The cost of tackling climate change will be paid for by benefits that would come from better energy security, employment and health, Rajendra Pachauri says ahead of major announcement on 2013 reports
Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world's top climate change expert said today.
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the Guardian: "The cost could undoubtedly be negative overall." This is because of the additional benefits that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could bring, beyond limiting temperature rises.
Until now, estimates of the price of preventing dangerous climate change have all indicated significant costs. The most authoritative study, the 2006 Stern report, concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he has since said 2% is now more likely.
Pachauri's comments came ahead of a press announcement in New York today about the IPCC's plans for its next series of reports in 2013. He said these would include a greater emphasis on the economics, as well as ethical and humanitarian concerns.
Funding for reducing and adapting to climate change in one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations towards a global deal at a UN summit in December in Copenhagen. But Pachauri argues that if the costs are negative, then "inertia and vested interests would be washed away. As the Americans say, it would be like dollar bills lying on the sidewalk."
Alex Bowen, one of the Stern report authors, said: "[Pachauri's] is a defensible postion, not delusional. But I am more of a sceptic."
"My hunch overall is that it will be a little more costly than we estimated in 2006. But if well designed policies are put in place, we can still do it remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong action now is much cheaper than no action," added Bowen, an economist at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
The associated benefits Pachauri pointed to include better energy security, protecting consumers from oil price spikes, new employment in green industries, more productive agriculture and lower air pollution, cutting health costs. He said one good example was insulating draughty homes and installing better energy control systems. "This can yield very high rates of returns, with pay back in one year."
The idea of co-benefits is also central to the "green new deals" promoted by the UN Environment programme, Lord Stern's group and others.
Bowen said: "Negative costs depends on assumption that policy design and implementation is sensible and very consistent across countries all over the world. But we have gone three years [since the Stern report] without global policies. Emissions have grown rapidly and a lot of people now think economic growth will be much higher later in the century." The faster you have to reduce emissions, he said, the more expensive it is likely to be.
Pachauri's comments came as he led discussions what the next set of reports from the IPCC should cover. Its last report in 2007 is acknowledged to have settled the argument over whether emissions from human activities were causing climate change.
In the next series, due in 2013, Pachauri said the focus would change. "The IPCC cannot address the issue in purely scientific terms. For adaptation and mitigation, we need to put euro or dollar values on those. But there are also some costs you can't quantify. For example, take Hurricane Katrina. You can put a value on property losses, what about psychological, sociological, and institutional costs. I would not like to try to quantify those."
The IPCC meeting raised a range of further issues that it believes need more attention, including extreme weather events, new greenhouse gases, the full impacts of aviation and global scale geo-engineering.
The reports take between five and seven years to complete, but Pachauri argued that this is their strength: "The IPCC process of regular peer review means the reports are far more defensible than anything else.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Hillary in Indian Climate Change Standoff
Talk about a rough start. On a three-day visit to India, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jostled with India’s environment minister for her suggestion that India consider curbs on its carbon emissions.Speaking on a tour of a so-called “green building” in Gurgaon, the boom-town-gone-silent on the outskirts of the Indian capital, Clinton offered a thought on India’s role in the efforts against global warming. After admiring the double-glassed windows that kept the building cool in the summers, she admitted that the U.S. had made mistakes in terms of climate change policy. “There is no question that developed countries like mine must lead on this issue and for our part, under President Obama, we are not only acknowledging our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, we are taking steps to reverse its ill effects,” Clinton said.
Then, she added this, as a reminder to what she felt were India’s responsibilities. “It is essential for major developing countries like India to also lead because over 80 percent of the growth in future emissions will be from developing countries,” she said.
Innocuous enough, right? But it raised the hackles of Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for forests and environment. “There is simply no case for the pressure” that the U.S. was exerting for legal caps on emissions for developing countries, he said. “As if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
And to make sure his point across, he added later on that India looks “suspiciously” upon the commitment and motivation of western countries that have failed to live up to previous climate treaties. (Remember the Kyoto Protocol? Anybody? Anybody?)
An over-reaction, you say? But then, there’s always the back-story to consider. First of all, both India and China have been adamant about one fact – if the U.S. and Europe faced no limitations on their ability to industrialize, then it would be hypocrisy to impose the same limitations on developing nations.
More recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that imposes tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t pledge to a reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020.
And to, so to say, heat up the affair even more, both India and China are expected to find themselves in a corner later this year, when 180 nations meet later this year in Copenhagen to discuss global warming under the U.N.’s auspices.
So take these comments – this ceremonial sword-rattling – as just another stage in the global realpolitik. India’s argument, unconvincing to environmentalists, is its per capita emissions are amongst the lowest in the world, so to a large extent, its responsibilities should be low too. True, but then, the country has over a billion people, and is amongst the fastest growing in the world, which Clinton tried to point out in her defense. “But what is happening now,” she said, is that those rates of emissions “are going up, and dramatically.”
And also, as in all diplomatic encounters, the setting and the company makes all the difference. She was flanked by Todd Stern, Mrs Clinton envoy on Climate Change, whose presence on her team raised eyebrows, with oversensitive Indian newspapers registering surprise on his inclusion. And she went out of her way to visit, and then compare the “green building”, constructed by none other than a tobacco manufacturer, as the next Taj Mahal.
To fully understand the impassioned Indian reactions, remember that India and China are being slowly wooed to join the WTO as full partners, a process that all parties have found rancorous. India let the Doha round of talks last year collapse when the U.S. insisted on the removals of support prices for farmers, the largest constituent for India’s ruling Congress party.
But as part of the wooing process, the West has often indicated that it wants more than changes in subsidies and taxes – it wants cooperation on climate change, which Indian and Chinese officials point out, was a creation of western excess.
As a peace offering, India agreed to an “aspirational” limit on global emissions earlier this year, but has made clear that if the western world wants India to roll back emissions, it has to share in the economic cost that that decision brings.
Clinton made nice too, saying that “of course,” nobody wants to “no one wants to, in any way, stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions of more people out of poverty,” according to a transcript of the press conference.
So, as usually happens at these sort of things, nothing was settled, everybody bared their teeth and drew a line in the constantly shifting sand about their intentions, and retreated back to their corners. India still has no interest in agreeing to legal caps on emissions, and the U.S. registered how earnestly it wanted to that to change.
Monday, though, for those keeping track of the visit – and the accompanying fireworks – will likely be a day of carrots and happy handshakes. Clinton finishes off meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and is expected to announce a few agreements that might make U.S.-India trade more robust. One includes a much awaited end-use-monitoring agreement that might make it easier for American defense contractors to pursues the tens billions of dollars the Indian military is spending, and the other is expected to be an announcement of U.S.-private-sector-built nuclear power plants in India.
Then, she added this, as a reminder to what she felt were India’s responsibilities. “It is essential for major developing countries like India to also lead because over 80 percent of the growth in future emissions will be from developing countries,” she said.
Innocuous enough, right? But it raised the hackles of Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for forests and environment. “There is simply no case for the pressure” that the U.S. was exerting for legal caps on emissions for developing countries, he said. “As if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
And to make sure his point across, he added later on that India looks “suspiciously” upon the commitment and motivation of western countries that have failed to live up to previous climate treaties. (Remember the Kyoto Protocol? Anybody? Anybody?)
An over-reaction, you say? But then, there’s always the back-story to consider. First of all, both India and China have been adamant about one fact – if the U.S. and Europe faced no limitations on their ability to industrialize, then it would be hypocrisy to impose the same limitations on developing nations.
More recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that imposes tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t pledge to a reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020.
And to, so to say, heat up the affair even more, both India and China are expected to find themselves in a corner later this year, when 180 nations meet later this year in Copenhagen to discuss global warming under the U.N.’s auspices.
So take these comments – this ceremonial sword-rattling – as just another stage in the global realpolitik. India’s argument, unconvincing to environmentalists, is its per capita emissions are amongst the lowest in the world, so to a large extent, its responsibilities should be low too. True, but then, the country has over a billion people, and is amongst the fastest growing in the world, which Clinton tried to point out in her defense. “But what is happening now,” she said, is that those rates of emissions “are going up, and dramatically.”
And also, as in all diplomatic encounters, the setting and the company makes all the difference. She was flanked by Todd Stern, Mrs Clinton envoy on Climate Change, whose presence on her team raised eyebrows, with oversensitive Indian newspapers registering surprise on his inclusion. And she went out of her way to visit, and then compare the “green building”, constructed by none other than a tobacco manufacturer, as the next Taj Mahal.
To fully understand the impassioned Indian reactions, remember that India and China are being slowly wooed to join the WTO as full partners, a process that all parties have found rancorous. India let the Doha round of talks last year collapse when the U.S. insisted on the removals of support prices for farmers, the largest constituent for India’s ruling Congress party.
But as part of the wooing process, the West has often indicated that it wants more than changes in subsidies and taxes – it wants cooperation on climate change, which Indian and Chinese officials point out, was a creation of western excess.
As a peace offering, India agreed to an “aspirational” limit on global emissions earlier this year, but has made clear that if the western world wants India to roll back emissions, it has to share in the economic cost that that decision brings.
Clinton made nice too, saying that “of course,” nobody wants to “no one wants to, in any way, stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions of more people out of poverty,” according to a transcript of the press conference.
So, as usually happens at these sort of things, nothing was settled, everybody bared their teeth and drew a line in the constantly shifting sand about their intentions, and retreated back to their corners. India still has no interest in agreeing to legal caps on emissions, and the U.S. registered how earnestly it wanted to that to change.
Monday, though, for those keeping track of the visit – and the accompanying fireworks – will likely be a day of carrots and happy handshakes. Clinton finishes off meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and is expected to announce a few agreements that might make U.S.-India trade more robust. One includes a much awaited end-use-monitoring agreement that might make it easier for American defense contractors to pursues the tens billions of dollars the Indian military is spending, and the other is expected to be an announcement of U.S.-private-sector-built nuclear power plants in India.
Senate Agriculture Panel Begins to Stake Its Claim in Climate Bill
Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will vet options this week for the sweeping energy and climate bill, which they are expected to play a significant role inshaping.The panel will have a hearing Wednesday to explore the role for agriculture and forestry in climate change legislation. They are scheduled to hear from two major farm groups on opposing sides of the debate and question senior Obama administration officials: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and White House Office of Science and Technology Director John Holdren.
The hearing comes as senators consider their options for a massive cap-and-trade measure expected after the August recess. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, who is heading up the effort, says the measure the House passed last month, H.R. 2454 (pdf), will serve as her basis for a bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and other Senate chairmen with a stake in the bill have been brought in for their contributions.
As Senate leadership aims to advance the bill this fall, agricultural interests could form a formidable coalition. Several key fence-sitters on the bill sit on the Agriculture Committee, and farm interests have wide appeal in the Senate. Each senator has some farm interests in his or her state -- unlike the House, which has more representatives from urban and suburban areas.
Boxer plans to introduce her bill the week of Sept. 8, after lawmakers return from the monthlong recess, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set a Sept. 28 deadline for all committees to finish their work on the measure.
Harkin has said he is not sure if he will have a separate markup on the committee's contributions to the overall bill.
Agriculture concerns
Harkin and other senators on the Agriculture Committee have said they want to ensure any effort at wide-ranging climate legislation in the Senate will include all of the provisions that House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) brokered for the House cap-and-trade bill.
House leaders compromised with Peterson and included a raft of changes he suggested in order to win his and other key votes for the bill. The changes were a major victory for farm groups but a disappointment to many environmentalists who are concerned it could weaken efforts to cut down on emissions.
The much-publicized deal put the Agriculture Department, rather than U.S. EPA, in charge of programs that would offset emissions with conservation efforts on farms, ranches and forests. Peterson's language also allowed "early actors," farmers who have been doing such conservation practices for years, to participate in the program.
The language would allow certain farm projects that date back as far as 2001 to qualify. Critics are concerned that instead of reducing carbon, the program may just pay farmers for what they are already doing.
The offset market could be a boon to farmers and other landowners who plant extra trees to absorb carbon dioxide, install methane capture systems over animal waste lagoons or practice no-till farming to store carbon in the soil. The question for some environmental groups is whether these projects will measurably reduce carbon dioxide overall.
Members of the Senate EPW panel said at a hearing last week that they want to make sure the bill is not overly generous in its offset program.
"There is a tremendous amount of sequestering potential, but we have to have it work," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "It has to have a high level of integrity, if there is too much of a loophole it will be irrelevant and ineffective."
Peterson also included a set of provisions friendly to corn-based ethanol, another important issue for Harkin and other Midwestern senators. Peterson's language would temporarily block EPA from calculating a fuel's total worldwide carbon footprint before determining whether it qualifies as a biofuel eligible for incentives. It also bars EPA for five years from including emissions from indirect land-use changes abroad.
Economic analyses
The top Republican on the Agriculture Committee wants more information on the legislation's potential economic effects. Last week he asked agency chiefs who will be testifying at the hearing to release new economic analyses of the House cap-and-trade bill.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) sent letters to Jackson and the chief economist at the Agriculture Department requesting the studies. Chambliss' requests came out of frustration over the lack of statistics and economic analyses on the bill at the farm-level, according to an aide for the second-term senator. He and other Republicans are likely to press the issue this week.
From EPA, Chambliss requested existing research the agency gained from a contract with Bruce McCarl of Texas A&M University. McCarl is a professor of agricultural economics and has specialized in climate change research, developing models that analyze global warming effects on farm economics from a variety of angles.
Chambliss requested McCarl's model, along with all data and supporting information. EPA officials said last week that his request will likely be satisfied. Dave Ryan, a spokesman for the agency, said the computer model is not EPA's property but that its custodian is open with the code and data.
"EPA is working to respond to Senator Chambliss's letter expeditiously," Ryan said.
Chambliss also requested a new study from USDA chief economist Joseph Glauber that would quantify the potential for the offset market and assess the effects that increased energy costs from the House bill could have on farmers and food costs.
USDA is already working on an analysis of some of the costs and benefits of the bill. William Hohenstein, director of USDA's global change program office, said the agency is examining how the bill will effect costs of fuel and fertilizer and its incentives for renewable energy, as well as the impacts and costs of climate change.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, July 22, at 1 p.m. in 325 Russell.
Witnesses: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack; EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson; John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology; Roger Johnson, president of National Farmers Union; Bob Stallman, president of American Farm Bureau Federation; and Jo Pierce, a family tree farmer from Maine, representing the Forest Climate Working Group.
The hearing comes as senators consider their options for a massive cap-and-trade measure expected after the August recess. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, who is heading up the effort, says the measure the House passed last month, H.R. 2454 (pdf), will serve as her basis for a bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and other Senate chairmen with a stake in the bill have been brought in for their contributions.
As Senate leadership aims to advance the bill this fall, agricultural interests could form a formidable coalition. Several key fence-sitters on the bill sit on the Agriculture Committee, and farm interests have wide appeal in the Senate. Each senator has some farm interests in his or her state -- unlike the House, which has more representatives from urban and suburban areas.
Boxer plans to introduce her bill the week of Sept. 8, after lawmakers return from the monthlong recess, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set a Sept. 28 deadline for all committees to finish their work on the measure.
Harkin has said he is not sure if he will have a separate markup on the committee's contributions to the overall bill.
Agriculture concerns
Harkin and other senators on the Agriculture Committee have said they want to ensure any effort at wide-ranging climate legislation in the Senate will include all of the provisions that House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) brokered for the House cap-and-trade bill.
House leaders compromised with Peterson and included a raft of changes he suggested in order to win his and other key votes for the bill. The changes were a major victory for farm groups but a disappointment to many environmentalists who are concerned it could weaken efforts to cut down on emissions.
The much-publicized deal put the Agriculture Department, rather than U.S. EPA, in charge of programs that would offset emissions with conservation efforts on farms, ranches and forests. Peterson's language also allowed "early actors," farmers who have been doing such conservation practices for years, to participate in the program.
The language would allow certain farm projects that date back as far as 2001 to qualify. Critics are concerned that instead of reducing carbon, the program may just pay farmers for what they are already doing.
The offset market could be a boon to farmers and other landowners who plant extra trees to absorb carbon dioxide, install methane capture systems over animal waste lagoons or practice no-till farming to store carbon in the soil. The question for some environmental groups is whether these projects will measurably reduce carbon dioxide overall.
Members of the Senate EPW panel said at a hearing last week that they want to make sure the bill is not overly generous in its offset program.
"There is a tremendous amount of sequestering potential, but we have to have it work," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "It has to have a high level of integrity, if there is too much of a loophole it will be irrelevant and ineffective."
Peterson also included a set of provisions friendly to corn-based ethanol, another important issue for Harkin and other Midwestern senators. Peterson's language would temporarily block EPA from calculating a fuel's total worldwide carbon footprint before determining whether it qualifies as a biofuel eligible for incentives. It also bars EPA for five years from including emissions from indirect land-use changes abroad.
Economic analyses
The top Republican on the Agriculture Committee wants more information on the legislation's potential economic effects. Last week he asked agency chiefs who will be testifying at the hearing to release new economic analyses of the House cap-and-trade bill.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) sent letters to Jackson and the chief economist at the Agriculture Department requesting the studies. Chambliss' requests came out of frustration over the lack of statistics and economic analyses on the bill at the farm-level, according to an aide for the second-term senator. He and other Republicans are likely to press the issue this week.
From EPA, Chambliss requested existing research the agency gained from a contract with Bruce McCarl of Texas A&M University. McCarl is a professor of agricultural economics and has specialized in climate change research, developing models that analyze global warming effects on farm economics from a variety of angles.
Chambliss requested McCarl's model, along with all data and supporting information. EPA officials said last week that his request will likely be satisfied. Dave Ryan, a spokesman for the agency, said the computer model is not EPA's property but that its custodian is open with the code and data.
"EPA is working to respond to Senator Chambliss's letter expeditiously," Ryan said.
Chambliss also requested a new study from USDA chief economist Joseph Glauber that would quantify the potential for the offset market and assess the effects that increased energy costs from the House bill could have on farmers and food costs.
USDA is already working on an analysis of some of the costs and benefits of the bill. William Hohenstein, director of USDA's global change program office, said the agency is examining how the bill will effect costs of fuel and fertilizer and its incentives for renewable energy, as well as the impacts and costs of climate change.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, July 22, at 1 p.m. in 325 Russell.
Witnesses: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack; EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson; John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology; Roger Johnson, president of National Farmers Union; Bob Stallman, president of American Farm Bureau Federation; and Jo Pierce, a family tree farmer from Maine, representing the Forest Climate Working Group.
Frozen tiger, bones seized in Vietnam: monitors
frozen young tiger and several kilograms of tiger bones have been seized by police in Vietnam, where only about 50 of the animals remain, an environmental group said in a statement received Monday.
Hanoi's environmental police found the frozen tiger, weighing 57 kilograms (125 pounds), in the boot of a "suspicious" taxi they stopped in the capital early last Thursday, the TRAFFIC wildlife trade monitoring network said.
They also found 11 kilograms of limb bones believed to come from two tigers, it said.
Environmental police believe the tiger had been transported from central Vietnam but it is not yet known whether it was a native big cat or whether it was wild or captive, said TRAFFIC.
The tiger seizure is the third in Hanoi this year after six tiger skins were found at a store in January and 23 kilograms of frozen tiger parts were recovered the following month, TRAFFIC said.
"These seizures show us just how serious the threat to Asia's remaining wild tigers is," said Nguyen Dao Ngoc Van, of TRAFFIC's Hanoi office.
Vietnam is a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which lists tigers as a protected and endangered species.
Tigers are threatened by the loss of natural habitat from Asia's rapid urbanisation, and are also hunted for fur and body parts used in traditional Chinese medicine.
Hanoi's environmental police found the frozen tiger, weighing 57 kilograms (125 pounds), in the boot of a "suspicious" taxi they stopped in the capital early last Thursday, the TRAFFIC wildlife trade monitoring network said.
They also found 11 kilograms of limb bones believed to come from two tigers, it said.
Environmental police believe the tiger had been transported from central Vietnam but it is not yet known whether it was a native big cat or whether it was wild or captive, said TRAFFIC.
The tiger seizure is the third in Hanoi this year after six tiger skins were found at a store in January and 23 kilograms of frozen tiger parts were recovered the following month, TRAFFIC said.
"These seizures show us just how serious the threat to Asia's remaining wild tigers is," said Nguyen Dao Ngoc Van, of TRAFFIC's Hanoi office.
Vietnam is a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which lists tigers as a protected and endangered species.
Tigers are threatened by the loss of natural habitat from Asia's rapid urbanisation, and are also hunted for fur and body parts used in traditional Chinese medicine.
Indian spiritual leaders go green
Indian spiritual sects are using their wide reach to promote green causes, using the fact that preservation of natural elements is at the country's spiritual core.
Less than a week ago, nearly 1,000 Buddhist monks, nuns and followers set off on a 400-km spiritual trek from Kardang in Lahaul Valley in Himachal Pradesh to Leh in Ladakh across five high Himalayan passes to promote protection of environment and sustainable lifestyles in the region.
The 40-day trek is to say no to plastic bags, a major pollutant in the fragile ecological zone.
The trekkers, led by the head of the 800-year-old Tibetan Drukpa Buddhist sect, Gyalwang Drukpa, will distribute canvas bags to more than 100,000 villagers along the way as a symbolic gesture to shun plastic bags and switch to carry-bags made of cloth and other eco-friendly material.
The marchers will also raise funds - $30 per km - to spread education and sustainable eco-friendly lifestyle awareness in the Himalayan villages.
'This year, we wanted to promote something that purges pollution. Since plastic litter is one of the major eco-concerns in the region, we decided to teach the villagers healthy alternatives. We are in the wheel of a revolution and the way to carry it forward is to lead a clean life.
'Thousands of disciples who visit my monastery in Hemis in Ladakh every year from Europe and Japan requested that we do something in a sustained manner to turn the wheel of revolution so that more people can identify with the spiritual movement and can make their lives better,' Gyalwang Drukpa, the head of the sect, told IANS on telephone from Manali before flagging off the march.
The sect has also been given land along the Indus river on the way to Ladkah to create new woodlands by planting trees.
The trekkers will also champion the cause of 'balanced education for children of the Himalayas' for sustainable livelihoods at the Drukpa sect's eco-friendly 'Druk White Lotus School' in Ladakh that has won international acclaim as the best green school building in Asia.
'We want more children to study in our school and learn to lead balanced lives without losing touch with their culture and environment,' the spiritual leader said.
'A clean environment is the cornerstone of a clean, healthy and strong India,' says Ramdev, co-founder of the Patanjali Yog Peeth near Hardwar.
Ramdev is leading a campaign to clean the Ganga from its source in Gangotri to Ganga Sagar where it drains into the Bay of Bengal. He is working under the banner of Ganga Raksha Manch.
'The government has granted the Ganga national heritage status after our efforts for almost a year,' the seer told IANS. Ramdev, along with representatives of at least 25 religious organisations, is also opposing unplanned industrialisation along the river.
The Ganga - the ninth longest river in the world - is contaminated almost throughout its 2,500-km course. The campaign has managed to mobilise nearly 700,000 youths at the district level.
The cause has helped the Patanjali Yog Peeth identify itself to potential new disciples, especially the youths living in the villages along the Ganga, sources in the organisation said. 'Most villages have Patanjali yoga and fitness cells,' he said.
Protection of environment and mitigating the effects of global warming also tops the agenda of spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of the Art of Living, which has a global following.
'The only way to check environment pollution is to spread awareness. Many people in this world live without the knowledge of climate. They are immune even to changes in the cycle of seasons. They have to be educated,' Sri Sri told IANS.
The seer, who hosted a national environment summit in his retreat in 2008, has been campaigning against global warming and agri-pollution by promoting 'organic farming', plantations and traditional farm technologies.
Youngsters identify with the campaign, says the guru, whose Art of Living Foundation headquarters on the outskirts of Bangalore is a model for sustainable ecological conservation and traditional farming.
Mystic and yoga expert Jaggi Vasudev, head of the Isha Foundation, a spiritual organisation in Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, is known as a global tree planter.
His foundation entered the Guinness Book of World Records in 2006 for an eco-conservation campaign, 'Project Greenhand', which has planted 7.5 million trees in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Most of the foundation's members are young professionals.
Less than a week ago, nearly 1,000 Buddhist monks, nuns and followers set off on a 400-km spiritual trek from Kardang in Lahaul Valley in Himachal Pradesh to Leh in Ladakh across five high Himalayan passes to promote protection of environment and sustainable lifestyles in the region.
The 40-day trek is to say no to plastic bags, a major pollutant in the fragile ecological zone.
The trekkers, led by the head of the 800-year-old Tibetan Drukpa Buddhist sect, Gyalwang Drukpa, will distribute canvas bags to more than 100,000 villagers along the way as a symbolic gesture to shun plastic bags and switch to carry-bags made of cloth and other eco-friendly material.
The marchers will also raise funds - $30 per km - to spread education and sustainable eco-friendly lifestyle awareness in the Himalayan villages.
'This year, we wanted to promote something that purges pollution. Since plastic litter is one of the major eco-concerns in the region, we decided to teach the villagers healthy alternatives. We are in the wheel of a revolution and the way to carry it forward is to lead a clean life.
'Thousands of disciples who visit my monastery in Hemis in Ladakh every year from Europe and Japan requested that we do something in a sustained manner to turn the wheel of revolution so that more people can identify with the spiritual movement and can make their lives better,' Gyalwang Drukpa, the head of the sect, told IANS on telephone from Manali before flagging off the march.
The sect has also been given land along the Indus river on the way to Ladkah to create new woodlands by planting trees.
The trekkers will also champion the cause of 'balanced education for children of the Himalayas' for sustainable livelihoods at the Drukpa sect's eco-friendly 'Druk White Lotus School' in Ladakh that has won international acclaim as the best green school building in Asia.
'We want more children to study in our school and learn to lead balanced lives without losing touch with their culture and environment,' the spiritual leader said.
'A clean environment is the cornerstone of a clean, healthy and strong India,' says Ramdev, co-founder of the Patanjali Yog Peeth near Hardwar.
Ramdev is leading a campaign to clean the Ganga from its source in Gangotri to Ganga Sagar where it drains into the Bay of Bengal. He is working under the banner of Ganga Raksha Manch.
'The government has granted the Ganga national heritage status after our efforts for almost a year,' the seer told IANS. Ramdev, along with representatives of at least 25 religious organisations, is also opposing unplanned industrialisation along the river.
The Ganga - the ninth longest river in the world - is contaminated almost throughout its 2,500-km course. The campaign has managed to mobilise nearly 700,000 youths at the district level.
The cause has helped the Patanjali Yog Peeth identify itself to potential new disciples, especially the youths living in the villages along the Ganga, sources in the organisation said. 'Most villages have Patanjali yoga and fitness cells,' he said.
Protection of environment and mitigating the effects of global warming also tops the agenda of spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of the Art of Living, which has a global following.
'The only way to check environment pollution is to spread awareness. Many people in this world live without the knowledge of climate. They are immune even to changes in the cycle of seasons. They have to be educated,' Sri Sri told IANS.
The seer, who hosted a national environment summit in his retreat in 2008, has been campaigning against global warming and agri-pollution by promoting 'organic farming', plantations and traditional farm technologies.
Youngsters identify with the campaign, says the guru, whose Art of Living Foundation headquarters on the outskirts of Bangalore is a model for sustainable ecological conservation and traditional farming.
Mystic and yoga expert Jaggi Vasudev, head of the Isha Foundation, a spiritual organisation in Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, is known as a global tree planter.
His foundation entered the Guinness Book of World Records in 2006 for an eco-conservation campaign, 'Project Greenhand', which has planted 7.5 million trees in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Most of the foundation's members are young professionals.
Clinton seeks to narrow gap on climate change
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in the Indian capital Sunday hoping to narrow a wide gap with her hosts on fighting climate change ahead of a high-stakes conference later in the year.
On the second leg of her first visit to India since becoming chief US diplomat in January, Clinton will also hold talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna on a range of issues from regional security and counter-terrorism, to trade and arms control.
Clinton kicked off her visit in Mumbai on Saturday by calling for a global fight against terrorism after paying tribute to victims of last year's deadly attacks on the Indian financial capital.
With her on the trip is her special climate envoy Todd Stern, who is tasked with bridging substantial divisions between Washington and Delhi on how best to tackle climate change.
Before leaving for India, Clinton said that she and Stern "hope that we can, through dialogue, come up with some win-win approaches".
The Washington administration is also looking towards a December summit in the Danish capital Copenhagen intended to secure a new international agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
India -- like fellow developing heavyweight China -- has refused to commit to carbon emission cuts in the new treaty until developed nations, particularly the United States, present sufficient targets of their own.
New Delhi has consistently said any pact should not hinder the economic growth of developing countries.
The subject was raised at a meeting Clinton had in Mumbai with Indian business leaders, including Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, which deals in oil and gas exploration among other business.
Ambani argued that India and the United States need to establish "self-sustaining institutions" to produce clean technology, rather than debating who has the right to pollute and how much.
"The time is now, and my perception is, the Indian corporate (world) is ready to do more," he said.
Amrita Patel, head of the National Dairy Development Board, took the United States and the West to task.
"The West, having consumed most of the resources, has to drive it (the climate change fight)," Patel said, echoing official positions. "There is a moral responsibility that the US has."
Clinton said that President Barack Obama's administration has begun to take action on climate change, after his predecessor George W. Bush played down the the problem.
As she did during a visit to China, which has overtaken the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, Clinton acknowledged that the United States had "made mistakes" in its own industrial advance.
She has also defended the right of emerging countries to improve their living standards.
But she added: "We also hope that a country like India, which is growing and mobilising so much development, will not make the same mistakes."
Although she did not expect the world to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting global warming, she said: "There does have to be a framework that India and China in particular sign on to that produces results."
Clinton will Sunday visit the ITC hotel chain's Green Building in Delhi, the first non-commercial complex in India to be awarded a platinum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating, the highest given by the US Green Building Council.
The building is designed to use as much natural light as possible, has windows that allow in light but not heat in order to reduce the need for energy-consuming air conditioners, and has a water recycling plant.
Clinton's talks with the prime minister as well as her counterpart Krishna are scheduled for Monday after which she flies to Thailand.
Indo-US relations were frosty during the Cold War and deteriorated after New Delhi tested an atom bomb in 1998 but thawed after former US president George W. Bush signed a civilian nuclear technology deal with India last year.
Clinton's visit could see an announcement on the two locations India has chosen for US firms to build multi-billion-dollar nuclear power plants, aides said.
On the second leg of her first visit to India since becoming chief US diplomat in January, Clinton will also hold talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna on a range of issues from regional security and counter-terrorism, to trade and arms control.
Clinton kicked off her visit in Mumbai on Saturday by calling for a global fight against terrorism after paying tribute to victims of last year's deadly attacks on the Indian financial capital.
With her on the trip is her special climate envoy Todd Stern, who is tasked with bridging substantial divisions between Washington and Delhi on how best to tackle climate change.
Before leaving for India, Clinton said that she and Stern "hope that we can, through dialogue, come up with some win-win approaches".
The Washington administration is also looking towards a December summit in the Danish capital Copenhagen intended to secure a new international agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
India -- like fellow developing heavyweight China -- has refused to commit to carbon emission cuts in the new treaty until developed nations, particularly the United States, present sufficient targets of their own.
New Delhi has consistently said any pact should not hinder the economic growth of developing countries.
The subject was raised at a meeting Clinton had in Mumbai with Indian business leaders, including Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, which deals in oil and gas exploration among other business.
Ambani argued that India and the United States need to establish "self-sustaining institutions" to produce clean technology, rather than debating who has the right to pollute and how much.
"The time is now, and my perception is, the Indian corporate (world) is ready to do more," he said.
Amrita Patel, head of the National Dairy Development Board, took the United States and the West to task.
"The West, having consumed most of the resources, has to drive it (the climate change fight)," Patel said, echoing official positions. "There is a moral responsibility that the US has."
Clinton said that President Barack Obama's administration has begun to take action on climate change, after his predecessor George W. Bush played down the the problem.
As she did during a visit to China, which has overtaken the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, Clinton acknowledged that the United States had "made mistakes" in its own industrial advance.
She has also defended the right of emerging countries to improve their living standards.
But she added: "We also hope that a country like India, which is growing and mobilising so much development, will not make the same mistakes."
Although she did not expect the world to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting global warming, she said: "There does have to be a framework that India and China in particular sign on to that produces results."
Clinton will Sunday visit the ITC hotel chain's Green Building in Delhi, the first non-commercial complex in India to be awarded a platinum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating, the highest given by the US Green Building Council.
The building is designed to use as much natural light as possible, has windows that allow in light but not heat in order to reduce the need for energy-consuming air conditioners, and has a water recycling plant.
Clinton's talks with the prime minister as well as her counterpart Krishna are scheduled for Monday after which she flies to Thailand.
Indo-US relations were frosty during the Cold War and deteriorated after New Delhi tested an atom bomb in 1998 but thawed after former US president George W. Bush signed a civilian nuclear technology deal with India last year.
Clinton's visit could see an announcement on the two locations India has chosen for US firms to build multi-billion-dollar nuclear power plants, aides said.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Waste companies face inqury as British rubbish is returned from Brazil
More than 1,400 tonnes of potentially hazardous waste, including nappies, condoms, syringes and bags of blood, will be returned to Britain from Brazil as UK authorities investigate whether they were illegally exported.
The Environment Agency today said plans were being made to bring back the rubbish which is thought to have been transported from Felixstowe to three Brazilian ports.
Five Brazilian companies which imported waste between February and May have already been fined, although they said they thought they were receiving plastic for recycling.
The head of Brazil's environment agency, Roberto Massias, last week called for "repatriation of this garbage", saying his country was not .
The UK agency's director of waste, Liz Parks, told the BBC that arrangements were being made to bring back the waste, although it could take a number of weeks.
She also warned that British courts took the dumping of hazardous waste seriously. "We do prosecute people. We've had a number of successful prosecutions in recent years. And in fact in the crown court, people can be fined unlimited amounts and prison sentences are imposed."
Brazil has maintained that the cargo, which also included domestic waste, such as food and cleaning product containers, broke an international convention on movement of hazardous waste to which both countries are signatories.
A spokewoman for the UK agency said this country had taken a "strong global lead" in moves to protect the enviroment and human health.
"Where the Environment Agency detects or is made aware of the illegal export of waste, it works with all relevant partner authorities to ensure the environmentally sound management of any illegal shipments – including the poossible return of wastes to the UK.
"If any company is found to have contravened the strict controls on the export of waste as set out by the Basel convention, the Environment Agency will not hesitate to take enforcement action."
The Environment Agency today said plans were being made to bring back the rubbish which is thought to have been transported from Felixstowe to three Brazilian ports.
Five Brazilian companies which imported waste between February and May have already been fined, although they said they thought they were receiving plastic for recycling.
The head of Brazil's environment agency, Roberto Massias, last week called for "repatriation of this garbage", saying his country was not .
The UK agency's director of waste, Liz Parks, told the BBC that arrangements were being made to bring back the waste, although it could take a number of weeks.
She also warned that British courts took the dumping of hazardous waste seriously. "We do prosecute people. We've had a number of successful prosecutions in recent years. And in fact in the crown court, people can be fined unlimited amounts and prison sentences are imposed."
Brazil has maintained that the cargo, which also included domestic waste, such as food and cleaning product containers, broke an international convention on movement of hazardous waste to which both countries are signatories.
A spokewoman for the UK agency said this country had taken a "strong global lead" in moves to protect the enviroment and human health.
"Where the Environment Agency detects or is made aware of the illegal export of waste, it works with all relevant partner authorities to ensure the environmentally sound management of any illegal shipments – including the poossible return of wastes to the UK.
"If any company is found to have contravened the strict controls on the export of waste as set out by the Basel convention, the Environment Agency will not hesitate to take enforcement action."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)