he said.
Take the Western larch with its thick grooved bark and green needles. It grows in the valleys and lower mountain slopes in British Columbia's southern interior. Canadian foresters are testing how its seeds will fare when planted farther north — just below the Arctic Circle.
Something similar will be tried in the Lower 48. Researchers will uproot moisture-loving Sitka spruce and Western red cedar that grace British Columbia's coastal rainforests and drop their seedlings in the dry ponderosa pine forests of Idaho.
All of this swapping begs the question: Should humans lend nature a helping hand?
With global warming threatening the livelihoods of certain plants and animals, this radical idea once dismissed in scientific circles has moved to the forefront of debate and triggered strong emotions among conservationists.
About 20 to 30 percent of species worldwide face a high risk of becoming extinct possibly by 2100 as global temperatures rise, estimated a 2007 report by the Nobel-winning international climate change panel. The group noted that current conservation practices are "generally poorly prepared to adapt to this level of change."
eliberating moving a species has long been opposed by some, who believe we should not play God with nature and worry that introducing an exotic species — intentionally or not — could upset the natural balance and cause unforeseen ripple effects. It has happened before with dire results. Two decades ago, zebra mussels were accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes and millions are now spent every year removing the pest from water pipes.
Others counter that given the grim realities of a warming planet, it would be irresponsible not to intervene as a conservation strategy. Otherwise, trees may suffer from ravaging disease epidemics while critters unable to head north may find themselves trapped in a declining landscape.
British Columbia experiment"A tree that we plant today better damn well be adapted to the climate for 80 years, not just the climate today," said Greg O'Neill, a geneticist with the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. "We really have to think long term
O'Neill is heading the government-funded experiment that will transform certain North American forests into climate change laboratories. The large-scale, first-of-its-kind test involves purposely planting seeds from more a dozen timber species outside their normal comfort zone to see how well they survive decades from now.
It's more than just a brainy exercise. The findings are expected to guide the British Columbia government on forest management policies. While the experiment deals with moving seeds long distances into unaccustomed climates, O'Neill said any real-life action will not be as drastic.
Outsiders are also keenly watching the experiment as a test case for what is professionally known as "assisted migration."
"We'd all prefer species to move naturally," said Duke conservation biologist Stuart Pimm. But "sometimes you just can't get there from here. Some species are going to be isolated and they're going to get stuck."
The notion of relocating species as a pre-emptive strike against climate change has been largely theoretical. In recent years, some groups have tried assisted migration on a limited basis, most notably the effort by volunteers who last year planted seedlings of the endangered Torreya tree found in Florida to the cooler southern Appalachians.
The Canadian experiment currently under way will cover a broad swath, with tree plantings dotting the Yukon near Alaska to southern Oregon.
Past warmings have forced species to migrate to survive without human help. While some have learned to adapt to new surroundings, other have gone extinct. Faced with the possibility of much more rapid climate change, scientists say, some species may not be able to move fast enough to their new destinations and may need a little power boost to preserve biodiversity.
In North America, some critters have already started their march north. The Edith's checkerspot butterfly, which vanished from its southern range, is now fluttering 75 miles higher in elevation. Red foxes have encroached farther into northern Canada and evicted the arctic foxes.
On the plant side, spruce forests are invading the Arctic tundra and impacting caribou and sheep that live there. In the past century, aspen trees in Colorado have moved into the cold-loving spruce fir forests.
How trees will fare in a warmer world is a concern because they tend to be less flighty than animals. Trees depend on wind and pollinators to spread their seeds. And once a tree is planted, it's harder to move it.
Last year, the British Columbia government took the first steps toward ensuring that trees in the province are adapted to future climates by relaxing its seed rules for timber companies when they replant on logged land. Seeds of most tree species can now be planted up to 1,600 feet higher than their current location.
The government's latest experiment will study how humans can help trees move to more northerly spots where they do not currently grow, but may find themselves existing there years from now. It will not deal with introducing foreign tree species, O'Neill said.
This spring, crews fanned across rugged mountains and began the first dozen plantings on cleared forest land in British Columbia's southern interior and on a private plot near Mount St. Helens in Washington state.
Each test site contains some 3,000 seedlings, on average a foot tall, planted side-by-side on five acres. Fluorescent pin-flags and aluminum stakes dot the corners so that scientists can come back every five years to document their health.
The project will eventually include 48 plots around British Columbia, Washington state, Oregon, Montana and Idaho. It will test the ability of 15 tree species to survive in environments colder and hotter than they're used to.
O'Neill knows that some trees will die and others will go through erratic growth cycles. In fact, he estimates about 50 percent of the plantings may die, but he needs to collect the data to get an idea of how much they can tolerate.
"It will take several extreme climatic events to find out the winners and losers," he said.
IPCC chief: Benefits of tackling climate change will balance cost of action
The cost of tackling climate change will be paid for by benefits that would come from better energy security, employment and health, Rajendra Pachauri says ahead of major announcement on 2013 reports
Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world's top climate change expert said today.
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the Guardian: "The cost could undoubtedly be negative overall." This is because of the additional benefits that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could bring, beyond limiting temperature rises.
Until now, estimates of the price of preventing dangerous climate change have all indicated significant costs. The most authoritative study, the 2006 Stern report, concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he has since said 2% is now more likely.
Pachauri's comments came ahead of a press announcement in New York today about the IPCC's plans for its next series of reports in 2013. He said these would include a greater emphasis on the economics, as well as ethical and humanitarian concerns.
Funding for reducing and adapting to climate change in one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations towards a global deal at a UN summit in December in Copenhagen. But Pachauri argues that if the costs are negative, then "inertia and vested interests would be washed away. As the Americans say, it would be like dollar bills lying on the sidewalk."
Alex Bowen, one of the Stern report authors, said: "[Pachauri's] is a defensible postion, not delusional. But I am more of a sceptic."
"My hunch overall is that it will be a little more costly than we estimated in 2006. But if well designed policies are put in place, we can still do it remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong action now is much cheaper than no action," added Bowen, an economist at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
The associated benefits Pachauri pointed to include better energy security, protecting consumers from oil price spikes, new employment in green industries, more productive agriculture and lower air pollution, cutting health costs. He said one good example was insulating draughty homes and installing better energy control systems. "This can yield very high rates of returns, with pay back in one year."
The idea of co-benefits is also central to the "green new deals" promoted by the UN Environment programme, Lord Stern's group and others.
Bowen said: "Negative costs depends on assumption that policy design and implementation is sensible and very consistent across countries all over the world. But we have gone three years [since the Stern report] without global policies. Emissions have grown rapidly and a lot of people now think economic growth will be much higher later in the century." The faster you have to reduce emissions, he said, the more expensive it is likely to be.
Pachauri's comments came as he led discussions what the next set of reports from the IPCC should cover. Its last report in 2007 is acknowledged to have settled the argument over whether emissions from human activities were causing climate change.
In the next series, due in 2013, Pachauri said the focus would change. "The IPCC cannot address the issue in purely scientific terms. For adaptation and mitigation, we need to put euro or dollar values on those. But there are also some costs you can't quantify. For example, take Hurricane Katrina. You can put a value on property losses, what about psychological, sociological, and institutional costs. I would not like to try to quantify those."
The IPCC meeting raised a range of further issues that it believes need more attention, including extreme weather events, new greenhouse gases, the full impacts of aviation and global scale geo-engineering.
The reports take between five and seven years to complete, but Pachauri argued that this is their strength: "The IPCC process of regular peer review means the reports are far more defensible than anything else.
Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world's top climate change expert said today.
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the Guardian: "The cost could undoubtedly be negative overall." This is because of the additional benefits that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could bring, beyond limiting temperature rises.
Until now, estimates of the price of preventing dangerous climate change have all indicated significant costs. The most authoritative study, the 2006 Stern report, concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he has since said 2% is now more likely.
Pachauri's comments came ahead of a press announcement in New York today about the IPCC's plans for its next series of reports in 2013. He said these would include a greater emphasis on the economics, as well as ethical and humanitarian concerns.
Funding for reducing and adapting to climate change in one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations towards a global deal at a UN summit in December in Copenhagen. But Pachauri argues that if the costs are negative, then "inertia and vested interests would be washed away. As the Americans say, it would be like dollar bills lying on the sidewalk."
Alex Bowen, one of the Stern report authors, said: "[Pachauri's] is a defensible postion, not delusional. But I am more of a sceptic."
"My hunch overall is that it will be a little more costly than we estimated in 2006. But if well designed policies are put in place, we can still do it remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong action now is much cheaper than no action," added Bowen, an economist at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
The associated benefits Pachauri pointed to include better energy security, protecting consumers from oil price spikes, new employment in green industries, more productive agriculture and lower air pollution, cutting health costs. He said one good example was insulating draughty homes and installing better energy control systems. "This can yield very high rates of returns, with pay back in one year."
The idea of co-benefits is also central to the "green new deals" promoted by the UN Environment programme, Lord Stern's group and others.
Bowen said: "Negative costs depends on assumption that policy design and implementation is sensible and very consistent across countries all over the world. But we have gone three years [since the Stern report] without global policies. Emissions have grown rapidly and a lot of people now think economic growth will be much higher later in the century." The faster you have to reduce emissions, he said, the more expensive it is likely to be.
Pachauri's comments came as he led discussions what the next set of reports from the IPCC should cover. Its last report in 2007 is acknowledged to have settled the argument over whether emissions from human activities were causing climate change.
In the next series, due in 2013, Pachauri said the focus would change. "The IPCC cannot address the issue in purely scientific terms. For adaptation and mitigation, we need to put euro or dollar values on those. But there are also some costs you can't quantify. For example, take Hurricane Katrina. You can put a value on property losses, what about psychological, sociological, and institutional costs. I would not like to try to quantify those."
The IPCC meeting raised a range of further issues that it believes need more attention, including extreme weather events, new greenhouse gases, the full impacts of aviation and global scale geo-engineering.
The reports take between five and seven years to complete, but Pachauri argued that this is their strength: "The IPCC process of regular peer review means the reports are far more defensible than anything else.
Hillary in Indian Climate Change Standoff
Talk about a rough start. On a three-day visit to India, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jostled with India’s environment minister for her suggestion that India consider curbs on its carbon emissions.Speaking on a tour of a so-called “green building” in Gurgaon, the boom-town-gone-silent on the outskirts of the Indian capital, Clinton offered a thought on India’s role in the efforts against global warming. After admiring the double-glassed windows that kept the building cool in the summers, she admitted that the U.S. had made mistakes in terms of climate change policy. “There is no question that developed countries like mine must lead on this issue and for our part, under President Obama, we are not only acknowledging our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, we are taking steps to reverse its ill effects,” Clinton said.
Then, she added this, as a reminder to what she felt were India’s responsibilities. “It is essential for major developing countries like India to also lead because over 80 percent of the growth in future emissions will be from developing countries,” she said.
Innocuous enough, right? But it raised the hackles of Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for forests and environment. “There is simply no case for the pressure” that the U.S. was exerting for legal caps on emissions for developing countries, he said. “As if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
And to make sure his point across, he added later on that India looks “suspiciously” upon the commitment and motivation of western countries that have failed to live up to previous climate treaties. (Remember the Kyoto Protocol? Anybody? Anybody?)
An over-reaction, you say? But then, there’s always the back-story to consider. First of all, both India and China have been adamant about one fact – if the U.S. and Europe faced no limitations on their ability to industrialize, then it would be hypocrisy to impose the same limitations on developing nations.
More recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that imposes tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t pledge to a reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020.
And to, so to say, heat up the affair even more, both India and China are expected to find themselves in a corner later this year, when 180 nations meet later this year in Copenhagen to discuss global warming under the U.N.’s auspices.
So take these comments – this ceremonial sword-rattling – as just another stage in the global realpolitik. India’s argument, unconvincing to environmentalists, is its per capita emissions are amongst the lowest in the world, so to a large extent, its responsibilities should be low too. True, but then, the country has over a billion people, and is amongst the fastest growing in the world, which Clinton tried to point out in her defense. “But what is happening now,” she said, is that those rates of emissions “are going up, and dramatically.”
And also, as in all diplomatic encounters, the setting and the company makes all the difference. She was flanked by Todd Stern, Mrs Clinton envoy on Climate Change, whose presence on her team raised eyebrows, with oversensitive Indian newspapers registering surprise on his inclusion. And she went out of her way to visit, and then compare the “green building”, constructed by none other than a tobacco manufacturer, as the next Taj Mahal.
To fully understand the impassioned Indian reactions, remember that India and China are being slowly wooed to join the WTO as full partners, a process that all parties have found rancorous. India let the Doha round of talks last year collapse when the U.S. insisted on the removals of support prices for farmers, the largest constituent for India’s ruling Congress party.
But as part of the wooing process, the West has often indicated that it wants more than changes in subsidies and taxes – it wants cooperation on climate change, which Indian and Chinese officials point out, was a creation of western excess.
As a peace offering, India agreed to an “aspirational” limit on global emissions earlier this year, but has made clear that if the western world wants India to roll back emissions, it has to share in the economic cost that that decision brings.
Clinton made nice too, saying that “of course,” nobody wants to “no one wants to, in any way, stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions of more people out of poverty,” according to a transcript of the press conference.
So, as usually happens at these sort of things, nothing was settled, everybody bared their teeth and drew a line in the constantly shifting sand about their intentions, and retreated back to their corners. India still has no interest in agreeing to legal caps on emissions, and the U.S. registered how earnestly it wanted to that to change.
Monday, though, for those keeping track of the visit – and the accompanying fireworks – will likely be a day of carrots and happy handshakes. Clinton finishes off meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and is expected to announce a few agreements that might make U.S.-India trade more robust. One includes a much awaited end-use-monitoring agreement that might make it easier for American defense contractors to pursues the tens billions of dollars the Indian military is spending, and the other is expected to be an announcement of U.S.-private-sector-built nuclear power plants in India.
Then, she added this, as a reminder to what she felt were India’s responsibilities. “It is essential for major developing countries like India to also lead because over 80 percent of the growth in future emissions will be from developing countries,” she said.
Innocuous enough, right? But it raised the hackles of Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for forests and environment. “There is simply no case for the pressure” that the U.S. was exerting for legal caps on emissions for developing countries, he said. “As if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
And to make sure his point across, he added later on that India looks “suspiciously” upon the commitment and motivation of western countries that have failed to live up to previous climate treaties. (Remember the Kyoto Protocol? Anybody? Anybody?)
An over-reaction, you say? But then, there’s always the back-story to consider. First of all, both India and China have been adamant about one fact – if the U.S. and Europe faced no limitations on their ability to industrialize, then it would be hypocrisy to impose the same limitations on developing nations.
More recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that imposes tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t pledge to a reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020.
And to, so to say, heat up the affair even more, both India and China are expected to find themselves in a corner later this year, when 180 nations meet later this year in Copenhagen to discuss global warming under the U.N.’s auspices.
So take these comments – this ceremonial sword-rattling – as just another stage in the global realpolitik. India’s argument, unconvincing to environmentalists, is its per capita emissions are amongst the lowest in the world, so to a large extent, its responsibilities should be low too. True, but then, the country has over a billion people, and is amongst the fastest growing in the world, which Clinton tried to point out in her defense. “But what is happening now,” she said, is that those rates of emissions “are going up, and dramatically.”
And also, as in all diplomatic encounters, the setting and the company makes all the difference. She was flanked by Todd Stern, Mrs Clinton envoy on Climate Change, whose presence on her team raised eyebrows, with oversensitive Indian newspapers registering surprise on his inclusion. And she went out of her way to visit, and then compare the “green building”, constructed by none other than a tobacco manufacturer, as the next Taj Mahal.
To fully understand the impassioned Indian reactions, remember that India and China are being slowly wooed to join the WTO as full partners, a process that all parties have found rancorous. India let the Doha round of talks last year collapse when the U.S. insisted on the removals of support prices for farmers, the largest constituent for India’s ruling Congress party.
But as part of the wooing process, the West has often indicated that it wants more than changes in subsidies and taxes – it wants cooperation on climate change, which Indian and Chinese officials point out, was a creation of western excess.
As a peace offering, India agreed to an “aspirational” limit on global emissions earlier this year, but has made clear that if the western world wants India to roll back emissions, it has to share in the economic cost that that decision brings.
Clinton made nice too, saying that “of course,” nobody wants to “no one wants to, in any way, stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions of more people out of poverty,” according to a transcript of the press conference.
So, as usually happens at these sort of things, nothing was settled, everybody bared their teeth and drew a line in the constantly shifting sand about their intentions, and retreated back to their corners. India still has no interest in agreeing to legal caps on emissions, and the U.S. registered how earnestly it wanted to that to change.
Monday, though, for those keeping track of the visit – and the accompanying fireworks – will likely be a day of carrots and happy handshakes. Clinton finishes off meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and is expected to announce a few agreements that might make U.S.-India trade more robust. One includes a much awaited end-use-monitoring agreement that might make it easier for American defense contractors to pursues the tens billions of dollars the Indian military is spending, and the other is expected to be an announcement of U.S.-private-sector-built nuclear power plants in India.
Senate Agriculture Panel Begins to Stake Its Claim in Climate Bill
Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will vet options this week for the sweeping energy and climate bill, which they are expected to play a significant role inshaping.The panel will have a hearing Wednesday to explore the role for agriculture and forestry in climate change legislation. They are scheduled to hear from two major farm groups on opposing sides of the debate and question senior Obama administration officials: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and White House Office of Science and Technology Director John Holdren.
The hearing comes as senators consider their options for a massive cap-and-trade measure expected after the August recess. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, who is heading up the effort, says the measure the House passed last month, H.R. 2454 (pdf), will serve as her basis for a bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and other Senate chairmen with a stake in the bill have been brought in for their contributions.
As Senate leadership aims to advance the bill this fall, agricultural interests could form a formidable coalition. Several key fence-sitters on the bill sit on the Agriculture Committee, and farm interests have wide appeal in the Senate. Each senator has some farm interests in his or her state -- unlike the House, which has more representatives from urban and suburban areas.
Boxer plans to introduce her bill the week of Sept. 8, after lawmakers return from the monthlong recess, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set a Sept. 28 deadline for all committees to finish their work on the measure.
Harkin has said he is not sure if he will have a separate markup on the committee's contributions to the overall bill.
Agriculture concerns
Harkin and other senators on the Agriculture Committee have said they want to ensure any effort at wide-ranging climate legislation in the Senate will include all of the provisions that House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) brokered for the House cap-and-trade bill.
House leaders compromised with Peterson and included a raft of changes he suggested in order to win his and other key votes for the bill. The changes were a major victory for farm groups but a disappointment to many environmentalists who are concerned it could weaken efforts to cut down on emissions.
The much-publicized deal put the Agriculture Department, rather than U.S. EPA, in charge of programs that would offset emissions with conservation efforts on farms, ranches and forests. Peterson's language also allowed "early actors," farmers who have been doing such conservation practices for years, to participate in the program.
The language would allow certain farm projects that date back as far as 2001 to qualify. Critics are concerned that instead of reducing carbon, the program may just pay farmers for what they are already doing.
The offset market could be a boon to farmers and other landowners who plant extra trees to absorb carbon dioxide, install methane capture systems over animal waste lagoons or practice no-till farming to store carbon in the soil. The question for some environmental groups is whether these projects will measurably reduce carbon dioxide overall.
Members of the Senate EPW panel said at a hearing last week that they want to make sure the bill is not overly generous in its offset program.
"There is a tremendous amount of sequestering potential, but we have to have it work," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "It has to have a high level of integrity, if there is too much of a loophole it will be irrelevant and ineffective."
Peterson also included a set of provisions friendly to corn-based ethanol, another important issue for Harkin and other Midwestern senators. Peterson's language would temporarily block EPA from calculating a fuel's total worldwide carbon footprint before determining whether it qualifies as a biofuel eligible for incentives. It also bars EPA for five years from including emissions from indirect land-use changes abroad.
Economic analyses
The top Republican on the Agriculture Committee wants more information on the legislation's potential economic effects. Last week he asked agency chiefs who will be testifying at the hearing to release new economic analyses of the House cap-and-trade bill.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) sent letters to Jackson and the chief economist at the Agriculture Department requesting the studies. Chambliss' requests came out of frustration over the lack of statistics and economic analyses on the bill at the farm-level, according to an aide for the second-term senator. He and other Republicans are likely to press the issue this week.
From EPA, Chambliss requested existing research the agency gained from a contract with Bruce McCarl of Texas A&M University. McCarl is a professor of agricultural economics and has specialized in climate change research, developing models that analyze global warming effects on farm economics from a variety of angles.
Chambliss requested McCarl's model, along with all data and supporting information. EPA officials said last week that his request will likely be satisfied. Dave Ryan, a spokesman for the agency, said the computer model is not EPA's property but that its custodian is open with the code and data.
"EPA is working to respond to Senator Chambliss's letter expeditiously," Ryan said.
Chambliss also requested a new study from USDA chief economist Joseph Glauber that would quantify the potential for the offset market and assess the effects that increased energy costs from the House bill could have on farmers and food costs.
USDA is already working on an analysis of some of the costs and benefits of the bill. William Hohenstein, director of USDA's global change program office, said the agency is examining how the bill will effect costs of fuel and fertilizer and its incentives for renewable energy, as well as the impacts and costs of climate change.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, July 22, at 1 p.m. in 325 Russell.
Witnesses: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack; EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson; John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology; Roger Johnson, president of National Farmers Union; Bob Stallman, president of American Farm Bureau Federation; and Jo Pierce, a family tree farmer from Maine, representing the Forest Climate Working Group.
The hearing comes as senators consider their options for a massive cap-and-trade measure expected after the August recess. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, who is heading up the effort, says the measure the House passed last month, H.R. 2454 (pdf), will serve as her basis for a bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and other Senate chairmen with a stake in the bill have been brought in for their contributions.
As Senate leadership aims to advance the bill this fall, agricultural interests could form a formidable coalition. Several key fence-sitters on the bill sit on the Agriculture Committee, and farm interests have wide appeal in the Senate. Each senator has some farm interests in his or her state -- unlike the House, which has more representatives from urban and suburban areas.
Boxer plans to introduce her bill the week of Sept. 8, after lawmakers return from the monthlong recess, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set a Sept. 28 deadline for all committees to finish their work on the measure.
Harkin has said he is not sure if he will have a separate markup on the committee's contributions to the overall bill.
Agriculture concerns
Harkin and other senators on the Agriculture Committee have said they want to ensure any effort at wide-ranging climate legislation in the Senate will include all of the provisions that House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) brokered for the House cap-and-trade bill.
House leaders compromised with Peterson and included a raft of changes he suggested in order to win his and other key votes for the bill. The changes were a major victory for farm groups but a disappointment to many environmentalists who are concerned it could weaken efforts to cut down on emissions.
The much-publicized deal put the Agriculture Department, rather than U.S. EPA, in charge of programs that would offset emissions with conservation efforts on farms, ranches and forests. Peterson's language also allowed "early actors," farmers who have been doing such conservation practices for years, to participate in the program.
The language would allow certain farm projects that date back as far as 2001 to qualify. Critics are concerned that instead of reducing carbon, the program may just pay farmers for what they are already doing.
The offset market could be a boon to farmers and other landowners who plant extra trees to absorb carbon dioxide, install methane capture systems over animal waste lagoons or practice no-till farming to store carbon in the soil. The question for some environmental groups is whether these projects will measurably reduce carbon dioxide overall.
Members of the Senate EPW panel said at a hearing last week that they want to make sure the bill is not overly generous in its offset program.
"There is a tremendous amount of sequestering potential, but we have to have it work," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "It has to have a high level of integrity, if there is too much of a loophole it will be irrelevant and ineffective."
Peterson also included a set of provisions friendly to corn-based ethanol, another important issue for Harkin and other Midwestern senators. Peterson's language would temporarily block EPA from calculating a fuel's total worldwide carbon footprint before determining whether it qualifies as a biofuel eligible for incentives. It also bars EPA for five years from including emissions from indirect land-use changes abroad.
Economic analyses
The top Republican on the Agriculture Committee wants more information on the legislation's potential economic effects. Last week he asked agency chiefs who will be testifying at the hearing to release new economic analyses of the House cap-and-trade bill.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) sent letters to Jackson and the chief economist at the Agriculture Department requesting the studies. Chambliss' requests came out of frustration over the lack of statistics and economic analyses on the bill at the farm-level, according to an aide for the second-term senator. He and other Republicans are likely to press the issue this week.
From EPA, Chambliss requested existing research the agency gained from a contract with Bruce McCarl of Texas A&M University. McCarl is a professor of agricultural economics and has specialized in climate change research, developing models that analyze global warming effects on farm economics from a variety of angles.
Chambliss requested McCarl's model, along with all data and supporting information. EPA officials said last week that his request will likely be satisfied. Dave Ryan, a spokesman for the agency, said the computer model is not EPA's property but that its custodian is open with the code and data.
"EPA is working to respond to Senator Chambliss's letter expeditiously," Ryan said.
Chambliss also requested a new study from USDA chief economist Joseph Glauber that would quantify the potential for the offset market and assess the effects that increased energy costs from the House bill could have on farmers and food costs.
USDA is already working on an analysis of some of the costs and benefits of the bill. William Hohenstein, director of USDA's global change program office, said the agency is examining how the bill will effect costs of fuel and fertilizer and its incentives for renewable energy, as well as the impacts and costs of climate change.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, July 22, at 1 p.m. in 325 Russell.
Witnesses: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack; EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson; John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology; Roger Johnson, president of National Farmers Union; Bob Stallman, president of American Farm Bureau Federation; and Jo Pierce, a family tree farmer from Maine, representing the Forest Climate Working Group.
Frozen tiger, bones seized in Vietnam: monitors
frozen young tiger and several kilograms of tiger bones have been seized by police in Vietnam, where only about 50 of the animals remain, an environmental group said in a statement received Monday.
Hanoi's environmental police found the frozen tiger, weighing 57 kilograms (125 pounds), in the boot of a "suspicious" taxi they stopped in the capital early last Thursday, the TRAFFIC wildlife trade monitoring network said.
They also found 11 kilograms of limb bones believed to come from two tigers, it said.
Environmental police believe the tiger had been transported from central Vietnam but it is not yet known whether it was a native big cat or whether it was wild or captive, said TRAFFIC.
The tiger seizure is the third in Hanoi this year after six tiger skins were found at a store in January and 23 kilograms of frozen tiger parts were recovered the following month, TRAFFIC said.
"These seizures show us just how serious the threat to Asia's remaining wild tigers is," said Nguyen Dao Ngoc Van, of TRAFFIC's Hanoi office.
Vietnam is a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which lists tigers as a protected and endangered species.
Tigers are threatened by the loss of natural habitat from Asia's rapid urbanisation, and are also hunted for fur and body parts used in traditional Chinese medicine.
Hanoi's environmental police found the frozen tiger, weighing 57 kilograms (125 pounds), in the boot of a "suspicious" taxi they stopped in the capital early last Thursday, the TRAFFIC wildlife trade monitoring network said.
They also found 11 kilograms of limb bones believed to come from two tigers, it said.
Environmental police believe the tiger had been transported from central Vietnam but it is not yet known whether it was a native big cat or whether it was wild or captive, said TRAFFIC.
The tiger seizure is the third in Hanoi this year after six tiger skins were found at a store in January and 23 kilograms of frozen tiger parts were recovered the following month, TRAFFIC said.
"These seizures show us just how serious the threat to Asia's remaining wild tigers is," said Nguyen Dao Ngoc Van, of TRAFFIC's Hanoi office.
Vietnam is a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which lists tigers as a protected and endangered species.
Tigers are threatened by the loss of natural habitat from Asia's rapid urbanisation, and are also hunted for fur and body parts used in traditional Chinese medicine.
Indian spiritual leaders go green
Indian spiritual sects are using their wide reach to promote green causes, using the fact that preservation of natural elements is at the country's spiritual core.
Less than a week ago, nearly 1,000 Buddhist monks, nuns and followers set off on a 400-km spiritual trek from Kardang in Lahaul Valley in Himachal Pradesh to Leh in Ladakh across five high Himalayan passes to promote protection of environment and sustainable lifestyles in the region.
The 40-day trek is to say no to plastic bags, a major pollutant in the fragile ecological zone.
The trekkers, led by the head of the 800-year-old Tibetan Drukpa Buddhist sect, Gyalwang Drukpa, will distribute canvas bags to more than 100,000 villagers along the way as a symbolic gesture to shun plastic bags and switch to carry-bags made of cloth and other eco-friendly material.
The marchers will also raise funds - $30 per km - to spread education and sustainable eco-friendly lifestyle awareness in the Himalayan villages.
'This year, we wanted to promote something that purges pollution. Since plastic litter is one of the major eco-concerns in the region, we decided to teach the villagers healthy alternatives. We are in the wheel of a revolution and the way to carry it forward is to lead a clean life.
'Thousands of disciples who visit my monastery in Hemis in Ladakh every year from Europe and Japan requested that we do something in a sustained manner to turn the wheel of revolution so that more people can identify with the spiritual movement and can make their lives better,' Gyalwang Drukpa, the head of the sect, told IANS on telephone from Manali before flagging off the march.
The sect has also been given land along the Indus river on the way to Ladkah to create new woodlands by planting trees.
The trekkers will also champion the cause of 'balanced education for children of the Himalayas' for sustainable livelihoods at the Drukpa sect's eco-friendly 'Druk White Lotus School' in Ladakh that has won international acclaim as the best green school building in Asia.
'We want more children to study in our school and learn to lead balanced lives without losing touch with their culture and environment,' the spiritual leader said.
'A clean environment is the cornerstone of a clean, healthy and strong India,' says Ramdev, co-founder of the Patanjali Yog Peeth near Hardwar.
Ramdev is leading a campaign to clean the Ganga from its source in Gangotri to Ganga Sagar where it drains into the Bay of Bengal. He is working under the banner of Ganga Raksha Manch.
'The government has granted the Ganga national heritage status after our efforts for almost a year,' the seer told IANS. Ramdev, along with representatives of at least 25 religious organisations, is also opposing unplanned industrialisation along the river.
The Ganga - the ninth longest river in the world - is contaminated almost throughout its 2,500-km course. The campaign has managed to mobilise nearly 700,000 youths at the district level.
The cause has helped the Patanjali Yog Peeth identify itself to potential new disciples, especially the youths living in the villages along the Ganga, sources in the organisation said. 'Most villages have Patanjali yoga and fitness cells,' he said.
Protection of environment and mitigating the effects of global warming also tops the agenda of spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of the Art of Living, which has a global following.
'The only way to check environment pollution is to spread awareness. Many people in this world live without the knowledge of climate. They are immune even to changes in the cycle of seasons. They have to be educated,' Sri Sri told IANS.
The seer, who hosted a national environment summit in his retreat in 2008, has been campaigning against global warming and agri-pollution by promoting 'organic farming', plantations and traditional farm technologies.
Youngsters identify with the campaign, says the guru, whose Art of Living Foundation headquarters on the outskirts of Bangalore is a model for sustainable ecological conservation and traditional farming.
Mystic and yoga expert Jaggi Vasudev, head of the Isha Foundation, a spiritual organisation in Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, is known as a global tree planter.
His foundation entered the Guinness Book of World Records in 2006 for an eco-conservation campaign, 'Project Greenhand', which has planted 7.5 million trees in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Most of the foundation's members are young professionals.
Less than a week ago, nearly 1,000 Buddhist monks, nuns and followers set off on a 400-km spiritual trek from Kardang in Lahaul Valley in Himachal Pradesh to Leh in Ladakh across five high Himalayan passes to promote protection of environment and sustainable lifestyles in the region.
The 40-day trek is to say no to plastic bags, a major pollutant in the fragile ecological zone.
The trekkers, led by the head of the 800-year-old Tibetan Drukpa Buddhist sect, Gyalwang Drukpa, will distribute canvas bags to more than 100,000 villagers along the way as a symbolic gesture to shun plastic bags and switch to carry-bags made of cloth and other eco-friendly material.
The marchers will also raise funds - $30 per km - to spread education and sustainable eco-friendly lifestyle awareness in the Himalayan villages.
'This year, we wanted to promote something that purges pollution. Since plastic litter is one of the major eco-concerns in the region, we decided to teach the villagers healthy alternatives. We are in the wheel of a revolution and the way to carry it forward is to lead a clean life.
'Thousands of disciples who visit my monastery in Hemis in Ladakh every year from Europe and Japan requested that we do something in a sustained manner to turn the wheel of revolution so that more people can identify with the spiritual movement and can make their lives better,' Gyalwang Drukpa, the head of the sect, told IANS on telephone from Manali before flagging off the march.
The sect has also been given land along the Indus river on the way to Ladkah to create new woodlands by planting trees.
The trekkers will also champion the cause of 'balanced education for children of the Himalayas' for sustainable livelihoods at the Drukpa sect's eco-friendly 'Druk White Lotus School' in Ladakh that has won international acclaim as the best green school building in Asia.
'We want more children to study in our school and learn to lead balanced lives without losing touch with their culture and environment,' the spiritual leader said.
'A clean environment is the cornerstone of a clean, healthy and strong India,' says Ramdev, co-founder of the Patanjali Yog Peeth near Hardwar.
Ramdev is leading a campaign to clean the Ganga from its source in Gangotri to Ganga Sagar where it drains into the Bay of Bengal. He is working under the banner of Ganga Raksha Manch.
'The government has granted the Ganga national heritage status after our efforts for almost a year,' the seer told IANS. Ramdev, along with representatives of at least 25 religious organisations, is also opposing unplanned industrialisation along the river.
The Ganga - the ninth longest river in the world - is contaminated almost throughout its 2,500-km course. The campaign has managed to mobilise nearly 700,000 youths at the district level.
The cause has helped the Patanjali Yog Peeth identify itself to potential new disciples, especially the youths living in the villages along the Ganga, sources in the organisation said. 'Most villages have Patanjali yoga and fitness cells,' he said.
Protection of environment and mitigating the effects of global warming also tops the agenda of spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of the Art of Living, which has a global following.
'The only way to check environment pollution is to spread awareness. Many people in this world live without the knowledge of climate. They are immune even to changes in the cycle of seasons. They have to be educated,' Sri Sri told IANS.
The seer, who hosted a national environment summit in his retreat in 2008, has been campaigning against global warming and agri-pollution by promoting 'organic farming', plantations and traditional farm technologies.
Youngsters identify with the campaign, says the guru, whose Art of Living Foundation headquarters on the outskirts of Bangalore is a model for sustainable ecological conservation and traditional farming.
Mystic and yoga expert Jaggi Vasudev, head of the Isha Foundation, a spiritual organisation in Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, is known as a global tree planter.
His foundation entered the Guinness Book of World Records in 2006 for an eco-conservation campaign, 'Project Greenhand', which has planted 7.5 million trees in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Most of the foundation's members are young professionals.
Clinton seeks to narrow gap on climate change
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in the Indian capital Sunday hoping to narrow a wide gap with her hosts on fighting climate change ahead of a high-stakes conference later in the year.
On the second leg of her first visit to India since becoming chief US diplomat in January, Clinton will also hold talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna on a range of issues from regional security and counter-terrorism, to trade and arms control.
Clinton kicked off her visit in Mumbai on Saturday by calling for a global fight against terrorism after paying tribute to victims of last year's deadly attacks on the Indian financial capital.
With her on the trip is her special climate envoy Todd Stern, who is tasked with bridging substantial divisions between Washington and Delhi on how best to tackle climate change.
Before leaving for India, Clinton said that she and Stern "hope that we can, through dialogue, come up with some win-win approaches".
The Washington administration is also looking towards a December summit in the Danish capital Copenhagen intended to secure a new international agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
India -- like fellow developing heavyweight China -- has refused to commit to carbon emission cuts in the new treaty until developed nations, particularly the United States, present sufficient targets of their own.
New Delhi has consistently said any pact should not hinder the economic growth of developing countries.
The subject was raised at a meeting Clinton had in Mumbai with Indian business leaders, including Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, which deals in oil and gas exploration among other business.
Ambani argued that India and the United States need to establish "self-sustaining institutions" to produce clean technology, rather than debating who has the right to pollute and how much.
"The time is now, and my perception is, the Indian corporate (world) is ready to do more," he said.
Amrita Patel, head of the National Dairy Development Board, took the United States and the West to task.
"The West, having consumed most of the resources, has to drive it (the climate change fight)," Patel said, echoing official positions. "There is a moral responsibility that the US has."
Clinton said that President Barack Obama's administration has begun to take action on climate change, after his predecessor George W. Bush played down the the problem.
As she did during a visit to China, which has overtaken the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, Clinton acknowledged that the United States had "made mistakes" in its own industrial advance.
She has also defended the right of emerging countries to improve their living standards.
But she added: "We also hope that a country like India, which is growing and mobilising so much development, will not make the same mistakes."
Although she did not expect the world to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting global warming, she said: "There does have to be a framework that India and China in particular sign on to that produces results."
Clinton will Sunday visit the ITC hotel chain's Green Building in Delhi, the first non-commercial complex in India to be awarded a platinum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating, the highest given by the US Green Building Council.
The building is designed to use as much natural light as possible, has windows that allow in light but not heat in order to reduce the need for energy-consuming air conditioners, and has a water recycling plant.
Clinton's talks with the prime minister as well as her counterpart Krishna are scheduled for Monday after which she flies to Thailand.
Indo-US relations were frosty during the Cold War and deteriorated after New Delhi tested an atom bomb in 1998 but thawed after former US president George W. Bush signed a civilian nuclear technology deal with India last year.
Clinton's visit could see an announcement on the two locations India has chosen for US firms to build multi-billion-dollar nuclear power plants, aides said.
On the second leg of her first visit to India since becoming chief US diplomat in January, Clinton will also hold talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna on a range of issues from regional security and counter-terrorism, to trade and arms control.
Clinton kicked off her visit in Mumbai on Saturday by calling for a global fight against terrorism after paying tribute to victims of last year's deadly attacks on the Indian financial capital.
With her on the trip is her special climate envoy Todd Stern, who is tasked with bridging substantial divisions between Washington and Delhi on how best to tackle climate change.
Before leaving for India, Clinton said that she and Stern "hope that we can, through dialogue, come up with some win-win approaches".
The Washington administration is also looking towards a December summit in the Danish capital Copenhagen intended to secure a new international agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
India -- like fellow developing heavyweight China -- has refused to commit to carbon emission cuts in the new treaty until developed nations, particularly the United States, present sufficient targets of their own.
New Delhi has consistently said any pact should not hinder the economic growth of developing countries.
The subject was raised at a meeting Clinton had in Mumbai with Indian business leaders, including Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, which deals in oil and gas exploration among other business.
Ambani argued that India and the United States need to establish "self-sustaining institutions" to produce clean technology, rather than debating who has the right to pollute and how much.
"The time is now, and my perception is, the Indian corporate (world) is ready to do more," he said.
Amrita Patel, head of the National Dairy Development Board, took the United States and the West to task.
"The West, having consumed most of the resources, has to drive it (the climate change fight)," Patel said, echoing official positions. "There is a moral responsibility that the US has."
Clinton said that President Barack Obama's administration has begun to take action on climate change, after his predecessor George W. Bush played down the the problem.
As she did during a visit to China, which has overtaken the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, Clinton acknowledged that the United States had "made mistakes" in its own industrial advance.
She has also defended the right of emerging countries to improve their living standards.
But she added: "We also hope that a country like India, which is growing and mobilising so much development, will not make the same mistakes."
Although she did not expect the world to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting global warming, she said: "There does have to be a framework that India and China in particular sign on to that produces results."
Clinton will Sunday visit the ITC hotel chain's Green Building in Delhi, the first non-commercial complex in India to be awarded a platinum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating, the highest given by the US Green Building Council.
The building is designed to use as much natural light as possible, has windows that allow in light but not heat in order to reduce the need for energy-consuming air conditioners, and has a water recycling plant.
Clinton's talks with the prime minister as well as her counterpart Krishna are scheduled for Monday after which she flies to Thailand.
Indo-US relations were frosty during the Cold War and deteriorated after New Delhi tested an atom bomb in 1998 but thawed after former US president George W. Bush signed a civilian nuclear technology deal with India last year.
Clinton's visit could see an announcement on the two locations India has chosen for US firms to build multi-billion-dollar nuclear power plants, aides said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)