The Supreme Court heard five environmental law cases in the term that ended Monday, and environmental groups lost every time. It was, said Richard J. Lazarus, a director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, “the worst term ever” for environmental interests.The court allowed Navy exercises using sonar that threatened whales off California. It limited the liability of companies partly responsible for toxic spills. It made it harder to challenge Forest Service regulations and easier to dump mining waste into an Alaskan lake. And it allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to use cost-benefit analysis to decide how much marine life may be killed by cooling structures at power plants.
Business groups expressed measured satisfaction with the decisions.
“The court does seem to be bringing more common sense back to environmental law,” Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer with the United States Chamber of Commerce, said at a recent news briefing.
In the past 40 years or so, ever since environmental law emerged as a separate field based on major statutes enacted in the 1970s, the Supreme Court has been reasonably receptive to cases brought by environmental groups.
That seems to have changed under the court of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
“It has taken a little while, but we are finally seeing how much the changes in 2005 and 2006 moved the court in important areas, including in environmental law,” said Douglas Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal research organization and law firm. Chief Justice Roberts joined the court in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006.
Last term’s environmental decisions are consistent with larger trends at the court, which has leaned to the right recently and seems poised to make significant moves in a conservative direction in important areas of the law.
Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who often voted for environmental interests. Justice O’Connor’s background may have helped shape her thinking: she has written fondly of growing up on the Lazy B ranch in the high desert wilderness in Arizona and New Mexico.
“We experienced nature in an intimate way,” she wrote in a 2005 foreword to her memoir, “Lazy B.” “We learned to respect the environment.”
Justice O’Connor’s departure had a powerful impact and played a part in last term’s 5-to-0 rout, said Amy Sinden, who teaches environmental law at Temple’s law school. “These could all have come out very differently if we still had O’Connor on the court,” she said.
At the same time, the principles announced in some of the court’s environmental rulings, which generally favored presidential power, may aid the Obama administration as it moves away from the previous administration’s policies.
“It’s become a cliché to say the Roberts court is about the expansion of executive power,” Professor Sinden said, “and I think it’s true of these environmental cases as well. The court gave the Bush administration discretion. That certainly leaves the Obama administration with discretion to act as well.”
While the court’s environmental rulings may help the administration as it issues regulations to carry out existing laws, the harder questions will arise as Congress enacts new laws.
“The real test will come when the Obama administration tries to implement new legislation, like the climate change legislation, assuming it passes” the Senate, said Professor Lazarus, who represented the losing side in one of the recent environmental cases.
The climate change law, he said, will “raise a huge number of legal issues when implemented and will face of barrage of legal challenges from industry, some of which will find their way to the high court.”
The Bush administration was largely but not entirely aligned with business interests in the five environmental cases the court decided. That meant it was easy to tell who was losing — the environmentalists — but hard to tell who was winning.
Should the Obama administration take a more adversarial stance toward business, plainer fault lines may emerge.
“You might be able to tell whether the court is pro-business or pro-government,” said Jonathan Z. Cannon, who teaches environmental law at the University of Virginia.
The four members of the court’s conservative wing — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is often the swing vote, were in the majority in all five decisions. (Justice Kennedy, Professor Lazarus said, has been in the majority in all but one of the more than 50 environmental cases he has heard since joining the court in 1988.)
In years past, Justice Kennedy has been sporadically receptive to arguments made by environmentalists, particularly when they were sensitive to states’ rights and did not call for upending rules on which businesses had come to rely. Not this year.
The five more conservative justices were sometimes joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is something of a moderate on environmental issues, having written on regulation, risk management and administrative law as a professor before joining the court.
One case, Burlington Northern v. United States, about who may be held liable under the federal Superfund law for toxic spills, was decided 8 to 1, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent.
Several scholars said that businesses had become more sophisticated in recent years in hiring Supreme Court specialists to tailor their cases to appeal to Justices Kennedy and Breyer.
As surprising as the results in last term’s five cases were, scholars added, what may have been even more surprising was that the court chose to hear some of them at all. In two, the government did not file an appeal, even though the Environmental Protection Agency had been on the losing side in lower courts.
Environmental interests had won in the appeals court in all five of last term’s cases, and the Supreme Court reversed each one. Four cases came from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, which has a liberal reputation. The fifth came from the Second Circuit, in New York, and was written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, now President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court.
Should Judge Sotomayor be confirmed by the Senate, she will replace Justice David H. Souter, an avid outdoorsman who loves hiking in New Hampshire and tended to vote in favor of environmental interests.
There is little reason to think Judge Sotomayor’s approach would be very different. Indeed, the court reversed one of her decisions in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, the case that involved the use of cost-benefit analysis by the environmental agency. Justice Souter was in dissent.
Patrick A. Parenteau, who teaches environmental law at Vermont Law School, said he was disturbed not only by the substance of the court’s recent decisions but also by what they failed to address. None, he said, involved extended discussions of the environmental consequences, whether for the future of a lake in Alaska or the practice of forestry.
“The lesson from this,” Professor Parenteau said, “is to do everything you can to keep environmental cases out of this court.”
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Villagers from power-starved Vidharbha meet political leaders in Delhi; Demand 'quick and safe renewable energy solutions for electrifying their villa
Two weeks after calling on political parties to provide reliable energy to the power starved region of Jalka (Yavatmal district, Maharashtra), the representatives from Kalavati’s village made a trip to Delhi to raise issue of energy poverty directly with political leaders across party lines. They came to personally request political parties to electrify rural villages of India. They had witnessed an example of solar power providing them quality energy set up merely in 3 days, and they demanded access to this against the promised nuclear power that was to come decades later.
Energy poverty is one of the most serious problems that the country faces today. Over 78 million households in India still living without any basic access to electricity and for the many millions rural households the share of electricity they get is only in principle after the power demands of the cities and industrial centres have been met.The villagers met the following politicians during their visit and their reactions are as presented below:
Mr. D. Raja, CPI (M): Avoiding any CPI (M) party stand on decentralized renewable energy, he agreed that there must be thrust on Renewable Energy, because India has solar and wind potential to meet the demand. ‘Now we cannot only depend on thermal and hydel projects to meet our energy demands’, he concluded.
Swami Agnivesh, Rajya Sabha MP: He said that, “These whole general elections are caught in non issues; the real issues of the poor like rural electrification are being avoided and not discussed or debated upon. This is the most unfortunate part of this democracy which is leading to cynicism".
Sandeep Dixit (Congress): Refusing to be drawn into making a statement, he showed interest in discussing a de-centralized energy model based on Renewable Energy which is scalable and can be endorsed at the Central Government level.
Kapil Sibal (Congress): In a very brief meeting, Mr Sibal, breezily offered “120% support to renewable energy”, but failed to have a discussion on the details.
Dr. Arun Shourie (BJP): He said that, ‘Decentralised renewable energy is the way forward for India’.
After the string of political meetings, Sarpanch Anusuabai Kumbhre said, “we the rural poor of India are tired of paper promises that the political parties make every time during elections. The ‘Electricity for all 2009’ promise made by the ruling government yet remains unfulfilled; do not expect the rural citizens of the country to keep voting for politicians who make empty promises, we want solutions that empower us and make us self reliant. Energy and electricity access are the basic needs that will help us do so’.Greenpeace has analyzed the manifestos of Congress (INC), CPI(M) and the BJP on the issue of climate and energy. Here are the results.Climate change finds mention in all 3 of these manifestos for the first time. Each of them refer to the threat of climate change and while the BJP and Congress detail the manner in which they will address this critical issue, the left fails to articulate any details. Below is an analysis of the three manifestos on their promises on the issue of climate change and energy.
All 3 parties acknowledge that climate change is an issue of serious concern.
The INC refers to the National Action Plan on Climate Change as representing its position on the issue however. The NAPCC which was meant to be made into 8 mission plans by the end of 2008, remained nothing but a vision document the mission statements never materialised. Further, the NAPCC itself does not have any clear targets or timelines and is merely an expression of intent and not a clear plan of action.
The INC also frames the NAPCC as being a plan that “is an acknowledgment of our responsibility to take credible actions within the overall framework of meeting the development aspirations of our people for higher economic growth and a higher standard of living.” This fails to acknowledge the fact that addressing climate change today is the biggest opportunity and failing to do so will cost our economy very dearly in the future.
The BJP on the other hand does frame the debate in the context of opportunity rather than just see action to mitigate climate change as a threat to the economic aspirations of the country. “We recognise that containing global warming is essential to protecting life and security of people and environment. Mitigating the threat by building a low carbon economy is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century.” Greenpeace feels that this is a positive framework in which to place climate action, versus a “burden sharing” approach that the INC takes.
While it is encouraging to see that the BJP has targets for renewable energy expansion as a percentage of electricity and it is an ambitious 20% in 5 years, it fails to articulate what the portfolio of renewable energies will be. For example it is unclear if large hydro is included in this mix and to what extent it is.
The banking of electricity in the grid is very encouraging in the BJP manifesto. This would provide the incentives for individuals and firms to become energy producers, and not remain merely passive consumers. The details however are missing.
Energy poverty is one of the most serious problems that the country faces today. Over 78 million households in India still living without any basic access to electricity and for the many millions rural households the share of electricity they get is only in principle after the power demands of the cities and industrial centres have been met.The villagers met the following politicians during their visit and their reactions are as presented below:
Mr. D. Raja, CPI (M): Avoiding any CPI (M) party stand on decentralized renewable energy, he agreed that there must be thrust on Renewable Energy, because India has solar and wind potential to meet the demand. ‘Now we cannot only depend on thermal and hydel projects to meet our energy demands’, he concluded.
Swami Agnivesh, Rajya Sabha MP: He said that, “These whole general elections are caught in non issues; the real issues of the poor like rural electrification are being avoided and not discussed or debated upon. This is the most unfortunate part of this democracy which is leading to cynicism".
Sandeep Dixit (Congress): Refusing to be drawn into making a statement, he showed interest in discussing a de-centralized energy model based on Renewable Energy which is scalable and can be endorsed at the Central Government level.
Kapil Sibal (Congress): In a very brief meeting, Mr Sibal, breezily offered “120% support to renewable energy”, but failed to have a discussion on the details.
Dr. Arun Shourie (BJP): He said that, ‘Decentralised renewable energy is the way forward for India’.
After the string of political meetings, Sarpanch Anusuabai Kumbhre said, “we the rural poor of India are tired of paper promises that the political parties make every time during elections. The ‘Electricity for all 2009’ promise made by the ruling government yet remains unfulfilled; do not expect the rural citizens of the country to keep voting for politicians who make empty promises, we want solutions that empower us and make us self reliant. Energy and electricity access are the basic needs that will help us do so’.Greenpeace has analyzed the manifestos of Congress (INC), CPI(M) and the BJP on the issue of climate and energy. Here are the results.Climate change finds mention in all 3 of these manifestos for the first time. Each of them refer to the threat of climate change and while the BJP and Congress detail the manner in which they will address this critical issue, the left fails to articulate any details. Below is an analysis of the three manifestos on their promises on the issue of climate change and energy.
All 3 parties acknowledge that climate change is an issue of serious concern.
The INC refers to the National Action Plan on Climate Change as representing its position on the issue however. The NAPCC which was meant to be made into 8 mission plans by the end of 2008, remained nothing but a vision document the mission statements never materialised. Further, the NAPCC itself does not have any clear targets or timelines and is merely an expression of intent and not a clear plan of action.
The INC also frames the NAPCC as being a plan that “is an acknowledgment of our responsibility to take credible actions within the overall framework of meeting the development aspirations of our people for higher economic growth and a higher standard of living.” This fails to acknowledge the fact that addressing climate change today is the biggest opportunity and failing to do so will cost our economy very dearly in the future.
The BJP on the other hand does frame the debate in the context of opportunity rather than just see action to mitigate climate change as a threat to the economic aspirations of the country. “We recognise that containing global warming is essential to protecting life and security of people and environment. Mitigating the threat by building a low carbon economy is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century.” Greenpeace feels that this is a positive framework in which to place climate action, versus a “burden sharing” approach that the INC takes.
While it is encouraging to see that the BJP has targets for renewable energy expansion as a percentage of electricity and it is an ambitious 20% in 5 years, it fails to articulate what the portfolio of renewable energies will be. For example it is unclear if large hydro is included in this mix and to what extent it is.
The banking of electricity in the grid is very encouraging in the BJP manifesto. This would provide the incentives for individuals and firms to become energy producers, and not remain merely passive consumers. The details however are missing.
Change in fertilizer subsidy policy can help India save crores, ensure food security - Greenpeace India Report
Moving away from current Government subsidies on synthetic fertiliser that lead to poor soils and less food, and investing in ecological farming will have triple benefits: save public money, ensure food security under less rain and a changing climate, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, says ‘Subsidising Food Crisis’ – a scientific report released by Greenpeace today.
The report, a joint effort by scientists from Greenpeace and Institute of Agriculture Visva Bharathy University, West Bengal, offers a scientific analysis linking the increasing fertiliser subsidies to yield stagnation in agriculture. In 2008/09 the Government of India had set aside an amount of 119,772 crore Rupees for synthetic fertiliser subsidies. Releasing the report, Greenpeace India’s Sustainable Agriculture campaigner Gopikrishna said, “The irrational subsidy doled out by the government provokes the excessive usage of synthetic fertilisers leading to soil degradation, a major cause for yield stagnation”. He further opined that “The potential for a shift from synthetic to organic nitrogen fertilisers is real: India can save a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money along the way”. The report points out that in Punjab, the state with highest use of synthetic fertilisers in India, data on the relationship between food grain production and fertiliser consumption from 1960 to 2003 show that in spite of consistent increment in N-P-K fertiliser consumption, grain yield has not only stagnated but also showed a declining trend with fertiliser application during the later period, 1992 to 2003. The average crop response to fertiliser use was around 25 kg of grain per kg of fertiliser during 1960s, the said value has reduced drastically to 8 kg/kg only during late 1990s. High use of chemical fertilisers is mostly also associated with high level of water consumption and micro-nutrient deficiency in soil leading to decline in water table and further deterioration of the soil. ’Subsidising Food Crisis’ for the first time calculates the greenhouse gas emissions from the synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, both by its manufacture and use. Synthetic nitrogen fertilisers contribute 6 percent of the India’s total greenhouse gas emissions, comparable to the road transport sector. A shift from synthetic nitrogen fertilisers to efficient and ecological fertilisers will reduce this contribution from 6 to 2 percent. “At a time when it is extremely urgent that the whole world fights climate change, the Government of India could save significant emissions by shifting subsidies to ecological farming. The good news is that this is also a proven way to make agriculture more resilient to upcoming climate change conditions, like less water and more unpredictable rains’, said Reyes Tirado, one of the authors and senior research scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories in the University of Exeter in the UK. Based on the report released 5 days prior to the first full budget by the new UPA government on July 6th Greenpeace India demands that the Government needs to:
1. Look into an alternate subsidy system that promotes ecological farming and use of organic soil amendments. 2. Shift the irrational subsidy policy for synthetic fertilisers to sustainable ecological practices in agriculture. 3. Re-focus scientific research on ecological alternatives, to identify agro-ecological practices that ensure future food security under a changing climate.
The report is authored by Dr B.C Roy and Dr G N Chattopadhyay of Visva Bharathy University and Dr Reyes Tirado, from Greenpeace Research laboratories at the University of Exeter. While Dr Roy, an agricultural economist, has years of experience in agricultural growth and poverty and water-food security, Dr Chattopadhyay is a Soil Science specialist with extensive experience in vermicomposting. Dr. Tirado, an agricultural ecologist, currently leads projects on how ecological farming and biodiversity can help mitigate and adapt food systems to upcoming climate change conditions.
The report, a joint effort by scientists from Greenpeace and Institute of Agriculture Visva Bharathy University, West Bengal, offers a scientific analysis linking the increasing fertiliser subsidies to yield stagnation in agriculture. In 2008/09 the Government of India had set aside an amount of 119,772 crore Rupees for synthetic fertiliser subsidies. Releasing the report, Greenpeace India’s Sustainable Agriculture campaigner Gopikrishna said, “The irrational subsidy doled out by the government provokes the excessive usage of synthetic fertilisers leading to soil degradation, a major cause for yield stagnation”. He further opined that “The potential for a shift from synthetic to organic nitrogen fertilisers is real: India can save a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money along the way”. The report points out that in Punjab, the state with highest use of synthetic fertilisers in India, data on the relationship between food grain production and fertiliser consumption from 1960 to 2003 show that in spite of consistent increment in N-P-K fertiliser consumption, grain yield has not only stagnated but also showed a declining trend with fertiliser application during the later period, 1992 to 2003. The average crop response to fertiliser use was around 25 kg of grain per kg of fertiliser during 1960s, the said value has reduced drastically to 8 kg/kg only during late 1990s. High use of chemical fertilisers is mostly also associated with high level of water consumption and micro-nutrient deficiency in soil leading to decline in water table and further deterioration of the soil. ’Subsidising Food Crisis’ for the first time calculates the greenhouse gas emissions from the synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, both by its manufacture and use. Synthetic nitrogen fertilisers contribute 6 percent of the India’s total greenhouse gas emissions, comparable to the road transport sector. A shift from synthetic nitrogen fertilisers to efficient and ecological fertilisers will reduce this contribution from 6 to 2 percent. “At a time when it is extremely urgent that the whole world fights climate change, the Government of India could save significant emissions by shifting subsidies to ecological farming. The good news is that this is also a proven way to make agriculture more resilient to upcoming climate change conditions, like less water and more unpredictable rains’, said Reyes Tirado, one of the authors and senior research scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories in the University of Exeter in the UK. Based on the report released 5 days prior to the first full budget by the new UPA government on July 6th Greenpeace India demands that the Government needs to:
1. Look into an alternate subsidy system that promotes ecological farming and use of organic soil amendments. 2. Shift the irrational subsidy policy for synthetic fertilisers to sustainable ecological practices in agriculture. 3. Re-focus scientific research on ecological alternatives, to identify agro-ecological practices that ensure future food security under a changing climate.
The report is authored by Dr B.C Roy and Dr G N Chattopadhyay of Visva Bharathy University and Dr Reyes Tirado, from Greenpeace Research laboratories at the University of Exeter. While Dr Roy, an agricultural economist, has years of experience in agricultural growth and poverty and water-food security, Dr Chattopadhyay is a Soil Science specialist with extensive experience in vermicomposting. Dr. Tirado, an agricultural ecologist, currently leads projects on how ecological farming and biodiversity can help mitigate and adapt food systems to upcoming climate change conditions.
We're gonna need a bigger boat!
Our famous fleet of ships is about to get an extraordinary addition - The Rainbow Warrior III. It will be purpose built from the keel up to fight the greatest threat to the oceans and our world: climate change.
After a long and thorough planning and design process we are excited to finally see our dream ship coming to life. The Rainbow Warrior III will continue our sailing tradition and begin a new chapter in the history of our fleet: a custom-built high seas sailing ship, highly fuel efficient with the best green-marine technology.At 52 years of age and after 20 years of successful environmental campaigning around the world, the Rainbow Warrior II is approaching its recommended decommissioning date and needs to be replaced. The new ship has been designed by Gerard Dijkstra and Partners in Amsterdam, Netherlands and will be built by Fassmer, a shipbuilding company in Bremen, Germany. Although the first piece of steel won't be cut until early 2010 - preparations for the build will start immediately and the ship will be launched in 2011, our 40th anniversary year.
This organisation was founded on the ocean, when the first Greenpeace crew set out in an old fishing boat to stop a nuclear weapons test in the Aleutian Islands. Throughout the last 38 years we have used ships at the forefront of our campaigns. They allow us to play a vital role in creating positive change, protecting the environment and promoting essential solutions for a more green and peaceful world.
Currently our main fleet consists of three ships, Rainbow Warrior II, Arctic Sunrise, and Esperanza. Each of them are unique: The Esperanza is the youngest of our fleet, ideal for fast and long range missions. It is currently touring the Pacific to document and raise awareness about the effects of climate change in the region. The Arctic Sunrise is perfectly suitable for icy conditions in the polar regions and is currently in northern Greenland investigating the impacts of climate change. The Rainbow Warrior II is our flagship, the longest serving member of our current fleet - currently supporting a campaign to save Mediterranean bluefin tuna.
You can't sink a rainbowIn October 1978, the first Rainbow Warrior defended the grey seals of the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland, when the British government announced a six year culling because "the seals were eating too many fish". When the sealers arrived activists from the Rainbow Warrior chased the seals into the water before the hunters could kill them. As scenes from this event hit the national media - the UK Prime Minister's office received more than 17,000 letters of protest and the cull was ended.
In 1985, the Rainbow Warrior embarked on a Pacific peace voyage to the Marshall Islands. The inhabitants of Rongelap, an island severely contaminated by fallout from US nuclear testing in the 1950s, asked for assistance in moving to a safer island. The Rainbow Warrior evacuated 308 Rongelap Islanders and their belongings to Mejato, 200 kilometres away. The Rainbow Warrior was bombed in 1985 by French Secret Service Agents in Auckland New Zealand as she was preparing for a campaign against French nuclear testing in the Pacific. The two bombs killed one crew member, photographer Fernando Pereira and destroyed the ship beyond repair. She was scuttled and sunk in the clear deep waters of Matauri Bay in New Zealand and is now a popular dive site.
Listen to the audio documentary about the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior Exactly four years after, to the day, the Rainbow Warrior II was launched. Today, the Rainbow Warrior inspires people everywhere as she continues to campaign against environmentally destructive practices. Since 1989, she has sailed all over the world, from the the high Arctic to Cape Horn. In 1995, just before the tenth anniversary of the bombing of the Warrior, and just ahead of the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, French President Jacques Chirac announced a resumption of nuclear testing at Moruroa. The Rainbow Warrior, accompanied by a huge flotilla, headed to the test site in protest, amidst a worldwide outcry against France. On 9 July, French commandos boarded the ship, smashed equipment, threw tear gas into the bridge and seized the vessel. Greenpeace activists were arrested, interrogated and deported, but the flotilla continued the protest. The French returned the boat to Greenpeace some months later. The resulting worldwide outrage forced France to finally stop nuclear testing in January 1996.
The Rainbow Warrior II went on to play a key role supporting many of our campaigns such as; documenting the impacts of rapid glacial retreat in Norway in conjunction with the Norwegian Polar Institute, obtaining evidence to prove the destructive impacts of bottom trawling in New Zealand, defending ocean life in the Mediterranean and more recently - encouraging countries around the world to Quit Coal and save the climate.
As green as it getsThe Rainbow Warrior II steel hull is of vintage riveted construction which is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain to the highest classification standards. We will need a new Rainbow Warrior in order to meet our future global campaign challenges. Upgrading the existing ship is not technically or financially feasible and converting a second hand ship would compromise our campaigning and energy conservation needs. After careful consideration - we have decided that building a vessel from scratch is by far the best option.
The Rainbow Warrior III will be a state-of-the-art vessel built specifically for our needs and made to the highest environmental standards. She will carry a complete range of essential safety gear and action tools, including four inflatable boats and the facilities for a helicopter, while providing accommodation and a cutting-edge communication platform.
The ship will be built primarily to sail (using wind energy instead of fossil fuels), with the option in unsuitable weather conditions to switch over to engine-powered, diesel-electric propulsion. It will also have the following green features:• Hull shape designed specifically for superior energy efficiency• A-frame mast and sails - optimised for highly effective sailing• Electric drive system (10 knots on only 300kW)• Green ship class notation with Green Passport• Biological treatment of sewage and grey water• Central filling and venting system for fuel and oils to prevent spills• Environmentally friendly paint system• Re-use of engine heat to make hot water
Virtual launchIn early 2010, we will be launching a virtual version of the Rainbow Warrior III in cooperation with VSTEP, makers of the "Ship Simulator" series of games for the PC. Drawn from the actual 3-D CAD drawings and specs to which the ship will be built, game players will be able to sail the virtual Rainbow Warrior through realistic sea and weather conditions and re-enact Greenpeace voyages to stop nuclear weapons testing, save the whales, and protect Antarctica -- on their own PC or in multi-player mode online. The game will also feature our ship the Esperanza and the jet boat the 'Billy G" will also be included in the game
After a long and thorough planning and design process we are excited to finally see our dream ship coming to life. The Rainbow Warrior III will continue our sailing tradition and begin a new chapter in the history of our fleet: a custom-built high seas sailing ship, highly fuel efficient with the best green-marine technology.At 52 years of age and after 20 years of successful environmental campaigning around the world, the Rainbow Warrior II is approaching its recommended decommissioning date and needs to be replaced. The new ship has been designed by Gerard Dijkstra and Partners in Amsterdam, Netherlands and will be built by Fassmer, a shipbuilding company in Bremen, Germany. Although the first piece of steel won't be cut until early 2010 - preparations for the build will start immediately and the ship will be launched in 2011, our 40th anniversary year.
This organisation was founded on the ocean, when the first Greenpeace crew set out in an old fishing boat to stop a nuclear weapons test in the Aleutian Islands. Throughout the last 38 years we have used ships at the forefront of our campaigns. They allow us to play a vital role in creating positive change, protecting the environment and promoting essential solutions for a more green and peaceful world.
Currently our main fleet consists of three ships, Rainbow Warrior II, Arctic Sunrise, and Esperanza. Each of them are unique: The Esperanza is the youngest of our fleet, ideal for fast and long range missions. It is currently touring the Pacific to document and raise awareness about the effects of climate change in the region. The Arctic Sunrise is perfectly suitable for icy conditions in the polar regions and is currently in northern Greenland investigating the impacts of climate change. The Rainbow Warrior II is our flagship, the longest serving member of our current fleet - currently supporting a campaign to save Mediterranean bluefin tuna.
You can't sink a rainbowIn October 1978, the first Rainbow Warrior defended the grey seals of the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland, when the British government announced a six year culling because "the seals were eating too many fish". When the sealers arrived activists from the Rainbow Warrior chased the seals into the water before the hunters could kill them. As scenes from this event hit the national media - the UK Prime Minister's office received more than 17,000 letters of protest and the cull was ended.
In 1985, the Rainbow Warrior embarked on a Pacific peace voyage to the Marshall Islands. The inhabitants of Rongelap, an island severely contaminated by fallout from US nuclear testing in the 1950s, asked for assistance in moving to a safer island. The Rainbow Warrior evacuated 308 Rongelap Islanders and their belongings to Mejato, 200 kilometres away. The Rainbow Warrior was bombed in 1985 by French Secret Service Agents in Auckland New Zealand as she was preparing for a campaign against French nuclear testing in the Pacific. The two bombs killed one crew member, photographer Fernando Pereira and destroyed the ship beyond repair. She was scuttled and sunk in the clear deep waters of Matauri Bay in New Zealand and is now a popular dive site.
Listen to the audio documentary about the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior Exactly four years after, to the day, the Rainbow Warrior II was launched. Today, the Rainbow Warrior inspires people everywhere as she continues to campaign against environmentally destructive practices. Since 1989, she has sailed all over the world, from the the high Arctic to Cape Horn. In 1995, just before the tenth anniversary of the bombing of the Warrior, and just ahead of the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, French President Jacques Chirac announced a resumption of nuclear testing at Moruroa. The Rainbow Warrior, accompanied by a huge flotilla, headed to the test site in protest, amidst a worldwide outcry against France. On 9 July, French commandos boarded the ship, smashed equipment, threw tear gas into the bridge and seized the vessel. Greenpeace activists were arrested, interrogated and deported, but the flotilla continued the protest. The French returned the boat to Greenpeace some months later. The resulting worldwide outrage forced France to finally stop nuclear testing in January 1996.
The Rainbow Warrior II went on to play a key role supporting many of our campaigns such as; documenting the impacts of rapid glacial retreat in Norway in conjunction with the Norwegian Polar Institute, obtaining evidence to prove the destructive impacts of bottom trawling in New Zealand, defending ocean life in the Mediterranean and more recently - encouraging countries around the world to Quit Coal and save the climate.
As green as it getsThe Rainbow Warrior II steel hull is of vintage riveted construction which is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain to the highest classification standards. We will need a new Rainbow Warrior in order to meet our future global campaign challenges. Upgrading the existing ship is not technically or financially feasible and converting a second hand ship would compromise our campaigning and energy conservation needs. After careful consideration - we have decided that building a vessel from scratch is by far the best option.
The Rainbow Warrior III will be a state-of-the-art vessel built specifically for our needs and made to the highest environmental standards. She will carry a complete range of essential safety gear and action tools, including four inflatable boats and the facilities for a helicopter, while providing accommodation and a cutting-edge communication platform.
The ship will be built primarily to sail (using wind energy instead of fossil fuels), with the option in unsuitable weather conditions to switch over to engine-powered, diesel-electric propulsion. It will also have the following green features:• Hull shape designed specifically for superior energy efficiency• A-frame mast and sails - optimised for highly effective sailing• Electric drive system (10 knots on only 300kW)• Green ship class notation with Green Passport• Biological treatment of sewage and grey water• Central filling and venting system for fuel and oils to prevent spills• Environmentally friendly paint system• Re-use of engine heat to make hot water
Virtual launchIn early 2010, we will be launching a virtual version of the Rainbow Warrior III in cooperation with VSTEP, makers of the "Ship Simulator" series of games for the PC. Drawn from the actual 3-D CAD drawings and specs to which the ship will be built, game players will be able to sail the virtual Rainbow Warrior through realistic sea and weather conditions and re-enact Greenpeace voyages to stop nuclear weapons testing, save the whales, and protect Antarctica -- on their own PC or in multi-player mode online. The game will also feature our ship the Esperanza and the jet boat the 'Billy G" will also be included in the game
Darkness Washes Around The Globe As Earth Hour Descends
35 countries, 26 major cities, 370 towns and literally tens of millions of people… What do they all have in common?
They're all switching off their lights for one hour at 8:00 pm local time in a now staggering global event known as Earth Hour. From around the world, Universe Today readers made a huge impact.
For all of you who took the time to sign up for Earth Hour, I not only thank you for your participation, but have deeply enjoyed watching our effort expand over the last week. We literally melted down the server on our personal UT Earth Hour site with our responses! What a tremendous effort on all our parts.
In a matter of hours, and quite probably by the time you read this, the lights will begin to go down as Earth Hour descends. As darkness falls in Australia, city landmarks from Parliament House in Canberra to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Melbourne's Federation Square and the WACA ground in Perth will power down for an hour. Landmarks, cities and communities around the world will go dark - one by one - as Earth Hour reaches each time zone.
Says Earth Hour's executive director Andy Ridley:
"Earth Hour is about everyone and every organisation, from individuals to global companies, joining together to own a shared problem - climate change. Governments and businesses are joining individuals, religious groups, schools and communities in this terrific movement that's all about making a change for the better. It's staggering to see so much support from across the globe."
Can you picture yourself high above the Earth as city after city and home after home turn off the lights not long after the terminator of night has passed? As darkness washes around the globe, our voices will be heard - as well as seen - for anyone who cares to look.
If you won't participate in Earth Hour simply because you don't think it will make a change, then do so for astronomers who are celebrating the beginning of National Dark-Sky Week. How will it reduce light pollution, given that it only lasts a week and not everyone will participate? The main goal of NDSW is to raise awareness about the harmful effects of light pollution. It just isn't possible for all of the light pollution in the world to disappear, but together we can. make difference, just like Earth Hour, and inspire us all to preserve the beauty of the night sky.
One thing is for certain, Earth Hour is huge news. And all of us here at Universe Today can be very proud that we are part of it.
They're all switching off their lights for one hour at 8:00 pm local time in a now staggering global event known as Earth Hour. From around the world, Universe Today readers made a huge impact.
For all of you who took the time to sign up for Earth Hour, I not only thank you for your participation, but have deeply enjoyed watching our effort expand over the last week. We literally melted down the server on our personal UT Earth Hour site with our responses! What a tremendous effort on all our parts.
In a matter of hours, and quite probably by the time you read this, the lights will begin to go down as Earth Hour descends. As darkness falls in Australia, city landmarks from Parliament House in Canberra to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Melbourne's Federation Square and the WACA ground in Perth will power down for an hour. Landmarks, cities and communities around the world will go dark - one by one - as Earth Hour reaches each time zone.
Says Earth Hour's executive director Andy Ridley:
"Earth Hour is about everyone and every organisation, from individuals to global companies, joining together to own a shared problem - climate change. Governments and businesses are joining individuals, religious groups, schools and communities in this terrific movement that's all about making a change for the better. It's staggering to see so much support from across the globe."
Can you picture yourself high above the Earth as city after city and home after home turn off the lights not long after the terminator of night has passed? As darkness washes around the globe, our voices will be heard - as well as seen - for anyone who cares to look.
If you won't participate in Earth Hour simply because you don't think it will make a change, then do so for astronomers who are celebrating the beginning of National Dark-Sky Week. How will it reduce light pollution, given that it only lasts a week and not everyone will participate? The main goal of NDSW is to raise awareness about the harmful effects of light pollution. It just isn't possible for all of the light pollution in the world to disappear, but together we can. make difference, just like Earth Hour, and inspire us all to preserve the beauty of the night sky.
One thing is for certain, Earth Hour is huge news. And all of us here at Universe Today can be very proud that we are part of it.
Polar bears deliver environmental petition to Premier of British Columbia
On Thursday in Canada, the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (SPEC) and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee delivered petitions with over 10,000 signatorys to the Premier of British Columbia's office. The petitions ask that the government cancel the Gateway Program's highway expansions components and invest more in transit instead.
The Gateway Program is a transportation infrastructure project that includes over 260 km of new highway lanes.
Over a dozen activists rallied outside the office in downtown Vancouver including two dressed as polar bears. The premier's office initially declined to accept the invitations. After the activists attempted to enter the nearby convention centre where the premier was speaking, staff working with the Premier agreed to accept the petitions.
"Translink is currently exhausting its capital reserves just to keep existing service going," said Karen Wristen, Executive Director of SPEC. "At this rate, they will be broke in two years. We simply can't afford both freeway expansion and transit development: we have to solve the transit crisis first."
"It will be virtually impossible to reach BC's commitments to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) if Gateway is allowed to proceed. Gateway is not just an irresponsible plan, it's immoral," said Ben West, the Wilderness Committee's Healthy Communities Campaigner.
The government calculates that greenhouse gas emissions will increase by over 170,000 tonnes per year from the Gateway program.
Premier Gordon Campbell has not yet responded directly to the petition. In recent interviews he has defended the Gateway Program.
"I understand that some people will disagree with it," Premier Campbell said of Gateway on April 6 to The Georgia Straight. "But it's many, many things that are happening at once to make the region more livable, to reduce our impact and our greenhouse-gas impact, and to invest in public transit. And I think that when you take all those things together—as we move to California tailpipe emissions and those other initiatives—I think you will see actually a reduction in greenhouse gases."
The Gateway Program is a transportation infrastructure project that includes over 260 km of new highway lanes.
Over a dozen activists rallied outside the office in downtown Vancouver including two dressed as polar bears. The premier's office initially declined to accept the invitations. After the activists attempted to enter the nearby convention centre where the premier was speaking, staff working with the Premier agreed to accept the petitions.
"Translink is currently exhausting its capital reserves just to keep existing service going," said Karen Wristen, Executive Director of SPEC. "At this rate, they will be broke in two years. We simply can't afford both freeway expansion and transit development: we have to solve the transit crisis first."
"It will be virtually impossible to reach BC's commitments to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) if Gateway is allowed to proceed. Gateway is not just an irresponsible plan, it's immoral," said Ben West, the Wilderness Committee's Healthy Communities Campaigner.
The government calculates that greenhouse gas emissions will increase by over 170,000 tonnes per year from the Gateway program.
Premier Gordon Campbell has not yet responded directly to the petition. In recent interviews he has defended the Gateway Program.
"I understand that some people will disagree with it," Premier Campbell said of Gateway on April 6 to The Georgia Straight. "But it's many, many things that are happening at once to make the region more livable, to reduce our impact and our greenhouse-gas impact, and to invest in public transit. And I think that when you take all those things together—as we move to California tailpipe emissions and those other initiatives—I think you will see actually a reduction in greenhouse gases."
ENVIRONMENT: Around the Globe, Farmers Losing Ground
In 1938, Walter Lowdermilk, a senior official in the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, traveled abroad to look at lands that had been cultivated for thousands of years, seeking to learn how these older civilisations had coped with soil erosion.He found that some had managed their land well, maintaining its fertility over long stretches of history, and were thriving. Others had failed to do so and left only remnants of their illustrious pasts. In a section of his report entitled "The Hundred Dead Cities," he described a site in northern Syria, near Aleppo, where ancient buildings were still standing in stark isolated relief, but they were on bare rock. During the seventh century, the thriving region had been invaded, initially by a Persian army and later by nomads out of the Arabian Desert. In the process, soil and water conservation practices used for centuries were abandoned. Lowdermilk noted, "Here erosion had done its worst... if the soils had remained, even though the cities were destroyed and the populations dispersed, the area might be re-peopled again and the cities rebuilt, but now that the soils are gone, all is gone." Now fast forward to a trip in 2002 by a United Nations team to assess the food situation in Lesotho, a small country of 2 million people imbedded within South Africa. Their finding was straightforward: "Agriculture in Lesotho faces a catastrophic future; crop production is declining and could cease altogether over large tracts of the country if steps are not taken to reverse soil erosion, degradation, and the decline in soil fertility." Michael Grunwald reports in the Washington Post that nearly half of the children under five in Lesotho are stunted physically. "Many," he says, "are too weak to walk to school." Whether the land is in northern Syria, Lesotho, or elsewhere, the health of the people living on it cannot be separated from the health of the land itself. A large share of the world's 852 million hungry people live on land with soils worn thin by erosion. The thin layer of topsoil that covers the planet's land surface is the foundation of civilisation. This soil, measured in inches over much of the earth, was formed over long stretches of geological time as new soil formation exceeded the natural rate of erosion. As soil accumulated over the eons, it provided a medium in which plants could grow. In turn, plants protect the soil from erosion. Human activity is disrupting this relationship. Sometime within the last century, soil erosion began to exceed new soil formation in large areas. Perhaps a third or more of all cropland is losing topsoil faster than new soil is forming, thereby reducing the land's inherent productivity. Today the foundation of civilisation is crumbling. The seeds of collapse of some early civilisations, such as the Mayans, may have originated in soil erosion that undermined the food supply. The accelerating soil erosion over the last century can be seen in the dust bowls that form as vegetation is destroyed and wind erosion soars out of control. Among those that stand out are the Dust Bowl in the U.S. Great Plains during the 1930s, the dust bowls in the Soviet Virgin Lands in the 1960s, the huge one that is forming today in northwest China, and the one taking shape in the Sahelian region of Africa. Each of these is associated with a familiar pattern of overgrazing, deforestation, and agricultural expansion onto marginal land, followed by retrenchment as the soil begins to disappear. Twentieth-century population growth pushed agriculture onto highly vulnerable land in many countries. The overplowing of the U.S. Great Plains during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for example, led to the 1930s Dust Bowl. This was a tragic era in U.S. history, one that forced hundreds of thousands of farm families to leave the Great Plains. Many migrated to California in search of a new life, a move immortalised in John Steinbeck's novel "The Grapes of Wrath". Three decades later, history repeated itself in the Soviet Union. The Virgin Lands Project between 1954 and 1960 centred on plowing an area of grassland for wheat that was larger than the wheatland in Canada and Australia combined. Initially this resulted in an impressive expansion in Soviet grain production, but the success was short-lived as a dust bowl developed there as well. Kazakhstan, at the centre of this Virgin Lands Project, saw its grainland area peak at just over 25 million hectares (44 millions acres) around 1980, then shrink to 14 million hectares today. Even on the remaining land, however, the average wheat yield is scarcely one tonne per hectare, a far cry from the nearly eight tonnes per hectare that farmers get in France, Western Europe's leading wheat producer. A similar situation exists in Mongolia, where over the last 20 years half the wheatland has been abandoned and wheat yields have also fallen by half, shrinking the harvest by three fourths. Mongolia - a country almost three times the size of France with a population of 2.6 million - is now forced to import nearly 60 percent of its wheat. Dust storms originating in the new dust bowls are now faithfully recorded in satellite images. In early January 2005, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) released images of a vast dust storm moving westward out of central Africa. This vast cloud of tan-coloured dust stretched over some 5,300 kilometres. NASA noted that if the storm were relocated to the United States, it would cover the country and extend into the oceans on both coasts. Andrew Goudie, professor of geography at Oxford University, reports that Saharan dust storms - once rare - are now commonplace. He estimates they have increased 10-fold during the last half-century. Among the countries in the region most affected by topsoil loss from wind erosion are Niger, Chad, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, and Burkino Faso. In Mauritania, in Africa's far west, the number of dust storms jumped from two a year in the early 1960s to 80 a year today. The Bodélé Depression in Chad is the source of an estimated 1.3 billion tons of wind-borne soil a year, up 10-fold from 1947 when measurements began. The 2 to 3 billion tons of fine soil particles that leave Africa each year in dust storms are slowly draining the continent of its fertility and, hence, its biological productivity. In addition, dust storms leaving Africa travel westward across the Atlantic, depositing so much dust in the Caribbean that they cloud the water and damage coral reefs there. In China, plowing excesses became common in several provinces as agriculture pushed northward and westward into the pastoral zone between 1987 and 1996. In Inner Mongolia (Nei Monggol), for example, the cultivated area increased by 1.1 million hectares, or 22 percent, during this period. Other provinces that expanded their cultivated area by 3 percent or more during this nine-year span include Heilongjiang, Hunan, Tibet (Xizang), Qinghai, and Xinjiang. Severe wind erosion of soil on this newly plowed land made it clear that its only sustainable use was controlled grazing. As a result, Chinese agriculture is now engaged in a strategic withdrawal in these provinces, pulling back to land that can sustain crop production. Water erosion also takes a toll on soils. This can be seen in the silting of reservoirs and in muddy, silt-laden rivers flowing into the sea. Pakistan's two large reservoirs, Mangla and Tarbela, which store Indus River water for the country's vast irrigation network, are losing roughly 1 percent of their storage capacity each year as they fill with silt from deforested watersheds. Ethiopia, a mountainous country with highly erodible soils on steeply sloping land, is losing an estimated 1 billion tons of topsoil a year, washed away by rain. This is one reason Ethiopia always seems to be on the verge of famine, never able to accumulate enough grain reserves to provide a meaningful measure of food security
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)