Sunday, July 5, 2009
ENVIRONMENT: Shades of green —Mark Hertsgaard
America’s environmentalists were torn about whether to support the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which passed the House on June 26 — and for good reason. On the one hand, passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act was a historic achievement. After twenty years of denial, deception and delay, Washington had at last ordered reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming. On the other hand, the bill’s specifics fell far short of what science says is necessary to (perhaps) prevent catastrophic climate change.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that global emissions must fall by 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. The cap-and-trade provisions of Waxman-Markey will cut US emissions by only 1 percent by 2020, a shortcoming backers disguise with creative accounting. They claim the bill will cut emissions by 17 percent — which it might, if one measures against the higher baseline of 2005 — and includes credits for halting deforestation overseas, though of course the earth’s atmosphere would not be tricked by such manoeuvres.Adding insult to injury, most of the bill’s pollution permits will be given away rather than sold, thus subsidising today’s polluters and delaying the transition to low-carbon energy sources. Finally, the bill cancels the president’s current authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse emissions, a clear step backward.Supporters argued that such dilutions were necessary to gain enough votes to pass the bill (the vote was still close — 219 to 212) and that Congressional backing of emissions cuts is essential to establish US credibility at the crucial global climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December. Doubtless these same arguments will be repeated when Waxman-Markey goes to the Senate, where the legislation is likely to be weakened further, if it passes at all.But why assume that US credibility in Copenhagen rests on Congress passing a climate bill, no matter how weak? The United States has other ways to send the world a message — and Barack Obama began exploring them even before he became president.In July 2008, shortly after securing his party’s presidential nomination, Obama sent representatives to Beijing for two days of high-level, off-the-record talks on climate change, held in a luxury hotel overlooking the Great Wall. Leading the Chinese side was Xie Zhenhua, China’s top climate negotiator. The US delegation included Republicans (though John McCain’s campaign declined to participate) and Democrats, notably John Holdren, now President Obama’s science adviser.The talks went so well that a second back-channel meeting was held in October, where unofficial agreement was reached on three points. Chief among them: China and the United States would “work together for a successful outcome” to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen, according to William Chandler of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who helped organise the discussions.If that pledge becomes policy, it could rank as the most important breakthrough in the history of climate change diplomacy. Together, the United States and China produce 40 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. That gives them veto power over the rest of the world’s progress; no matter how much the European Union, which has pledged 20 percent reductions by 2020, and other governments might do, they cannot reverse global warming if the two carbon superpowers don’t do their part.Conversely, if China and the United States were to announce credible, ambitious plans to limit emissions, it would build momentum for reaching a strong agreement among all nations in Copenhagen, a meeting widely seen as humanity’s last chance to avoid catastrophic climate change.The turning point in the back-channel discussions came on their very first day, said Chandler. For more than ten years, Washington had refused to cut emissions unless China did too. But Beijing resisted, pointing out that it was US and other rich countries’ emissions during the past 200 years of industrialization that had caused global warming, and besides, China’s per capita emissions were one-fifth of America’s. The familiar impasse surfaced at the Great Wall gathering when one American asked what the Chinese were prepared to do if the next president promised to cut US emissions.“Xie started answering,” recalled Chandler, “and it was like he pushed the button on a tape recorder. Out came the same boilerplate we’d heard so many times before: the US bore historical responsibility for the problem, China was still a developing nation and had the right to use more energy and so forth. But after forty-five seconds, Xie stopped talking. It was as if he turned off the tape. And then he said, ‘But we have to move beyond all that now.’ That’s when we knew things had changed and a real breakthrough was possible.”No doubt China anticipated a shift in US policy with Bush’s exit, but having recently returned from two weeks of reporting in China, I suspect another reason for the new flexibility: The Chinese leaders have at last recognised how hard climate change will hit their country. One government study has warned that higher temperatures and volatile rainfall could cause production of rice, wheat and corn — the staples of the Chinese diet — to fall 37 percent by 2040 unless effective adaptation measures are taken. Such a decline would gravely endanger China’s ability to feed itself and thus the Communist Party’s hold on power.Obstacles to a formal US-China climate agreement remain. Publicly China is demanding that we cut US emissions by 40 percent by 2020 and provide tens of billions of dollars to developing nations to help them adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Obama administration rebuffs these demands as “not serious” while continuing to insist that China accept reduction targets too. Beijing still rejects this.But the back-channel talks suggest a way around the impasse. Recall that there was agreement during the talks. In addition to a successful outcome in Copenhagen, the US and Chinese delegations agreed, according to Chandler, “to rapidly deploy existing technologies to boost energy efficiency” — the quickest path to large emissions cuts. A leading Chinese think tank has concluded that better efficiency could reduce China’s emissions by one-third by 2050; the United States could cut its energy use 30 percent if all states emulated California’s efficiency. Such reductions could buy time for a second back-channel agreement to bear fruit: a joint US-China programme to develop low-carbon technologies for vehicles and coal plants, which would enable China to continue burning coal, the source of three-quarters of its energy consumption.President Obama could sign such an agreement regardless of what Congress does (besides, there is considerable support on Capitol Hill for energy efficiency and green-tech R&D), and in the short to medium term the results could match the IPCC’s recommendations. To be sure, binding emissions targets are important. But if Washington and Beijing can’t agree on them yet, at least the two carbon superpowers could launch a green efficiency revolution that can achieve many of the same ends. In that case, Copenhagen might have “a successful outcome” after all.
Wind power has its own environmental problems
Wind power generation is expected to be a clean and environmentally friendly natural energy source, but a new kind of environmental problem has surfaced as infrasonic waves caused by windmills are suspected of causing health problems for some people.
Shinjuro Kondo, 76, who moved into his Japanese neighborhood 17 years ago, said, "Stiff shoulders, headaches, insomnia, hand tremors...Since February last year, soon after the test operation of windmills started, I developed various kinds of symptoms."
Kondo's neighborhood is about 350 meters away from a group of windmills.
More than 20 percent of about 100 neighbors also complain of similar physical disorders. They said their symptoms become less severe when the windmills stop due to mechanical troubles and other reasons.
Currently, the relationship between such physical disorders and the windmills is not clear. But infrasonic waves generated by the windmills' rotors is suspected to be the cause.
The sound waves oscillate once to 20 times a second, a frequency too low to be heard by human ears.
Similar complaints also have been reported in other parts of Japan, but it is not known whether these are connected to naturally occurring noise.
Operators of such windmills are very concerned about what measures should be taken. One of them said, "Even if we measure sounds from the windmills, no numerical differences are found from those in the natural environment."
Extrapolating the causal relationship is difficult for a number of reasons:
- Sensitivity to infrasonic noise differs among individuals.
- Effects are changed by psychological factors. For example, unpleasant sounds make people more uncomfortable than pleasant sounds, even at the same volume.
- The causal relationship between the physical disorders and the sounds has not been clarified.
In 2004, Japan's Environment Ministry set guidelines for local governments on dealing with problems caused by infrasonic noise.
The guidelines were issued mainly because of reports of damage at factories and construction sites caused by infrasonic noise at the frequency of 20 hertz to 200 hertz.
The infrasonic noise from windmills is not covered by the guideline as the frequency is lower.
Windmills are not covered by the country's Noise Regulation Law, which regulates noise levels at factories and construction sites, or by the Law for Assessment of Environmental Impacts, which stipulates that effects to surrounding areas should be assessed prior to the start of a large development project.
There have been no research papers published, either at home or abroad, which analyzed the relationship between infrasonic noise and human health.
Fumitaka Shiomi, 85, a doctor in Wakayama, Japan, who has studied infrasonic noise problems for 30 years, said, "There is health damage caused by infrasonic noise. Unless measures are taken immediately, a serious problem will occur."
But Tomohiro Shishime, chief of the Environment Ministry's Air Environment Division, said, "First, we'll examine the real situation." The ministry is at the stage of asking local governments to collect complaints.
Izumi Ushiyama, dean of Ashikaga Institute of Technology, which is promoting the use of windmills, said, "While listening to opinions of both business operators and residents, we'll search for a solution."
Wind power generation also poses a danger to birds, which are often struck and killed by the spinning vanes of the windmills. The Japanese Environment Ministry confirmed 13 such bird strikes in which white-tailed eagles, a rare species, were killed since fiscal 2003.
More white-tailed eagles have been killed in bird strikes by windmills than by running trains. A golden eagle was found dead near wind power facility in Iwate Prefecture last year - the first death of a rare species confirmed near the facility.
Yukihiro Kominami, deputy chief of the nature conservation office at the Wild Bird Society of Japan, said those cases are just the tip of the iceberg. "We have to find out the problem of the locations as soon as possible, or we will see the damage to the bird population continuing," he said.
Some people argue a windmill twirling around on a column dozens of meters high spoils the scenery in the area.
Residents in Nagano, Japan, organized to oppose the building of wind farm there. The prefectural government then made a map showing the effects on nature and scenery of the proposed windmills. An official in charge said "We want the businesses to assess environmental issues and to explain them well to local residents, using this map."
There is a growing consensus among experts that wind-power generation projects should be subject to the environment impact assessment law. The ministry plans to consider the idea, including the possibility of amending the law, at the Central Environmental Council.
"Wind-power generation has been a business success, costing less than solar power generation," said Tetsuya Iida, head of Japan's Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a nonprofit environmental organization. "There must be a path for residents and nature to coexist. The central government must consider establishing a framework to support finding that way."
Shinjuro Kondo, 76, who moved into his Japanese neighborhood 17 years ago, said, "Stiff shoulders, headaches, insomnia, hand tremors...Since February last year, soon after the test operation of windmills started, I developed various kinds of symptoms."
Kondo's neighborhood is about 350 meters away from a group of windmills.
More than 20 percent of about 100 neighbors also complain of similar physical disorders. They said their symptoms become less severe when the windmills stop due to mechanical troubles and other reasons.
Currently, the relationship between such physical disorders and the windmills is not clear. But infrasonic waves generated by the windmills' rotors is suspected to be the cause.
The sound waves oscillate once to 20 times a second, a frequency too low to be heard by human ears.
Similar complaints also have been reported in other parts of Japan, but it is not known whether these are connected to naturally occurring noise.
Operators of such windmills are very concerned about what measures should be taken. One of them said, "Even if we measure sounds from the windmills, no numerical differences are found from those in the natural environment."
Extrapolating the causal relationship is difficult for a number of reasons:
- Sensitivity to infrasonic noise differs among individuals.
- Effects are changed by psychological factors. For example, unpleasant sounds make people more uncomfortable than pleasant sounds, even at the same volume.
- The causal relationship between the physical disorders and the sounds has not been clarified.
In 2004, Japan's Environment Ministry set guidelines for local governments on dealing with problems caused by infrasonic noise.
The guidelines were issued mainly because of reports of damage at factories and construction sites caused by infrasonic noise at the frequency of 20 hertz to 200 hertz.
The infrasonic noise from windmills is not covered by the guideline as the frequency is lower.
Windmills are not covered by the country's Noise Regulation Law, which regulates noise levels at factories and construction sites, or by the Law for Assessment of Environmental Impacts, which stipulates that effects to surrounding areas should be assessed prior to the start of a large development project.
There have been no research papers published, either at home or abroad, which analyzed the relationship between infrasonic noise and human health.
Fumitaka Shiomi, 85, a doctor in Wakayama, Japan, who has studied infrasonic noise problems for 30 years, said, "There is health damage caused by infrasonic noise. Unless measures are taken immediately, a serious problem will occur."
But Tomohiro Shishime, chief of the Environment Ministry's Air Environment Division, said, "First, we'll examine the real situation." The ministry is at the stage of asking local governments to collect complaints.
Izumi Ushiyama, dean of Ashikaga Institute of Technology, which is promoting the use of windmills, said, "While listening to opinions of both business operators and residents, we'll search for a solution."
Wind power generation also poses a danger to birds, which are often struck and killed by the spinning vanes of the windmills. The Japanese Environment Ministry confirmed 13 such bird strikes in which white-tailed eagles, a rare species, were killed since fiscal 2003.
More white-tailed eagles have been killed in bird strikes by windmills than by running trains. A golden eagle was found dead near wind power facility in Iwate Prefecture last year - the first death of a rare species confirmed near the facility.
Yukihiro Kominami, deputy chief of the nature conservation office at the Wild Bird Society of Japan, said those cases are just the tip of the iceberg. "We have to find out the problem of the locations as soon as possible, or we will see the damage to the bird population continuing," he said.
Some people argue a windmill twirling around on a column dozens of meters high spoils the scenery in the area.
Residents in Nagano, Japan, organized to oppose the building of wind farm there. The prefectural government then made a map showing the effects on nature and scenery of the proposed windmills. An official in charge said "We want the businesses to assess environmental issues and to explain them well to local residents, using this map."
There is a growing consensus among experts that wind-power generation projects should be subject to the environment impact assessment law. The ministry plans to consider the idea, including the possibility of amending the law, at the Central Environmental Council.
"Wind-power generation has been a business success, costing less than solar power generation," said Tetsuya Iida, head of Japan's Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a nonprofit environmental organization. "There must be a path for residents and nature to coexist. The central government must consider establishing a framework to support finding that way."
Environment Groups Find Less Support on Court
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.”
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.”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)