Give forests back to local people to save them

Give tropical forests back to the people who live in them – and the trees will soak up your carbon for you. Above all, keep the forests out of the hands of government. So concludes a study that has tracked the fate of 80 forests worldwide over 15 years.

Most tropical forests – from Himalayan hill forests to the Madagascan jungle – are controlled by local and national governments. Forest communities own and manage little more than a tenth. They have a reputation for trashing their trees – cutting them for timber or burning them to clear land for farming. In reality the opposite is true, according to Ashwini Chhatre of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Hand it over

In the first study of its kind, Chhatre and Arun Agrawal of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor compared forest ownership with data on carbon sequestration, which is estimated from the size and number of trees in a forest. Hectare-for-hectare, they found that tropical forest under local management stored more carbon than government-owned forests. There are exceptions, says Chhatre, "but our findings show that we can increase carbon sequestration simply by transferring ownership of forests from governments to communities".

One reason may be that locals protect forests best if they own them, because they have a long-term interest in ensuring the forests' survival. While governments, whatever their intentions, usually license destructive logging, or preside over a free-for-all in which everyone grabs what they can because nobody believes the forest will last.

The authors suggest that locals would also make a better job of managing common pastures, coastal fisheries and water supplies. They argue that their findings contradict a long-standing environmental idea, called the "tragedy of the commons", which says that natural resources left to communal control get trashed. In fact, says Agrawal, "communities are perfectly capable of managing their resources sustainably".

Flawed plans

The research calls into question UN plans to pay governments to protect forests. The climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December is likely to agree on a formula for a programme called Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. "There is a real fear that REDD will lead to dispossession of local communities [as] governments stake their claim on emissions reduction credits," says Chhatre.

Simon Counsell of the Rainforest Foundation UK is not surprised by the findings. "In Brazil and elsewhere, we know the most enduring forests are in indigenous reserves, like that run by the Kayapo in the eastern Amazon – the largest protected forest in the world."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National 

Obama Orders All Federal Agencies to Cut Greenhouse Gases

President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order Monday that requires federal agencies to set a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2020 within 90 days.
The Executive Order also requires federal agencies to increase their energy efficiency, reduce the petroleum consumption of their fleets, conserve water, reduce waste, support sustainable communities, and leverage their federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.

President Barack Obama (Photo: Office of the President)

"As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies," said President Obama.
"This Executive Order builds on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates the federal government's commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing emissions and saving money," he said.
The new Executive Order makes reducing greenhouse gas emissions a priority for the federal government, which occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services.
In his order, President Obama requires agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including:

• 30 percent reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
• 26 percent improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
• 50 percent recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
• 95 percent of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
• Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
• Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and
• Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Within 180 days of the order, the federal government also will develop guidance for locating federal buildings in a manner consistent with sustainable development.
Implementation of the Executive Order will focus on integrating achievement of sustainability goals with agency mission and strategic planning to optimize performance and minimize implementation costs.
Stephen Russell, associate at World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank, said federal agencies will have to rely upon a set of principles based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Public Sector Standard developed this summer by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development.

Headquarters of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation in Washington, DC. (Photo courtesy DOT)

"Globally, the government sector is responsible for a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and the executive order sets an important milestone and example for the management of these emissions," said Russell. "Based on over 10 years of work on greenhouse gas accounting, the Public Sector Standard is central to helping governments meet their climate goals."
The Public Sector Protocol explains how public sector agencies can develop inventories of greenhouse gas emissions. It details accounting procedures, such as determining what emission sources should be included in an inventory, and how emission reduction targets can be set and tracked over time. It adapts the core accounting principles found in the WRI greenhouse gas Corporate Standard to the unique organizational and structural needs of public agencies at the local, state and federal levels.
Implementation will be managed through the previously-established Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, working in close partnership with the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality and the agencies.
Some recent examples of federal environmental stewardship include the planned construction of a 600-kilowatt wind turbine at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The 600-kW turbine installation, to be completed in spring 2011, is projected to supply up to 15 percent of the facility's annual electricity usage.
In Lakewood, Colorado, the U.S. General Services Administration's Denver Federal Center will be installing a seven megawatt photovoltaic system as part of a modernization effort. The project will provide a reliable utility infrastructure to service tenant agencies for the next 50 years. Covering 30 acres, the giant solar system will feed renewable energy back into the grid on weekends.
The Executive Order follows the president's Proclamation of October as National Energy Awareness Month. The president called on the people of the United States to mark the month by making clean energy choices that can both rebuild our economy and make it more sustainable.
Noting that the federal government is the largest consumer of energy in the United States, Obama said in the proclamation his administration is committed to lead by example in the use of clean energy and energy efficiency.
"We face a turning point in our Nation's energy policy," Obama said in the Proclamation. "We can either remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of clean energy technology. We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc, or we can create jobs deploying low-carbon technologies to prevent its worst effects."

Copyright Environment News Service, ENS, 2009. All rights reserved.

Green activists claim victory over coal power

(Susannah Ireland/The Times)

Climate change protesters have staged several spectaculars at Kingsnorth, like the one, above, in August last year

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

• 28 Comments

Recommend? (2)

Environmental activists claimed a major victory last night when plans for Britain’s first new coal-fired power station for 30 years were shelved after a sustained campaign.
The announcement by E.ON that it would delay a decision on Kingsnorth for three years is a serious setback for the Government’s principal environmental policy of supporting the capture and storage of carbon emissions from coal plants. The delay also heightens the risk of power cuts after 2015, when EU rules will force Britain to close nine of its largest and most polluting power stations.
E.ON’s decision was greeted as a victory by Greenpeace and will encourage activists to redouble their efforts to block other controversial schemes, including the planned third runway at Heathrow.
Kingsnorth, in Kent, was expected to be the first new plant to be fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, with one quarter of its output due to have the technology installed. It became a focal point for environmental activists and the existing plant, due to close in 2015, has been targeted several times. Six Greenpeace protesters who climbed the chimney were acquitted last year after the jury accepted that the plant posed a greater threat to the planet than did the actions of the activists.

Activists boarded a barge and prevented coal being unloaded in June. Last month naked protesters occupied the offices of Edelman, E.ON’s public relations agency.
E.ON denied that the delay was linked to the protests and blamed it on the fall in demand for electricity in the recession. The price of gas, with which coal competes for electricity generation, has also fallen sharply. The German company said in a statement: “We can confirm that we expect to defer an investment decision on the Kingsnorth proposals for up to two to three years. This is based on the global recession, which has pushed back the need for new plant in the UK to around 2016 because of the reduction in demand for electricity.”
An E.ON spokeswoman admitted that the delay meant the existing plant at Kingsnorth would stop generating electricity before a new one alongside it could open. She said: “The recession will buy everyone a lot of time to iron out details. The plant was going to open around 2012-13 but we are not going to make a decision on whether to open it for two to three years and it would then take around four years to build.” She said that the future of CCS, which is extremely expensive and has yet to be shown to work commercially anywhere in the world, partly depended on the price of permits to emit carbon. The price is currently very low but could rise if a global deal on cutting emissions is agreed at a UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December.
John Sauven, the Greenpeace director, said: “This development is extremely good news for the climate and in a stroke significantly reduces the chances of an unabated Kingsnorth plant ever being built. The case for new coal is crumbling, with even E.ON now accepting it’s not currently economic to build new plants. The huge diverse coalition of people who have campaigned against Kingsnorth because of the threat it posed to the climate should take heart that emissions from new coal are now less likely.
“Ed Miliband now has a golden opportunity to rule out all emissions from new coal as a sign of Britain’s leadership before the key Copenhagen climate meeting.”
Responding to the news on Kingsnorth, Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Greg Clark said: “This latest news underlines the chaos in Labour's energy policy. At a time when the Government is predicting power cuts by 2017 its plans for new capacity with carbon capture and storage are disintegrating.
“A Conservative government will immediately authorise at least three power stations fitted with carbon capture and storage, enough to keep the lights on by 2017 and giving Britain a leading role in vital new green technology.”

US Solar Decathlon seeks best sun-powered homes

– For the past week on the National Mall in Washington, international crews have been busy putting up structures for an event showcasing a radiant source of energy that some once revered as a god.
No, it is not a remake of President Barack Obama's inauguration but the Solar Decathlon, a biennial event that begins Thursday and this year puts modular, solar-powered homes through 10 tests to determine which is the new sun king.
Over the course of a week, teams of students from Canada, Germany, Spain and the United States will take part in competitions judging the houses they designed and built for everything from aesthetics to engineering to whether the water heating system can meet a couple's hot water needs.
Judges will determine whether the houses are properly fitted out with the modern conveniences most Westerners cannot live without, and whether the appliances consume less energy than those in the average US home.
The houses displayed on the Mall, the sprawling grassy esplanade between the US Capitol and the Washington Monument, are restricted to a footprint of 800 square feet (74.3 square meters) and are supposed to target a specific market.
Scores of teams applied to compete in this year's decathlon, but only 20 were accepted, including Team Beausoleil from the University of Louisiana, which built a house inspired by Cajun culture and facts of life in the southern US state, such as hurricanes.
The 5.5-inch (14-centimeter) insulated walls can resist winds of 130 miles (209 kilometers) per hour, and the insulation would also "cut your energy rate by about half if the house's solar panels were not producing for the home," said Catherine Guidry, one of the students working on the home.
The house featured a porch -- almost a requirement in laid-back Louisiana -- with moveable doors so it can be closed off on all sides or open on two sides. Plants indigenous to Louisiana thrived in planters in the small garden.
"We wanted it to feel like Louisiana from the inside and outside," Guidry told AFP.
Team Germany, winner of the 2007 decathlon, has reconstructed a house whose exterior walls and louvered windows are covered with small integrated solar panels.
Like the Spanish team's abode, which features a large, raised moveable solar panel on the roof, the house was shipped across the Atlantic Ocean for the competition.
The entry from Cornell University students in New York state features three corrugated steel cylinders and walls insulated with five inches of soy-based foam and sky-lights in all three cylindrical rooms.
The house is visually striking and, according to Cornell architecture student Chris Werner, can hold its own in a new category in this year's decathlon -- the "net metering" contest, which measures the energy a house produces for or takes from the electricity grid during the competition.
Even the heat that gets trapped in the structure's steel exterior is used to heat water, said Werner.
And when Cornell put its house through its paces at last month's New York state fair, it achieved "net-zero or better the entire time," meaning it is efficient enough to not require energy from the grid, according to Werner.
After two years of work on their houses plus nearly two weeks of constructing and competing, the winners will take home "bragging rights and lots of good feelings about the last two years of our lives," he said.
They will also take home a little culinary insight into the regions represented by other competitors because the "home entertainment" category of the decathlon requires teams to cook dinner for members of rival line-ups.
The German team's menu will feature dumplings known as knoedeln, but no sauerkraut, said Sardika Meyer, a spokeswoman for the team.
No German beer either -- alcohol is banned at the competition.
The University of Arizona team, whose house is made up of four modules that look like glass-domed funicular railway cars, plans to treat guests to tamales -- the Mexican answer to chapatis -- filled with dried, shredded beef known as "machaca" and a cactus salsa.
And Team Beausoleil will serve up Louisiana specialties, including gumbo and bread pudding -- but has ditched the idea of serving fried alligator.
"We thought it might scare away the neighbors," said Geoff Gjertson, the team's faculty advisor.

Seeking an Olympian achievement on climate change

Digg Yahoo! Del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Drudge Google Fark Stumble It!

A home destroyed by beach erosion in the Alaskan village of Shishmaref. It was evacuated because of global warming.

When President Barack Obama was in Copenhagen on Oct. 2, he was trying to attract an Olympic Games for Chicago.
Next time, he should aim higher: He should try to help save the planet from global warming.
In December, representatives from 190 countries will meet in Copenhagen to start hammering out a new climate change treaty.
It’s crucial that those negotiations not meet the same fate as Chicago’s failed Olympic bid.
The evidence of man-made global warming is simply overwhelming, as virtually every national climatology and scientific society — including the U.S. National Academies of Science and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — have acknowledged. The planet is warming. The pace of change is occurring faster than even the worst-case scenarios had predicted.
To avoid the most serious consequences, developed and developing nations must act together to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
The only reasonable hope of achieving that is a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Climate Accord, which will expire in 2012.
Mr. Obama clearly would have something to brag about at the meeting. He can point to significant efforts to curtail carbon-dioxide emissions, including two that have occurred in the last week.
Among those efforts are new regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions that were proposed last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
And a new bill introduced in the Senate would create market-based controls on carbon-dioxide emissions. The House already has passed a similar measure.
The new EPA regulations would apply to big power plants, oil refiners and manufacturing facilities that each release more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. That’s the amount that would be generated by burning 131 rail cars of coal.
Those facilities together account for about 70 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is both logical and productive to start by regulating them.
Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced agreements with automakers that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks. That rule will take effect next year.
The Senate bill and proposed new EPA rules are not likely to win quick approval.
Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is spearheading the opposition, already have begun running ads against the cap-and-trade bill.
But the chamber has suffered some high-profile defections as a result of its obstructionist efforts. Three large utility companies, the computer maker Apple and shoe giant Nike have resigned from the chamber in recent weeks.
Even without final approval of a cap-and-trade bill, Mr. Obama’s efforts to curtail U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will give him vastly more international influence when negotiators begin shaping details of the new agreement.
He probably will need it.
World leaders paid lip service to the need for reform during a U.N. summit on climate change in New York last month. But that rhetoric wasn’t matched by performance.
Channeling former President George W. Bush, China’s Hu Jintao pledged to reduce the “carbon intensity” of his country’s economy. Together, China and the United States account for about 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite the obstacles, Mr. Obama should do what it takes — including making a personal appeal — to move reluctant world leaders to reach an agreement.
Compared to the catastrophic environmental changes that scientists say climate change can unleash, another trip to Copenhagen is a small price to pay.

Tags: Barack Obama, climate change, Copenhagen, environment, global warming, Illinois

Chamber Responds to Apples Defection from Organisation

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue, who last year called for further “scientific inquiry” into climate science because of a “cooling trend,” today rebuked Apple for leaving his organization, claiming they did not understand the Chamber’s “21st century approach to climate change“ (via Think Progress):
The letter in full from the Chamber to Apple:

Mr. Steven P. Jobs
Chief Executive Officer
Apple Inc.
One Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr. Jobs:
I am sorry to learn of Apple’s resignation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change. Furthermore, we believe that Congress should set climate change policy through legislation, rather than having the EPA apply existing environmental statutes that were not created to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is also the stated position of the President and Congressional leaders.
Your letter states that “Apple is committed to the environment and the communities in which we operate around the world.” So is the Chamber but we are also committed to preserving the competitiveness and prosperity of the communities and businesses in our nation.
While we do support legislation to address climate change, we oppose legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill that numerous studies show will cause Americans to lose their jobs and shift greenhouse gas emissions overseas, negating potential climate benefits. An effective climate change response must include all major CO2 emitting economies, promote new technologies, emphasize efficiency, ensure affordable energy for families and businesses, and defend American jobs while returning our economy to prosperity.
The American business community that we proudly represent is the single largest investor and innovator in clean energy solutions and remains committed to a strong economy and clean environment. We continue to remind the public and policymakers that it has been the private sector that has developed the innovations that we now take for granted, from the personal computer to the medicines that keep us healthy. The Chamber believes that the business community will continue to be the catalyst for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we support efforts to tackle climate change in a way that will strengthen our economy, protect American jobs, and benefit our environment.
Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. The Chamber supports an international agreement that will set realistic and achievable goals, ensure global participation, protect intellectual property rights and remove trade barriers to environmental goods and services.
I would have hoped that Apple would have supported our efforts to improve environmental stewardship and keep Americans at work and our economy competitive. As the world’s largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, the Chamber is leading the way to support the innovation needed to transition to a lower carbon future, including the elimination of barriers to the deployment of clean energy technologies. Supporting innovation and technology is at the very heart of our efforts to combat climate change, and we will continue to fight for an approach that embraces their merits.
It is a shame that Apple will not be part of our efforts.
Sincerely,
Tom Donohue

Is Belief in Climate Change a Religion?

Is belief in climate change a religion? The answer is "yes" for Tim Nicholson in the UK, who according to the Guardian "is attempting to have his environmental views recognised under religious law" in order to claim wrongful dismissal from a job. He claims that the firm fired him due to his beliefs about climate change. Here are some more details:

In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to a tribunal over his treatment. The company is challenging the ruling, arguing that environmental beliefs are not the same as religious or philosophical ones.
Nicholson, from Oxford, said his views – which compelled him to make his home more eco-friendly and do not allow him to fly – affect his entire life. In a witness statement to the previous hearing, he said: "I have a strongly-held philosophical belief about climate change and the environment. I believe we must urgently cut carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change."
He stopped working for Grainger as head of sustainability in July last year, having been at the company since June 2006. At an employment appeal tribunal in central London today, Dinah Rose QC, for Nicholson, said: "The philosophical belief in this case is that mankind is headed towards catastrophic climate change and that, as a result, we are under a duty to do all that we can to live our lives so as to mitigate or avoid that catastrophe for future generations.
"We say that that involves a philosophical and ethical position. It addresses the question, what are the duties that we own to the environment and why?"
She told Mr Justice Michael Burton – who ruled last year that Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth was political and partisan – that beliefs about "anthropogenic climate change" could be considered a philosophy under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.
John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, said Nicholson's views were based on scientific fact and were predominantly political. "We would say that because it is political, it is dealing with an assertion of fact," he said. "It is a scientific view rather than a philosophical one. Philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof."

While the case itself will hinge on particulars of UK law and jurisprudence, the questions for readers here are less technical. What does it mean to say that "belief in climate change" is philosophical or religious or scientific? Should people who change their lifestyles based on their beliefs about climate change be protected under the same laws that protect freedom of religion? Does science tell us what philosphical or religious beliefs are valid?

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog