One of the trickiest issues nations face in trying to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions is the problem of fairness. The U.S., Western Europe, Japan, and a few other countries have a high standard of living, thanks largely to a long history of getting energy from burning cheap fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—which we now know are the main source of planet-warming carbon dioxide. But putting a lid on emissions makes energy more expensive, which means that developing countries wouldn't be able to improve their standard of living so easily. Why, they wonder, should they have to work harder than the already-developed countries did for their chance at the good life?
Back in 1997, the answer, enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol, was that they shouldn't. The document only assigned cutbacks to industrialized nations; that's one reason why American politicians rejected it. Now, though, China is a bigger greenhouse-gas emitter than the U.S. overall, and scientists have a better understanding of how deeply emissions need to be reduced globally to avoid overheating the planet. So the problem is more acute while the question of fairness is no less thorny.
But a new paper just published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences may offer a way out—or at least the outlines of one. Instead of assigning limits based on a country's overall emissions, the focus should be on the highest emitters, no matter where they're located, argue lead author Shoibal Chakravarty, of Princeton University, and several colleagues. "Half of all emissions," Chakravarty says, "come from about 10 percent of the world's population." More of them are obviously in industrial countries, but, says Massimo Tavoni, another coauthor, "there are also people in China who drive Ferraris and fly a lot." So in this proposed new scheme, they write, "All of the world's high-CO2-emitting individuals are treated the same, regardless of where they live."
One way to do this is to put a cap on how much each person is allowed to emit, and calculate national targets from there. Say you want to guarantee that by 2030, emissions are no greater than they are today—about 30 billion metric tons of CO2 annually. Without some sort of cap, that figure is projected to rise to 43 billion by 2030.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
But you can reach the goal if you assign a specific emissions limit to every individual in the world of 10.8 tons per person per year—and there are currently more than 1 billion people emitting above that level. "About a quarter of those," says Chakravarty, "live in the U.S., a quarter live in China, a quarter live in countries of the OECD [the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is mostly European] and a quarter in the rest of the world."
"The average American," says Tavoni, "emits about 20 tons today, so that will be pretty tough. It tells you that a lot of Americans will have to reduce." In Europe, the average is closer to 10, so on average nobody will have to cut back, but in practice, anyone living above the limit will. (For the record, nobody keeps track of individual emissions, but it turns out, unsurprisingly, that high-income levels are correlated with high emissions. The scientists used World Bank data to estimate how many individuals in each country are above a certain emissions cap.) China's average is about four tons per person, and India's is about one—and the same rules apply. "So it turns out that even poor countries have to do something."
The authors also note that many people live entirely outside the fossil-fuel economy, in extreme poverty. "You want to bring these abjectly poor people up to the level of ordinary poverty," says Rob Socolow, another Princeton University coauthor, "to give them minimal electricity, access to motorized transport, even if it's only a motorbike, and some sort of cooking fuel that doesn't have to be gathered by hand." To do that, say the authors, the world could impose a carbon-emissions floor of, say one ton per year (which would lower the worldwide cap from 10.8 to about 10.3 tons). "There's an ideology out there," says Socolow, "that says, 'When you go to help the poorest people, don't hook them on fossil fuels.' This to me is outrageous. These are the people who deserve the cheapest solutions to their problems possible. Sure, sometimes it'll be biofuels or photovoltaic cells. But sometimes it will be kerosene, and that's just fine."
The authors don't pretend that their idea is the final word on dealing with the fairness problem—nor that it's the first. "At some point," says Chakravarty, "we found out others had thought about more or less similar schemes, although they differ in detail." But when more than 100 nations meet in Copenhagen next December at the Conference of the Parties to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, he says, ideas like these might just help break the fairness logjam
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Radar could save bats from wind turbines
Bats use sonar to navigate and hunt. Many have been killed by wind turbines, however, which their sonar doesn't seem to recognize as a danger. Surprisingly, radar signals could help keep bats away from wind turbines, scientists have now discovered.Although wind power promises to be a clean source of energy, some researchers have raised concerns that wind turbines inadvertently kill bats and other flying creatures. For instance, in 2004, over the course of six weeks, roughly 1,764 and 2,900 bats were killed at two wind farms in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, respectively. The bats might not be killed by the wind turbine blades directly, but instead by the sudden drop in air pressure the swinging rotors induce, which in turn cause their lungs to over-expand and burst surrounding blood vessels."Given the growing number of wind turbines worldwide, this is going to be an increasing problem, no question about that," said researcher Paul Racey, a bat biologist at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. Scientists have tried keeping birds from colliding into wind turbines by making their rotors easier to see. And to discourage bats away from wind farms, researchers have tried white noise generators as deterrents. However, these "acoustic scarecrows" have not worked well, Racey said, probably because these sound systems are not strong enough to influence bats within the entire space that rotors sweep through.A student at the University of Aberdeen first noticed that bats shied away from radar installations while driving past them. He was holding a bat detector out the window to scope out bat activity on the drive back home from out in the field. (Bat detectors are gadgets that scan for ultrasonic bat calls.)Although bats use sound waves to steer in the dark by echolocation, radar employs radio waves, a form of light, so one might at first assume that radar would have no effect on bats. To see if radar could keep bats away from wind turbines, the scientists at the University of Aberdeen installed small portable marine radar units at 20 bat foraging sites in Scotland — woodland and riverbank areas where insect densities are high. The researchers monitored bat presence for 58 nights using bat detectors.The researchers discovered that radar helped keep bats away, reducing bat activity by 30 to 40 percent. The radar did not keep insects away, which suggests that however the radar works as a deterrent, it does so by influencing the bats directly and not just their food.So how does radar keep bats away? The researchers explained that a great deal of research suggests that people can actually hear radar pulses. "This was noticed when radar arrays first started up during World War II," Racey said. "A portion of radar operators said they heard clicks in their ears when they were switched on
Offshore drilling is part of Calif. budget deal
The deal to close California's $26 billion budget deficit included a plan to drill for offshore oil, drawing allegations that the fiscal crisis was used for a backroom deal following rejection of the idea by state regulators earlier this year.
Democrats agreed to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's request to expand drilling from an existing platform off Santa Barbara to generate a one-time $100 million advance royalty payment this fiscal year and an estimated $1.8 billion in royalties over 14 years.
It would be the first new offshore oil drilling on state lands in four decades since a blowout on a platform off Santa Barbara coated miles of ocean and shoreline and galvanized opposition
Details of the agreement reached late Monday were scarce, but Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, chairman of the State Lands Commission, said Tuesday that the framework involved taking authority for approval of oil leases away from State Lands and giving it to a newly created panel.
"This is a play by the governor to have it his way," he said. "This is a sellout to the oil industry. They want to open the California coast to drilling, and this is the first step."
The lack of details on the agreement and the way it emerged in budget talks concerned Victoria Rome, deputy California advocacy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"I think it should be very troubling to the public that a decision that was made through a public process in the light of day can be overturned by a few leaders behind closed doors," she said.
Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Lisa Page said the proposal would bring new revenues to the state, end oil drilling off Santa Barbara's coast and speed up the permanent removal of platforms there.
The governor's office said in a statement that the platform involved is already drilling in federal waters adjacent to state waters. It said the project maintains a moratorium on oil drilling "but takes advantage of a specific exemption that allows for new leases if oil is leaking from an existing state field into an actively producing federal field."
Some activists back ideaThe drilling proposal has been percolating since 2008 when Plains Exploration & Production Co. of Houston announced a novel deal with three veteran environmental groups in Santa Barbara County.
The groups, including Get Oil Out!, agreed to promote the plan in exchange for money for the state, thousands of acres of land and Plains' commitment to cease operations countywide by 2022.
Garamendi said he opposed the plan in January because provisions for ending operations could not be enforced and because it would serve as a precedent for further drilling, encouraging the federal government to issue new leases off the California coast.
The $100 million would be a loan against royalties and would be repaid by deductions from future royalty payments to the state, he said.
Garamendi asserted that the sum was of minor usefulness in solving the budget problem.
"I think that this can easily be subtracted from the proposal without doing any harm to what is a terrible piece of work," he said.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said that under the budget agreement, a panel made up the state attorney general, the secretary of resources and the secretary of environmental protection would make a final decision on the project.
Steinberg said the state had run out of options and had to make a choice between a project that would generate about $100 million annually for the next 14 years, or to make deeper welfare and social service cuts.
"And, you know, that's a choice," he said.
Michael Endicott, resource sustainability advocate for Sierra Club California, said environmental standards and statutes should not be rolled back as part of the budget process.
"Eventually we'll be rebuilding and we'll be operating again, and those standards should be implemented again — that people worked long and hard to put in place in order to avoid problems," he said.
Oil severance tax instead?Endicott and Garamendi both said a better alternative would be an oil severance tax that other major producing states have. Their estimates of such a tax ranged from $800 million to $1 billion a year.
"California is the one large state that doesn't charge a fee for the extraction of oil," Endicott said.
Attorney Linda Krop, who represents the three Santa Barbara environmental groups, said they continue to support the agreement they negotiated with Plains but she had not yet consulted with them on the possibility of it being put before a new panel rather than State Lands.
Democrats agreed to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's request to expand drilling from an existing platform off Santa Barbara to generate a one-time $100 million advance royalty payment this fiscal year and an estimated $1.8 billion in royalties over 14 years.
It would be the first new offshore oil drilling on state lands in four decades since a blowout on a platform off Santa Barbara coated miles of ocean and shoreline and galvanized opposition
Details of the agreement reached late Monday were scarce, but Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, chairman of the State Lands Commission, said Tuesday that the framework involved taking authority for approval of oil leases away from State Lands and giving it to a newly created panel.
"This is a play by the governor to have it his way," he said. "This is a sellout to the oil industry. They want to open the California coast to drilling, and this is the first step."
The lack of details on the agreement and the way it emerged in budget talks concerned Victoria Rome, deputy California advocacy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"I think it should be very troubling to the public that a decision that was made through a public process in the light of day can be overturned by a few leaders behind closed doors," she said.
Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Lisa Page said the proposal would bring new revenues to the state, end oil drilling off Santa Barbara's coast and speed up the permanent removal of platforms there.
The governor's office said in a statement that the platform involved is already drilling in federal waters adjacent to state waters. It said the project maintains a moratorium on oil drilling "but takes advantage of a specific exemption that allows for new leases if oil is leaking from an existing state field into an actively producing federal field."
Some activists back ideaThe drilling proposal has been percolating since 2008 when Plains Exploration & Production Co. of Houston announced a novel deal with three veteran environmental groups in Santa Barbara County.
The groups, including Get Oil Out!, agreed to promote the plan in exchange for money for the state, thousands of acres of land and Plains' commitment to cease operations countywide by 2022.
Garamendi said he opposed the plan in January because provisions for ending operations could not be enforced and because it would serve as a precedent for further drilling, encouraging the federal government to issue new leases off the California coast.
The $100 million would be a loan against royalties and would be repaid by deductions from future royalty payments to the state, he said.
Garamendi asserted that the sum was of minor usefulness in solving the budget problem.
"I think that this can easily be subtracted from the proposal without doing any harm to what is a terrible piece of work," he said.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said that under the budget agreement, a panel made up the state attorney general, the secretary of resources and the secretary of environmental protection would make a final decision on the project.
Steinberg said the state had run out of options and had to make a choice between a project that would generate about $100 million annually for the next 14 years, or to make deeper welfare and social service cuts.
"And, you know, that's a choice," he said.
Michael Endicott, resource sustainability advocate for Sierra Club California, said environmental standards and statutes should not be rolled back as part of the budget process.
"Eventually we'll be rebuilding and we'll be operating again, and those standards should be implemented again — that people worked long and hard to put in place in order to avoid problems," he said.
Oil severance tax instead?Endicott and Garamendi both said a better alternative would be an oil severance tax that other major producing states have. Their estimates of such a tax ranged from $800 million to $1 billion a year.
"California is the one large state that doesn't charge a fee for the extraction of oil," Endicott said.
Attorney Linda Krop, who represents the three Santa Barbara environmental groups, said they continue to support the agreement they negotiated with Plains but she had not yet consulted with them on the possibility of it being put before a new panel rather than State Lands.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
EU health chief proposes stricter laws on smoking
The European Union's health chief proposed on Tuesday that uniform laws be drafted for all 27 countries in the bloc to regulate smoking more strictly in public areas and workplaces.
Many EU countries have laws limiting exposure to second-hand, or passive, smoking. The rules are strictest in Britain and Ireland, where smoking is banned in enclosed public places, public transport and workplaces, including restaurants and bars.
"Each and every European should be entitled to full protection from tobacco smoke," EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou told a news conference.
The recommendation calls on all member states to implement laws that will limit exposure to tobacco smoke in public places, workplaces and public transport, and aims to protect children.
"We have come a long way from the days when smoking was considered glamorous," Vassiliou said.
She said in countries with looser regulations on smoking, nearly one in five people were exposed to tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Second-hand, or passive, smoke has been linked to heart disease and lung cancer. According to estimates given by Vassiliou, 19,000 non-smokers in the EU died due to second-hand smoke at home and in workplaces in 2002.
Member states decide the level of their smoking restrictions. In Belgium, for example, smoking is allowed in restaurants in separate rooms where no food is served, and smoking is banned in all enclosed workplaces.
Greece, Europe's heaviest smoking nation, is to introduce a ban on tobacco in indoor public places from Wednesday. The country breaks all European records, with more than 40 percent of the population smoking and six out of 10 being exposed to smoking at work, according to an EU poll.
Only 10 member states have comprehensive laws, Vassiliou said.
A poll last year by EU survey group Eurobarometer said 84 percent of respondents supported smoke-free offices and other indoor workplaces, 77 percent were in favor of smoke-free restaurants, and 61 percent supported smoke-free bars and pubs.
Many EU countries have laws limiting exposure to second-hand, or passive, smoking. The rules are strictest in Britain and Ireland, where smoking is banned in enclosed public places, public transport and workplaces, including restaurants and bars.
"Each and every European should be entitled to full protection from tobacco smoke," EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou told a news conference.
The recommendation calls on all member states to implement laws that will limit exposure to tobacco smoke in public places, workplaces and public transport, and aims to protect children.
"We have come a long way from the days when smoking was considered glamorous," Vassiliou said.
She said in countries with looser regulations on smoking, nearly one in five people were exposed to tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Second-hand, or passive, smoke has been linked to heart disease and lung cancer. According to estimates given by Vassiliou, 19,000 non-smokers in the EU died due to second-hand smoke at home and in workplaces in 2002.
Member states decide the level of their smoking restrictions. In Belgium, for example, smoking is allowed in restaurants in separate rooms where no food is served, and smoking is banned in all enclosed workplaces.
Greece, Europe's heaviest smoking nation, is to introduce a ban on tobacco in indoor public places from Wednesday. The country breaks all European records, with more than 40 percent of the population smoking and six out of 10 being exposed to smoking at work, according to an EU poll.
Only 10 member states have comprehensive laws, Vassiliou said.
A poll last year by EU survey group Eurobarometer said 84 percent of respondents supported smoke-free offices and other indoor workplaces, 77 percent were in favor of smoke-free restaurants, and 61 percent supported smoke-free bars and pubs.
Removing ovaries may boost lung cancer risk: Study
Surgically removing a woman's ovaries during a hysterectomy may nearly double her risk of developing lung cancer, according to a new Canadian study that surprised even the researchers.
The finding may help explain why only about 15 per cent of smokers eventually develop lung cancer, and it suggests hormones might play an important role in the leading cancer killer of women in Canada.
Hysterectomy — removal of the uterus — is the second most frequently performed surgical procedure for Canadian women, after cesarean sections. More than 36,000 women had a hysterectomy in 2007-08, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and about 30 per cent had both ovaries removed as well.
About 90 per cent of hysterectomies are done for benign or non-cancerous problems such as irregular menstruation and fibroids.
"We found that women who experienced non-natural menopause are at almost twice the risk of developing lung cancer compared to women who experienced natural menopause," Anita Koushik, a researcher at the Universite de Montreal's Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, said in announcing her team's findings Tuesday.
"This increased risk of lung cancer was particularly observed among women who had non-natural menopause by having had both their ovaries surgically removed."
It's the second study this year to associate bilateral oophorectomy — removal of both ovaries — with higher odds of developing lung cancer.
A study published in April involving more than 29,000 women participating in the U.S. Nurses' Health Study found that oophorectomy increased the risk of lung cancer, as well as fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease — compared to women whose ovaries were kept intact.
Researchers are at a loss to explain the findings.
"Many things, if not most things in medicine are found by serendipity," said Dr. William Parker, lead author of the American study and a faculty member at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif.
"The smart people go, OK, we don't understand it, but let's try to figure it out. It may be true, it may not be true," Parker said. "But now that you've got two papers within a six-month period saying the same thing, you have to pay attention to it."
Doctors have long recommended removal of the ovaries at the time of hysterectomy to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.
"People thought, you go through menopause, your ovaries stop working, you don't need them and you could get ovarian cancer," Parker said. But ovaries make hormones after menopause that are converted in the body to estrogens. "There's mounting evidence those hormones protect your heart to some degree," and possibly the lungs, he said.
"Ovarian cancer is a terrible disease," he said. "But heart disease and lung cancer are the major killers of women."
His team's study found that removing both ovaries decreased the risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but at no age was it associated with increased survival.
For women not at high risk for ovarian cancer, "There is no question the ovaries should stay in," Parker said.
The Canadian study, published this week in the International Journal of Cancer, involved 422 women with lung cancer and 577 without at 18 Montreal-area hospitals that together diagnose 98 per cent of all lung cancers that occur in the greater Montreal area.
The team looked at income, age, gender, occupational risk factors, medical and smoking history, menstruation and pregnancy histories.
Women were considered menopausal if their periods had stopped naturally, surgically (via hysterectomy with removal of both ovaries) or because of chemotherapy or radiation.
Having a "non-natural" menopause, usually as a result of having both ovaries removed, was associated with a 92 per cent increased risk of lung cancer, "which suggests almost a doubling of risk," Koushik said in an interview.
Lung tissue has receptors for estrogen. Surgical versus natural menopause happens at a younger age, so that women have reduced estrogen levels at an earlier than normal age. As well, with natural menopause, estrogen levels fall off gradually.
"When you have your ovaries removed, that's it," Koushik said. "Your natural estrogen levels just drop. It's very sudden."
All but 32 of the 422 women with lung cancer had smoked. But the finding held even after researchers took smoking into account.
"Smoking still remains the most important factor related to lung cancer," Koushik said. "But hormones may be part of this."
An estimated 10,700 Canadian women will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and 9,400 will die of it.
The finding may help explain why only about 15 per cent of smokers eventually develop lung cancer, and it suggests hormones might play an important role in the leading cancer killer of women in Canada.
Hysterectomy — removal of the uterus — is the second most frequently performed surgical procedure for Canadian women, after cesarean sections. More than 36,000 women had a hysterectomy in 2007-08, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and about 30 per cent had both ovaries removed as well.
About 90 per cent of hysterectomies are done for benign or non-cancerous problems such as irregular menstruation and fibroids.
"We found that women who experienced non-natural menopause are at almost twice the risk of developing lung cancer compared to women who experienced natural menopause," Anita Koushik, a researcher at the Universite de Montreal's Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, said in announcing her team's findings Tuesday.
"This increased risk of lung cancer was particularly observed among women who had non-natural menopause by having had both their ovaries surgically removed."
It's the second study this year to associate bilateral oophorectomy — removal of both ovaries — with higher odds of developing lung cancer.
A study published in April involving more than 29,000 women participating in the U.S. Nurses' Health Study found that oophorectomy increased the risk of lung cancer, as well as fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease — compared to women whose ovaries were kept intact.
Researchers are at a loss to explain the findings.
"Many things, if not most things in medicine are found by serendipity," said Dr. William Parker, lead author of the American study and a faculty member at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif.
"The smart people go, OK, we don't understand it, but let's try to figure it out. It may be true, it may not be true," Parker said. "But now that you've got two papers within a six-month period saying the same thing, you have to pay attention to it."
Doctors have long recommended removal of the ovaries at the time of hysterectomy to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.
"People thought, you go through menopause, your ovaries stop working, you don't need them and you could get ovarian cancer," Parker said. But ovaries make hormones after menopause that are converted in the body to estrogens. "There's mounting evidence those hormones protect your heart to some degree," and possibly the lungs, he said.
"Ovarian cancer is a terrible disease," he said. "But heart disease and lung cancer are the major killers of women."
His team's study found that removing both ovaries decreased the risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but at no age was it associated with increased survival.
For women not at high risk for ovarian cancer, "There is no question the ovaries should stay in," Parker said.
The Canadian study, published this week in the International Journal of Cancer, involved 422 women with lung cancer and 577 without at 18 Montreal-area hospitals that together diagnose 98 per cent of all lung cancers that occur in the greater Montreal area.
The team looked at income, age, gender, occupational risk factors, medical and smoking history, menstruation and pregnancy histories.
Women were considered menopausal if their periods had stopped naturally, surgically (via hysterectomy with removal of both ovaries) or because of chemotherapy or radiation.
Having a "non-natural" menopause, usually as a result of having both ovaries removed, was associated with a 92 per cent increased risk of lung cancer, "which suggests almost a doubling of risk," Koushik said in an interview.
Lung tissue has receptors for estrogen. Surgical versus natural menopause happens at a younger age, so that women have reduced estrogen levels at an earlier than normal age. As well, with natural menopause, estrogen levels fall off gradually.
"When you have your ovaries removed, that's it," Koushik said. "Your natural estrogen levels just drop. It's very sudden."
All but 32 of the 422 women with lung cancer had smoked. But the finding held even after researchers took smoking into account.
"Smoking still remains the most important factor related to lung cancer," Koushik said. "But hormones may be part of this."
An estimated 10,700 Canadian women will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and 9,400 will die of it.
Wealthy nations must lead on climate change
As Canada assumes its G8 presidency, following Italy, it has the opportunity to move beyond the false dichotomy of choosing to either protect the environment or ensure economic development. If the G8 countries do not make the global climate a priority, they neglect the long-term economic stewardship their people also elected them to ensure.
The G8 countries have an essential role to play in exercising the leadership required. A report just released by WWF, the international conservation organization, and Allianz, the global insurance firm, for example, ranks G8 countries performing at a level below proportional responsibility and expectations in action on global warming.
Some like Canada even backtracked on commitments to regulate industrial greenhouse gases (GHGs). Canada is also seeking to slow others' progress, by, for example, threatening to challenge the state of California's new fuel standards as well as U.S. efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through international trade law.
Yet Canadians, like many other people I meet wherever I travel, are anxious about the effects of global warming on themselves and others, willing to make changes in their own lives to address it, and keen for their governments to be at the forefront of action on climate change.
Compared to the G8, per capita GHG emissions in the least developed countries are negligible. Yet it is people in these poor countries who will be climate change's biggest victims, contending with drought, floods, erratic rainfall and desertification -- with the least capacity or means to adapt.
In May, hundreds of people in Bangladesh and India lost their lives and hundreds of thousands were flooded out of their homes by an unusually powerful cyclone. In Darfur, drought, land degradation and a spreading desert have led to a scramble over pasture, farmland and water. Fuelled by leaders competing for power, the conflict has led to displacement, sexual violence, and premature death on a massive scale.
In my own country, Kenya, the seasonal rains failed, again. Farmers' crops are withering before their eyes. Ten million Kenyans, almost a third of the population, are facing hunger, or worse.
Twenty-six million people already have been displaced as a result of climate change and 375 million may be at risk by 2015, according to a new report by Oxfam. Climate refugees could number 200 million by the middle of this century.
The report also documents the effects of climate change on individuals in poor countries, including a farmer in Haiti who no longer experiences a rainy season, only a "hurricane season"; and a young mother and her children in rural Zambia forced by flooding to flee their home.
Climate change will disproportionately affect women, who are most directly dependent on natural resources: water, wood for fuel and heat, good soils and rain for crops. Of course women aren't solely victims. They often lead their communities in adapting to, or rebuilding, after extreme weather and are quick to reduce, reuse and recycle. In Japan this concept of 3R is locally translated into a concept known as mottainai, which calls for respect, gratitude and a deliberate effort not to waste. Women are essential to developing climate solutions; many already are.
To take just one example, the Green Belt Movement is partnering with the World Bank's Community Development Carbon Fund Project to reforest two mountain areas in Kenya. At the centre of the project are networks of rural women. By 2017, the trees they plant will have captured an estimated 375,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Equally important is the campaign to save the Congo Basin Forest Ecosystem, of which I am the goodwill ambassador. G8 countries can support similar, women-led initiatives.
The world's wealthiest nations need to commit both to significant reductions in their GHGs, as well as a "green deal." Such a deal should include support for development, access and affordability of green technology, particularly for energy, and protection of intact forests, which absorb and store carbon dioxide. (Forest destruction and degradation contributes up to 20 per cent of global carbon emissions.)
In addition, the G8 needs to allot new financial resources for mitigation and adaptation, including an "emergency fund" of $2 billion, to build the capacity of poor countries to manage current and expected climate-related challenges.
Grappling with the human costs of global warming can't be done on the cheap. According to Oxfam, $150 billion a year will be needed by 2030 to help developing countries address climate impacts and create low-carbon economies. It is a significant sum, but many wars -- almost all of which have at their root a struggle over scarce natural resources -- exact a far higher price.
Even if the world's wealthiest and fastest-developing nations adopt the strict limits on GHGs that scientists say are essential, hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change. Millions already are.
The Italian G8 summit was moved to L'Aquila so the heads of state could demonstrate solidarity with the region's people, recovering from April's devastating earthquake. Climate change, too, threatens catastrophic disruption. Canada can lead the G8 in showing real solidarity by taking the essential action on climate change that the world urgently needs. Now is a moment not for delay or denial.
The G8 countries have an essential role to play in exercising the leadership required. A report just released by WWF, the international conservation organization, and Allianz, the global insurance firm, for example, ranks G8 countries performing at a level below proportional responsibility and expectations in action on global warming.
Some like Canada even backtracked on commitments to regulate industrial greenhouse gases (GHGs). Canada is also seeking to slow others' progress, by, for example, threatening to challenge the state of California's new fuel standards as well as U.S. efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through international trade law.
Yet Canadians, like many other people I meet wherever I travel, are anxious about the effects of global warming on themselves and others, willing to make changes in their own lives to address it, and keen for their governments to be at the forefront of action on climate change.
Compared to the G8, per capita GHG emissions in the least developed countries are negligible. Yet it is people in these poor countries who will be climate change's biggest victims, contending with drought, floods, erratic rainfall and desertification -- with the least capacity or means to adapt.
In May, hundreds of people in Bangladesh and India lost their lives and hundreds of thousands were flooded out of their homes by an unusually powerful cyclone. In Darfur, drought, land degradation and a spreading desert have led to a scramble over pasture, farmland and water. Fuelled by leaders competing for power, the conflict has led to displacement, sexual violence, and premature death on a massive scale.
In my own country, Kenya, the seasonal rains failed, again. Farmers' crops are withering before their eyes. Ten million Kenyans, almost a third of the population, are facing hunger, or worse.
Twenty-six million people already have been displaced as a result of climate change and 375 million may be at risk by 2015, according to a new report by Oxfam. Climate refugees could number 200 million by the middle of this century.
The report also documents the effects of climate change on individuals in poor countries, including a farmer in Haiti who no longer experiences a rainy season, only a "hurricane season"; and a young mother and her children in rural Zambia forced by flooding to flee their home.
Climate change will disproportionately affect women, who are most directly dependent on natural resources: water, wood for fuel and heat, good soils and rain for crops. Of course women aren't solely victims. They often lead their communities in adapting to, or rebuilding, after extreme weather and are quick to reduce, reuse and recycle. In Japan this concept of 3R is locally translated into a concept known as mottainai, which calls for respect, gratitude and a deliberate effort not to waste. Women are essential to developing climate solutions; many already are.
To take just one example, the Green Belt Movement is partnering with the World Bank's Community Development Carbon Fund Project to reforest two mountain areas in Kenya. At the centre of the project are networks of rural women. By 2017, the trees they plant will have captured an estimated 375,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Equally important is the campaign to save the Congo Basin Forest Ecosystem, of which I am the goodwill ambassador. G8 countries can support similar, women-led initiatives.
The world's wealthiest nations need to commit both to significant reductions in their GHGs, as well as a "green deal." Such a deal should include support for development, access and affordability of green technology, particularly for energy, and protection of intact forests, which absorb and store carbon dioxide. (Forest destruction and degradation contributes up to 20 per cent of global carbon emissions.)
In addition, the G8 needs to allot new financial resources for mitigation and adaptation, including an "emergency fund" of $2 billion, to build the capacity of poor countries to manage current and expected climate-related challenges.
Grappling with the human costs of global warming can't be done on the cheap. According to Oxfam, $150 billion a year will be needed by 2030 to help developing countries address climate impacts and create low-carbon economies. It is a significant sum, but many wars -- almost all of which have at their root a struggle over scarce natural resources -- exact a far higher price.
Even if the world's wealthiest and fastest-developing nations adopt the strict limits on GHGs that scientists say are essential, hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change. Millions already are.
The Italian G8 summit was moved to L'Aquila so the heads of state could demonstrate solidarity with the region's people, recovering from April's devastating earthquake. Climate change, too, threatens catastrophic disruption. Canada can lead the G8 in showing real solidarity by taking the essential action on climate change that the world urgently needs. Now is a moment not for delay or denial.
Torrey Pines's Tradition building gets green award
Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies has received silver for going green.
The $40 million facility that opened in January was recognized Wednesday by the U.S. Green Building Council as being one of the most environmentally friendly facilities in the country.
Built by Suffolk Construction, the complex was awarded silver certification under the council’s Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design program.
The certification is considered the national benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings that demonstrate an environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy place to work.
Richard Houghten, president of the biotechnology institute, said the expenses needed to meet the council’s silver level are expected to be repaid in energy cost savings within three years, with the recurring savings continuing beyond that point.
“The end result is definitely paying off in terms in the way the building is, the way the building feels and the way the building smells, and energy savings, water usage and all that,” Houghten said.
There are higher certification classifications than silver, but Hougthen said in the long run the cost to implement those higher green measures are not offset by future savings.
“Obviously everybody wants to do things for the environment, but it costs money and if you can’t get it back then there is a big barrier to doing the right thing,” Houghten said. “But if you get the money back, and you continue to save year after year, than the path of doing the right thing for the environment is open for you.”
Rex Kirby, president and general manager of Suffolk Construction’s Southeast Region, said the recognition affirms the company’s “commitment to building structures for our clients that conserve energy and are environmentally responsible in operations.”
In addition to conserving energy and resources through energy-efficient electrical systems, the buildings plans encourage walking or bicycling instead of driving.
Other buildings nationwide undergoing green certification include the Sear Tower in Chicago, the Bronx Library Center and the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Ark.
The 100,000-square-foot, three story facility in Tradition was designed to be energy-efficient in order to save both money and the environment.
Some of the green measures include:
Light brown water chestnut color on the exterior — comprised of a chemical composition that would emit fewer vapors and be less of a detriment to the environment — is said to absorb the least heat.
Materials on the roof use less asphalt than on most roofs and reflect heat.
Lighting fixtures burn low-wattage and environmentally friendly bulbs that use little if any mercury.
Wood used in construction comes from natural species, rather than a cross-mix of trees, as a means to reduce the impact on the ozone layer.
Carpets and ceiling tiles come from recycled materials.
Low-flow kitchen sinks and ultra low-flow laboratories.
A storm water management plan that filters 90 percent of the runoff.
The $40 million facility that opened in January was recognized Wednesday by the U.S. Green Building Council as being one of the most environmentally friendly facilities in the country.
Built by Suffolk Construction, the complex was awarded silver certification under the council’s Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design program.
The certification is considered the national benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings that demonstrate an environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy place to work.
Richard Houghten, president of the biotechnology institute, said the expenses needed to meet the council’s silver level are expected to be repaid in energy cost savings within three years, with the recurring savings continuing beyond that point.
“The end result is definitely paying off in terms in the way the building is, the way the building feels and the way the building smells, and energy savings, water usage and all that,” Houghten said.
There are higher certification classifications than silver, but Hougthen said in the long run the cost to implement those higher green measures are not offset by future savings.
“Obviously everybody wants to do things for the environment, but it costs money and if you can’t get it back then there is a big barrier to doing the right thing,” Houghten said. “But if you get the money back, and you continue to save year after year, than the path of doing the right thing for the environment is open for you.”
Rex Kirby, president and general manager of Suffolk Construction’s Southeast Region, said the recognition affirms the company’s “commitment to building structures for our clients that conserve energy and are environmentally responsible in operations.”
In addition to conserving energy and resources through energy-efficient electrical systems, the buildings plans encourage walking or bicycling instead of driving.
Other buildings nationwide undergoing green certification include the Sear Tower in Chicago, the Bronx Library Center and the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Ark.
The 100,000-square-foot, three story facility in Tradition was designed to be energy-efficient in order to save both money and the environment.
Some of the green measures include:
Light brown water chestnut color on the exterior — comprised of a chemical composition that would emit fewer vapors and be less of a detriment to the environment — is said to absorb the least heat.
Materials on the roof use less asphalt than on most roofs and reflect heat.
Lighting fixtures burn low-wattage and environmentally friendly bulbs that use little if any mercury.
Wood used in construction comes from natural species, rather than a cross-mix of trees, as a means to reduce the impact on the ozone layer.
Carpets and ceiling tiles come from recycled materials.
Low-flow kitchen sinks and ultra low-flow laboratories.
A storm water management plan that filters 90 percent of the runoff.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)