Developing countries need money now to grapple with global warming, and the Group of Eight summit this week could energize troubled climate negotiations if it decided to make "significant" funds available, the top U.N. climate official said Monday.The focus of U.N. climate talks over the past 18 months has been on an agreement to control greenhouse gases after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, including cash for developing countries.But Yvo de Boer, who oversees the talks among 192 nations, says bumping up existing climate funds now would be a "practical, useful, tangible" signal to developing countries that the rich countries are serious about a deal. The accord is due to be completed in Copenhagen in December.De Boer declined to mention figures, but studies by the World Bank and other institutions suggest between $5 billion and $10 billion a year are needed to help countries deal with changing weather patterns affecting agriculture, fishing and the effects of severe storms and drought. That figure could grow to $100 billion annually by 2020.
Accounts in the World Bank and special U.N. facilities now contain a few hundred million dollars.Putting money on the table at the G-8 conference in Italy would allow poor countries "to prepare plans to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change," De Boer told The Associated Press from his office in Bonn, Germany.More than 100 countries — many of them among the world's poorest — will suffer severely from climate change, he said."If I look at the magnitude of challenge, I think a significant amount would be important," he added.For many of the poorest countries, climate change will mean more erratic and expensive food supplies, Oxfam International said in a report released Monday as a briefing paper for the G-8 leaders.The British-based charity said chronic hunger may be "the defining human tragedy of this century," as climate change causes growing seasons to shift, crops to fail, and storms and droughts to ravage fields.It predicted that as weather patterns change, farmers will be forced to abandon traditional crops. Water and food scarcity could lead to mass migration and conflict, it said in a study that found striking similarities across geographic zones.More than 1 billion people, or about one in six people on earth, go hungry today. Without action, Oxfam said, most of the gains of fighting poverty in the world's poorest countries over the past 50 years will be wiped out, "irrecoverable for the foreseeable future."Scientists warn that of potentially catastrophic climate change if average global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels. To prevent that, greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next few years and then rapidly decline by mid-century, according to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The U.N. climate talks are stuck over demands that the industrial countries commit to specific pollution targets, while the wealthy nations insist that everyone must help limit greenhouse gases. Developing countries have agreed to shift toward low-carbon growth, if the receive technology and funding to help them.Leaders of other major economies such as China, India and Brazil will join the G-8 leaders when climate change comes up on the agenda during the three-day summit at L'Aquila, Italy.De Boer said he hoped the session would deal with "big picture" issues. Besides financing, those might include fixing a firm pollution target for 2050 and setting an objective for 2020."These are the leaders who can make a difference, and this is the time to make a difference," De Boer said.The 1997 Kyoto Protocol required 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But it made no demands on developing countries, which was one reason the United States rejected the accord.Since then, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest polluter, and India is rapidly approaching their league. The U.S., in a major policy shift under President Barack Obama, says it wants to be part of the Copenhagen deal.As part of the negotiations, the industrial countries have been asked to say how much further they will reduce emissions by 2020. Russia became the latest to put up numbers, pledging last week to be 10 percent to 15 percent below 1990 levels.Environmentalists denounced that target, since Russia's pollution fell dramatically after the fall of communism and the collapse of its economy in 1989. The World Wide Fund for Nature said it would amount to a "significant acceleration" of Russian emissions over the next decade of 2 to 2.5 percent a year.With the Russian proposal, De Boer said all rich countries except New Zealand have now pledged figures for 2020, and it was time for hard bargaining to begin."Countries will begin examining each other's numbers, comparing them with each other, and seeing how they can show the maximum ambition in Copenhagen," he said.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WHO works on aspects of water, sanitation and hygiene where the health burden is high, where interventions could make a major difference and where the present state of knowledge is poor: :: Drinking-water quality :: Bathing waters :: Water resources :: Water supply and sanitation monitoring :: Water, sanitation and hygiene development :: Wastewater use :: Water-related disease :: Healthcare waste :: Emerging issues in water and infectious disease
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Indoor air pollution
More than three billion people worldwide continue to depend on solid fuels, including biomass fuels (wood, dung, agricultural residues) and coal, for their energy needs.
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Meat vs. Climate: The Debate Continues
At least since a 2006 United Nations report asserted that livestock is responsible for a full 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions — a higher percentage than that caused by transportation — a debate over meat consumption and climate change has been cooking.
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
Marketing Solar Panels to Fifth-Graders
Employees of the Sharp Electronics Corporation were at Joyce Kilmer Elementary School in Mahwah, N.J., recently to teach a lesson on climate change and renewable energy. The cartoon image of an ailing Earth — a thermometer sticking out of its mouth — was the opening slide in their presentation.
Climate change and energy are complex issues, so I was interested to observe how they would be distilled by the Japanese electronics giant — and one of the world’s largest makers of solar panels — to an audience of 10- and 11-year-olds. I recently sat in the back of a fifth-grade class and listened in.
Martha Harvey, an associate manager in Sharp’s strategic marketing division, started the class by asking, “Who knows what climate change is?” She called on a few raised hands and received guesses of “A change of weather?” and “A change of climate?” before offering her own answer:
“It turns out that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising,” she said.
Ms. Harvey then asked if anyone knew what C02 is.
“Carbon dioxide,” a student answered.
Ms. Harvey explained that carbon dioxide is actually a good thing, because it helps keep the Earth’s atmosphere warm, but the problem is that there’s now too much of it.
Sharp began its Solar Academy program in the United States in October 2008 (PDF) and so far has presented it at a handful of elementary schools in California (near the company’s solar division in Huntington Beach), and in New York and New Jersey (Sharp’s corporate headquarters in the United States are in Mahwah).
The initiative is based on a similar program in Japan that, since 2007, has been presented at 700 schools and to 50,000 students.
It makes business sense, according to Stewart Mitchell, the chief strategy officer for Sharp, who started the American version of the program.
“The big picture is, you really want to try to tie your focus on social responsibility as a company into your business model,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The more that students learn about climate change, and the more they learn about the importance of renewable energy — it ties back to feeding into our business model of being in the solar business.”
The renewable energy portion of the presentation mentions several technologies –- including hydro, wind, and ocean power –- but solar quickly becomes the focus. The students watched a short video about how solar panels work, and then tried a hands-on activity in which they discovered how much work is required to power a 60-watt light bulb with hand cranks, compared with using a small solar panel.
At the end of the class, the students were given workbooks and Sharp-brand solar-powered calculators to take home with them.
Bill Howe, a fifth-grade science teacher, told the Sharp instructors afterward that they should make the curriculum available to teachers everywhere and that he would be happy to help in any way possible. “I think my students are excited by the idea that there’s a huge change going on,” Mr. Howe said. “I think they’re intrigued by the new technology.”
Don Chiossi, another fifth-grade science teacher, also gave the program a thumbs-up. “We cover forms of energy in our classroom, but to have people come in from the community to talk about it helps even more,” he said. “Plus, the kids like the calculators.”
The students, for their part, did seem to enjoy the class — though they were not without questions for the Sharp team: “If you used only solar power,” asked one student, “wouldn’t you not be able to use it at nighttime?”
Climate change and energy are complex issues, so I was interested to observe how they would be distilled by the Japanese electronics giant — and one of the world’s largest makers of solar panels — to an audience of 10- and 11-year-olds. I recently sat in the back of a fifth-grade class and listened in.
Martha Harvey, an associate manager in Sharp’s strategic marketing division, started the class by asking, “Who knows what climate change is?” She called on a few raised hands and received guesses of “A change of weather?” and “A change of climate?” before offering her own answer:
“It turns out that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising,” she said.
Ms. Harvey then asked if anyone knew what C02 is.
“Carbon dioxide,” a student answered.
Ms. Harvey explained that carbon dioxide is actually a good thing, because it helps keep the Earth’s atmosphere warm, but the problem is that there’s now too much of it.
Sharp began its Solar Academy program in the United States in October 2008 (PDF) and so far has presented it at a handful of elementary schools in California (near the company’s solar division in Huntington Beach), and in New York and New Jersey (Sharp’s corporate headquarters in the United States are in Mahwah).
The initiative is based on a similar program in Japan that, since 2007, has been presented at 700 schools and to 50,000 students.
It makes business sense, according to Stewart Mitchell, the chief strategy officer for Sharp, who started the American version of the program.
“The big picture is, you really want to try to tie your focus on social responsibility as a company into your business model,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The more that students learn about climate change, and the more they learn about the importance of renewable energy — it ties back to feeding into our business model of being in the solar business.”
The renewable energy portion of the presentation mentions several technologies –- including hydro, wind, and ocean power –- but solar quickly becomes the focus. The students watched a short video about how solar panels work, and then tried a hands-on activity in which they discovered how much work is required to power a 60-watt light bulb with hand cranks, compared with using a small solar panel.
At the end of the class, the students were given workbooks and Sharp-brand solar-powered calculators to take home with them.
Bill Howe, a fifth-grade science teacher, told the Sharp instructors afterward that they should make the curriculum available to teachers everywhere and that he would be happy to help in any way possible. “I think my students are excited by the idea that there’s a huge change going on,” Mr. Howe said. “I think they’re intrigued by the new technology.”
Don Chiossi, another fifth-grade science teacher, also gave the program a thumbs-up. “We cover forms of energy in our classroom, but to have people come in from the community to talk about it helps even more,” he said. “Plus, the kids like the calculators.”
The students, for their part, did seem to enjoy the class — though they were not without questions for the Sharp team: “If you used only solar power,” asked one student, “wouldn’t you not be able to use it at nighttime?”
Cities Mull How to Sell ‘Green’ Agendas
City officials, urban planners, architects and a variety of advocacy groups gathered in Portland, Ore., over the weekend for the National League of Cities’ first conference devoted entirely to sustainability.
In addition to providing cities with ideas for sustainable planning, the “Green Cities Conference” has highlighted opportunities for economic development, improved quality of life, urban renewal and historic preservation that can come with sustainable design, public transportation and high-density development.
Prominent among the bits of advice being doled out to city leaders at the conference: ditch the climate-change talk and focus instead on the more concrete benefits of a green agenda.
“If you go at it as a climate change issue, you won’t get anywhere,” said Christine McEntee, an executive vice president at the American Institute of Architects. “I believe it’s a huge moral problem, but not everybody does,” she said. “But everyone wants to see their energy bills lower and see daylight in their buildings and have more walking opportunities.”
Meanwhile, the AARP, which lobbies Congress on behalf of citizens age 50 and older on issues like Medicare funding, appeared to recognize the sustainability movement as an opportunity to reframe some of the community-access issues they’ve long fought to change.
AARP ” isn’t a green organization,” said Elinor Ginzler, the group’s spokeswoman for housing and mobility issues. But, she said, AARP discourages car-centric planning and promotes walkable neighborhoods and public transportation as a means to help maintain independence for citizens who can no longer drive. Sustainability, she said, is also a “legacy issue” for the organization’s members, who are interested in creating communities for future generations.
Kathie Novak, mayor of Northglenn, Colo., and president of the National League of Cities, echoed that sentiment. “We’re all going to be old whether we like it or not,” she said. “If we can use that as the impetus for making our communities more sustainable, I think it’s wonderful.”
Historic preservation and rehabilitation can also provide a lens for promoting sustainability, but green reasoning isn’t usually what wins community support for a project, said Art DeMuro, a Portland developer and a member of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission. Projects happen because they also boost property values in blighted neighborhoods, spur revitalization in the urban core and maintain a city’s cultural heritage, he said.
“Setting aside material conservation issues,” said Mr. DeMuro, “these buildings are irreplaceable gifts from past generations and we have an obligation to protect those cultural resources.”
In addition to providing cities with ideas for sustainable planning, the “Green Cities Conference” has highlighted opportunities for economic development, improved quality of life, urban renewal and historic preservation that can come with sustainable design, public transportation and high-density development.
Prominent among the bits of advice being doled out to city leaders at the conference: ditch the climate-change talk and focus instead on the more concrete benefits of a green agenda.
“If you go at it as a climate change issue, you won’t get anywhere,” said Christine McEntee, an executive vice president at the American Institute of Architects. “I believe it’s a huge moral problem, but not everybody does,” she said. “But everyone wants to see their energy bills lower and see daylight in their buildings and have more walking opportunities.”
Meanwhile, the AARP, which lobbies Congress on behalf of citizens age 50 and older on issues like Medicare funding, appeared to recognize the sustainability movement as an opportunity to reframe some of the community-access issues they’ve long fought to change.
AARP ” isn’t a green organization,” said Elinor Ginzler, the group’s spokeswoman for housing and mobility issues. But, she said, AARP discourages car-centric planning and promotes walkable neighborhoods and public transportation as a means to help maintain independence for citizens who can no longer drive. Sustainability, she said, is also a “legacy issue” for the organization’s members, who are interested in creating communities for future generations.
Kathie Novak, mayor of Northglenn, Colo., and president of the National League of Cities, echoed that sentiment. “We’re all going to be old whether we like it or not,” she said. “If we can use that as the impetus for making our communities more sustainable, I think it’s wonderful.”
Historic preservation and rehabilitation can also provide a lens for promoting sustainability, but green reasoning isn’t usually what wins community support for a project, said Art DeMuro, a Portland developer and a member of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission. Projects happen because they also boost property values in blighted neighborhoods, spur revitalization in the urban core and maintain a city’s cultural heritage, he said.
“Setting aside material conservation issues,” said Mr. DeMuro, “these buildings are irreplaceable gifts from past generations and we have an obligation to protect those cultural resources.”
Spam and Global Warming?
Last week, “The Carbon Footprint of E-mail Spam Report” made the rounds on the Internet thanks in part to write-ups at various news Web sites.
The study — conducted by the research firm I.C.F. International, and commissioned by the security company McAfee (which, as it happens, also sells one of the leading anti-virus and anti-spam software suites) — examined the environmental impact of junk e-mail.
Among the findings:
• An estimated 62 trillion spam e-mail messages were sent worldwide in 2008.• The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam worldwide totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes.• A single spam message produces the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving three feet.
The solution? Not surprisingly, Jeff Green, a senior vice president for product development at McAfee Avert Labs, said in a statement on the McAfee Web site, “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”
It remains unclear whether global warming is a concern among spammers themselves.
The study — conducted by the research firm I.C.F. International, and commissioned by the security company McAfee (which, as it happens, also sells one of the leading anti-virus and anti-spam software suites) — examined the environmental impact of junk e-mail.
Among the findings:
• An estimated 62 trillion spam e-mail messages were sent worldwide in 2008.• The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam worldwide totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes.• A single spam message produces the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving three feet.
The solution? Not surprisingly, Jeff Green, a senior vice president for product development at McAfee Avert Labs, said in a statement on the McAfee Web site, “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”
It remains unclear whether global warming is a concern among spammers themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)