Concerned about the environment? Here are ways you can get involved and make a difference. You'll find tips to reduce waste, find eco-friendly products, and support community, government and corporate efforts to help the environment.
Live Green
Reduce Global Warming
Conserve Energy
Live Green
Want to put more “green” in your life by saving money and reducing waste? Here is practical information about environmentally friendly food, drink, fashions, cars and cleaning products, to name a few. Make eco-friendly lifestyle choices and buying decisions that will help sustain the environment rather than deplete it.
Why Stop Using Plastic Bags?
Living Alone is Bad for the Environment
Are Dishwashers Bad for the Environment?
How to Make Eco-Friendly Home Improvements
Eco-Friendly Drain Cleaners
Zero Waste Starts with Responsible Design
How to Stop Receiving Junk Mail
Why Online Bill Paying is Good for the Environment
Reduce Global Warming
Reducing global warming may seem like a daunting task, but if each of us makes a commitment to taking steps now, we can make a difference. For example, if every family in the United States replaced one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent, 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gases would be eliminated. Look here for more steps, big and small, that will help to reduce global warming.
Top 10 Things You Can Do to Reduce Global Warming
Use Public Transportation
Energy Conservation: A Free Home Energy Audit Can Help You Save Power and Money
Conserve Energy
One way to do your part to protect the environment is to make choices every day that enable you to use less energy.
Why Should You Get a Free Home Energy Audit?
Slaying Energy Vampires Can Save You Money and Help the Environment
Heat Only the Space You Need
Reduce Your Personal Chill Factor
Stay Warm, Save Money, and Help the Environment
Change a Light Bulb and Change the World
Green Light: Are LED Light Bulbs Better Than CFLs?
How to Keep Cool Without Air Conditioning
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Air Pollution May Reduce Rainfall and Cause Drought
As if there weren't already plenty of reasons to cut back on air pollution, now it looks as though cleaner air may reduce drought.
New research by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory makes a strong case that air pollution is contributing to drought conditions and potential crop failure in northern China by reducing the type of light rainfall that is essential for agriculture.
According to the study, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, air pollution reduced the number of days of light rainfall in China by 23 percent between 1956 and 2005. Light rainfall is defined as anything up to 0.4 inches (10 millimeters) in a day.
The way this works is that air pollution causes tiny air particles called aerosols—some aerosols also occur naturally—which affect how rain clouds form. Although the number of water droplets in clouds is higher when more aerosols are present, the water droplets in polluted skies are up to 50 percent smaller than in clean air. Many are so small that they are unable to fall as rain.
The research study shows that most of the aerosols in China are caused by human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels. China’s population and fossil fuel consumption increased dramatically between 1960 and 2000, and so did the number of aerosols in China’s skies. The result was the significant decrease in light rainfall noted in the study, and more drought in northern China. Heavy rainfall, which actually increased in some parts of southern China during the same period, can cause flooding and wash away crops before they have a chance to ripen and be harvested.
The conclusion of the researchers is that reducing air pollution in China could help to relieve drought, as well as decreasing acid rain and health problems associated with air pollution. About 2.5 million hectares of crops in northern China and Inner Mongolia are currently threatened by drought, raising concerns that the autumn grain harvest (which accounts for more than 70 percent of China’s total grain crop) could be ruined.
New research by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory makes a strong case that air pollution is contributing to drought conditions and potential crop failure in northern China by reducing the type of light rainfall that is essential for agriculture.
According to the study, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, air pollution reduced the number of days of light rainfall in China by 23 percent between 1956 and 2005. Light rainfall is defined as anything up to 0.4 inches (10 millimeters) in a day.
The way this works is that air pollution causes tiny air particles called aerosols—some aerosols also occur naturally—which affect how rain clouds form. Although the number of water droplets in clouds is higher when more aerosols are present, the water droplets in polluted skies are up to 50 percent smaller than in clean air. Many are so small that they are unable to fall as rain.
The research study shows that most of the aerosols in China are caused by human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels. China’s population and fossil fuel consumption increased dramatically between 1960 and 2000, and so did the number of aerosols in China’s skies. The result was the significant decrease in light rainfall noted in the study, and more drought in northern China. Heavy rainfall, which actually increased in some parts of southern China during the same period, can cause flooding and wash away crops before they have a chance to ripen and be harvested.
The conclusion of the researchers is that reducing air pollution in China could help to relieve drought, as well as decreasing acid rain and health problems associated with air pollution. About 2.5 million hectares of crops in northern China and Inner Mongolia are currently threatened by drought, raising concerns that the autumn grain harvest (which accounts for more than 70 percent of China’s total grain crop) could be ruined.
Do the Benefits of Recycling Outweigh the Costs?
Controversy over the benefits of recycling bubbled up in 1996 when columnist John Tierney posited in a New York Times Magazine article that “recycling is garbage.”
“Mandatory recycling programs,” he wrote, “…offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations and waste handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America…”
Cost of Recycling vs. Trash CollectionEnvironmental groups were quick to dispute Tierney on the benefits of recycling, especially on assertions that recycling was doubling energy consumption and pollution while costing taxpayers more money than disposing of plain old garbage.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense, two of the nation’s most influential environmental organizations, each issued reports detailing the benefits of recycling and showing how municipal recycling programs reduce pollution and the use of virgin resources while decreasing the sheer amount of garbage and the need for landfill space -- all for less, not more, than the cost of regular garbage pick-up and disposal.
Michael Shapiro, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste, also weighed in on the benefits of recycling:
“A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.”
But in 2002, New York City, an early municipal recycling pioneer, found that its much-lauded recycling program was losing money, so it eliminated glass and plastic recycling. According to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the benefits of recycling plastic and glass were outweighed by the price -- recycling cost twice as much as disposal. Meanwhile, low demand for the materials meant that much of it was ending up in landfills anyway, despite best intentions.
Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was faring with its scaled back program (the city never discontinued paper recycling), ready to perhaps jump on the bandwagon.
But in the meantime, New York City closed its last landfill, and private out-of-state landfills raised prices due to the increased workload of hauling away and disposing of New York’s trash.
As a result, the benefits of recycling glass and plastic increased and glass and plastic recycling became economically viable for the city again. New York reinstated the recycling program accordingly, with a more efficient system and with more reputable service providers than it had used previously.
Benefits of Recycling Increase as Cities Gain ExperienceAccording to Chicago Reader columnist Cecil Adams, the lessons learned by New York are applicable everywhere.
“Some early curbside recycling programs…waste resources due to bureaucratic overhead and duplicate trash pickups (for garbage and then again for recyclables). But the situation has improved as cities have gained experience.”
Adams also says that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities (and taxpayers) less than garbage disposal for any given equivalent amount of material.
Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are manifold, individuals should keep in mind that it better serves the environment to “reduce and reuse” before recycling even becomes an option.
“Mandatory recycling programs,” he wrote, “…offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations and waste handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America…”
Cost of Recycling vs. Trash CollectionEnvironmental groups were quick to dispute Tierney on the benefits of recycling, especially on assertions that recycling was doubling energy consumption and pollution while costing taxpayers more money than disposing of plain old garbage.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense, two of the nation’s most influential environmental organizations, each issued reports detailing the benefits of recycling and showing how municipal recycling programs reduce pollution and the use of virgin resources while decreasing the sheer amount of garbage and the need for landfill space -- all for less, not more, than the cost of regular garbage pick-up and disposal.
Michael Shapiro, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste, also weighed in on the benefits of recycling:
“A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.”
But in 2002, New York City, an early municipal recycling pioneer, found that its much-lauded recycling program was losing money, so it eliminated glass and plastic recycling. According to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the benefits of recycling plastic and glass were outweighed by the price -- recycling cost twice as much as disposal. Meanwhile, low demand for the materials meant that much of it was ending up in landfills anyway, despite best intentions.
Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was faring with its scaled back program (the city never discontinued paper recycling), ready to perhaps jump on the bandwagon.
But in the meantime, New York City closed its last landfill, and private out-of-state landfills raised prices due to the increased workload of hauling away and disposing of New York’s trash.
As a result, the benefits of recycling glass and plastic increased and glass and plastic recycling became economically viable for the city again. New York reinstated the recycling program accordingly, with a more efficient system and with more reputable service providers than it had used previously.
Benefits of Recycling Increase as Cities Gain ExperienceAccording to Chicago Reader columnist Cecil Adams, the lessons learned by New York are applicable everywhere.
“Some early curbside recycling programs…waste resources due to bureaucratic overhead and duplicate trash pickups (for garbage and then again for recyclables). But the situation has improved as cities have gained experience.”
Adams also says that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities (and taxpayers) less than garbage disposal for any given equivalent amount of material.
Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are manifold, individuals should keep in mind that it better serves the environment to “reduce and reuse” before recycling even becomes an option.
Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India
Groundwater is a primary source of fresh water in many parts of the world. Some regions are becoming overly dependent on it, consuming groundwater faster than it is naturally replenished and causing water tables to decline unremittingly1. Indirect evidence suggests that this is the case in northwest India2, but there has been no regional assessment of the rate of groundwater depletion. Here we use terrestrial water storage-change observations from the NASA Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites3 and simulated soil-water variations from a data-integrating hydrological modelling system4 to show that groundwater is being depleted at a mean rate of 4.0 1.0 cm yr-1 equivalent height of water (17.7 4.5 km3 yr-1) over the Indian states of Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana (including Delhi). During our study period of August 2002 to October 2008, groundwater depletion was equivalent to a net loss of 109 km3 of water, which is double the capacity of India's largest surface-water reservoir. Annual rainfall was close to normal throughout the period and we demonstrate that the other terrestrial water storage components (soil moisture, surface waters, snow, glaciers and biomass) did not contribute significantly to the observed decline in total water levels. Although our observational record is brief, the available evidence suggests that unsustainable consumption of groundwater for irrigation and other anthropogenic uses is likely to be the cause. If measures are not taken soon to ensure sustainable groundwater usage, the consequences for the 114,000,000 residents of the region may include a reduction of agricultural output and shortages of potable water, leading to extensive socioeconomic stresses.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Singh: India must invest in green technology
Addressing environment ministers from all state governments, the Indian prime minister acknowledged the need for India to follow a sustainable growth strategy.
India,currently the world’s number four polluter, must invest in its own environmentally friendly technologies as a means to fight climate change, said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Tuesday. According to Reuters, the prime minister’s comment can be seen as an attempt to undercut demands by rich nations for India to do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The Indian government has resisted committing to emissions targets, saying it will take its own unilateral action to cut pollution. Singh’s statement also signaled that India was willing to invest money in the development of clean technologies in addition to what the country might get from rich countries. "Our growth strategy can be different. It must be different," the prime minister told a national conference on environment and forests in New Delhi, referring to decades of Western industrialization that is blamed for climate change. He said India's energy consumption will rise sharply in the coming decades as it tries to lift its population out of poverty, but stressed a different development path must be taken. "For this we need access to new technologies that are already available with developed countries. We must also make our own investments in new environment-friendly technologies," he said. Addressing environment ministers from all states, Singh acknowledged that the ''multiple environmental crises that confront our country have created an alarming situation'', and he asked state governments to curtail pollution, clean rivers and fight climate change. Describing climate change as a "major global challenge", he said India was conscious of its "responsibility to present and future generations" and would ensure the "ecological sustainabality of its development path
India,currently the world’s number four polluter, must invest in its own environmentally friendly technologies as a means to fight climate change, said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Tuesday. According to Reuters, the prime minister’s comment can be seen as an attempt to undercut demands by rich nations for India to do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The Indian government has resisted committing to emissions targets, saying it will take its own unilateral action to cut pollution. Singh’s statement also signaled that India was willing to invest money in the development of clean technologies in addition to what the country might get from rich countries. "Our growth strategy can be different. It must be different," the prime minister told a national conference on environment and forests in New Delhi, referring to decades of Western industrialization that is blamed for climate change. He said India's energy consumption will rise sharply in the coming decades as it tries to lift its population out of poverty, but stressed a different development path must be taken. "For this we need access to new technologies that are already available with developed countries. We must also make our own investments in new environment-friendly technologies," he said. Addressing environment ministers from all states, Singh acknowledged that the ''multiple environmental crises that confront our country have created an alarming situation'', and he asked state governments to curtail pollution, clean rivers and fight climate change. Describing climate change as a "major global challenge", he said India was conscious of its "responsibility to present and future generations" and would ensure the "ecological sustainabality of its development path
Lead Poisoning Stokes Tensions in Chinese Town
Farmer Wang Zhifan jabs a stubby finger toward the sprawling smelter blamed for poisoning hundreds of local children with lead. He bares his yellowed teeth and spits hard.
''That thing is like a nuclear bomb for us,'' the 61-year-old says in a voice that seems to carry down the steep slope and into the corn fields that run to the smelter's fence. ''There's just no saving us.''
Local anger boiled over this week with a violent protest at the plant in central Shaanxi province, and tensions remain high in a dispute that demonstrates how environmental degradation caused during the charge for economic growth in China is spawning social unrest.
For decades, many Chinese firms have dumped poisons into rivers and the ground rather than disposing of them safely, counting on the acquiescence of local governments unwilling to damage their economic lifelines.
The resulting problems -- from crop losses to cancer -- have sometimes prompted violence, but they've also brought a rise in public awareness of environmental safety and health. Since the unrest, the government has promised to close down the Dangling Lead and Zinc Smelting Co. plant in Changqing town until it can be made safe.
That offers at least a temporary victory for the villagers, whose outrage came to a head after some 615 of 731 children in two villages near the plant tested positive earlier this month for lead poisoning. Some had lead levels 10 times that which China considers safe.
On Sunday and Monday, angry residents battled police at the smelter's gates, and stoned trucks delivering coal to the plant.
For now, the plant is closed and security is tight. Associated Press reporters who visited the area on Wednesday were tailed by local government officials, and police officers tried to break up interviews and block access to sick children and their parents.
An apology Monday from Dai Zhengshe, the mayor of Baoji city, which oversees Changqing, seems to have done little to cool villagers' anger. Dai made the promise not to reopen the smelter until it met health standards, according to the official Xinhua News Agency, but villagers said they put little faith in his words.
''You really can't trust what the government tells you,'' said He Xiaojun, the father of nine-year-old He Haomin, who suffers from nose bleeds and memory problems -- common symptoms of lead poisoning. ''We want them to move the plant,'' said He, whose village of Madaokou lies a stone's throw away.
Public distrust has been exacerbated over the years by unmet promises and a lack of government transparency.
Villagers living nearby were supposed to have been given new accommodation even before the smelter opened in 2006, but so far just a few dozen have relocated. Authorities promised to shut the plant on Aug. 6, but villagers -- such as Wang, the farmer who likened the plant to a nuclear bomb -- insist production continued for days afterward, with smoke coming from the stacks at night.
Officials say that was only to allow time for furnaces to close down without gas explosions. Plans, meanwhile, call for the relocation of all villagers living within 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) of the smelter ''as soon as possible,'' local government spokesman Wang Minmin told The AP.
Official claims that the plant met national standards for ground and surface water, and soil and waste discharge also prompted derision and disbelief from residents, who question how then their children came to have such high lead levels in their blood.
Ma Jun, founder of the non-governmental Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs in Beijing, says that's likely due to outdated standards that don't take into account the cumulative effect of lead and other heavy metals on people and the environment.
''Therefore, even if a given factory had met all the standards on emissions, there would still likely be damage to human health,'' Ma said.
Lead poisoning can damage the nervous and reproductive systems and cause high blood pressure, anemia and memory loss. It is especially harmful to young children, pregnant women and fetuses, with damage that is usually irreversible, according to the World Health Organization.
On Wednesday at the local Fengxiang County Hospital, about 80 children had been admitted for observation and treatment. They lay on beds, many of them on IV drips, with their parents hovering nearby.
Zha Xiaofang, 41, from Madaokou village, said her 8-year-old daughter has lead levels considered mid- to high-level poisoning. Her daughter has had abdominal pain and memory problems for some time.
''We are anxious because we don't know what will happen next and we don't have any guarantees for the future,'' she said.
Changqing, about 850 miles (1,380 kilometers) west of Beijing, is just one of scores of places in China where pollution and chemical contamination have sparked opposition and protests, embarrassing the ruling Communist Party and its pledges to pursue clean and sustainable development.
In Wenping township in central Hunan province, angry villagers blocked roads on July 30 after the government refused to close down a manganese processing plant. But last Thursday, the local government announced that it was shutting down the factory because it was operating illegally and had discharged lead excessively. As in Changqing, local officials offered free lead testing for all children under the age of 14 within three miles (five kilometers) of the factory.
Plans for chemical plants and garbage incinerators in urban areas have also drawn protests including marches and petitions -- rare in a country where even peaceful dissenters are often punished.
Yet dubious projects continue to receive approval, due in large part to their contribution to local tax bases and employment. According to 2008 media reports, Changqing's Dongling smelter accounted for 17 percent of the county government's revenue and supported more than 2,000 households.
A government stimulus plan is also expediting projects, sometimes shortening their environmental approval times, while a tough government opponent of polluters, vice director of State Environmental Protection Agency, Pan Yue, has recently been sidelined for reasons that are unclear.
Given the lack of trust, greater transparency about major polluting projects was perhaps the only way to head-off future conflicts, said Hu Yuanqiong, a staff attorney with the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council's China Program.
''The best way to ensure social stability and the sustainability of the economy is to make information open and allow public participation in monitoring emissions and to have a mechanism between the public and the factories to talk things out and resolve disputes,'' Hu said.
''That thing is like a nuclear bomb for us,'' the 61-year-old says in a voice that seems to carry down the steep slope and into the corn fields that run to the smelter's fence. ''There's just no saving us.''
Local anger boiled over this week with a violent protest at the plant in central Shaanxi province, and tensions remain high in a dispute that demonstrates how environmental degradation caused during the charge for economic growth in China is spawning social unrest.
For decades, many Chinese firms have dumped poisons into rivers and the ground rather than disposing of them safely, counting on the acquiescence of local governments unwilling to damage their economic lifelines.
The resulting problems -- from crop losses to cancer -- have sometimes prompted violence, but they've also brought a rise in public awareness of environmental safety and health. Since the unrest, the government has promised to close down the Dangling Lead and Zinc Smelting Co. plant in Changqing town until it can be made safe.
That offers at least a temporary victory for the villagers, whose outrage came to a head after some 615 of 731 children in two villages near the plant tested positive earlier this month for lead poisoning. Some had lead levels 10 times that which China considers safe.
On Sunday and Monday, angry residents battled police at the smelter's gates, and stoned trucks delivering coal to the plant.
For now, the plant is closed and security is tight. Associated Press reporters who visited the area on Wednesday were tailed by local government officials, and police officers tried to break up interviews and block access to sick children and their parents.
An apology Monday from Dai Zhengshe, the mayor of Baoji city, which oversees Changqing, seems to have done little to cool villagers' anger. Dai made the promise not to reopen the smelter until it met health standards, according to the official Xinhua News Agency, but villagers said they put little faith in his words.
''You really can't trust what the government tells you,'' said He Xiaojun, the father of nine-year-old He Haomin, who suffers from nose bleeds and memory problems -- common symptoms of lead poisoning. ''We want them to move the plant,'' said He, whose village of Madaokou lies a stone's throw away.
Public distrust has been exacerbated over the years by unmet promises and a lack of government transparency.
Villagers living nearby were supposed to have been given new accommodation even before the smelter opened in 2006, but so far just a few dozen have relocated. Authorities promised to shut the plant on Aug. 6, but villagers -- such as Wang, the farmer who likened the plant to a nuclear bomb -- insist production continued for days afterward, with smoke coming from the stacks at night.
Officials say that was only to allow time for furnaces to close down without gas explosions. Plans, meanwhile, call for the relocation of all villagers living within 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) of the smelter ''as soon as possible,'' local government spokesman Wang Minmin told The AP.
Official claims that the plant met national standards for ground and surface water, and soil and waste discharge also prompted derision and disbelief from residents, who question how then their children came to have such high lead levels in their blood.
Ma Jun, founder of the non-governmental Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs in Beijing, says that's likely due to outdated standards that don't take into account the cumulative effect of lead and other heavy metals on people and the environment.
''Therefore, even if a given factory had met all the standards on emissions, there would still likely be damage to human health,'' Ma said.
Lead poisoning can damage the nervous and reproductive systems and cause high blood pressure, anemia and memory loss. It is especially harmful to young children, pregnant women and fetuses, with damage that is usually irreversible, according to the World Health Organization.
On Wednesday at the local Fengxiang County Hospital, about 80 children had been admitted for observation and treatment. They lay on beds, many of them on IV drips, with their parents hovering nearby.
Zha Xiaofang, 41, from Madaokou village, said her 8-year-old daughter has lead levels considered mid- to high-level poisoning. Her daughter has had abdominal pain and memory problems for some time.
''We are anxious because we don't know what will happen next and we don't have any guarantees for the future,'' she said.
Changqing, about 850 miles (1,380 kilometers) west of Beijing, is just one of scores of places in China where pollution and chemical contamination have sparked opposition and protests, embarrassing the ruling Communist Party and its pledges to pursue clean and sustainable development.
In Wenping township in central Hunan province, angry villagers blocked roads on July 30 after the government refused to close down a manganese processing plant. But last Thursday, the local government announced that it was shutting down the factory because it was operating illegally and had discharged lead excessively. As in Changqing, local officials offered free lead testing for all children under the age of 14 within three miles (five kilometers) of the factory.
Plans for chemical plants and garbage incinerators in urban areas have also drawn protests including marches and petitions -- rare in a country where even peaceful dissenters are often punished.
Yet dubious projects continue to receive approval, due in large part to their contribution to local tax bases and employment. According to 2008 media reports, Changqing's Dongling smelter accounted for 17 percent of the county government's revenue and supported more than 2,000 households.
A government stimulus plan is also expediting projects, sometimes shortening their environmental approval times, while a tough government opponent of polluters, vice director of State Environmental Protection Agency, Pan Yue, has recently been sidelined for reasons that are unclear.
Given the lack of trust, greater transparency about major polluting projects was perhaps the only way to head-off future conflicts, said Hu Yuanqiong, a staff attorney with the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council's China Program.
''The best way to ensure social stability and the sustainability of the economy is to make information open and allow public participation in monitoring emissions and to have a mechanism between the public and the factories to talk things out and resolve disputes,'' Hu said.
How the World Bank Let 'Deal Making' Torch the Rainforests
The World Bank ignored its own environmental and social protection standards when it approved nearly $200 million in loan guarantees for palm oil production in Indonesia, a stinging internal audit has found.The report, detailing five years of funding from the International Finance Corp. (IFC), the private-sector arm of the World Bank, lambastes the agency for allowing commercial pressures to influence four separate loans aimed at developing the industry.
"The IFC was aware for more than 20 years that there were significant environmental and social issues and risks inherent in the oil palm sector in Indonesia," auditors wrote. "Despite awareness of the significant issues facing it, IFC did not develop a strategy for engaging in the oil palm sector. In the absence of a tailored strategy, deal making prevailed."
The report (pdf) from the office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman comes as Indonesia prepares to enter the carbon markets by protecting its tropical forests. Working in partnership with Australia, the Indonesian government currently is working to design a national carbon accounting system. Australia is building a satellite to monitor deforestation in the Southeast Asian country, according to new U.N. submissions.
Indonesia is home to the world's second-largest reserves of natural forests and peat swamps, which naturally trap carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas that causes climate change. But rampant destruction of the forests to make way for palm oil plantations has caused giant releases of CO2 into the atmosphere, making Indonesia the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet.
The audit does not address climate change or how lending for palm oil -- an ingredient in foods and a biofuel added to diesel for cars -- fits into the World Bank's new "strategic framework" for development and climate change. It also does not examine any of the specific charges or environmental accusations lodged against the firm to which the World Bank loaned money.
Rather, the report confines itself to whether the IFC abided by its own standards. On that front, the multilateral bank came up short.
IFC saw burning the trees as having 'no impact'
Specifically, auditors said, when loaning to Wilmar International Ltd. and other firms between 2003 and 2008, the IFC did not check out concerns about the companies' supply chain plantations. The Forest Peoples Programme, a U.K.-based nonprofit group that originally brought the complaint, charged that the companies illegally used fire to clear forestland, cleared primary forests, and seized lands belonging to indigenous people without due process.
The IFC, auditors noted, labeled the initial loan as a "category C" -- a listing signifying that a project has little or no adverse environmental or social impacts, and which is typically given to financial intermediaries. But by failing to examine the subsidiaries that source the raw materials, IFC ignored issues like the absence of publicly available environmental impact assessments for the subsidiary companies.
"For each investment, commercial pressures were allowed to prevail," auditors wrote. "Commercial pressures dominated."
In a written response to auditors, the IFC acknowledged shortcomings in the review process. But the lender also defended investment in palm oil production as a way to alleviate poverty in Indonesia.
"IFC believes that production of palm oil, when carried out in an environmentally and socially sustainable fashion, can provide core support for a strong rural economy, providing employment and improved quality of life for millions of the rural poor in tropical areas," it said.
Hunting for a 'sustainable' strategy
The agency vowed to develop a new strategy to guide its future palm oil investments, to be completed in about three months, and to put "renewed emphasis" on assessing a company's supply chain before lending.
Marcus Colchester, director of the Forest Peoples Programme, called that response "inadequate."
In a letter to World Bank President Robert Zoellick and the board, Colchester and leaders of other nonprofit groups called on the World Bank to freeze palm oil lending, charging that IFC suffers a "systemic problem whereby the pressure to lend and to support business interests overcomes prudence, due diligence and concern for social and environmental outcomes."
They noted that the management response included no actions to address the problem of climate change being exacerbated by planting on peatlands and burning forests, and advised no discipline for staff that failed to comply with standards.
Barbara Bramble, a senior program adviser for international affairs at the National Wildlife Federation, said she believes the World Bank should help the Indonesian government at all levels change incentives for palm oil planting and refuse to invest in any company whose primary plantation is primary rainforest.
She, Colchester and even IMF officials widely agreed that there is in Indonesia an abundant amount of already degraded land that could be used for palm oil productuon. The challenge, Bramble said, is shifting national and local laws to encourage more sustainable production.
Meanwhile, the IFC indicated in a statement to E&E that the agency does not plan to give up palm oil investment anytime soon.
"IFC is aware of the environmental and social concerns associated with the palm oil sector in Indonesia. We also believe that the sector has considerable potential for job creation and economic growth," agency officials wrote. "We believe it is imperative to promote sustainable practices in the sector that will benefit the poor and preserve biodiversity."
"The IFC was aware for more than 20 years that there were significant environmental and social issues and risks inherent in the oil palm sector in Indonesia," auditors wrote. "Despite awareness of the significant issues facing it, IFC did not develop a strategy for engaging in the oil palm sector. In the absence of a tailored strategy, deal making prevailed."
The report (pdf) from the office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman comes as Indonesia prepares to enter the carbon markets by protecting its tropical forests. Working in partnership with Australia, the Indonesian government currently is working to design a national carbon accounting system. Australia is building a satellite to monitor deforestation in the Southeast Asian country, according to new U.N. submissions.
Indonesia is home to the world's second-largest reserves of natural forests and peat swamps, which naturally trap carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas that causes climate change. But rampant destruction of the forests to make way for palm oil plantations has caused giant releases of CO2 into the atmosphere, making Indonesia the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet.
The audit does not address climate change or how lending for palm oil -- an ingredient in foods and a biofuel added to diesel for cars -- fits into the World Bank's new "strategic framework" for development and climate change. It also does not examine any of the specific charges or environmental accusations lodged against the firm to which the World Bank loaned money.
Rather, the report confines itself to whether the IFC abided by its own standards. On that front, the multilateral bank came up short.
IFC saw burning the trees as having 'no impact'
Specifically, auditors said, when loaning to Wilmar International Ltd. and other firms between 2003 and 2008, the IFC did not check out concerns about the companies' supply chain plantations. The Forest Peoples Programme, a U.K.-based nonprofit group that originally brought the complaint, charged that the companies illegally used fire to clear forestland, cleared primary forests, and seized lands belonging to indigenous people without due process.
The IFC, auditors noted, labeled the initial loan as a "category C" -- a listing signifying that a project has little or no adverse environmental or social impacts, and which is typically given to financial intermediaries. But by failing to examine the subsidiaries that source the raw materials, IFC ignored issues like the absence of publicly available environmental impact assessments for the subsidiary companies.
"For each investment, commercial pressures were allowed to prevail," auditors wrote. "Commercial pressures dominated."
In a written response to auditors, the IFC acknowledged shortcomings in the review process. But the lender also defended investment in palm oil production as a way to alleviate poverty in Indonesia.
"IFC believes that production of palm oil, when carried out in an environmentally and socially sustainable fashion, can provide core support for a strong rural economy, providing employment and improved quality of life for millions of the rural poor in tropical areas," it said.
Hunting for a 'sustainable' strategy
The agency vowed to develop a new strategy to guide its future palm oil investments, to be completed in about three months, and to put "renewed emphasis" on assessing a company's supply chain before lending.
Marcus Colchester, director of the Forest Peoples Programme, called that response "inadequate."
In a letter to World Bank President Robert Zoellick and the board, Colchester and leaders of other nonprofit groups called on the World Bank to freeze palm oil lending, charging that IFC suffers a "systemic problem whereby the pressure to lend and to support business interests overcomes prudence, due diligence and concern for social and environmental outcomes."
They noted that the management response included no actions to address the problem of climate change being exacerbated by planting on peatlands and burning forests, and advised no discipline for staff that failed to comply with standards.
Barbara Bramble, a senior program adviser for international affairs at the National Wildlife Federation, said she believes the World Bank should help the Indonesian government at all levels change incentives for palm oil planting and refuse to invest in any company whose primary plantation is primary rainforest.
She, Colchester and even IMF officials widely agreed that there is in Indonesia an abundant amount of already degraded land that could be used for palm oil productuon. The challenge, Bramble said, is shifting national and local laws to encourage more sustainable production.
Meanwhile, the IFC indicated in a statement to E&E that the agency does not plan to give up palm oil investment anytime soon.
"IFC is aware of the environmental and social concerns associated with the palm oil sector in Indonesia. We also believe that the sector has considerable potential for job creation and economic growth," agency officials wrote. "We believe it is imperative to promote sustainable practices in the sector that will benefit the poor and preserve biodiversity."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)