By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC news website
Whale meat imported from Iceland and Norway has gone on sale in Japan, according to the Icelandic firm which caught and exported most of the meat.
Hvalur hf told BBC News that after completing food safety checks, the meat was now being distributed.
The consignment is Iceland's first whale export to Japan in 20 years.
The trade is legal because all three countries have registered exemptions to rules banning international trade in whale products.
There were unconfirmed reports last weekend that the meat was on sale, but this is the first official notification.
Some environmental groups fear that Iceland and Norway want to step up whale meat exports to Japan, which is seen as having the biggest potential market.
The present consignment consists of 65 tonnes of fin whale meat caught by Hvalur hf, and five tonnes of minke whale meat exported by the Norwegian company Myklebust Trading.
It arrived in Tokyo in June, received an import permit last month, and has now been given a clean bill of health.
"The meat has now cleared customs in Japan after undergoing very rigorous testing to ensure that it meets every aspect of Japan's food safety regulations," said Hvalur's CEO Kristjan Loftsson.
"We were always confident that this would be the case. It was only a question of time, as Japan is legally obliged to handle whale meat imports in the same way as any other seafood."
Profit warning
Mr Loftsson, whose company is the only one in Iceland equipped to hunt fin whales - the second biggest species - told BBC News that this export was designed to re-introduce fin meat to Japanese palates.
It is considered one of the tastiest varieties, but has largely been absent from the market in recent years, as Japan's own hunts excluded the species until the 2005/6 Antarctic season.
Mr Loftsson said that if the market permitted, he could eventually hunt as many fin whales as Icelandic scientists recommended - provided the government granted a quota, which is likely if there is a proven market.
Although the fin is internationally classified as an endangered species, estimates of the north Atlantic stock run to about 30,000, and Icelandic scientists recently suggested that an annual catch of 200 would not damage the local stock.
But Arni Finnsson of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) believes the market may not be as welcoming as the exporters hope.
"I don't believe there will ever be a market in Japan for Icelandic meat that can be profitable," he said.
"If they allow it from Iceland, they have to allow it from Norway, and then you could have thousands of minke whales flooding the market - it's impossible."
He believes the export is a political move designed to show the coalition government - which is divided on the issue - that whaling can be a profitable venture, generating jobs at a time when the country is in dire economic straits.
He also believes Hvalur has an interest in scuppering the "peace progress" within the International Whaling Commission which is exploring whether pro- and anti-whaling countries can find a compromise between their very different positions.
The next meeting in the process takes place next week in Cambridge.
The whale meat trade is banned under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), but Iceland, Japan and Norway have all registered reservations, as the treaty permits, exempting themselves from the ban.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
THE LEGALITIES OF WHALING
Under the global moratorium on commercial whaling, hunting is conducted in three ways:
Objection - A country formally objects to the IWC moratorium, declaring itself exempt. Example: Norway
Scientific - A nation issues unilateral 'scientific permits'; any IWC member can do this. Example: Japan
Aboriginal - IWC grants permits to indigenous groups for subsistence food. Example: Alaskan Inupiat
miércoles, 10 de diciembre de 2008
World Bank predicts global gloom / El Banco Mundial predice desaceleración global
The World Bank has forecast a significant decline in global economic growth in 2009 for both developed and emerging countries.
In a report assessing economic prospects, the Bank has predicted that the world's annual economic growth will slow to 0.9%, from 2.5% this year.
The rate of growth for emerging economies is expected to be around 4.5%, down from 7.9% in 2007.
The Bank said a deep global recession could not be ruled out.
And its forecast suggests that, on a per capita basis, world growth would be negative in 2009.
"Following the insolvency of a large number of banks and financial institutions... capital flows to developing countries have dried up and huge amounts of market capitalisation have evaporated," the bank said.
The World Bank has warned that some emerging economies are likely to face serious challenges, including bank failures and currency crises, even if global bail-out plans start restoring confidence in financial markets.
The Bank's chief economist, Justin Lin, said the financial crisis "has eased tensions in commodity markets, but is testing banking systems and threatening job losses around the world".
t also warns that capital flows to developing countries are shrinking fast, reducing the level of investment, while the slowdown in world trade is likely to cut into their export markets.
Regional impacts
Even the fast-growing emerging giants, India and China, are likely to suffer from the slowdown. The World Bank projects China's growth to slow from 11.9% in 2007 to 7.5% in 2009, while India's growth prospects will be cut from 9% to 5.8%.
The impact of falling commodity prices has been positive for around half of developing countries.
In response to the global downturn, the World Bank is increasing its support for developing countries by helping local banks recapitalise and providing aid for infrastructure projects.
Despite the current crisis, the Bank says that the long-term growth prospects for developing countries remain strong, and this will lead to substantial reduction in world poverty rates by 2015, with just 15% of people living on less than $1.25 per day, compared to 25% in 2005.
However, it warns that severe poverty in sub-Saharan Africa will fall less quickly, with 37% still living on $1.25 per day by 2015.
In a report assessing economic prospects, the Bank has predicted that the world's annual economic growth will slow to 0.9%, from 2.5% this year.
The rate of growth for emerging economies is expected to be around 4.5%, down from 7.9% in 2007.
The Bank said a deep global recession could not be ruled out.
And its forecast suggests that, on a per capita basis, world growth would be negative in 2009.
"Following the insolvency of a large number of banks and financial institutions... capital flows to developing countries have dried up and huge amounts of market capitalisation have evaporated," the bank said.
The World Bank has warned that some emerging economies are likely to face serious challenges, including bank failures and currency crises, even if global bail-out plans start restoring confidence in financial markets.
The Bank's chief economist, Justin Lin, said the financial crisis "has eased tensions in commodity markets, but is testing banking systems and threatening job losses around the world".
t also warns that capital flows to developing countries are shrinking fast, reducing the level of investment, while the slowdown in world trade is likely to cut into their export markets.
Regional impacts
Even the fast-growing emerging giants, India and China, are likely to suffer from the slowdown. The World Bank projects China's growth to slow from 11.9% in 2007 to 7.5% in 2009, while India's growth prospects will be cut from 9% to 5.8%.
The impact of falling commodity prices has been positive for around half of developing countries.
In response to the global downturn, the World Bank is increasing its support for developing countries by helping local banks recapitalise and providing aid for infrastructure projects.
Despite the current crisis, the Bank says that the long-term growth prospects for developing countries remain strong, and this will lead to substantial reduction in world poverty rates by 2015, with just 15% of people living on less than $1.25 per day, compared to 25% in 2005.
However, it warns that severe poverty in sub-Saharan Africa will fall less quickly, with 37% still living on $1.25 per day by 2015.
Poor countries 'need carbon cuts' / Paises pobres 'necesitan disminuir sus emisiones de carbono'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Poznan, Poland
People in developing countries will need to make big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions if "dangerous" climate change is to be avoided, a report warns.
Researchers at the Third World Network calculate that even if rich nations make deep cuts, the developing world will face per-capita reductions of 60%.
It suggests this would pose challenges to these countries' development.
Meanwhile, another report warns that current proposals for cutting developed world emissions do not go far enough.
The Global Climate Network, an alliance of research groups, says that current pledges by the EU and by US President-elect Barack Obama will not put the world on track to halving emissions by 2050.
Both reports have been under discussion here at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Poznan, Poland.
Growth curve
"The figures are very grim," said Martin Khor, director of the Malaysia-based Third World Network.
"They're grim if we go for a 50% [global] cut by 2050, and we may need more - I think we only went for a 50% figure so as not to scare politicians."
Halving global emissions by 2050 (relative to a 1990 baseline) would mean that they are unlikely to rise more than 2.5C above the pre-industrial average, according to calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Further IPCC analyses suggest this would avoid some of the most serious potential climate impacts.
The leaders of the G8 major industrialised nations endorsed the global target at their summit this year in Japan.
A number of countries, including the UK, want to keep their own emissions in 2050 80% below the 1990 baseline.
If the entire industrialised world took on this commitment, the Third World Network calculates, developing nations would have to cut their emissions by 23% in order for the world to hit its 50% target.
But because the populations of developing countries are growing, this 23% figure translates to a per-capita cut of 60%.
If the developing world made a more modest commitment, to keep its per-capita emissions constant at 1990 levels, population growth would still mean that the total emissions from these countries would double by 2050, scuppering any chance of a global 50% cut.
Although some developing countries have established plans for improving energy efficiency and curbing the rate at which their emissions are rising, there is no appetite within the bloc for an actual cut, and industrialised nations are not pressing them to take on firm targets.
Without such a commitment, this report suggests, there is little chance of avoiding temperature rises that are likely to bring major impacts, if the IPCC is right.
Cooking up
Ewah Eleri, executive director of the International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development based in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, said there were some obvious easy ways for the poorest developing countries to reduce emissions.
One would be to replace traditional open wood-burning stoves with more efficient models.
"Being able to introduce efficient wood stoves is not rocket science," he told BBC News.
"But it holds a lot of promise in terms of reducing the health hazard to men, women and children who work in the kitchen."
Making the switch across Nigeria could probably reduce the country's emissions by 20-30%.
Globally, he said, about two billion people use wood as their primary fuel; and switching them all to locally-made efficient stoves would cost about $6bn.
Mr Eleri said that although developing countries could do more, the lead has to be taken by the West.
The EU has staked a claim to that lead by vowing to cut its emissions by 20% by 2020, or by 30% if there is a global deal.
Mr Obama has proposed a more modest goal - bringing US emissions down by 2020 to the level they were at in 1990.
The analysis by the Global Climate Network suggests these pledges are not enough to halve global emissions by 2050, even if they are implemented.
There is, it says, a "mitigation gap".
"We have got to unlock emissions growth in developing countries," said the organisation's co-ordinator Andrew Pendleton, who is based at the Institute for Public and Policy Research (IPPR) in London.
"But we have got to find an equitable way of doing that."
The clear message from putting these two reports together was, he said, that richer nations will have to get finance and clean technology into the developing world if they want to turn the goal of a 50% cut into reality.rii
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Poznan, Poland
People in developing countries will need to make big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions if "dangerous" climate change is to be avoided, a report warns.
Researchers at the Third World Network calculate that even if rich nations make deep cuts, the developing world will face per-capita reductions of 60%.
It suggests this would pose challenges to these countries' development.
Meanwhile, another report warns that current proposals for cutting developed world emissions do not go far enough.
The Global Climate Network, an alliance of research groups, says that current pledges by the EU and by US President-elect Barack Obama will not put the world on track to halving emissions by 2050.
Both reports have been under discussion here at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Poznan, Poland.
Growth curve
"The figures are very grim," said Martin Khor, director of the Malaysia-based Third World Network.
"They're grim if we go for a 50% [global] cut by 2050, and we may need more - I think we only went for a 50% figure so as not to scare politicians."
Halving global emissions by 2050 (relative to a 1990 baseline) would mean that they are unlikely to rise more than 2.5C above the pre-industrial average, according to calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Further IPCC analyses suggest this would avoid some of the most serious potential climate impacts.
The leaders of the G8 major industrialised nations endorsed the global target at their summit this year in Japan.
A number of countries, including the UK, want to keep their own emissions in 2050 80% below the 1990 baseline.
If the entire industrialised world took on this commitment, the Third World Network calculates, developing nations would have to cut their emissions by 23% in order for the world to hit its 50% target.
But because the populations of developing countries are growing, this 23% figure translates to a per-capita cut of 60%.
If the developing world made a more modest commitment, to keep its per-capita emissions constant at 1990 levels, population growth would still mean that the total emissions from these countries would double by 2050, scuppering any chance of a global 50% cut.
Although some developing countries have established plans for improving energy efficiency and curbing the rate at which their emissions are rising, there is no appetite within the bloc for an actual cut, and industrialised nations are not pressing them to take on firm targets.
Without such a commitment, this report suggests, there is little chance of avoiding temperature rises that are likely to bring major impacts, if the IPCC is right.
Cooking up
Ewah Eleri, executive director of the International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development based in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, said there were some obvious easy ways for the poorest developing countries to reduce emissions.
One would be to replace traditional open wood-burning stoves with more efficient models.
"Being able to introduce efficient wood stoves is not rocket science," he told BBC News.
"But it holds a lot of promise in terms of reducing the health hazard to men, women and children who work in the kitchen."
Making the switch across Nigeria could probably reduce the country's emissions by 20-30%.
Globally, he said, about two billion people use wood as their primary fuel; and switching them all to locally-made efficient stoves would cost about $6bn.
Mr Eleri said that although developing countries could do more, the lead has to be taken by the West.
The EU has staked a claim to that lead by vowing to cut its emissions by 20% by 2020, or by 30% if there is a global deal.
Mr Obama has proposed a more modest goal - bringing US emissions down by 2020 to the level they were at in 1990.
The analysis by the Global Climate Network suggests these pledges are not enough to halve global emissions by 2050, even if they are implemented.
There is, it says, a "mitigation gap".
"We have got to unlock emissions growth in developing countries," said the organisation's co-ordinator Andrew Pendleton, who is based at the Institute for Public and Policy Research (IPPR) in London.
"But we have got to find an equitable way of doing that."
The clear message from putting these two reports together was, he said, that richer nations will have to get finance and clean technology into the developing world if they want to turn the goal of a 50% cut into reality.rii
lunes, 11 de agosto de 2008
Feeling the heat of food security / Sintiendo el calor de la seguridad alimentaria
VIEWPOINT
Peter Baker
Reforming the economics of food production and supply would be beneficial for a number of environmental and social problems, argues Peter Baker. A key issue, he says, is understanding the energy involved in putting food on your plate.
Global development, global debt, global warming, food miles, food security, food riots, peak oil, peak water…
What's this got to do with small farmers and global food chains?
The answer is that all the issues mentioned above intersect over small farmers.
If we can't quite get a grip on what is happening to the world, we won't be able to do a good job for them, and we'll waste a lot of resources in the process.
It's perfectly reasonable to want to assist farmers to build a better life by adding value.
It's also perfectly reasonable to expect their produce to be fresh and non-toxic. And it's only natural to want to facilitate this process through aid, technical assistance, capacity building and the like.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Maintaining order
I had originally planned to call this article Supermarkets, Smallholders and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Second Law is about order; the Universe is inexorably heading to increased randomness and disorder.
For practical purposes, this does not have to be a problem because we can increase order locally by hard work, by expending energy. But in the process we create greater disorder (heat and waste) elsewhere.
If there is plenty of energy and plenty of "elsewhere", then we don't have to worry.
Indeed, for our whole existence, we largely haven't worried; in fact the whole world order, built on trade and economics, hasn't worried.
Biological systems know all about thermodynamics. All living things are highly ordered assemblies of molecules continuously battling against disorder.
Commodity chains must also obey the Second Law; in a sense, they are living things, creating highly ordered products and emitting significant waste and heat in the process.
For example, a recent study looking at Nicaraguan coffee production and processing showed that the total energy embodied in coffee exported to several countries - though not all - was not compensated by the dollar price paid for that energy.
Essentially, the conclusion was that the country is exporting subsidised energy.
It could well be that coffee is still the best way for farmers to earn a living and that the available energy could not readily be put to a better purpose. But it should at least make a country's decision-makers wonder about the long term policy, the true value of exported products and how sustainable a country's commodity chains will be in an energetically expensive future.
Look too at a modern high value vegetable chain. The orderliness required to plant, grow, harvest, process, pack, store, monitor, administer, transport, display and sell the produce in a supermarket is simply staggering, and the expended energy intense.
As an example, tomato production in the US consumes four times as many calories as the calorific value of the tomatoes created.
The point of this article may now be apparent. We are intervening, politically and normatively, in very complex systems that we only partially understand.
Waste of energy
This is not a tirade about supermarkets; no one is forcing farmers into these chains. Indeed, the retail sector has only done its job: ordering and quantifying according to its own criteria, to a state of near optimal efficiency.
It's just that the rest of us have not been able to match its brilliance.
And it's not about food miles. The argument about the cost to the environment versus the gains to poor rural farmers has its pros and cons.
Instead, it's about different sorts of sustainability and the clash of very different interests.
The economic argument, revealed through agribusiness plans, may well be very strong. But these are inevitably rather short-term positions, and the funds invested may be hedged for exchange rate changes, freight costs and other risks.
When these are just stand-alone business operations then we could leave it at that - they invest their money and take their chances.
But it's no longer a matter of a few agribusiness operations in a few developing countries. With the EU's Economic Partnership Agreements now being signed, for instance, countries in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group are on course to completely open their borders to food trade, and will be encouraged to export whatever products they can to the EU.
Foreign investment will descend on certain countries and will look for good deals on infrastructure. Politicians there may feel obliged to provide subsidised water, road and other infrastructure to secure new export initiatives, and they in turn will look for donor support to carry them through.
Trade departments of development banks and other donors will examine the short-to-medium-term economic argument, but may not adequately determine whether this is sustainable into the long term.
Hence, before significant public funds are assigned to this end, we must do our utmost to ensure they are well spent.
Thinking locally
Getting back to the Second Law; agribusiness operations in under-developed countries are highly ordered physical and information entities producing products with high embodied energy.
They exist in a landscape of increasing disorder caused by growing populations and a degrading environment.
Trucks carrying away the produce along bumpy rural roads sometimes pass food aid trucks coming in the opposite direction. For example, some $45m (£22.5m) of food aid came from the US to Kenya last year.
Even before its sea voyage, the calorific value of US wheat is only twice the amount of calories expended to produce it. Compare this with cassava production in Tanzania where 23 times the calorific value is gained for each calorie of human energy input.
Is it energetically sound, socially advisable and economically sensible in the long term to encourage and sustain such long two-way supply chains that evolved in a low-cost energy era?
CARE International has recently declined the food aid it gets for Kenya, suggesting that it is distorting local agriculture. Are they right? How can they and donors make the right decisions?
Could it be more sustainable and cost effective for donors to pay farmers a "fair" price to develop food production for local markets - based on costs of fuel, importing food, the risk of the supply chain collapsing or moving to another country, and so on?
There are many possibilities and a large number of variables, but the most important is to find out how close to the margins of impossibility any business plan might approach.
Surely at some point, let's say between $50 and $500 per barrel of oil, it no longer makes any sense to simultaneously export and import food high in embodied energy.
But we simply lack the user-friendly models and metrics that decision-makers need to calculate such figures and project them into the future.
So private standards are fine; but there should be public standards too, or at least a set of criteria based on the most fundamental laws of physics and biology, before significant public funds are spent.
Dr Peter Baker is a commodities development specialist at CABI, a not-for-profit agricultural research organisation.
Peter Baker
Reforming the economics of food production and supply would be beneficial for a number of environmental and social problems, argues Peter Baker. A key issue, he says, is understanding the energy involved in putting food on your plate.
Global development, global debt, global warming, food miles, food security, food riots, peak oil, peak water…
What's this got to do with small farmers and global food chains?
The answer is that all the issues mentioned above intersect over small farmers.
If we can't quite get a grip on what is happening to the world, we won't be able to do a good job for them, and we'll waste a lot of resources in the process.
It's perfectly reasonable to want to assist farmers to build a better life by adding value.
It's also perfectly reasonable to expect their produce to be fresh and non-toxic. And it's only natural to want to facilitate this process through aid, technical assistance, capacity building and the like.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Maintaining order
I had originally planned to call this article Supermarkets, Smallholders and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Second Law is about order; the Universe is inexorably heading to increased randomness and disorder.
For practical purposes, this does not have to be a problem because we can increase order locally by hard work, by expending energy. But in the process we create greater disorder (heat and waste) elsewhere.
If there is plenty of energy and plenty of "elsewhere", then we don't have to worry.
Indeed, for our whole existence, we largely haven't worried; in fact the whole world order, built on trade and economics, hasn't worried.
Biological systems know all about thermodynamics. All living things are highly ordered assemblies of molecules continuously battling against disorder.
Commodity chains must also obey the Second Law; in a sense, they are living things, creating highly ordered products and emitting significant waste and heat in the process.
For example, a recent study looking at Nicaraguan coffee production and processing showed that the total energy embodied in coffee exported to several countries - though not all - was not compensated by the dollar price paid for that energy.
Essentially, the conclusion was that the country is exporting subsidised energy.
It could well be that coffee is still the best way for farmers to earn a living and that the available energy could not readily be put to a better purpose. But it should at least make a country's decision-makers wonder about the long term policy, the true value of exported products and how sustainable a country's commodity chains will be in an energetically expensive future.
Look too at a modern high value vegetable chain. The orderliness required to plant, grow, harvest, process, pack, store, monitor, administer, transport, display and sell the produce in a supermarket is simply staggering, and the expended energy intense.
As an example, tomato production in the US consumes four times as many calories as the calorific value of the tomatoes created.
The point of this article may now be apparent. We are intervening, politically and normatively, in very complex systems that we only partially understand.
Waste of energy
This is not a tirade about supermarkets; no one is forcing farmers into these chains. Indeed, the retail sector has only done its job: ordering and quantifying according to its own criteria, to a state of near optimal efficiency.
It's just that the rest of us have not been able to match its brilliance.
And it's not about food miles. The argument about the cost to the environment versus the gains to poor rural farmers has its pros and cons.
Instead, it's about different sorts of sustainability and the clash of very different interests.
The economic argument, revealed through agribusiness plans, may well be very strong. But these are inevitably rather short-term positions, and the funds invested may be hedged for exchange rate changes, freight costs and other risks.
When these are just stand-alone business operations then we could leave it at that - they invest their money and take their chances.
But it's no longer a matter of a few agribusiness operations in a few developing countries. With the EU's Economic Partnership Agreements now being signed, for instance, countries in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group are on course to completely open their borders to food trade, and will be encouraged to export whatever products they can to the EU.
Foreign investment will descend on certain countries and will look for good deals on infrastructure. Politicians there may feel obliged to provide subsidised water, road and other infrastructure to secure new export initiatives, and they in turn will look for donor support to carry them through.
Trade departments of development banks and other donors will examine the short-to-medium-term economic argument, but may not adequately determine whether this is sustainable into the long term.
Hence, before significant public funds are assigned to this end, we must do our utmost to ensure they are well spent.
Thinking locally
Getting back to the Second Law; agribusiness operations in under-developed countries are highly ordered physical and information entities producing products with high embodied energy.
They exist in a landscape of increasing disorder caused by growing populations and a degrading environment.
Trucks carrying away the produce along bumpy rural roads sometimes pass food aid trucks coming in the opposite direction. For example, some $45m (£22.5m) of food aid came from the US to Kenya last year.
Even before its sea voyage, the calorific value of US wheat is only twice the amount of calories expended to produce it. Compare this with cassava production in Tanzania where 23 times the calorific value is gained for each calorie of human energy input.
Is it energetically sound, socially advisable and economically sensible in the long term to encourage and sustain such long two-way supply chains that evolved in a low-cost energy era?
CARE International has recently declined the food aid it gets for Kenya, suggesting that it is distorting local agriculture. Are they right? How can they and donors make the right decisions?
Could it be more sustainable and cost effective for donors to pay farmers a "fair" price to develop food production for local markets - based on costs of fuel, importing food, the risk of the supply chain collapsing or moving to another country, and so on?
There are many possibilities and a large number of variables, but the most important is to find out how close to the margins of impossibility any business plan might approach.
Surely at some point, let's say between $50 and $500 per barrel of oil, it no longer makes any sense to simultaneously export and import food high in embodied energy.
But we simply lack the user-friendly models and metrics that decision-makers need to calculate such figures and project them into the future.
So private standards are fine; but there should be public standards too, or at least a set of criteria based on the most fundamental laws of physics and biology, before significant public funds are spent.
Dr Peter Baker is a commodities development specialist at CABI, a not-for-profit agricultural research organisation.
martes, 5 de agosto de 2008
Primates 'face extinction crisis' / Primates 'ante crisis de extinción'
Primates 'face extinction crisis'
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
A global review of the world's primates says 48% of species face extinction, an outlook described as "depressing" by conservationists.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species says the main threat is habitat loss, primarily through the burning and clearing of tropical forests.
More than 70% of primates in Asia are now listed as Endangered, it adds.
The findings form part of the most detailed survey of the Earth's mammals, which will be published in October.
Other threats include hunting of primates for food and the illegal wildlife trade, explained Russell Mittermeier, chairman of the IUCN Primate Specialist Group and president of Conservation International.
"In many places, primates are quite literally being eaten to extinction," he warned.
"Tropical forest destruction has always been the main cause, but now it appears that hunting is just as serious a threat in some areas, even where the habitat is still quite intact."
The survey, involving hundreds of experts, showed that out of 634 recognised species and subspecies, 11% were Critically Endangered, 22% were Endangered, while a further 15% were listed as Vulnerable.
Asia had the greatest proportion of threatened primates, with 71% considered at risk of extinction. The five nations with the highest percentage of endangered species were all within Asia.
'Depressing' picture
"It is quite spectacular; we are just wiping out primates," said Jean-Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN Species Programme.
He added that the data was probably the worst assessment for any group of species on record.
"The problem with these species is that they have long lives, so it takes time to reverse the decline. It is quite depressing."
Although habitat loss and deforestation were deemed to be the main threats globally, Dr Vie explained how human encroachment into forests was also creating favourable conditions for hunters.
"This creates access, allowing people to go to places that they could not go in the past," he told BBC News.
"Primates are relatively easy to hunt because they are diurnal, live in groups and are noisy - they are really easy targets.
"Many of the Asian primates, like langurs, are 5-10kg, so they are a good target. Generally, you find that what is big and easy to get disappears very quickly."
In Africa, 11 of the 13 kinds of red colobus monkeys assessed were listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered.
Conservationists fear that two may already be extinct. The Bouvier's red colobus has not been seen for 25 years, and no living Miss Waldron red colobus has been recorded since 1978.
The authors of the primate Red List did consider downlisting mountain gorillas to Endangered from Critically Endangered because the great apes had recorded a population increase.
But they decided to delay reclassification as a result of five of the gorillas being killed in July 2007 by gunmen in the DR Congo's Virunga National Park, which is still at the centre of a conflict between rebel forces and government troops.
During 2007, wildlife rangers in the park recorded a total of 10 gorilla killings. The rangers have been documenting their struggles in a regular diary on the BBC News website over the past year.
"If you kill seven, 10 or 20 mountain gorillas, it has a devastating impact on the entire population," Dr Vie explained.
"Within the Red List criteria, you are allowed to anticipate what will happen in the future as well as look at what has happened in the past.
"So it was decided not to change the mountain gorillas' listing because of the sudden deaths, and we do not know when it is going to stop."
Golden glimmer of hope
Despite the gloomy outlook, the Red List did record a number of conservation successes.
Brazil's populations of golden lion tamarins and black lion tamarins were downlisted from Critically Endangered to Endangered.
"It is the result of decades of effort," said Dr Vie. "The lion tamarins were almost extinct in the wild, but they were very popular in zoos so there was a large captive population.
"So zoos around the world decided to join forces to introduce a captive breeding programme to reintroduce the tamarins in Brazil."
However the first attempts were not successful and the released population quickly crashed because the animals were ill-prepared for life in the wild, he recalled.
"They were not exposed to eagles or snakes and they did not know how to find food, so a lot of them died. But some did survive and, slowly, the numbers began to increase."
Ultimately, the success was a combination of ex-situ conservation in zoos and in-situ conservation by protecting and reforesting small areas around Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.
"It took time, money and effort at all levels, from the politicians to scientists and volunteers on the ground, for just two species."
The findings, issued at the International Primatological Society Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland, will be included in a survey described as an "unprecedented examination of the state of the world's mammals", which will be presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in October.
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
A global review of the world's primates says 48% of species face extinction, an outlook described as "depressing" by conservationists.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species says the main threat is habitat loss, primarily through the burning and clearing of tropical forests.
More than 70% of primates in Asia are now listed as Endangered, it adds.
The findings form part of the most detailed survey of the Earth's mammals, which will be published in October.
Other threats include hunting of primates for food and the illegal wildlife trade, explained Russell Mittermeier, chairman of the IUCN Primate Specialist Group and president of Conservation International.
"In many places, primates are quite literally being eaten to extinction," he warned.
"Tropical forest destruction has always been the main cause, but now it appears that hunting is just as serious a threat in some areas, even where the habitat is still quite intact."
The survey, involving hundreds of experts, showed that out of 634 recognised species and subspecies, 11% were Critically Endangered, 22% were Endangered, while a further 15% were listed as Vulnerable.
Asia had the greatest proportion of threatened primates, with 71% considered at risk of extinction. The five nations with the highest percentage of endangered species were all within Asia.
'Depressing' picture
"It is quite spectacular; we are just wiping out primates," said Jean-Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN Species Programme.
He added that the data was probably the worst assessment for any group of species on record.
"The problem with these species is that they have long lives, so it takes time to reverse the decline. It is quite depressing."
Although habitat loss and deforestation were deemed to be the main threats globally, Dr Vie explained how human encroachment into forests was also creating favourable conditions for hunters.
"This creates access, allowing people to go to places that they could not go in the past," he told BBC News.
"Primates are relatively easy to hunt because they are diurnal, live in groups and are noisy - they are really easy targets.
"Many of the Asian primates, like langurs, are 5-10kg, so they are a good target. Generally, you find that what is big and easy to get disappears very quickly."
In Africa, 11 of the 13 kinds of red colobus monkeys assessed were listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered.
Conservationists fear that two may already be extinct. The Bouvier's red colobus has not been seen for 25 years, and no living Miss Waldron red colobus has been recorded since 1978.
The authors of the primate Red List did consider downlisting mountain gorillas to Endangered from Critically Endangered because the great apes had recorded a population increase.
But they decided to delay reclassification as a result of five of the gorillas being killed in July 2007 by gunmen in the DR Congo's Virunga National Park, which is still at the centre of a conflict between rebel forces and government troops.
During 2007, wildlife rangers in the park recorded a total of 10 gorilla killings. The rangers have been documenting their struggles in a regular diary on the BBC News website over the past year.
"If you kill seven, 10 or 20 mountain gorillas, it has a devastating impact on the entire population," Dr Vie explained.
"Within the Red List criteria, you are allowed to anticipate what will happen in the future as well as look at what has happened in the past.
"So it was decided not to change the mountain gorillas' listing because of the sudden deaths, and we do not know when it is going to stop."
Golden glimmer of hope
Despite the gloomy outlook, the Red List did record a number of conservation successes.
Brazil's populations of golden lion tamarins and black lion tamarins were downlisted from Critically Endangered to Endangered.
"It is the result of decades of effort," said Dr Vie. "The lion tamarins were almost extinct in the wild, but they were very popular in zoos so there was a large captive population.
"So zoos around the world decided to join forces to introduce a captive breeding programme to reintroduce the tamarins in Brazil."
However the first attempts were not successful and the released population quickly crashed because the animals were ill-prepared for life in the wild, he recalled.
"They were not exposed to eagles or snakes and they did not know how to find food, so a lot of them died. But some did survive and, slowly, the numbers began to increase."
Ultimately, the success was a combination of ex-situ conservation in zoos and in-situ conservation by protecting and reforesting small areas around Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.
"It took time, money and effort at all levels, from the politicians to scientists and volunteers on the ground, for just two species."
The findings, issued at the International Primatological Society Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland, will be included in a survey described as an "unprecedented examination of the state of the world's mammals", which will be presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in October.
martes, 29 de julio de 2008
World trade talks end in collapse / Negociaciones de comercio mundial terminan en colapso
Marathon talks in Geneva aimed at liberalising global trade have collapsed, the head of the World Trade Organisation has said.
Pascal Lamy confirmed the failure, which officials have blamed on China, India and the US failing to agree on import rules.
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the result was "heartbreaking".
The talks were launched in 2001 in Doha and were seen as providing a cornerstone for future global trade.
The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports.
India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event.
Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.
Possible solution?
The negotiations floundered as trade officials gathered for a ninth day.
"There's no use beating around the bush, this meeting has collapsed," Mr Lamy said.
"Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences."
He added that time was needed to determine "if and how" WTO members could end the stalemate.
The Doha development round of trade talks initially started in 2001 with the aim of remedying inequality so that the developing world could benefit more from freer trade.
However, the talks have repeatedly collapsed as developed countries failed to agree with developing nations on terms of access to each others' markets.
The US and the European Union want greater access to provide services to fast-growing emerging countries, including China and India.
Meanwhile, developing countries want greater access for their agricultural products in Europe and the US.
Recent complications
Analysts have said that the collapse of the Doha talks could symbolise an end to multilateral trade agreements.
Instead, nations may pursue dual agreements with partner nations, preferring to focus on their own requirements rather than a more common negotiating goal.
The talks in Geneva were complicated by recent increases in the price of food and fuel.
Higher prices have prompted protests in both developed and developing nations, making it harder for negotiators to reach a compromise on opening up their markets to greater competition, analysts said.
Mr Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, blamed the collapse on a "collective failure" but warned that the "consequences would not be equal", predicting that it would be countries that most needed help that would be hit hardest.
"They [the consequences] will fall disproportionately on those who are most vulnerable in the global economy, those who needed the chances, the opportunities most from a successful trade round." he said.
'Protecting livelihoods'
Trade officials had struck an optimistic tone on Friday, but this evaporated over the weekend amid acrimonious exchanges with the US accusing India and China of blocking progress.
The US said they were being overly protective towards their own farmers and are failing to do enough to open their markets, with US trade representative Susan Schwab calling the stance "blatant protectionism".
"In the face of the global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," she said.
But India's trade minister, Kamal Nath, who had been criticised by a number of countries for his intransigence said the US demands were unreasonable.
"It's unfortunate in a development round we couldn't run the last mile because of an issue concerning livelihood security," Mr Nath said.
Pascal Lamy confirmed the failure, which officials have blamed on China, India and the US failing to agree on import rules.
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the result was "heartbreaking".
The talks were launched in 2001 in Doha and were seen as providing a cornerstone for future global trade.
The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports.
India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event.
Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.
Possible solution?
The negotiations floundered as trade officials gathered for a ninth day.
"There's no use beating around the bush, this meeting has collapsed," Mr Lamy said.
"Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences."
He added that time was needed to determine "if and how" WTO members could end the stalemate.
The Doha development round of trade talks initially started in 2001 with the aim of remedying inequality so that the developing world could benefit more from freer trade.
However, the talks have repeatedly collapsed as developed countries failed to agree with developing nations on terms of access to each others' markets.
The US and the European Union want greater access to provide services to fast-growing emerging countries, including China and India.
Meanwhile, developing countries want greater access for their agricultural products in Europe and the US.
Recent complications
Analysts have said that the collapse of the Doha talks could symbolise an end to multilateral trade agreements.
Instead, nations may pursue dual agreements with partner nations, preferring to focus on their own requirements rather than a more common negotiating goal.
The talks in Geneva were complicated by recent increases in the price of food and fuel.
Higher prices have prompted protests in both developed and developing nations, making it harder for negotiators to reach a compromise on opening up their markets to greater competition, analysts said.
Mr Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, blamed the collapse on a "collective failure" but warned that the "consequences would not be equal", predicting that it would be countries that most needed help that would be hit hardest.
"They [the consequences] will fall disproportionately on those who are most vulnerable in the global economy, those who needed the chances, the opportunities most from a successful trade round." he said.
'Protecting livelihoods'
Trade officials had struck an optimistic tone on Friday, but this evaporated over the weekend amid acrimonious exchanges with the US accusing India and China of blocking progress.
The US said they were being overly protective towards their own farmers and are failing to do enough to open their markets, with US trade representative Susan Schwab calling the stance "blatant protectionism".
"In the face of the global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," she said.
But India's trade minister, Kamal Nath, who had been criticised by a number of countries for his intransigence said the US demands were unreasonable.
"It's unfortunate in a development round we couldn't run the last mile because of an issue concerning livelihood security," Mr Nath said.
martes, 15 de julio de 2008
Forests to fall for food and fuel / Los bosques caerán por alimentos y combustible.
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Demand for land to grow food, fuel crops and wood is set to outstrip supply, leading to the probable destruction of forests, a report warns.
The Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) says only half of the extra land needed by 2030 is available without eating into tropical forested areas.
A companion report documents poor progress in reforming land ownership and governance in developing countries.
Both reports were launched on Monday in UK government offices in London.
Supporters of RRI include the UK's Department of International Development (DfID) and its equivalents in Sweden and Switzerland.
"Arguably, we are on the verge of a last great global land grab," said RRI's Andy White, co-author of the major report, Seeing People through the Trees.
"It will mean more deforestation, more conflict, more carbon emissions, more climate change and less prosperity for everyone."
Rising demand for food, biofuels and wood for paper, building and industry means that 515 million hectares of extra land will be needed for growing crops and trees by 2030, RRI calculates.
But only 200 million hectares will be available without dipping into tropical forests.
Forest focus
The report foresees demand increasing further into the century.
It cites studies suggesting that "...if the current plateau in productivity continues, the amount of additional agricultural land required just to meet the world's projected food demand in 2050 would be about three billion hectares, nearly all of which would be required in developing countries."
According to UN figures, the world currently has about 1.4 billion hectares of arable land and about 3.4 billion hectares of pasture.
Some academics place their hopes in agricultural technologies including genetic engineering to boost crop yields.
But since the spectacular successes of the Green Revolution, advances have been slow. In some areas, yields are falling - a trend which is likely to be exacerbated by climate change.
However, eating into tropical forests to create extra agricultural land would, in turn, exacerbate climate change, with deforestation currently accounting for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Reform call
One of RRI's main conclusions is that reform of land ownership is crucial, if large-scale pillage of tropical forests is to be avoided.
The conclusion have been supported by DfID, whose minister Gareth Thomas was one of the speakers at the launch event.
"These new studies should strengthen global resolve to protect the property rights of indigenous and local communities who play a vital role in protecting one the most outstanding natural wonders of the world," he said.
DfID runs programmes in West Africa aimed at helping forest dwellers acquire the legal right to manage their land.
"It is clear that the dual crises of fuel and food are attracting significant new investments and great land speculation," said Andy White.
"Only by protecting the rights of the people who live in and around the world's most vulnerable forests can we prevent the devastation these forces will wreak on the poor."
But the second RRI report - From Exclusion to Ownership? - says progress in reforming ownership has been slow, with only a few countries such as Brazil, Cameroon and Tanzania handing over significant tracts to local communities.
Moves to curb climate change by preserving forests in developing countries could help, RRI concludes. But it also raises the question of who owns rights to the trees - the rich Western countries that want to fund carbon sequestration, or the people who live in the forest areas?
Sorting out ownership could not only help on the environmental front, but also remove reasons for conflict. RRI calculates that about two-thirds of the world's current violent conflicts are driven by land tenure issues.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Demand for land to grow food, fuel crops and wood is set to outstrip supply, leading to the probable destruction of forests, a report warns.
The Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) says only half of the extra land needed by 2030 is available without eating into tropical forested areas.
A companion report documents poor progress in reforming land ownership and governance in developing countries.
Both reports were launched on Monday in UK government offices in London.
Supporters of RRI include the UK's Department of International Development (DfID) and its equivalents in Sweden and Switzerland.
"Arguably, we are on the verge of a last great global land grab," said RRI's Andy White, co-author of the major report, Seeing People through the Trees.
"It will mean more deforestation, more conflict, more carbon emissions, more climate change and less prosperity for everyone."
Rising demand for food, biofuels and wood for paper, building and industry means that 515 million hectares of extra land will be needed for growing crops and trees by 2030, RRI calculates.
But only 200 million hectares will be available without dipping into tropical forests.
Forest focus
The report foresees demand increasing further into the century.
It cites studies suggesting that "...if the current plateau in productivity continues, the amount of additional agricultural land required just to meet the world's projected food demand in 2050 would be about three billion hectares, nearly all of which would be required in developing countries."
According to UN figures, the world currently has about 1.4 billion hectares of arable land and about 3.4 billion hectares of pasture.
Some academics place their hopes in agricultural technologies including genetic engineering to boost crop yields.
But since the spectacular successes of the Green Revolution, advances have been slow. In some areas, yields are falling - a trend which is likely to be exacerbated by climate change.
However, eating into tropical forests to create extra agricultural land would, in turn, exacerbate climate change, with deforestation currently accounting for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Reform call
One of RRI's main conclusions is that reform of land ownership is crucial, if large-scale pillage of tropical forests is to be avoided.
The conclusion have been supported by DfID, whose minister Gareth Thomas was one of the speakers at the launch event.
"These new studies should strengthen global resolve to protect the property rights of indigenous and local communities who play a vital role in protecting one the most outstanding natural wonders of the world," he said.
DfID runs programmes in West Africa aimed at helping forest dwellers acquire the legal right to manage their land.
"It is clear that the dual crises of fuel and food are attracting significant new investments and great land speculation," said Andy White.
"Only by protecting the rights of the people who live in and around the world's most vulnerable forests can we prevent the devastation these forces will wreak on the poor."
But the second RRI report - From Exclusion to Ownership? - says progress in reforming ownership has been slow, with only a few countries such as Brazil, Cameroon and Tanzania handing over significant tracts to local communities.
Moves to curb climate change by preserving forests in developing countries could help, RRI concludes. But it also raises the question of who owns rights to the trees - the rich Western countries that want to fund carbon sequestration, or the people who live in the forest areas?
Sorting out ownership could not only help on the environmental front, but also remove reasons for conflict. RRI calculates that about two-thirds of the world's current violent conflicts are driven by land tenure issues.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
martes, 8 de julio de 2008
G8 fails to set climate world alight
ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
At first sight, the G8 agreement on climate change promises much.
Leaders are "committed to avoiding the most serious consequences of climate change", and determined to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels that would avoid "dangerous climate change".
In fact, this is exactly what leaders of nearly 200 countries signed up to in the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit. So if re-stating a 16-year-old commitment is progress, then this is clearly a success.
The question ever since Rio has been what to do about it. But the reality of negotiations within groups such as the G8 is that every party needs to emerge with bits of language that they can point to and say "I won".
So here is the key sentence in all its diplomatic finery: "We seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."
So the EU emerges with an apparent commitment to cut emissions by at least 50%.
The US and Canadian administrations can say that it is only a commitment if the major developing countries play ball, and that the 50% figure concerns global emissions, not necessarily their own.
And the major developing countries, involved on the sidelines of the G8 summit, can point to inclusion of the UNFCCC phrase "common but differentiated responsibilities" as continued acknowledgement that far less would be required of them than of developed economies.
Off base
The host nation Japan appears to have won two key concessions.
One is that different industrial sectors could be set different targets with the aim of preserving competitiveness.
The second, which is more important, concerns the baseline year against which carbon savings would be measured.
With very few exceptions, the UN process has always used 1990 as the baseline.
But Japan argues this is unfair. The significant gains in energy efficiency it made before 1990 are effectively penalised, it says, while the gains made in Europe after 1990 through the clean-up of Soviet-era industry and the switch to natural gas are rewarded.
The G8 document does not specify a baseline year, but asked by reporters, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said it was "current levels".
This would be significant in at least three ways.
From a practical standpoint, emissions have risen by more than a quarter since 1990; so a 50% cut from now is worth far less than a 50% cut from 1990 levels.
On the diplomatic front, it would raise a big question for the EU, which has taken 1990 as the baseline for its own target of cutting emissions by 20% by 2020. The UK's domestic targets also use 1990.
And from a philosophical point of view, it would again amount to turning the clock back 16 years, and saying "we're going to ignore what we said then and start again from here".
The EU will continue to insist that 1990 stays as the baseline in UN talks; and as the G8 document does not specify any date, any party can select whatever it feels is more politically acceptable when reporting back to its electorate.
But just by raising the issue, Mr Fukuda has thrown up yet another thing for parties to argue about.
Leadership question
So it is perhaps not surprising that campaign groups have lined up to criticise the deal.
WWF said it confirmed the recent trend of industrialised countries showing less, rather than more, of the leadership required.
"The G8 are responsible for 62% of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem", said the director of the group's global climate initiative, Kim Carstensen.
"WWF finds it pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility, and refuse to turn from the main driver of the problem into the main driver of the solution."
Tearfund, which campaigns on issues of developing world poverty rather than the environment per se, added that using a 1990 baseline was crucial.
"Concrete commitments on climate change are the acid test of success at this summit," said international director Peter Grant.
"The G8 are crawling forward on emissions cuts at a time when giant leaps and bounds are needed."
The other main gripe of these organisations is that 2050 is too distant. They have been urging parties to commit to shorter timescales for achieving cuts, as the EU has done with its own 2020 target, arguing that this removes the option of delaying action until it is too late.
Instead, the statement merely acknowledges that "a long-term global goal will require mid-term goals and national plans to achieve them" - without specifying what these goals should look like.
Elsewhere, there is acknowledgement that the poorest countries are going to need help to adapt to climate impacts, and that clean energy technologies need to be developed and rolled out rapidly.
There is support for the rapid development of "clean coal" demonstration plants, in particular, and recognition that some countries will seek to lower carbon emissions through investing in nuclear.
Place in the world
It is important to recognise what the G8 could not achieve.
The UNFCCC is the sovereign body for making global agreements, and the two-year road leading from last December's UN climate summit in Bali to next year's in Copenhagen is still the most important route to a low-carbon future.
Nothing that the G8 or G8+5 or G20 or any other expansion of the core group could agree would change that.
What this week's gathering could have done was to point the way and ease the path, by agreeing a common front to take into the UN process.
On Wednesday, G8 countries meet the large group of "big emitters" or "major economies", the latest stage in a process formulated by the Bush administration.
The group includes major developing countries such as China, India and Mexico. And they have already set out their stall, responding to the G8 declaration with a statement calling on rich countries to go further and faster, committing to cuts of 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050.
So far, then, this G8 summit has confused the issue rather than clarifying it.
Governments are as divided as ever on what they are prepared to pledge and what they want to achieve; and re-opening the baseline year question is potentially hugely destructive.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
At first sight, the G8 agreement on climate change promises much.
Leaders are "committed to avoiding the most serious consequences of climate change", and determined to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels that would avoid "dangerous climate change".
In fact, this is exactly what leaders of nearly 200 countries signed up to in the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit. So if re-stating a 16-year-old commitment is progress, then this is clearly a success.
The question ever since Rio has been what to do about it. But the reality of negotiations within groups such as the G8 is that every party needs to emerge with bits of language that they can point to and say "I won".
So here is the key sentence in all its diplomatic finery: "We seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."
So the EU emerges with an apparent commitment to cut emissions by at least 50%.
The US and Canadian administrations can say that it is only a commitment if the major developing countries play ball, and that the 50% figure concerns global emissions, not necessarily their own.
And the major developing countries, involved on the sidelines of the G8 summit, can point to inclusion of the UNFCCC phrase "common but differentiated responsibilities" as continued acknowledgement that far less would be required of them than of developed economies.
Off base
The host nation Japan appears to have won two key concessions.
One is that different industrial sectors could be set different targets with the aim of preserving competitiveness.
The second, which is more important, concerns the baseline year against which carbon savings would be measured.
With very few exceptions, the UN process has always used 1990 as the baseline.
But Japan argues this is unfair. The significant gains in energy efficiency it made before 1990 are effectively penalised, it says, while the gains made in Europe after 1990 through the clean-up of Soviet-era industry and the switch to natural gas are rewarded.
The G8 document does not specify a baseline year, but asked by reporters, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said it was "current levels".
This would be significant in at least three ways.
From a practical standpoint, emissions have risen by more than a quarter since 1990; so a 50% cut from now is worth far less than a 50% cut from 1990 levels.
On the diplomatic front, it would raise a big question for the EU, which has taken 1990 as the baseline for its own target of cutting emissions by 20% by 2020. The UK's domestic targets also use 1990.
And from a philosophical point of view, it would again amount to turning the clock back 16 years, and saying "we're going to ignore what we said then and start again from here".
The EU will continue to insist that 1990 stays as the baseline in UN talks; and as the G8 document does not specify any date, any party can select whatever it feels is more politically acceptable when reporting back to its electorate.
But just by raising the issue, Mr Fukuda has thrown up yet another thing for parties to argue about.
Leadership question
So it is perhaps not surprising that campaign groups have lined up to criticise the deal.
WWF said it confirmed the recent trend of industrialised countries showing less, rather than more, of the leadership required.
"The G8 are responsible for 62% of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem", said the director of the group's global climate initiative, Kim Carstensen.
"WWF finds it pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility, and refuse to turn from the main driver of the problem into the main driver of the solution."
Tearfund, which campaigns on issues of developing world poverty rather than the environment per se, added that using a 1990 baseline was crucial.
"Concrete commitments on climate change are the acid test of success at this summit," said international director Peter Grant.
"The G8 are crawling forward on emissions cuts at a time when giant leaps and bounds are needed."
The other main gripe of these organisations is that 2050 is too distant. They have been urging parties to commit to shorter timescales for achieving cuts, as the EU has done with its own 2020 target, arguing that this removes the option of delaying action until it is too late.
Instead, the statement merely acknowledges that "a long-term global goal will require mid-term goals and national plans to achieve them" - without specifying what these goals should look like.
Elsewhere, there is acknowledgement that the poorest countries are going to need help to adapt to climate impacts, and that clean energy technologies need to be developed and rolled out rapidly.
There is support for the rapid development of "clean coal" demonstration plants, in particular, and recognition that some countries will seek to lower carbon emissions through investing in nuclear.
Place in the world
It is important to recognise what the G8 could not achieve.
The UNFCCC is the sovereign body for making global agreements, and the two-year road leading from last December's UN climate summit in Bali to next year's in Copenhagen is still the most important route to a low-carbon future.
Nothing that the G8 or G8+5 or G20 or any other expansion of the core group could agree would change that.
What this week's gathering could have done was to point the way and ease the path, by agreeing a common front to take into the UN process.
On Wednesday, G8 countries meet the large group of "big emitters" or "major economies", the latest stage in a process formulated by the Bush administration.
The group includes major developing countries such as China, India and Mexico. And they have already set out their stall, responding to the G8 declaration with a statement calling on rich countries to go further and faster, committing to cuts of 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050.
So far, then, this G8 summit has confused the issue rather than clarifying it.
Governments are as divided as ever on what they are prepared to pledge and what they want to achieve; and re-opening the baseline year question is potentially hugely destructive.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
EU includes aviation in CO2 curbs
The European Parliament has backed a law to include aviation in Europe's CO2 Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for cutting greenhouse gases.
MEPs voted 640 to 30 for aviation to be included in the scheme from 2012. It includes both EU and non-EU airlines.
Under the UN's Kyoto Protocol, the EU is required to cut its CO2 emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2012.
Airlines will have to cut emissions by 3% in the first year, compared to 2005, and by 5% from 2013 onwards.
The measures will now be ratified by the 27 EU member states, which agreed the deal in June.
Industries included in the ETS have to buy and sell permits that allow them to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Airlines will have to pay for permits covering 15% of their pollution quotas, the remainder being issued free.
Aviation currently only accounts for about 3% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions, but the sector has seen an 87% increase in CO2 since 1990.
The new legislation says the revenues generated from the auctioning of emissions permits should be used to fund: measures to combat climate change, research on clean aircraft, anti-deforestation measures in developing countries and low-emission transport. Within that framework, the member states will decide how to allocate the revenues.
US opposition
US officials and US-based airlines have criticised the extension of the ETS to aviation, arguing that the EU has no right to force airlines using its airspace to abide by the ETS rules. They say the EU must wait for a global agreement to be reached.
Peter Liese, a German MEP who helped negotiate the aviation package, said that "of course, a global agreement is our final goal, but the inclusion of third country flights starting and landing in Europe is a major step for the global fight against climate change".
"Other industries like steel would very much like to be in such a situation," he added.
The ETS began operating in 2005. It applies to major energy and industrial concerns which collectively account for about 40% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions.
The aviation deal backed by the MEPs excludes: light planes with a take-off weight under 5.7 tons, UN-approved humanitarian flights, firefighting or other emergency flights, flights by police, customs or military forces, research flights and flights by small, low-emission airlines.
The deal was criticised by the German carrier Lufthansa on Tuesday. A spokesman quoted by Reuters news agency said the ETS was "ecologically counter-productive and economically harmful".
The aviation scheme will include official flights by EU heads of state and ministers.
The European Commission reckons that the scheme could increase return air ticket prices by 4.6 to 39.6 euros (£3.6 to £31) by 2020, depending on the journey length.
MEPs voted 640 to 30 for aviation to be included in the scheme from 2012. It includes both EU and non-EU airlines.
Under the UN's Kyoto Protocol, the EU is required to cut its CO2 emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2012.
Airlines will have to cut emissions by 3% in the first year, compared to 2005, and by 5% from 2013 onwards.
The measures will now be ratified by the 27 EU member states, which agreed the deal in June.
Industries included in the ETS have to buy and sell permits that allow them to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Airlines will have to pay for permits covering 15% of their pollution quotas, the remainder being issued free.
Aviation currently only accounts for about 3% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions, but the sector has seen an 87% increase in CO2 since 1990.
The new legislation says the revenues generated from the auctioning of emissions permits should be used to fund: measures to combat climate change, research on clean aircraft, anti-deforestation measures in developing countries and low-emission transport. Within that framework, the member states will decide how to allocate the revenues.
US opposition
US officials and US-based airlines have criticised the extension of the ETS to aviation, arguing that the EU has no right to force airlines using its airspace to abide by the ETS rules. They say the EU must wait for a global agreement to be reached.
Peter Liese, a German MEP who helped negotiate the aviation package, said that "of course, a global agreement is our final goal, but the inclusion of third country flights starting and landing in Europe is a major step for the global fight against climate change".
"Other industries like steel would very much like to be in such a situation," he added.
The ETS began operating in 2005. It applies to major energy and industrial concerns which collectively account for about 40% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions.
The aviation deal backed by the MEPs excludes: light planes with a take-off weight under 5.7 tons, UN-approved humanitarian flights, firefighting or other emergency flights, flights by police, customs or military forces, research flights and flights by small, low-emission airlines.
The deal was criticised by the German carrier Lufthansa on Tuesday. A spokesman quoted by Reuters news agency said the ETS was "ecologically counter-productive and economically harmful".
The aviation scheme will include official flights by EU heads of state and ministers.
The European Commission reckons that the scheme could increase return air ticket prices by 4.6 to 39.6 euros (£3.6 to £31) by 2020, depending on the journey length.
jueves, 29 de mayo de 2008
Nature loss 'to hurt global poor'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Damage to forests, rivers, marine life and other aspects of nature could halve living standards for the world's poor, a major report has concluded.
Current rates of natural decline might reduce global GDP by about 7% by 2050.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) review is modelled on the Stern Review of climate change.
It will be released at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Bonn, where 60 leaders have pledged to halt deforestation by 2020.
"You come up with answers like 6% or 8% of global GDP when you think about the benefits of intact ecosystems, for example in controlling water, controlling floods and droughts, the flow of nutrients from forest to field," said the project's leader Pavan Sukhdev.
"But then you realise that the major beneficiaries [of nature] are the billion and a half of the world's poor; these natural systems account for as much as 40%-50% of what we define as the 'GDP of the poor'," he told BBC News.
Globalised decline
The TEEB review was set up by the German government and the European Commission during the German G8 presidency.
The two institutions selected Mr Sukhdev, a managing director in the global markets division at Deutsche Bank, to lead it.
At the time, in an article for the BBC News website, Germany's environment minister Sigmar Gabriel wrote: "Biological diversity constitutes the indispensable foundation for our lives and for global economic development.
"[But] two-thirds of these ecosystem services are already in decline, some dramatically. We need a greening of globalisation."
The document to be released at the CBD is an interim report into what the team acknowledges are complex, difficult and under-researched issues.
The 7% figure is largely based on loss of forests. The report will acknowledge that the costs of losing some ecosystems have barely been quantified.
The trends are understood well enough - a 50% shrinkage of wetlands over the past 100 years, a rate of species loss between 100 and 1,000 times the rate that would occur without 6.5 billion humans on the planet, a sharp decline in ocean fish stocks and one third of coral reefs damaged.
However, putting a monetary value on them is probably much more difficult, the team acknowledges, than putting a cost on climate change.
The report highlights some of the planet's ecologically damaged zones such as Haiti, where heavy deforestation - largely caused by the poor as they cut wood to sell for cash - means soil is washed away and the ground much less productive.
'Too little, too late'
There are some indications that biodiversity and ecosystem issues are now being heard at the top tables of politics.
G8 environment ministers meeting in Japan last weekend agreed a document noting that "biodiversity is the basis of human security and... the loss of biodiversity exacerbates inequality and instability in human society".
It also emphasised the importance of protected areas and of curbing deforestation.
At the CBD on Wednesday, 60 countries signed pledges to halt net deforestation by 2020.
But the main CBD target agreed by all signatories at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 - to "halt and begin to reverse" biodiversity loss by 2010 - is very unlikely to be met.
An early draft of the TEEB review, seen by BBC News, concluded: "Lessons from the last 100 years demonstrate that mankind has usually acted too little and too late in the face of similar threats - asbestos, CFCs, acid rain, declining fisheries, BSE and - most recently - climate change".
The Stern Review talked to governments in a way that earlier climate reports could not, because it was written by and for economists; and the architects of TEEB hope it will eventually do the same thing for biodiversity.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Damage to forests, rivers, marine life and other aspects of nature could halve living standards for the world's poor, a major report has concluded.
Current rates of natural decline might reduce global GDP by about 7% by 2050.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) review is modelled on the Stern Review of climate change.
It will be released at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Bonn, where 60 leaders have pledged to halt deforestation by 2020.
"You come up with answers like 6% or 8% of global GDP when you think about the benefits of intact ecosystems, for example in controlling water, controlling floods and droughts, the flow of nutrients from forest to field," said the project's leader Pavan Sukhdev.
"But then you realise that the major beneficiaries [of nature] are the billion and a half of the world's poor; these natural systems account for as much as 40%-50% of what we define as the 'GDP of the poor'," he told BBC News.
Globalised decline
The TEEB review was set up by the German government and the European Commission during the German G8 presidency.
The two institutions selected Mr Sukhdev, a managing director in the global markets division at Deutsche Bank, to lead it.
At the time, in an article for the BBC News website, Germany's environment minister Sigmar Gabriel wrote: "Biological diversity constitutes the indispensable foundation for our lives and for global economic development.
"[But] two-thirds of these ecosystem services are already in decline, some dramatically. We need a greening of globalisation."
The document to be released at the CBD is an interim report into what the team acknowledges are complex, difficult and under-researched issues.
The 7% figure is largely based on loss of forests. The report will acknowledge that the costs of losing some ecosystems have barely been quantified.
The trends are understood well enough - a 50% shrinkage of wetlands over the past 100 years, a rate of species loss between 100 and 1,000 times the rate that would occur without 6.5 billion humans on the planet, a sharp decline in ocean fish stocks and one third of coral reefs damaged.
However, putting a monetary value on them is probably much more difficult, the team acknowledges, than putting a cost on climate change.
The report highlights some of the planet's ecologically damaged zones such as Haiti, where heavy deforestation - largely caused by the poor as they cut wood to sell for cash - means soil is washed away and the ground much less productive.
'Too little, too late'
There are some indications that biodiversity and ecosystem issues are now being heard at the top tables of politics.
G8 environment ministers meeting in Japan last weekend agreed a document noting that "biodiversity is the basis of human security and... the loss of biodiversity exacerbates inequality and instability in human society".
It also emphasised the importance of protected areas and of curbing deforestation.
At the CBD on Wednesday, 60 countries signed pledges to halt net deforestation by 2020.
But the main CBD target agreed by all signatories at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 - to "halt and begin to reverse" biodiversity loss by 2010 - is very unlikely to be met.
An early draft of the TEEB review, seen by BBC News, concluded: "Lessons from the last 100 years demonstrate that mankind has usually acted too little and too late in the face of similar threats - asbestos, CFCs, acid rain, declining fisheries, BSE and - most recently - climate change".
The Stern Review talked to governments in a way that earlier climate reports could not, because it was written by and for economists; and the architects of TEEB hope it will eventually do the same thing for biodiversity.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
martes, 8 de abril de 2008
Publisher creates 'green' books
Publisher Dorling Kindersley claims to have printed the most environmentally conscious series of books in the world.
It has done so, it declares, by using vegetable inks, 100% recycled card and "environmentally friendly" glues.
Chief executive Gary June said its Made with Care series represented "a best practice example of how green and clean books can be produced in the future".
The first four titles include a guide to organic gardening and a children's encyclopaedia on the environment.
The company, a division of Penguin Books, has called their launch "a global publishing first".
'Fantastic'
By removing the book's jackets and an energy efficient binding process, the company said it had saved both paper and energy.
It has also printed the books on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), ensuring a tree is planted for each one used.
Travel has been minimised by printing the titles locally in Europe, using a German firm with a strong track record of environmental work.
Julia Young, manager of the WWF-UK Forest and Trade network, called the Made with Care series "a fantastic initiative".
It has done so, it declares, by using vegetable inks, 100% recycled card and "environmentally friendly" glues.
Chief executive Gary June said its Made with Care series represented "a best practice example of how green and clean books can be produced in the future".
The first four titles include a guide to organic gardening and a children's encyclopaedia on the environment.
The company, a division of Penguin Books, has called their launch "a global publishing first".
'Fantastic'
By removing the book's jackets and an energy efficient binding process, the company said it had saved both paper and energy.
It has also printed the books on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), ensuring a tree is planted for each one used.
Travel has been minimised by printing the titles locally in Europe, using a German firm with a strong track record of environmental work.
Julia Young, manager of the WWF-UK Forest and Trade network, called the Made with Care series "a fantastic initiative".
martes, 4 de marzo de 2008
US to set 'binding' climate goals
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
The US is ready to accept "binding international obligations" on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, officials say, if other nations do the same.
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
The US is ready to accept "binding international obligations" on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, officials say, if other nations do the same.
The comments came in a news conference in Paris given by James Connaughton and Daniel Price, environmental and economics advisers to President Bush.
The US hopes the world's major economies will conclude a "leaders' declaration" before the July G8 summit.
There was no indication of how much the US might be prepared to cut emissions.
But the Bush administration is clearly looking for some kind of binding commitment from major developing countries such as China, India and Brazil.
"The US is prepared to enter into binding international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases as part of a global agreement in which all major economies similarly undertake binding international obligations," said Mr Price, the president's deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.
The United Nations climate process emphasises that different countries have "common but differentiated responsibilities" for climate change, which in practice has meant industrialised nations promising to cut emissions while developing countries do not.
But the US officials suggested the phrase should mean something different - supporting the poorest nations, while expecting those that are developing successfully to take on some kind of obligation to cut emissions.
"An effective framework requires the participation of all major economies, developed and developing alike," said Mr Price.
"Europe and the US could turn out the lights today, and come 2030 or 2050 we would not have addressed the problem of climate change."
Some countries might commit to firm emissions targets while others promised energy efficiency gains, he suggested. Commitments could cover a country's entire economy, or just certain sectors.
Shuffling the decks
The notion that major developing countries might take on binding targets might prove politically difficult, suggested Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group
"The White House knows that taking a binding target of comparable size [to that taken by the US or EU] is neither a negotiating option nor a physical possibility for the Chinese government," he told BBC News.
He also suggested that an acid test of a leaders' declaration would be the timescale for making cuts.
At the last G8 summit, Japan proposed setting the goal of reducing emissions globally by 50% by 2050, a target which Daniel Price said could potentially form part of the declaration.
"It's become increasingly apparent that the Bush administration is willing to agree to a target that would take effect 40 years from now, and wants to portray that as a major accomplishment," said Mr Clapp.
"A key question is whether the administration is willing to accept binding targets that take effect before 2020, because a binding commitment that doesn't take effect for 40 years is really just shuffling the problem off one more time."
Trading plans
The US comments stem largely from a process initiated by President Bush last year, a series of talks involving 17 nations that together account for about 80% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
The "major economies" or "big emitters" group had its second meeting in Hawaii last month, and the next is scheduled for Paris in April.
Environmental groups have criticised the process as a distraction from the UN negotiations, and because the developing countries involved have much lower per capita emissions than the US.
But European delegates involved in the Hawaii meeting described the mood as frank and engaging.
The EU and US are working together within the World Trade Organization (WTO) on a proposal that all countries should slash tarriffs on trade in clean energy equipment.
"Some countries, in particular the major developing countries, have tarriff schedules as high as 70%," said Mr Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
"We're trying to get the world to eliminate tarriffs, and that could increase global trade in clean energy technologies and services by up to 14% per year.
"This is the single largest step we could take immediately to transfer available technologies to the developing world at very low cost."
Mr Price suggested the style of dialogue between the EU and US, which he categorised as "the EU berating the US to do more", needed to change, with both blocs working together to ensure the participation of major developing countries.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
viernes, 8 de febrero de 2008
Biocombustibles empeoran el cambio climático, concluye estudio científico
Sería uno de los mayores fraudes ambientales de la historia, advierten auditores
Por: Steve Connor (The Independent)
Por: Steve Connor (The Independent)
La expansión de cultivos para producir biocombustibles conduce al envío de enormes cantidades de dióxido de carbono a la atmósfera y en nada contribuye a detener el cambio climático o el calentamiento global, según la primera auditoría integral de un presupuesto para ese rubro.
Los científicos han producido evidencia condenatoria, la cual sugiere que los biocombustibles podrían ser uno de los mayores fraudes ambientales, porque en realidad empeoran el calentamiento global al contribuir a las emisiones de dióxido de carbono producido por humanos que supuestamente deben reducirse.
Dos estudios separados, publicados en la revista Science, muestran que los cultivos que hoy se desarrollan para producir alternativas “verdes” a los combustibles basados en el petróleo emiten mucho más dióxido de carbono a la atmósfera del que puede ser absorbido por las plantas.
Los científicos descubrieron que en el caso de algunos cultivos se requerirían varios siglos para pagar la “deuda de carbono” que se genera. Estos costos ambientales no toman en cuenta la destrucción adicional del medio ambiente, por ejemplo la pérdida de biodiversidad causada al desmontar áreas de selva.
“Todos los biocombustibles que usamos hoy destruyen los hábitat, ya sea en forma directa o indirecta. La agricultura global ya produce alimentos para 6 mil millones de personas; producir biocombustible basado en plantas también implicará convertir más tierra a uso agrícola”, advierte Joe Fargione, de la organización privada estadunidense The Nature Conservancy, quien encabezó uno de los estudios.
Los científicos llevaron a cabo un análisis que se había omitido ante la precipitación por cultivar biocombustibles, estimulada por las políticas de Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, cuyos proponentes han estado ansiosos por exaltar las virtudes de los biocombustibles como alternativa verde a los combustibles fósiles para el transporte.
Ambos estudios observaron la cantidad de dióxido de carbono que se libera cuando una porción de tierra se convierte al cultivo de biocombustibles. Descubrieron que cuando las tierras de turba de Indonesia se convierten en plantaciones de palmera para producir aceite de coco, por ejemplo, se requieren 423 años para pagar la deuda de carbono.
Otro caso nocivo es cuando la selva amazónica se desmonta para convertirla en parcelas para soya. Los científicos descubrieron que se requerirían 319 años de producción de biodiesel a partir de la soya para pagar la deuda de carbono causada por el derribamiento de los árboles.
Tales conversiones de tierra para cultivar maíz y caña de azúcar para biodiesel, o aceite de coco y soya para bioetanol, emiten entre 17 y 420 veces más carbono que el que se ahorra al año por el remplazo de combustibles fósiles, calculan los científicos.
“La pregunta es: ¿vale la pena? El carbono que se pierde al convertir bosques, pastizales y turba, ¿supera al que se ‘ahorra’ al usar biocombustibles en vez de combustibles fósiles?”, expresa el doctor Fargione. “La respuesta es no. Estas áreas naturales almacenan gran cantidad de carbono, así que convertirlas en tierras de cultivo conduce a que se emitan toneladas de carbón a la atmósfera”.
“Al encontrar soluciones al cambio climático, debemos asegurarnos de que el remedio no resulte peor que la enfermedad”, señala Jimmie Powell, integrante del equipo científico de The Nature Conservancy. “No podemos darnos el lujo de desdeñar las consecuencias de convertir tierra para biocombustibles. Hacerlo significa que sin proponérnoslo podríamos promover alternativas peores que los combustibles fósiles. Los hallazgos de estos estudios deben incorporarse en las políticas de emisión de carbono de aquí en adelante”, consideró.
© The Independent
Traducción: Jorge Anaya
lunes, 4 de febrero de 2008
Flying clouds the real climate culprit / Volar nubla el verdadero culpable climático
VIEWPOINT
Martin Wright
The aviation industry has become public enemy number one for environmental groups, says Martin Wright. But, he argues in this week's Green Room, they should focus their efforts on "the real elephant in the room" - forest destruction.
Ask some vaguely green people what's the single biggest thing they can do to tackle climate change, and most will respond with a guilty smile: "yes, I know, I should stop flying."
Martin Wright
The aviation industry has become public enemy number one for environmental groups, says Martin Wright. But, he argues in this week's Green Room, they should focus their efforts on "the real elephant in the room" - forest destruction.
Ask some vaguely green people what's the single biggest thing they can do to tackle climate change, and most will respond with a guilty smile: "yes, I know, I should stop flying."
A few brave, selfless souls do just that. But the rest of us are far too used to cheap, quick getaways to kick the habit completely.
There's nothing like a few months of unremitting English mizzle to soften the resolve of the most committed "no flyers".
Environmentalists will always struggle to persuade people to eschew pleasure in favour of the planet. After all, no-one likes being told off for having a good time. Any argument that says, in effect: "save the planet - stay at home in the wet" is hardly going to win hearts and minds.
Sure, there's always the slow train to Provence. But like so much of the Slow Movement (food; travel; life, even), it still reeks of privilege. It's more expensive, it takes (and lasts) longer.
There could be all kinds of ways - from subsidies to sabbaticals - of making it more accessible for those whose only hope of a great escape is an Easyjet south. But for the moment, life in the slow lane is still a velvety green luxury for the favoured few.
So until such time as fuel prices go through the roof, or draconian caps on carbon stifle the market, air travel will remain a seductive option for all but the deepest of greens.
Real carbon culprit
But while we're agonising over our aircraft addiction, we're missing the real "elephant in the living room" of climate change: forest destruction.
It is already the largest single source of carbon emissions after energy, contributing up to 10 times as much as aviation.
The Stern Report, no less, warned that rainforest destruction alone would, in the next four years, release more carbon into the atmosphere than every flight from the dawn of aviation until 2025.
Burning forests produces a particularly nasty double whammy of warming. As they burn, they send vast swathes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And once they're gone, they can't soak up the carbon from industry, cars and power plants.
But despite all this, people get far more exercised over the evils of aviation than they ever do over forest loss.
This is partly because aviation looms large on those instant "carbon calculators", designed to give a rough-and-ready guide to an individual's impact.
Deforestation, for the most part, doesn't, as it's virtually impossible to quantify individual responsibility for forest loss - unless you happen to be a timber trader or a palm oil planter.
But it's also because the forests are disappearing in "faraway countries": the chainsaws and fires aren't exactly on our doorstep, so it's easy to believe it's nothing to do with us - and there's nothing we can do about it, either.
This is bitterly ironic, because politically and economically it would be much easier to make massive reductions in deforestation than to achieve similar cuts in air travel. And in terms of curbing climate change, that would be massively more effective, too.
Tree hugging
So if we could just persuade people to be as excited about saving forests as they feel guilty about flying, then maybe we'd achieve something.
That means making forest conservation everyone's business - literally. And one of the best ways of doing so is to make the future of forests worth investing in - not just for the planet, but for your own pocket, too.
After all, you don't need complex technical fixes to stop forest destruction. You just have to make trees worth more standing than felled. And with the fate of civilisation cradled in their canopy, they should carry quite a price tag.
On paper, it's a no brainer. By any rational calculation, forests can yield better returns when kept intact than when cleared.
Take their role in protecting watersheds, for example, or their value as a source of fruit, nuts, shade-grown coffee, game and medicinal herbs - even, in some cases, a genuinely sustainable source of high-quality timber.
That's been the basis for a range of initiatives known as "payments for ecological services".
In essence, these are deals between forest communities and "buyers", who benefit from the forest remaining in place - such as towns and cities downstream, or the owners of mines or hydro plants, all of whom depend on the water supply that the forest ensures.
Cool Earth, a charity set up by businessman Johan Eliasch, allows individuals to buy parcels of rainforest - not for their own profit, but to hold them in trust on behalf of local communities, so taking them out of the clutches of the loggers.
It's an intriguing scheme, but it's still driven by charity, not business.
Sound investment
But once you introduce forests' ability to store carbon into the equation, then the balance sheet really starts to shift in their favour.
According to one recent study, most ventures which drive forest destruction - whether logging or for agriculture - generate around $5 (£2.50) for every tonne of carbon released as a result of the forest loss.
Europeans are typically paying up to seven times that amount to offset the same amount of carbon.
And as emissions trading takes off, so the carbon price will rise. One estimate puts the value of greenhouse gas storage in some forests at a healthy $2,200 (£1,100) per hectare.
And it's that which is pricking the interest of the financial markets. Invest in a forest now, and you can expect its value to appreciate substantially over the years - especially since, after the recent UN climate conference in Bali, forest owners can expect to "sell" their benefits on the emerging global carbon markets.
All of a sudden, it opens up the prospect of massive investments from pension funds, drawn to the long-term security which standing forests can provide.
Halving forest destruction by 2030, says the Stern Report, would cost around £10-£15 billion a year - that's roughly the same as we spend on alcohol in Britain alone. It is, in other words, a sum which should be readily available - as long as there's the prospect of a decent return.
The Global Canopy Programme - an alliance of forest scientists - is urging the adoption of a global market in forest carbon credits to help unleash a tide of investment.
Forum for the Future and others are working on schemes for forest-backed bonds; some are predicting the launch of Forest PEPs. Such is the potential value in keeping forests intact that even those masters of the dark arts of finance, the hedge funds, are starting to sniff around.
There are all manner of pitfalls, of course. For some, it smacks of "carbon colonialism".
Others warn that such schemes will inevitably favour wealthy landowners, who can cope with all the complex legal processes involved, rather than forest peoples themselves.
Then there's the question of proving that a particular stretch of forest, which may lie in a remote, hard-to-monitor area, really has survived intact.
But these are not insuperable obstacles. Investors don't have to buy up forests to make a return on them; they merely have to ensure they share in the proceeds of their conservation over times.
So they can for example rent, or lease, an interest in the forests from local communities, who are in any case best placed to safeguard the assets - and so can reasonably expect to share in the profits, too.
On the monitoring side, satellite mapping is now sophisticated enough to zero in to the scale of individual trees, providing pinpoint, 24-hour surveillance. Microchips inserted in selected trunks can report instantly if they're felled - and then track the timber, electronically fingering everyone involved.
So in a few years' time, you could sit at home on the sofa, and, via your laptop, check up on the health of "your" patch of forest, in real time.
Result? The world will have a million or more eagle-eyed forest monitors, casting a protective eye over the green canopy of their investments. (And only occasionally, you'd hope, needing to utter the anguished cry: "Oi! That's my pension plan going up in smoke!")
The logic is simple; the implementation will be anything but. But if we wait till we've a perfect system, we'll be wasting precious time; time in which thousands of square miles of forest will be irrevocably lost. 
Martin Wright is editor (at large) of Green Futures Magazine
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Society depends on more for less / La sociedad depende del más por menos
VIEWPOINT
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart
If the world is to end the threat from climate change, we need to produce more with less energy, says Mark Moody Stuart. In this week's Green Room, he outlines his vision that will help society fulfil this goal.
To address the climate challenge we need to reduce the carbon content of our energy by at least half.
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart
If the world is to end the threat from climate change, we need to produce more with less energy, says Mark Moody Stuart. In this week's Green Room, he outlines his vision that will help society fulfil this goal.
To address the climate challenge we need to reduce the carbon content of our energy by at least half.
But at the same time we must learn to generate a unit of GDP for about half the energy which we use at present.
Energy efficiency and carbon content of energy are equally important, but they require different approaches to achieve them.
I am a great believer in both the power of consumer choice and the market. As we come to understand the consequences, we do tend to make greener choices.
But most of us will only make those choices if they deliver the convenience and utility to which we are used or aspire; and if they do not cost more (or we can afford the luxury of choice).
Consumer opinion and choice is important, but it will not do the trick on its own. Its importance is in encouraging companies to supply the market in more climate friendly ways, and most importantly in encouraging governments (for whom consumers vote) to take the steps needed.
'Bitter experience'
So what of the market? It is an unsurpassed mechanism for allocating resources to deliver better things. Through competition, technologies are optimised or discarded, opening the field for creativity and choice. I believe in the power and value of markets.
But like most things, they have a failing. Without regulation to channel their power, markets will not deliver things which are of no immediate benefit to the individual making his or her choice, even though they may be beneficial to society.
Without regulation, markets would not have delivered unleaded gasoline, catalytic converters on the exhausts of cars or seatbelts and airbags, nor clean air to London after the killer smogs of the 1950s.
In New Delhi, regulation forced three-wheeled vehicles, taxis and buses to switch to clean gas fuel. The initial complaints were great, but everyone, including the taxi drivers, blessed the result.
These regulations were not cost free, but everyone benefited. Regulation was needed to channel the power of the market, but regulatory frameworks have to be simple and practical.
The gut opposition of business people to regulation comes from bitter experience of regulations which don't just frame the market but bind it hand and foot and tell us how things must be done.
This kills markets and takes the fun and variety out of life.
Carbon price
So what are the frameworks we need?
For carbon content, we need a mechanism which forces energy supplies in the right direction. This means putting a price on carbon for major producers (and large-scale users) of energy through a carbon cap and trade system, such as we already have in Europe.
Unfortunately, this system has been initially subject to government and business special pleading and gaming. Or it means a carbon tax.
Both are complex and should only be applied to major producers or users. Trading encourages carbon-avoiding investment where it has the most impact. It also allows the transfer, through market mechanisms, of financial resources to China and India.
I do not think we will get a more global agreement without such transfer. Taxation has the great merit that it provides a clear floor price of carbon.
So for me the preferred option is a combination - a tax, but with the ability to reduce it through trading, getting the best combination of a floor price and efficiency of investment.
Most people think that a price of something around 40 dollars a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) to producers would do the trick.
Market decides
Before you panic about the cost to you and industrial transport, that is only about 5p a litre on fuel - within the noise of oil price variations.
On the other hand, for efficiency we need regulatory frameworks - very tough efficiency standards on buildings, on lighting and on personal transport.
That means banning the manufacture or import of old fashioned light bulbs.
Technically, this actually just means putting a standard on the efficiency of lights so that markets decide whether the best answer is compact fluorescent lights or the newer LEDs - old incandescents would never meet such a hurdle.
It means very tough standards on buildings. This is already having an effect in London where to achieve highly valuable planning permission, developments are already achieving energy efficiency which we thought we would not achieve for a decade or more.
And for personal transportation? That means banning "gas guzzlers" and steadily increasing the total efficiency of any vehicle sold.
You can buy the roomiest, vroomiest car, as long as it meets the efficiency standard.
My wife and I have driven a hybrid since 2001 and it is a beautiful and comfortable piece of engineering, silent and will do 100mph (we tried it, but not in England!).
That may not be the best technology - the market will find out. But we must constrain the market in an efficiency framework.
To achieve the same through taxation would mean fuel taxes at levels which would play havoc with industry, countryside dwellers and the poor who need transport.
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart is non-executive chairman of Anglo American, and is a member of the UN Global Compact and chairman of the Global Compact Foundation
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
Entradas
