Monday, August 17, 2009
Native species will become climate refugees: Report
A new report suggests that global warming isn't just going to endanger many of Australia's animals and plants - it's going to force many of those that do survive to migrate.It's Australia's first national assessment of the effects of climate change on the country's biodiversity.The result of two years' scientific work, it warns that some native species will become "climate refugees" as they're forced to move and adapt to rising temperatures.Dina Rosendorff reports.DINA ROSENDORFF: Cassowaries are found in north-eastern Australia, Kingfishers return south when it becomes a little warmer and Australian Bass spawn in estuaries in the cooler months. They're truisms of Australian biology but that may soon change. In fact a new report says Australia's native plants and animals have already started changing their behaviours and patterns to cope with climate change.Professor Will Steffen is the executive director of the Climate Institute at the Australian National University and the report's lead author.WILL STEFFEN: We're starting to see parrots that are basically coastal birds are now over wintering in Canberra because it's warm enough now for them to over winter there. So you're going to see particularly movements of birds into new areas like that.DINA ROSENDORFF: Professor Steffen says climate change is altering the biodiversity of such natural features as the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian Alps and the Kakadu Wetlands.WILL STEFFEN: Australians will need to I think readjust our view of what biodiversity is and how, and the roles it plays and how valuable it is. For example most of us are used to seeing ecosystems in certain places. It's one of the reasons that we have national parks. We're preserving species and ecosystems where they are. But this is shifting already and it's going to shift even more. So species will move, will move out of a region that they're in. New species will move in.DINA ROSENDORFF: And he says rising temperatures will turn some of our most loved native species into climate refugees.WILL STEFFEN: One of the really intriguing questions I think is when does a native species become invasive because we're used to thinking of exotics as invasive species; like feral cats, like foxes, like cane toads and so on. But as our native species try to shift some of them will have to move reasonably long distances to keep within their environmental envelope. As they move they may actually be unwelcome entrants into existing ecosystems or existing areas.DINA ROSENDORFF: Another of the report's authors professor Patricia Werner says rising temperatures are already having major genetic effects on some animal species.PATRICIA WERNER: One of the most interesting ones right now has to do with bird size. We've known for a long, long time that within a species of bird that they're actually closer to the poles and smaller away from the poles. It's called the Bergman Rule.But we're discovering now that that's actually happening even over the last 100 years looking at museum specimens and comparing the sizes of birds from then to now and they're actually getting smaller, which is what you would expect in response to warmer temperatures.DINA ROSENDORFF: Professor Werner says while some species will learn to adapt to climate change, many won't. And she says some of Australia's most iconic species are the most vulnerable.PATRICIA WERNER: The changes are happening so quickly that it's going to be beyond the ability of some of these species to change very quickly. We need to manage in ways that make space and opportunities to allow species to change either disperse or genetic changes to allow communities to reorganise and to allow ecosystems to continue to function to give us vital services that they do.DINA ROSENDORFF: The report commissioned by the Federal Government is the first national assessment of Australia's biodiversity. It's been launched at the 10th International Congress of Ecology in Brisbane today.It makes five recommendations including the need for an national body to oversee biodiversity management.Professor Werner explains.PATRICIA WERNER: For example there's a flying fox, a grey headed flying fox in Queensland that is moving southward toward the pole and there's a black flying fox in New South Wales that is being pressured a little bit by this grey one. When it comes to policy if you're sitting in Queensland it looks like you've got a bat, or a flying fox in trouble. But actually they're doing a natural translocation southward.If you're sitting in New South Wales it looks like you've got an invasive species and actually the poor things are just trying to, you know, adjust.So we talk about a national approach. We mostly lay it out there as a question that needs to be answered I think by Government and governments.DINA ROSENDORFF: The Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the Federal Government is already adjusting its environmental focus to meet some of the demands listed in the report.PETER GARRETT: There's a challenge there for governments at the Federal, the State and the local level and that is to make sure that in their planning, in their decision making and in their support of environmental policies we look at the whole of Australia's environment. That's what this report tells us. It's something we're acting on.DINA ROSENDORFF: The Opposition's climate change spokesman Greg Hunt says he won't comment until he's seen the report.
Plan to cope with climate change on Reef
A new strategy has been launched to cope with the single biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef - climate change - - - and protect Australia's $5 billion reef tourism industry.
The strategy was unveiled today at the Tourism Futures Conference on the Gold Coast.
It has been compiled by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Queensland Tourism Industry Council and Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority chairman Russell Reichelt said climate change is the single biggest threat facing the reef.
"One of the key features is that it was developed by industry, but with the marine park authority as a combined effort," he said.
The plan covers raising awareness among operators and tourists, reducing the carbon footprint of tourism operators and improving their energy efficiency, monitoring and reporting changes, improving the resilience of the reef itself, and integrating climate change with business operations and planning.
Dr Reichelt said the operators of Lady Elliot Island have shown how positively embracing change can not only reduce the impact on a pristine environment, but also cut costs.
Managing director of Lady Elliot Island Eco Resort Peter Gash said one of the challenges he faced was operating a tourist business in a pristine environment.
"Lady Elliot is unique in that it is a coral cay out at sea so we have to produce everything ourselves," Mr Gash said.
"We manufacture our power ourselves with generators, we desalinate our water and we treat our own sewage."
He said when he took over the island about 500 litres of diesel was being used each day to power the resort.
"We've manufactured a large hybrid solar power structure which is now producing enough power to reduce our diesel consumption by about 400 litres a day," Mr Gash said.
"If you multiply that by a year that's an awful lot of fuel and an awful lot of carbon reduction."
The strategy was unveiled today at the Tourism Futures Conference on the Gold Coast.
It has been compiled by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Queensland Tourism Industry Council and Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority chairman Russell Reichelt said climate change is the single biggest threat facing the reef.
"One of the key features is that it was developed by industry, but with the marine park authority as a combined effort," he said.
The plan covers raising awareness among operators and tourists, reducing the carbon footprint of tourism operators and improving their energy efficiency, monitoring and reporting changes, improving the resilience of the reef itself, and integrating climate change with business operations and planning.
Dr Reichelt said the operators of Lady Elliot Island have shown how positively embracing change can not only reduce the impact on a pristine environment, but also cut costs.
Managing director of Lady Elliot Island Eco Resort Peter Gash said one of the challenges he faced was operating a tourist business in a pristine environment.
"Lady Elliot is unique in that it is a coral cay out at sea so we have to produce everything ourselves," Mr Gash said.
"We manufacture our power ourselves with generators, we desalinate our water and we treat our own sewage."
He said when he took over the island about 500 litres of diesel was being used each day to power the resort.
"We've manufactured a large hybrid solar power structure which is now producing enough power to reduce our diesel consumption by about 400 litres a day," Mr Gash said.
"If you multiply that by a year that's an awful lot of fuel and an awful lot of carbon reduction."
FACTBOX: China climate change report sets out options
A new study by some of China's top climate change policy advisers has urged the government to set firm targets to curb greenhouse gas emissions so they peak around 2030.
Following are some of the key proposals of that study, "2050 China Energy and C02 Emissions Report."
SETTING GREENHOUSE GAS TARGETS
The study proposes setting relative and then absolute targets for limiting China's emissions of the greenhouse gases from human activities that are stoking global warming. The "relative" targets could involve carbon intensity goals, curbing the amount of emissions needed to create each unit of economic worth.
Later, it says, the government could apply absolute caps on emissions, also allowing for the emergence of a "cap-and-trade" market so companies could buy and sell emissions rights, domestically and internationally.
Movement to such a carbon-trading market should be cautious, the study says. "Once allocation of pollution rights is handed to the government, that may create room for rent-seeking, so ultimately it becomes impossible to effectively allocate rights."
CARBON TAXES
The report devotes a chapter to the potential benefits and costs of a "carbon tax." Such a tax, applied to fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil, "would play a clear role in curtailing our country's future carbon dioxide emissions."
A tax of 100 yuan ($14.6) on every metric ton of carbon from 2010, which would rise to 200 yuan on every metric ton in 2030, could by 2030 reduce emissions by up 24 percent less than they would have been under a "business as usual" scenario.
ENERGY MARKET AND FINANCIAL REFORMS
The study examines proposals to deepen market reforms of the energy sector and force coal-users to pay more for the estimated environmental costs. It also encourages reforms to encourage more investment and private capital in clean energy.
EMISSIONS SCENARIOS
In the study, Jiang Kejun of the Energy Research Institute says that if China continues a "business as usual" approach focused on economic growth and does little to curb emissions, its carbon dioxide output from fossil fuel alone could peak at the equivalent of 3.5 billion metric tons of pure carbon a year by 2040. That does not include greenhouse gas emissions from other sources, such as livestock and land-use changes.
If China adopts policies to promote "low-carbon development," emissions could reach 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon a year by 2050.
Under an "enhanced low carbon scenario" of even more stringent steps, they could reach a maximum of 2.2 billion metric tons a year in 2030 and fall to 1.4 billion metric tons in 2050.
"An enhanced low-carbon growth strategy would be difficult but doable," Jiang told Reuters.
The U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has estimated China emitted 1.8 billion metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels in 2007, compared with 1.6 billion metric tons from the United States. (Emissions are also measured in CO2, with each metric ton of carbon equal to 3.67 metric tons of CO2).
Following are some of the key proposals of that study, "2050 China Energy and C02 Emissions Report."
SETTING GREENHOUSE GAS TARGETS
The study proposes setting relative and then absolute targets for limiting China's emissions of the greenhouse gases from human activities that are stoking global warming. The "relative" targets could involve carbon intensity goals, curbing the amount of emissions needed to create each unit of economic worth.
Later, it says, the government could apply absolute caps on emissions, also allowing for the emergence of a "cap-and-trade" market so companies could buy and sell emissions rights, domestically and internationally.
Movement to such a carbon-trading market should be cautious, the study says. "Once allocation of pollution rights is handed to the government, that may create room for rent-seeking, so ultimately it becomes impossible to effectively allocate rights."
CARBON TAXES
The report devotes a chapter to the potential benefits and costs of a "carbon tax." Such a tax, applied to fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil, "would play a clear role in curtailing our country's future carbon dioxide emissions."
A tax of 100 yuan ($14.6) on every metric ton of carbon from 2010, which would rise to 200 yuan on every metric ton in 2030, could by 2030 reduce emissions by up 24 percent less than they would have been under a "business as usual" scenario.
ENERGY MARKET AND FINANCIAL REFORMS
The study examines proposals to deepen market reforms of the energy sector and force coal-users to pay more for the estimated environmental costs. It also encourages reforms to encourage more investment and private capital in clean energy.
EMISSIONS SCENARIOS
In the study, Jiang Kejun of the Energy Research Institute says that if China continues a "business as usual" approach focused on economic growth and does little to curb emissions, its carbon dioxide output from fossil fuel alone could peak at the equivalent of 3.5 billion metric tons of pure carbon a year by 2040. That does not include greenhouse gas emissions from other sources, such as livestock and land-use changes.
If China adopts policies to promote "low-carbon development," emissions could reach 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon a year by 2050.
Under an "enhanced low carbon scenario" of even more stringent steps, they could reach a maximum of 2.2 billion metric tons a year in 2030 and fall to 1.4 billion metric tons in 2050.
"An enhanced low-carbon growth strategy would be difficult but doable," Jiang told Reuters.
The U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has estimated China emitted 1.8 billion metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels in 2007, compared with 1.6 billion metric tons from the United States. (Emissions are also measured in CO2, with each metric ton of carbon equal to 3.67 metric tons of CO2).
Environmentalists hope UN talks tough on climate change
You're probably not thinking about what you would like for Christmas yet. But ask any environmentalist for their ideal gift and you'll get a version of this answer: a binding agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December that is strong enough to match the science.
Environmental activism keeps the heat on the UN to deliver at climate talks in December.
The talks are the latest in a line of climate conferences that began in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This year the focus will be on the details of a new global climate agreement for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
The stakes are high.
The representatives of 192 national governments, along with countless lobbyists and special interest groups, will gather between 7-18 December against a backdrop of increasingly gloomy academic papers, all predicting dramatic and catastrophic changes to the world -- unless we act right now.
"The issues at stake are greater than any decisions made in human history," Tom Picken of Friends of the Earth International told CNN. "With unprecedented consequences for the ecosystems of the planet, the well-being of all humanity, the very survival of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, and the ability of future generations to have and enjoy life on Earth."
According to Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum, there are already more than 300,000 deaths per year directly attributable to climate change. While hundreds of studies around the world have linked climate change to phenomena including the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes and other storms, changing rainfall patterns, drought, coastal flooding, changing disease patterns and the migration of human populations.
As a result climate change is no longer just a "green" issue, with organizations now campaigning for action also including trade unions, humanitarian NGOs such as Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Red Cross; even civil groups, like the Women's Institute in the UK, are demanding action.
But, despite this broadening of the issue and what most experts argue is unequivocal scientific proof that we need to act immediately to avoid even more serious consequences, so far activists agree that the necessary changes aren't coming nearly fast enough.
"The political and economic responses to climate change so far are simply tinkering at the edges of what's needed in relation to what's at stake," says Picken.
"Climate science is becoming increasingly clear and [it is] widely agreed that we are on the verge of passing irreversible tipping points, whereby although catastrophic impacts might not be evident for some decades, delay in the atmospheric system could mean a point of no return is passed imminently.
"The best available science indicates we are now at that juncture... This means that political and economic decisions made in Copenhagen are vital if we are to have any reasonable chance of avoiding these tipping points."
Progress being made
On some levels there is no doubt progress has been made. Climate change is now part of the popular lexicon and an important political issue. However, the gulf between what is being done to address the problem, and what pressure groups argue needs to be done is growing wider.
With the clock ticking, Friends of the Earth believe that now is the time for radical change: "What we need to see in Copenhagen is genuine shifts toward making the cuts [in emissions] needed in developed countries, the commitment to the finance needed to support developing countries, and perhaps most of all, an abandonment of failed policies -- or false solutions.
"This boils down to ensuring [industrialized] countries commit to making at least 40 percent cuts by 2020 without recourse to offsetting within this range, mobilize the necessary international finance to support mitigation in developing countries and protect forests without using offset mechanisms to buy up tracks of rainforest at the expense of making real industrial emissions cuts at home." Watch how Japan is struggling to meet its emissions targets »
These are bold demands that will equate to major changes in many aspects of society and business -- with some vested interests obviously reticent to accept them. But Picken believes that acting now will have benefits for our economies as well as our environment.
"[Addressing] climate change could still cost only one to three percent of global Gross Domestic Products now," he says.
"If delayed, our response bill could rise to more than 20 percent of GDP -- there is no alternative. Besides, new investment into real climate solutions, ambitious public investment in renewable energy technology and reducing energy waste will create exciting new business opportunities and tens of thousands of green collar jobs, as well as protect families and businesses from the yo-yoing costs of fossil fuels."
'Greatest threat to humanity'
Hearing that mitigating what both Oxfam and the Red Cross have dubbed "the greatest threat to humanity" may also impact positively on our society and economy must be encouraging. But it is still unclear whether our leaders will accept the environmentalists' vision at Copenhagen.
"It's too early to call," says Picken. "Real change can and must happen, but entrenched vested interests must be excluded to avoid such events turning into talking shops.
"We can expect a combination of a reasonable agreement that moves things in the right direction, but needs much further detail and commitment; a face-saving statement with little substance, essentially stalled negotiations; and an agreement that looks like it addresses the challenges, but is actually based on false-solutions."
Any outcome will of course be versed in the dry language of international legalese. But for inspiration Picken believes we should be looking to some of the most inspirational moments in human history for a glimpse at what our species can achieve.
"We must look not only to past negotiations, but to historic moments that changed the course of history. We must grasp the achievements of abolishing slavery and putting a man on the moon, to remind ourselves what we really could achieve.
"Now is not the time to be cynical -- there is no acceptable alternative to solving climate change. What it clear however is that we cannot solve this problem using the same thinking and systems that caused it.
"[Sir Nicholas] Stern has famously stated that climate change is the greatest failure of the market in history. We must be careful not to fight fire with fire, but instead mobilize the diversity of solutions at our disposal, and dispense with false solutions that detract from this effort.
"This path must of course be grounded in striving for sustainable societies, through a fair allocation of the worlds resources, respecting and valuing the rights of people now and in the future, and supporting the solutions to climate change that we are responsible for achieving for the benefit of all."
The rhetoric is high, but then so are the stakes. The lives and livelihoods of millions will be on the table in Copenhagen -- and so to will our species' ability to imagine a better, fairer future
Environmental activism keeps the heat on the UN to deliver at climate talks in December.
The talks are the latest in a line of climate conferences that began in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This year the focus will be on the details of a new global climate agreement for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
The stakes are high.
The representatives of 192 national governments, along with countless lobbyists and special interest groups, will gather between 7-18 December against a backdrop of increasingly gloomy academic papers, all predicting dramatic and catastrophic changes to the world -- unless we act right now.
"The issues at stake are greater than any decisions made in human history," Tom Picken of Friends of the Earth International told CNN. "With unprecedented consequences for the ecosystems of the planet, the well-being of all humanity, the very survival of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, and the ability of future generations to have and enjoy life on Earth."
According to Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum, there are already more than 300,000 deaths per year directly attributable to climate change. While hundreds of studies around the world have linked climate change to phenomena including the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes and other storms, changing rainfall patterns, drought, coastal flooding, changing disease patterns and the migration of human populations.
As a result climate change is no longer just a "green" issue, with organizations now campaigning for action also including trade unions, humanitarian NGOs such as Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Red Cross; even civil groups, like the Women's Institute in the UK, are demanding action.
But, despite this broadening of the issue and what most experts argue is unequivocal scientific proof that we need to act immediately to avoid even more serious consequences, so far activists agree that the necessary changes aren't coming nearly fast enough.
"The political and economic responses to climate change so far are simply tinkering at the edges of what's needed in relation to what's at stake," says Picken.
"Climate science is becoming increasingly clear and [it is] widely agreed that we are on the verge of passing irreversible tipping points, whereby although catastrophic impacts might not be evident for some decades, delay in the atmospheric system could mean a point of no return is passed imminently.
"The best available science indicates we are now at that juncture... This means that political and economic decisions made in Copenhagen are vital if we are to have any reasonable chance of avoiding these tipping points."
Progress being made
On some levels there is no doubt progress has been made. Climate change is now part of the popular lexicon and an important political issue. However, the gulf between what is being done to address the problem, and what pressure groups argue needs to be done is growing wider.
With the clock ticking, Friends of the Earth believe that now is the time for radical change: "What we need to see in Copenhagen is genuine shifts toward making the cuts [in emissions] needed in developed countries, the commitment to the finance needed to support developing countries, and perhaps most of all, an abandonment of failed policies -- or false solutions.
"This boils down to ensuring [industrialized] countries commit to making at least 40 percent cuts by 2020 without recourse to offsetting within this range, mobilize the necessary international finance to support mitigation in developing countries and protect forests without using offset mechanisms to buy up tracks of rainforest at the expense of making real industrial emissions cuts at home." Watch how Japan is struggling to meet its emissions targets »
These are bold demands that will equate to major changes in many aspects of society and business -- with some vested interests obviously reticent to accept them. But Picken believes that acting now will have benefits for our economies as well as our environment.
"[Addressing] climate change could still cost only one to three percent of global Gross Domestic Products now," he says.
"If delayed, our response bill could rise to more than 20 percent of GDP -- there is no alternative. Besides, new investment into real climate solutions, ambitious public investment in renewable energy technology and reducing energy waste will create exciting new business opportunities and tens of thousands of green collar jobs, as well as protect families and businesses from the yo-yoing costs of fossil fuels."
'Greatest threat to humanity'
Hearing that mitigating what both Oxfam and the Red Cross have dubbed "the greatest threat to humanity" may also impact positively on our society and economy must be encouraging. But it is still unclear whether our leaders will accept the environmentalists' vision at Copenhagen.
"It's too early to call," says Picken. "Real change can and must happen, but entrenched vested interests must be excluded to avoid such events turning into talking shops.
"We can expect a combination of a reasonable agreement that moves things in the right direction, but needs much further detail and commitment; a face-saving statement with little substance, essentially stalled negotiations; and an agreement that looks like it addresses the challenges, but is actually based on false-solutions."
Any outcome will of course be versed in the dry language of international legalese. But for inspiration Picken believes we should be looking to some of the most inspirational moments in human history for a glimpse at what our species can achieve.
"We must look not only to past negotiations, but to historic moments that changed the course of history. We must grasp the achievements of abolishing slavery and putting a man on the moon, to remind ourselves what we really could achieve.
"Now is not the time to be cynical -- there is no acceptable alternative to solving climate change. What it clear however is that we cannot solve this problem using the same thinking and systems that caused it.
"[Sir Nicholas] Stern has famously stated that climate change is the greatest failure of the market in history. We must be careful not to fight fire with fire, but instead mobilize the diversity of solutions at our disposal, and dispense with false solutions that detract from this effort.
"This path must of course be grounded in striving for sustainable societies, through a fair allocation of the worlds resources, respecting and valuing the rights of people now and in the future, and supporting the solutions to climate change that we are responsible for achieving for the benefit of all."
The rhetoric is high, but then so are the stakes. The lives and livelihoods of millions will be on the table in Copenhagen -- and so to will our species' ability to imagine a better, fairer future
'The Clunkers of the Power-Plant World'
The twin smokestacks of the 85-year-old Crawford Generating Station are a familiar backdrop in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. It's a largely Mexican immigrant community where children play in the street, families congregate on stoops and pushcart vendors sell corncobs within blocks of the plant and its large coal pile.
Six miles away in another crowded neighborhood sits a second plant, the Fisk Generating Station, built in 1903.
They are among the nation's fleet of aging coal-fired power plants, a handful of them in the heart of urban areas, including Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee and Alexandria, where the Potomac River Generating Station has long stirred controversy.
Many public health and environmental advocates say too little attention has been paid to facilities such as Fisk and Crawford -- "legacy" plants grandfathered in under the 1977 Clean Air Act and largely exempted from its requirement that facilities use the best pollution-control technology.
"Those are the clunkers of the power-plant world," said Brian Urbaszewski, director of environmental health programs for the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago. "What we're dealing with here is the Cuban auto fleet -- a bunch of facilities built in the 1950s and early 1960s that are continuing to be rebuilt over and over. That's not the way the law was intended to work."
Advocates hope the climate-control legislation pending in Congress would force these plants to close. But they also warn that, depending how various aspects of the bill play out, it could instead motivate companies to increase their reliance on archaic plants.
If a climate-change bill drives up the cost of opening new plants, but provides free emissions allowances or potential carbon offsets for existing facilities, companies could have an incentive to squeeze even more power out of their old plants, many of which are running well below capacity.
Some environmental groups are urging the Senate to include in its version of the legislation provisions to prevent that. But the legislation passed by the House in late June -- known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- mandates a 50 percent carbon reduction by 2025 for new plants, but puts no site-specific carbon-reduction requirements on existing facilities.
Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project and former director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, said the new legislation is widely viewed as a panacea. "But by establishing requirements for new plants and then effectively exempting the old ones," he said, "you create the same disconnect that has created problems under the Clean Air Act."
But Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute industry group, said power companies will probably close their oldest plants if a cap is put on carbon, since it would be least efficient to invest in carbon capture or other greenhouse-gas-reduction technology at those plants.
A climate bill, he said, "will have a big impact on the older fleet of power plants."
Public health advocates say these urban power plants can pose a threat to local residents, with ozone-forming compounds and particulate matter exacerbating respiratory and cardiac problems. A 2001 study by a Harvard School of Public Health professor suggested that the two Chicago plants could cause 41 premature deaths and 550 emergency room visits per year.
For years, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Chicago city councilmen, and national and local groups have tried to force Midwest Generation, the Edison International subsidiary that owns Fisk and Crawford, to install modern technology to catch particulate matter and remove sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
Two weeks ago, several environmental groups -- including Urbaszewski's organization as well as the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Law & Policy Center and the Sierra Club -- said they will sue the company for violating federal standards on particulate matter. Two years ago, the EPA filed a notice asserting that the company's six Illinois plants violated these and other standards.
Midwest Generation spokesman Doug McFarlan said the company is being targeted unfairly because of "heightened sensitivities" around the Chicago plants. He said Midwest Generation's plants release less particulate matter than most plants, many of which are not cited by the EPA.
McFarlan said the company has also responded to local concerns by shrinking the size of Crawford's coal pile and by reducing dust blowing off barges that transport its coal. Since buying the plants a decade ago, it has reduced emissions by as much as 60 percent, he said.
"We really believe we have demonstrated environmental responsibility at those plants," McFarlan said. "We don't hide the fact that there are emissions from our plants, but there are lots of other sources, too, other industries and cars and trucks going through there with emissions much closer to the ground."
Environmental groups hope their lawsuit will spur the EPA to move faster in addressing the company's notice of violation. If an agreement between EPA and the company is not reached, the Department of Justice could sue the company.
"We don't mind people urging us on -- we feel the urgency ourselves," said George Czerniak, head of air enforcement for EPA Region 5, which includes Chicago.
In 2006, Midwest Generation made a deal with the state to reduce emissions at its plants. Mercury controls were installed last summer. The company must install scrubbers at Fisk by 2015 and at Crawford by 2018. McFarlan said company officials have not decided whether they will install the expensive machinery or shut the plants down.
The parent company supported the House-passed legislation. And in anticipation of a climate bill capping greenhouse gas emissions, Midwest Generation is shifting its focus to renewable energy, including construction of a 240-megawatt wind farm in central Illinois.
NRDC staff attorney Shannon Fisk said Midwest Generation's renewable-energy efforts may reduce total carbon emissions, but will not do anything to help neighbors of the Chicago plants.
"These are two dinosaurs in the middle of a large city," he said. "They should have cleaned up decades ago. Running those plants is inexpensive for the company, but it's very expensive for public health."
Six miles away in another crowded neighborhood sits a second plant, the Fisk Generating Station, built in 1903.
They are among the nation's fleet of aging coal-fired power plants, a handful of them in the heart of urban areas, including Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee and Alexandria, where the Potomac River Generating Station has long stirred controversy.
Many public health and environmental advocates say too little attention has been paid to facilities such as Fisk and Crawford -- "legacy" plants grandfathered in under the 1977 Clean Air Act and largely exempted from its requirement that facilities use the best pollution-control technology.
"Those are the clunkers of the power-plant world," said Brian Urbaszewski, director of environmental health programs for the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago. "What we're dealing with here is the Cuban auto fleet -- a bunch of facilities built in the 1950s and early 1960s that are continuing to be rebuilt over and over. That's not the way the law was intended to work."
Advocates hope the climate-control legislation pending in Congress would force these plants to close. But they also warn that, depending how various aspects of the bill play out, it could instead motivate companies to increase their reliance on archaic plants.
If a climate-change bill drives up the cost of opening new plants, but provides free emissions allowances or potential carbon offsets for existing facilities, companies could have an incentive to squeeze even more power out of their old plants, many of which are running well below capacity.
Some environmental groups are urging the Senate to include in its version of the legislation provisions to prevent that. But the legislation passed by the House in late June -- known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- mandates a 50 percent carbon reduction by 2025 for new plants, but puts no site-specific carbon-reduction requirements on existing facilities.
Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project and former director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, said the new legislation is widely viewed as a panacea. "But by establishing requirements for new plants and then effectively exempting the old ones," he said, "you create the same disconnect that has created problems under the Clean Air Act."
But Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute industry group, said power companies will probably close their oldest plants if a cap is put on carbon, since it would be least efficient to invest in carbon capture or other greenhouse-gas-reduction technology at those plants.
A climate bill, he said, "will have a big impact on the older fleet of power plants."
Public health advocates say these urban power plants can pose a threat to local residents, with ozone-forming compounds and particulate matter exacerbating respiratory and cardiac problems. A 2001 study by a Harvard School of Public Health professor suggested that the two Chicago plants could cause 41 premature deaths and 550 emergency room visits per year.
For years, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Chicago city councilmen, and national and local groups have tried to force Midwest Generation, the Edison International subsidiary that owns Fisk and Crawford, to install modern technology to catch particulate matter and remove sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
Two weeks ago, several environmental groups -- including Urbaszewski's organization as well as the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Law & Policy Center and the Sierra Club -- said they will sue the company for violating federal standards on particulate matter. Two years ago, the EPA filed a notice asserting that the company's six Illinois plants violated these and other standards.
Midwest Generation spokesman Doug McFarlan said the company is being targeted unfairly because of "heightened sensitivities" around the Chicago plants. He said Midwest Generation's plants release less particulate matter than most plants, many of which are not cited by the EPA.
McFarlan said the company has also responded to local concerns by shrinking the size of Crawford's coal pile and by reducing dust blowing off barges that transport its coal. Since buying the plants a decade ago, it has reduced emissions by as much as 60 percent, he said.
"We really believe we have demonstrated environmental responsibility at those plants," McFarlan said. "We don't hide the fact that there are emissions from our plants, but there are lots of other sources, too, other industries and cars and trucks going through there with emissions much closer to the ground."
Environmental groups hope their lawsuit will spur the EPA to move faster in addressing the company's notice of violation. If an agreement between EPA and the company is not reached, the Department of Justice could sue the company.
"We don't mind people urging us on -- we feel the urgency ourselves," said George Czerniak, head of air enforcement for EPA Region 5, which includes Chicago.
In 2006, Midwest Generation made a deal with the state to reduce emissions at its plants. Mercury controls were installed last summer. The company must install scrubbers at Fisk by 2015 and at Crawford by 2018. McFarlan said company officials have not decided whether they will install the expensive machinery or shut the plants down.
The parent company supported the House-passed legislation. And in anticipation of a climate bill capping greenhouse gas emissions, Midwest Generation is shifting its focus to renewable energy, including construction of a 240-megawatt wind farm in central Illinois.
NRDC staff attorney Shannon Fisk said Midwest Generation's renewable-energy efforts may reduce total carbon emissions, but will not do anything to help neighbors of the Chicago plants.
"These are two dinosaurs in the middle of a large city," he said. "They should have cleaned up decades ago. Running those plants is inexpensive for the company, but it's very expensive for public health."
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Missing: Forest Protection in the Climate Negotiations
Chevron Protest: 14 Arrested at Mobilization for Climate Justice
Today, hundreds spent the day at programs organized by the Mobilization for Climate Justice-West and then made their way from Richmond’s BART station to the Chevron refinery to protest the dirty polluting practices of California’s largest corporation.
At the refinery, 14 entered onto the property, enacted a “die-in” and outlined their bodies with paint and chalk. They were then arrested by police.
– Hundreds of Richmond community members joined climate change advocates, public health experts, local government and labor leaders today in a colorful march, protest and non-violent civil disobedience at Chevron’s Richmond refinery. After a festival outside the Richmond BART station with music, dancers and speakers, and an hour-long march that wound through the city streets, a mass die-in and nonviolent civil disobedience took place at the refinery gates. Thirteen people were arrested.
The actions outside Chevron were organized by a new coalition–The Mobilization for Climate Justice-West–whose goals are to get Chevron to “cap the crude” at its Richmond refinery and to get al l corporations, including Chevron, out of the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Chevron wants to process heavier crude at its Richmond refinery. Refining heavier crude will result in more air pollution, greater greenhouse gas emissions and disease.
“Chevron has the opportunity to do the right thing,” said Mayor of Richmond, Gayle McLaughlin. “They just need to agree to capping the crude at the level they currently refine. We want them to put Richmond’s residents to work modernizing and replacing the 80 year old boilers, which sadly they chose to remove from the project several months ago. ” “We want Chevron to build a cleaner and safer refinery,” said Ana Orozco of Communities for A Better Environment. “We want the union jobs to continue to build a refinery that is cleaner and safer for our community. Our community has been put at risk for too long.”
“Chevron has clearly attempted to drive a wedge between workers and the Richmond community in order to avoid being held accountable to the community’s demand for clean air and a healthy environment,” said Charles Smith, Chief Steward of AFSCME Local 444, “We support the community in this struggle.”
After a peaceful, celebratory march through the streets of Richmond, the marchers arrived at the gates of the refinery and were met with a heavy police presence. Participants staged a mass die-in while Suanu Bere of Nigeria, Nyunt Than of Burma, Nathan Brinley, a US veteran of the Iraq War, and speakers from Richmond described the death caused by Chevron and its operations around the world. “What is unique about Chevron is the network of Chevron-affected communities that have joined together in opposition to the brutality of the company’s operations,” said Antonia Juhasz, director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange. “We are here with groups from across the Bay Area and around the world, banding together to create a mass people’s movement to achieve meaningful policy change to force Chevron and the entire oil industry to be cleaner, safer, more humane, and equitable everywhere.”
After the die-in, a “clean-up crew” entered into the refinery through the police barricade in an attempt to make the refinery cleaner and safer. Thirteen “cleaners” were arrested, including Reverend Kenneth Davis of Richmond, while rally participants supported them with chants and songs. The chalk outlines of the dead remained after the protesters left the refinery.
“The North Richmond community is on the frontline of Chevron’s chemical assault. We have experienced a lifetime of chemical exposure, asthma, cancer and death. These are human rights violations. West County Toxics Coalition will fight until there is no net increase in emission from the Chevron Hydrogen Expansion Project,” said Henry Clarke, the Executive Director of the West County Toxics Coalition.
The protest at Chevron was part of a campaign to generate political pressure and “s treet heat” leading up to the international climate change talks to be held in Copenhagen in December. Other protests will be held later in the year and in other parts of the country.
“People, not corporations, should drive the critical climate talks in Copenhagen,” said Ananda Lee Tan, a member of the Mobilization for Climate Justice spokescouncil and the U.S. Campaign Coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “To date, at the United Nation’s climate talks, corporate lobbyists have outnumbered representatives of governments and civil society groups by a ratio of as high as 4 to 1. We want Chevron and all corpor ate lobbyists banned from, and frontline community voices represented at these talks.” “The MCJ seeks to empower community-based activist groups and networks to lead a global climate justice movement in confronting the root causes of climate change at home,” said Torm Nompraseurt of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, “while defining community priorities and self-determination pathways for a new energy economy.”
The Mobilization for Climate Justice-West includes more than 35 diverse groups: AFSCME Local 444, Amazon Watch, Art in Action, Asian-Pacific Environmental Network, Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice, Bay Localize, Burmese American Democratic Association, Communities for a Better Environment, Contra Costa Greens, Direct Action to Stop the War, Earth First!, Environmental Justice & Climate Change Initiative, Filipino American Coalition for Environmental Solidarity (FACES), Forest Ethics, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Global Exchange, Global Justice Ecology Project, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, Greenpeace, Headrush, International Forum on Globalization, International Rivers, Justice in Nigeria Now!, Movement Generation, Pacific Environment, Poor Magazine, Rainforest Action Network, Richmond Mayor’s Task Force on Environmental Justice and Health, Progressive Bengali Network, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Ruckus Society, Rising Tide North America, Solidarity, West County Toxics Coalition, Youth In Focus, 350.org
Today, hundreds spent the day at programs organized by the Mobilization for Climate Justice-West and then made their way from Richmond’s BART station to the Chevron refinery to protest the dirty polluting practices of California’s largest corporation.
At the refinery, 14 entered onto the property, enacted a “die-in” and outlined their bodies with paint and chalk. They were then arrested by police.
– Hundreds of Richmond community members joined climate change advocates, public health experts, local government and labor leaders today in a colorful march, protest and non-violent civil disobedience at Chevron’s Richmond refinery. After a festival outside the Richmond BART station with music, dancers and speakers, and an hour-long march that wound through the city streets, a mass die-in and nonviolent civil disobedience took place at the refinery gates. Thirteen people were arrested.
The actions outside Chevron were organized by a new coalition–The Mobilization for Climate Justice-West–whose goals are to get Chevron to “cap the crude” at its Richmond refinery and to get al l corporations, including Chevron, out of the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Chevron wants to process heavier crude at its Richmond refinery. Refining heavier crude will result in more air pollution, greater greenhouse gas emissions and disease.
“Chevron has the opportunity to do the right thing,” said Mayor of Richmond, Gayle McLaughlin. “They just need to agree to capping the crude at the level they currently refine. We want them to put Richmond’s residents to work modernizing and replacing the 80 year old boilers, which sadly they chose to remove from the project several months ago. ” “We want Chevron to build a cleaner and safer refinery,” said Ana Orozco of Communities for A Better Environment. “We want the union jobs to continue to build a refinery that is cleaner and safer for our community. Our community has been put at risk for too long.”
“Chevron has clearly attempted to drive a wedge between workers and the Richmond community in order to avoid being held accountable to the community’s demand for clean air and a healthy environment,” said Charles Smith, Chief Steward of AFSCME Local 444, “We support the community in this struggle.”
After a peaceful, celebratory march through the streets of Richmond, the marchers arrived at the gates of the refinery and were met with a heavy police presence. Participants staged a mass die-in while Suanu Bere of Nigeria, Nyunt Than of Burma, Nathan Brinley, a US veteran of the Iraq War, and speakers from Richmond described the death caused by Chevron and its operations around the world. “What is unique about Chevron is the network of Chevron-affected communities that have joined together in opposition to the brutality of the company’s operations,” said Antonia Juhasz, director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange. “We are here with groups from across the Bay Area and around the world, banding together to create a mass people’s movement to achieve meaningful policy change to force Chevron and the entire oil industry to be cleaner, safer, more humane, and equitable everywhere.”
After the die-in, a “clean-up crew” entered into the refinery through the police barricade in an attempt to make the refinery cleaner and safer. Thirteen “cleaners” were arrested, including Reverend Kenneth Davis of Richmond, while rally participants supported them with chants and songs. The chalk outlines of the dead remained after the protesters left the refinery.
“The North Richmond community is on the frontline of Chevron’s chemical assault. We have experienced a lifetime of chemical exposure, asthma, cancer and death. These are human rights violations. West County Toxics Coalition will fight until there is no net increase in emission from the Chevron Hydrogen Expansion Project,” said Henry Clarke, the Executive Director of the West County Toxics Coalition.
The protest at Chevron was part of a campaign to generate political pressure and “s treet heat” leading up to the international climate change talks to be held in Copenhagen in December. Other protests will be held later in the year and in other parts of the country.
“People, not corporations, should drive the critical climate talks in Copenhagen,” said Ananda Lee Tan, a member of the Mobilization for Climate Justice spokescouncil and the U.S. Campaign Coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “To date, at the United Nation’s climate talks, corporate lobbyists have outnumbered representatives of governments and civil society groups by a ratio of as high as 4 to 1. We want Chevron and all corpor ate lobbyists banned from, and frontline community voices represented at these talks.” “The MCJ seeks to empower community-based activist groups and networks to lead a global climate justice movement in confronting the root causes of climate change at home,” said Torm Nompraseurt of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, “while defining community priorities and self-determination pathways for a new energy economy.”
The Mobilization for Climate Justice-West includes more than 35 diverse groups: AFSCME Local 444, Amazon Watch, Art in Action, Asian-Pacific Environmental Network, Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice, Bay Localize, Burmese American Democratic Association, Communities for a Better Environment, Contra Costa Greens, Direct Action to Stop the War, Earth First!, Environmental Justice & Climate Change Initiative, Filipino American Coalition for Environmental Solidarity (FACES), Forest Ethics, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Global Exchange, Global Justice Ecology Project, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, Greenpeace, Headrush, International Forum on Globalization, International Rivers, Justice in Nigeria Now!, Movement Generation, Pacific Environment, Poor Magazine, Rainforest Action Network, Richmond Mayor’s Task Force on Environmental Justice and Health, Progressive Bengali Network, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Ruckus Society, Rising Tide North America, Solidarity, West County Toxics Coalition, Youth In Focus, 350.org
Responding to Climate Change in the Red Sea
The Red Sea hosts one of the world's richest coral reef systems, an intricate one that exists near the threshold of the physiological temperature limits of corals. Elevated salinity levels and high seasonal temperature fluctuations mean that the Red Sea's reefs have evolved under extreme conditions. Mass coral bleaching has increased dramatically in its frequency and distribution over the past two decades as a result of climate change and other human impacts; almost every reef system in the world has been affected. Some climate change models have predicted up to 95% of the world's coral reefs may be lost by the end of this century. This threatened global reef system sustains the livelihood of not only the tourism and fishing industries, but all coastal communities that depend on it for sustenance and extreme weather protection.Coral bleaching occurs when the density of the photosynthetic algae in the coral (called zooxanthellae and endow the host coral with its vivid color) declines leaving the coral's white calcium carbonate exoskeleton visible through the transparent flesh. The decline in zooxanthellae concentrations is caused by stress from any of several factors, including: temperature changes, increased exposure to solar radiation, changes in the chemical or biological composition of the water, sedimentation, or subaerial exposure. The coral may recover in a matter of a few weeks depending on the duration and intensity of the stress factor or die leaving behind the stone-like skeleton. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Hurghada Environmental Protection and Conservation Association (HEPCA) organized two workshops to help address the potential impact of coral bleaching, sponsored by Kuoni's corporate social responsibility (CSR) program. The first scoping workshop focused on the tourism industry of the Egyptian Red Sea coast and was aimed at understanding vulnerabilities of the Tourism sector to climate change impacts and how best to adapt to potential future changes in the coral reef. The second training workshop was focused on Coral Reef Managers and assisting them to responding to climate change impacts on the coral reefs they manage. It was delivered to national park rangers from the Northern Red Sea Islands Protected Area, the Wadi El Gemal Protected Area, and the Elba Protected Area in addition to several members of the tourism and the diving industry. The workshop was delivered by a team of experts that have conducted pioneering research and management on the impact of climate change on coral reefs and included Dr. Paul Marshall, Director of the Climate Change Program of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; Dr. Ameer Abdulla, Senior Specialist and Group Leader with the IUCN's Global Marine Program; and Dr. Tony Rouphael, a marine specialist with the IUCN Global Marine Program and who has conducted research along Egypt's Red Sea coast for over 10 years..Dr. Nadine Marshall, a social scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, who specializes in enhancing community resilience to environmental and policy change and uncertainty. The interdisciplinary workshop tackled climate change, a global but often theoretical concept to many people, with an applied and hands-on approach.. The workshop addressed the causes of coral bleaching and the political implications of and social vulnerabilities to climate change impacts and constraints to adaptation. It also provided an overview of management techniques and response plans. The workshop focused on practical measures that can be implemented to make both the reef and local communities more resilient to climate change. The workshop program included a field trip to assess the resilience of two reefs, an exercise presenting a methodology to train members of the tourism community and park managers to collect valuable data on a large scale, which would improve understanding of the resilience of Egyptian Red Sea reefs and enhance national and regional management strategies.A valuable outcome of the event was a promising plan for collaboration between park rangers and members of the tourism industry in developing a response plan to mass coral bleaching events. Both parties recognized that synergizing efforts is vital for mitigating and managing the socio-ecological impacts of coral bleaching on both the reef and dependant communities. HEPCA, IUCN, and Kuoni look forward to implementing more activities to enhance reef stewardship with all stakeholders associated with Egyptian Reefs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)