In a good day for the environment, the G8 countries agreed on new targets for fighting climate change that will be presented to the G5 emerging economy countries on July 9th in L’Aquila, Italy. “Europe and the United States are in favour of cutting carbon dioxide emissions and will adopt a united stance vis-à-vis the emerging economies with a view to arriving at a pledge into which everyone must enter,” said Mr. Berlusconi, Italian Prime Minister and G8 summit chairman.
The G8 major industrial countries agreed to limit global warming to just 2°C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels by 2050, with new low carbon emission reduction targets of 80% by 2050 for developed nations, to help achieve a 50% global reduction. This target will need the co-operation of the major emerging industrial economies of China and India.
The devil is in the details though, as tough negotiations between all countries on which dates to use as a reference and how to achieve the targets are now urgently required. However, it now looks more likely that progress will now be made at the United Nations conference in Copenhagen this December.
The UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown was quoted in the BBC as saying that, "I hope tomorrow when we meet other countries we'll follow that through and this is a very significant development, the first time it's ever been done."
In a sign of the times, today, July 8th 2009, the Government of Canada made a statement that, "Canada recognizes the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C".
This is a major step forward for Canada and prompted praise from Clare Demerse, Associate Director of the Pembina Institute, a not-for-profit think tank focused on developing innovative sustainable energy solutions; "This is a welcome statement from Canada. The impacts of climate change beyond the 2°C threshold are projected to be catastrophic, especially for some of the world's poorest people. Until today, Canada had never taken a position on what level of global warming is too dangerous. Thanks to pressure from its G8 peers, Canada has now accepted what scientists and leading countries have been saying for years.”
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
G8 slammed for climate failure
Antonio Hill, Oxfam spokesperson, said: “The G8 might have agreed to avoid cooking the planet by more than two degrees, but they made no attempt to turn down the heat any time soon. “It is disappointing that G8 leaders are ignoring what they must do now to limit warming below 2 degrees. This limit commits the G8 to follow the science which is good. But 2050 is too far off to matter -- poor people are being hit today. We must see emissions cuts of at least 40% by 2020 and G8 money to help the poorest countries cope with climate chaos. “Unless the G8 come up with at least $150 billion to help poor countries adapt to the killer effects of climate change and to stop things getting any worse there will be no deal in Copenhagen in December. Brown has led the way by recognising the scale of what is needed and the rest of the G8 must follow his lead.” On Development, Aid and Trade On failure to meet aid promises. Emma Seery, Oxfam spokesperson, said: “The buck stops here. The failure of the G8 to deliver the $50 billion in aid promised to poor countries is a crisis of credibility which will cost 3 million lives. What is the G8 for if they will not show leadership to save the lives of millions? They have two days left to show us their emergency plan to meet their broken promise.” On the economic crisis hitting poor countries Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam International executive director, said: “Because of the economic mess caused by the G8's irresponsible financial management, economic growth in Africa in 2009 will drop from 7% to 1% which will cost them $245 billion dollars. Their failure to deliver promised aid amounts to criminal negligence. It is like pushing someone into dangerous waters and then refusing to save them. “There may be some green shoots in the rich world, but the pain in the poorest countries is getting worse by the day. This economic crisis in poor countries is a matter of life and death.” So far rich countries have found a staggering 8.4 trillion to bail out banks- 70 times global aid levels. On Resumption of the Doha Round Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam International executive director, said: “Restarting Doha is important, but the deal currently on the table will not deliver for poor countries. Any new trade negotiations require a new deal that puts the poorest first. “Its become an annual tradition for the G8 to talk about the importance of finishing the trade round - but that is all it is - talk.” On Food Gawain Kripke, Oxfam spokesperson, said: “Ending hunger should be on the G8 menu in Italy. Leaders must put new money on the table to improve agriculture and reverse the trend of increasing global hunger. "Funding commitments should be specific and clarify what is new money rather than existing or reallocated. Playing accounting games with hunger is not funny. “We already know that around 9 of the $13 billion they disbursed since January 2008 to tackle the food crisis, was nothing more than recycled cash. This is unacceptable with more than 1 billion people are going hungry. This G8 must not be business as usual, and take urgent action.“
Support People & Planet vs. The Treasury
People & Planet, alongside World Development Movement (WDM) and Platform, are taking the Treasury to court. We are seeking a Judicial Review to stop the Royal Bank of Scotland pouring money into projects which are linked to climate change, environmental destruction and human rights violations.
Irresponsible lending by profit-hungry banks has brought about an unparalleled financial crisis in the global economy. Because of its huge investments in highly-polluting fossil fuel projects and energy companies, Royal Bank of Scotland (which owns NatWest) plays a leading role in financing the climate crisis.
The Treasury bail out of RBS-NatWest comes at huge cost to the UK taxpayer, tying us all to the disasters which it finances. We have a responsibility to hold them accountable.
Support the legal challenge - take action now!
Email the Treasury and tell them to stop spending public money on climate chaos
The government holds 75% of the bank’s voting shares, and has a fantastic opportunity to be both bold and responsible. The Treasury has the power to ensure that the Royal Bank of Scotland now becomes a force for good in the transition to a low carbon economy.
A government committed to leading the world on tackling climate change would require RBS-NatWest’s lending decisions to support renewable energies, companies and infrastructure, and cut its investment in high-risk, high-carbon projects and companies. We must convince the Treasury to stand up to the power of the finance sector.
Challenge the Treasury and your MP today!
Email the Treasury and tell them to stop spending public money on climate chaos
Lobby your MP to sign EDM 880: RBS and Climate Change
People and Planet have put an email together to get you started.
Irresponsible lending by profit-hungry banks has brought about an unparalleled financial crisis in the global economy. Because of its huge investments in highly-polluting fossil fuel projects and energy companies, Royal Bank of Scotland (which owns NatWest) plays a leading role in financing the climate crisis.
The Treasury bail out of RBS-NatWest comes at huge cost to the UK taxpayer, tying us all to the disasters which it finances. We have a responsibility to hold them accountable.
Support the legal challenge - take action now!
Email the Treasury and tell them to stop spending public money on climate chaos
The government holds 75% of the bank’s voting shares, and has a fantastic opportunity to be both bold and responsible. The Treasury has the power to ensure that the Royal Bank of Scotland now becomes a force for good in the transition to a low carbon economy.
A government committed to leading the world on tackling climate change would require RBS-NatWest’s lending decisions to support renewable energies, companies and infrastructure, and cut its investment in high-risk, high-carbon projects and companies. We must convince the Treasury to stand up to the power of the finance sector.
Challenge the Treasury and your MP today!
Email the Treasury and tell them to stop spending public money on climate chaos
Lobby your MP to sign EDM 880: RBS and Climate Change
People and Planet have put an email together to get you started.
What are the real costs of reducing forest emissions?
Without knowing REDD's true costs we can't analyse the benefits, says the ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins' Peter A. Minang.
Science tells us that valuing forests for carbon (by financing Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) or REDD-plus) could help mitigate climate change and improve livelihoods. But it seems to me that delivering these benefits will depend as much on politics and institutions as on science.
Evidence from across the humid and sub-humid tropics shows that people make very low economic returns from cleared forests, when calculated per tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted. The Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (ASB) Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins has shown that, in Cameroon, Indonesia, Peru and the Philippines, 80 per cent of all emissions from deforestation between 1990 and 2005 could have been avoided for less than US$5 per tonne of CO2 equivalent released.
This is a relatively low opportunity cost that should make REDD-plus very attractive for developing countries. Other studies including the Stern and Eliasch reviews have also found relatively lower costs compared to other mitigation options. But are low opportunity costs enough?
Land use change in the tropics is driven by people trying to maximise their economic gain. They will always choose the most profitable option available. If REDD is to work as a real financial incentive, it must be robust enough to compete with other potential land uses.
One answer might be to target specific ecosystems, such as peatlands, that store large amounts of carbon and that don't generate much money when land use is changed. In Indonesian peatlands, for example, the ASB studies found that land users earned just US$0.10–0.20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent lost from changing land use. Compensating land users to conserve peatlands here could arguably be a cost-effective way to lower emissions, while maximising livelihood benefits.
Another option for REDD could be to focus on supporting trees in farmed landscapes that are intermediate between natural forests and intensive agriculture (i.e. agroforestry systems). The ASB studies show that multi-storey agrofrestry systems, such as cocoa or coffee plantations in west and central Africa, or jungle rubber in Indonesia, can conserve and sequester moderate to high amounts of carbon, while also maintaining relatively high biodiversity and providing moderate profits for farmers.
Better agriculture, less deforestation
But it will take more than financial incentives alone for REDD to lower emissions and improve livelihoods. REDD strategies will also have to address other issues, including causes of deforestation, sustainable forest management and monitoring capacity.
There is overwhelming evidence that deforestation in Africa and parts of Asia is largely due to agricultural expansion. So stopping it means making agriculture more efficient. This, in turn, means that funding for agricultural research and extension programmes for agricultural intensification has to be part of any effective and efficient REDD package.
Investing in agricultural intensification in the tropics is often complicated by unclear tenure and land rights. These also make designing and implementing REDD (and ensuring proper benefit sharing) complicated. Clearly, property rights would have to be reformed for REDD to be successful — which presents a whole new suite of challenges.
And some of the countries with the greatest potential for REDD also have serious governance challenges. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Myanmar, Sudan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe and to some extent Indonesia are among the top ten countries for REDD potential but have also ranked poorly on forest governance. In many of these countries illegal logging even in protected forests remains a challenge.
Hidden costs
Planning, measuring, monitoring and reporting REDD activities could prove a major stumbling block. We have learned some lessons from existing carbon markets transaction costs, like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which have led to REDD readiness programmes by the World Bank and UN. But this is just a beginning to what's needed.
Many developing countries will require substantial investments in capacity building, science, policy and institutions before REDD will cut carbon emissions and benefit livelihoods. For example, countries will need technical support to develop carbon inventory systems and remote sensing capacity. And they will need support to set up the institutional infrastructure required to distribute REDD benefits and implement various incentive schemes.
Broadly speaking, developing countries will have to promote rural development that encourages high carbon stocks in landscapes with high profitability and other environmental service benefits such as water and biodiversity.
Even if monitoring and measuring can be achieved, there is the question of permanence — whether a projects' emission reductions will stand the test of time, or whether they might be reversed. This issue, among others, has kept the price of carbon from developing countries' land use change and forestry at about US$4 per tonne — compared to about US$15 for the European Union. Any REDD agreement must address this differential if it is to offer developing countries effective financial incentives.
The bottom line is that our support for REDD is based on flimsy evidence. Though opportunity costs appear to be low, we still know very little about how much it will really cost a country to set up and implement REDD. So since the costs and benefits have not been well understood, we cannot realistically assess how and when REDD could deliver sustainable benefits.
Science tells us that valuing forests for carbon (by financing Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) or REDD-plus) could help mitigate climate change and improve livelihoods. But it seems to me that delivering these benefits will depend as much on politics and institutions as on science.
Evidence from across the humid and sub-humid tropics shows that people make very low economic returns from cleared forests, when calculated per tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted. The Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (ASB) Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins has shown that, in Cameroon, Indonesia, Peru and the Philippines, 80 per cent of all emissions from deforestation between 1990 and 2005 could have been avoided for less than US$5 per tonne of CO2 equivalent released.
This is a relatively low opportunity cost that should make REDD-plus very attractive for developing countries. Other studies including the Stern and Eliasch reviews have also found relatively lower costs compared to other mitigation options. But are low opportunity costs enough?
Land use change in the tropics is driven by people trying to maximise their economic gain. They will always choose the most profitable option available. If REDD is to work as a real financial incentive, it must be robust enough to compete with other potential land uses.
One answer might be to target specific ecosystems, such as peatlands, that store large amounts of carbon and that don't generate much money when land use is changed. In Indonesian peatlands, for example, the ASB studies found that land users earned just US$0.10–0.20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent lost from changing land use. Compensating land users to conserve peatlands here could arguably be a cost-effective way to lower emissions, while maximising livelihood benefits.
Another option for REDD could be to focus on supporting trees in farmed landscapes that are intermediate between natural forests and intensive agriculture (i.e. agroforestry systems). The ASB studies show that multi-storey agrofrestry systems, such as cocoa or coffee plantations in west and central Africa, or jungle rubber in Indonesia, can conserve and sequester moderate to high amounts of carbon, while also maintaining relatively high biodiversity and providing moderate profits for farmers.
Better agriculture, less deforestation
But it will take more than financial incentives alone for REDD to lower emissions and improve livelihoods. REDD strategies will also have to address other issues, including causes of deforestation, sustainable forest management and monitoring capacity.
There is overwhelming evidence that deforestation in Africa and parts of Asia is largely due to agricultural expansion. So stopping it means making agriculture more efficient. This, in turn, means that funding for agricultural research and extension programmes for agricultural intensification has to be part of any effective and efficient REDD package.
Investing in agricultural intensification in the tropics is often complicated by unclear tenure and land rights. These also make designing and implementing REDD (and ensuring proper benefit sharing) complicated. Clearly, property rights would have to be reformed for REDD to be successful — which presents a whole new suite of challenges.
And some of the countries with the greatest potential for REDD also have serious governance challenges. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Myanmar, Sudan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe and to some extent Indonesia are among the top ten countries for REDD potential but have also ranked poorly on forest governance. In many of these countries illegal logging even in protected forests remains a challenge.
Hidden costs
Planning, measuring, monitoring and reporting REDD activities could prove a major stumbling block. We have learned some lessons from existing carbon markets transaction costs, like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which have led to REDD readiness programmes by the World Bank and UN. But this is just a beginning to what's needed.
Many developing countries will require substantial investments in capacity building, science, policy and institutions before REDD will cut carbon emissions and benefit livelihoods. For example, countries will need technical support to develop carbon inventory systems and remote sensing capacity. And they will need support to set up the institutional infrastructure required to distribute REDD benefits and implement various incentive schemes.
Broadly speaking, developing countries will have to promote rural development that encourages high carbon stocks in landscapes with high profitability and other environmental service benefits such as water and biodiversity.
Even if monitoring and measuring can be achieved, there is the question of permanence — whether a projects' emission reductions will stand the test of time, or whether they might be reversed. This issue, among others, has kept the price of carbon from developing countries' land use change and forestry at about US$4 per tonne — compared to about US$15 for the European Union. Any REDD agreement must address this differential if it is to offer developing countries effective financial incentives.
The bottom line is that our support for REDD is based on flimsy evidence. Though opportunity costs appear to be low, we still know very little about how much it will really cost a country to set up and implement REDD. So since the costs and benefits have not been well understood, we cannot realistically assess how and when REDD could deliver sustainable benefits.
Reducing forest emissions needs good science
The climate change debate offers a way to integrate forest management into development policy, but strategies must be informed by good science.
Conservationists have long recognised the role of forests in supporting indigenous people's livelihoods in developing countries. In addition to fuel and building material, forests often provide critical supplies of food and medicine. They are also an important source of ever-dwindling biodiversity. In Africa, researchers estimate that more than 70 per cent of people depend on forest resources.
More recently, cash-strapped governments have grown interested in the idea of being paid to conserve forests because of the 'ecosystem services' they provide, such as moderating local air temperature; controlling water flow and mitigating floods; and generating rainfall.
But forests are now being propelled into the spotlight for another value: their ability to store carbon and mitigate climate change. Developing countries will be paid for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in a scheme to be finalised at this year's climate negotiations in Copenhagen.
Getting REDD right for everyone
Forests act as carbon sinks — trees and soil absorb carbon from the atmosphere and store it away. If left intact, such forests could play a crucial role in offsetting carbon emissions.
But many tropical forests are being rapidly cleared by logging or to make way for agriculture, releasing the carbon stored in them either rapidly if they are burnt, or more slowly as the organic matter decays.
Deforestation can also change soil dynamics and increase erosion, both of which can release more carbon into the atmosphere. Overall, researchers estimate that deforestation emits around one fifth of global carbon emissions.
Any effort to tackle climate change in the long term must therefore involve reducing deforestation.
The 2007 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bali, Indonesia, saw a broad global commitment to reducing emissions from deforestation, and countries around the world are now busy thrashing out the details in time for Copenhagen.
REDD offers a singular opportunity to combine forest management with sustainable development but establishing a one-size-fits-all framework is not easy, particularly given the diversity in forest types, management and use found across the tropics.
As a result while there is an emerging consensus on some aspects of REDD — for example, that only developing countries should be able to benefit, and that funding should come from multiple sources — many of the details remain to be agreed.
Simultaneously meeting local needs and adding to sustainable economic growth is a particular challenge for REDD. A critical component to achieving this is to ensure that REDD strategies are informed by good science that is also locally relevant.
Diverse viewpoints
This week, we put REDD under the spotlight in a series of articles to identify and explore where science and research can make a difference.
A background article summarises the main issues including the development of REDD activities in global climate negotiations, explaining some of the stumbling blocks and outlining how scientists can help (see Reducing forest emissions: Facts and figures).
The task of monitoring, reporting and verifying REDD projects is highlighted as a particular challenge for many developing countries, although recent advances in technologies such as remote sensing can help (see An eye in the sky watching forests disappear).
Science can help in other ways too. Godwin Kowero, head of the African Forest Forum, emphasises the depth of local knowledge held by African forestry researchers and urges global negotiators to listen, and learn from, these critical perspectives (see Getting REDD right for Africa).
Festus Akinnifesi and colleagues from the World Agroforestry Centre offer one such viewpoint, arguing that incorporating agroforestry into REDD is the key to both delivering climate goals and improving livelihoods in Africa (see Africa needs agroforestry to cut forest emissions).
Peter A. Minang, from the ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, provides another. He argues that support for REDD is based on flimsy evidence and that we know little about costs for developing countries (see What are the real costs of reducing forest emissions?).
Meanwhile, N. H. Ravindranath and Shamama Afreen, from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, suggest that REDD is inappropriate for South Asia, saying that a scheme that rewards afforestation, reforestation and growth in forest carbon stocks is needed (see Climate deals should reward wider forest management).
Other problems in REDD proposals are identified by Romain Czebiniak, policy advisor on climate change and forests for Greenpeace. He suggests that while REDD is a critical ingredient in any effort to stay below a two-degree rise in global temperatures, it cannot be simply applied in carbon markets where experience shows that few developing countries can readily participate (see The promise and peril of REDD).
Twin goals
This is by no means an exhaustive list of issues facing REDD negotiators, particularly those from the developing world, as they prepare for Copenhagen. But these articles, taken with the background material we link to, will provide a useful overview of some of the key issues at the interface between REDD and science.
Whatever path the REDD debate takes, negotiators must keep in sight the twin goals of supporting sustainable development while also addressing climate change. A well-structured framework for REDD could help deliver both. But only if it is informed by good, and locally-relevant, science.
Conservationists have long recognised the role of forests in supporting indigenous people's livelihoods in developing countries. In addition to fuel and building material, forests often provide critical supplies of food and medicine. They are also an important source of ever-dwindling biodiversity. In Africa, researchers estimate that more than 70 per cent of people depend on forest resources.
More recently, cash-strapped governments have grown interested in the idea of being paid to conserve forests because of the 'ecosystem services' they provide, such as moderating local air temperature; controlling water flow and mitigating floods; and generating rainfall.
But forests are now being propelled into the spotlight for another value: their ability to store carbon and mitigate climate change. Developing countries will be paid for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in a scheme to be finalised at this year's climate negotiations in Copenhagen.
Getting REDD right for everyone
Forests act as carbon sinks — trees and soil absorb carbon from the atmosphere and store it away. If left intact, such forests could play a crucial role in offsetting carbon emissions.
But many tropical forests are being rapidly cleared by logging or to make way for agriculture, releasing the carbon stored in them either rapidly if they are burnt, or more slowly as the organic matter decays.
Deforestation can also change soil dynamics and increase erosion, both of which can release more carbon into the atmosphere. Overall, researchers estimate that deforestation emits around one fifth of global carbon emissions.
Any effort to tackle climate change in the long term must therefore involve reducing deforestation.
The 2007 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bali, Indonesia, saw a broad global commitment to reducing emissions from deforestation, and countries around the world are now busy thrashing out the details in time for Copenhagen.
REDD offers a singular opportunity to combine forest management with sustainable development but establishing a one-size-fits-all framework is not easy, particularly given the diversity in forest types, management and use found across the tropics.
As a result while there is an emerging consensus on some aspects of REDD — for example, that only developing countries should be able to benefit, and that funding should come from multiple sources — many of the details remain to be agreed.
Simultaneously meeting local needs and adding to sustainable economic growth is a particular challenge for REDD. A critical component to achieving this is to ensure that REDD strategies are informed by good science that is also locally relevant.
Diverse viewpoints
This week, we put REDD under the spotlight in a series of articles to identify and explore where science and research can make a difference.
A background article summarises the main issues including the development of REDD activities in global climate negotiations, explaining some of the stumbling blocks and outlining how scientists can help (see Reducing forest emissions: Facts and figures).
The task of monitoring, reporting and verifying REDD projects is highlighted as a particular challenge for many developing countries, although recent advances in technologies such as remote sensing can help (see An eye in the sky watching forests disappear).
Science can help in other ways too. Godwin Kowero, head of the African Forest Forum, emphasises the depth of local knowledge held by African forestry researchers and urges global negotiators to listen, and learn from, these critical perspectives (see Getting REDD right for Africa).
Festus Akinnifesi and colleagues from the World Agroforestry Centre offer one such viewpoint, arguing that incorporating agroforestry into REDD is the key to both delivering climate goals and improving livelihoods in Africa (see Africa needs agroforestry to cut forest emissions).
Peter A. Minang, from the ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, provides another. He argues that support for REDD is based on flimsy evidence and that we know little about costs for developing countries (see What are the real costs of reducing forest emissions?).
Meanwhile, N. H. Ravindranath and Shamama Afreen, from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, suggest that REDD is inappropriate for South Asia, saying that a scheme that rewards afforestation, reforestation and growth in forest carbon stocks is needed (see Climate deals should reward wider forest management).
Other problems in REDD proposals are identified by Romain Czebiniak, policy advisor on climate change and forests for Greenpeace. He suggests that while REDD is a critical ingredient in any effort to stay below a two-degree rise in global temperatures, it cannot be simply applied in carbon markets where experience shows that few developing countries can readily participate (see The promise and peril of REDD).
Twin goals
This is by no means an exhaustive list of issues facing REDD negotiators, particularly those from the developing world, as they prepare for Copenhagen. But these articles, taken with the background material we link to, will provide a useful overview of some of the key issues at the interface between REDD and science.
Whatever path the REDD debate takes, negotiators must keep in sight the twin goals of supporting sustainable development while also addressing climate change. A well-structured framework for REDD could help deliver both. But only if it is informed by good, and locally-relevant, science.
Australian town bans bottled water
Residents of a rural Australian town have voted to ban the sale of bottled water. They are possibly the first community in the world to take such a step.
Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting on Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day. Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.
"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realise they're being conned by the bottled water industry."
First popularised in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticised as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.
Over the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer money on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organiser of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the US.
But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.
"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognising that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.
Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.
Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, decided that if the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, they could just ban the end product.
To prevent lost profit in the town's businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.
The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, Kingston said.
On Wednesday, 356 people voted, which was the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.
Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary beverages. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute which represents the bottled water industry.
Australians spent AU$500m (£242) on bottled water in 2008, a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.
On Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.
He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimise bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.
"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.
But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said the campaign organiser Jon Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something! "We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"
Last year, students at Leeds University in the UK voted for a ban on bottled water at the university's shops, but no UK village, town or city has yet followed in its footsteps.
Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting on Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day. Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.
"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realise they're being conned by the bottled water industry."
First popularised in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticised as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.
Over the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer money on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organiser of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the US.
But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.
"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognising that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.
Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.
Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, decided that if the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, they could just ban the end product.
To prevent lost profit in the town's businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.
The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, Kingston said.
On Wednesday, 356 people voted, which was the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.
Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary beverages. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute which represents the bottled water industry.
Australians spent AU$500m (£242) on bottled water in 2008, a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.
On Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.
He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimise bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.
"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.
But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said the campaign organiser Jon Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something! "We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"
Last year, students at Leeds University in the UK voted for a ban on bottled water at the university's shops, but no UK village, town or city has yet followed in its footsteps.
Medical Isotope Shortage Looming
A leaky Canadian reactor which supplies the United States with about half of its medical isotopes will be shut for much longer than first anticipated.
Atomic Energy of Canada, a government-owned reactor maker and operator, said on Wednesday that it will likely take until late this year to repair the device in Chalk River, Ontario.
Speaking on a conference call with reporters, Hugh MacDiarmid, the company’s president, did not rule out longer delays.
The 52-year-old reactor, which has been plagued with problems in recent years, closed on May 15 after a leak of heavy water, which it uses as a moderator, was discovered. At the time, Atomic Energy estimated that repairs would take three months.
The reactor is the only one in North America that produces isotopes used medical imaging and treatments.
Sourcing isotopes from other reactors is difficult because Chalk River is the world’s largest isotope maker. Medical isotopes also have a relatively short shelf life, making it impossible to build up stockpiles to cover periods when the reactor is out of order.
Some medical imaging and nuclear physics experts have speculated that Chalk River may never reopen, a possibility that Mr. MacDiarmid rejected.
In a joint statement, Leona Aglukkaq, Canada’s health minister, and Lisa Raitt, the natural resources minister, said the continued reactor shutdown “will result in a significant shortage of medical isotopes in Canada and in the world this summer.”
Atomic Energy of Canada, a government-owned reactor maker and operator, said on Wednesday that it will likely take until late this year to repair the device in Chalk River, Ontario.
Speaking on a conference call with reporters, Hugh MacDiarmid, the company’s president, did not rule out longer delays.
The 52-year-old reactor, which has been plagued with problems in recent years, closed on May 15 after a leak of heavy water, which it uses as a moderator, was discovered. At the time, Atomic Energy estimated that repairs would take three months.
The reactor is the only one in North America that produces isotopes used medical imaging and treatments.
Sourcing isotopes from other reactors is difficult because Chalk River is the world’s largest isotope maker. Medical isotopes also have a relatively short shelf life, making it impossible to build up stockpiles to cover periods when the reactor is out of order.
Some medical imaging and nuclear physics experts have speculated that Chalk River may never reopen, a possibility that Mr. MacDiarmid rejected.
In a joint statement, Leona Aglukkaq, Canada’s health minister, and Lisa Raitt, the natural resources minister, said the continued reactor shutdown “will result in a significant shortage of medical isotopes in Canada and in the world this summer.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)