A Random Man on Planet Earth

Americians and climate change

Splitting jobs versus the environment

Comments always welcome!.

Please tell us what you think.

An Open Letter from Scientists in the United States on the IPCC

2010-03-19T00:00:00.000-07:00

Here is the start of the letter:

Many in the popular press and other media, as well as some in the halls of Congress, are seizing on a few errors that have been found in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in an attempt to discredit the entire report. None of the handful of mis-statements (out of hundreds and hundreds of unchallenged statements) remotely undermines the conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Despite its excellent performance for accurately reporting the state-of-the-science, we certainly acknowledge that the IPCC should become more forthcoming in openly acknowledging errors in a timely fashion, and continuing to improve its assessment procedures to further lower the already very low rate of error.

It is our intention in offering this open letter to bring the focus back to credible science, rather than invented hyperbole, so that it can bear on the policy debate in the United States and throughout the world. We first discuss some of the key messages from climate science and then elaborate on IPCC procedures, with particular attention to the quality-control mechanisms of the IPCC. Finally we offer some suggestions about what might be done next to improve IPCC practices and restore full trust in climate science.

More here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report

Climate change in Australia: website and report

Estimated cost of adapting to climate change

Overcoming barriers to beat climate change

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think!

Green or Greenwash?

2010-03-17T00:53:00.000-07:00

Today's Sydney Morning Herald had a front page story on how two of LG Electronics fridges were found to be not as energy efficient as they claimed. In fact the story suggested that they had installed a devices that activates an energy saving mode when the fridge detects room conditions similiar to those of a test laboratory.

Green fridge labelled a fraud

LG Electronics has agreed to compensate potentially thousands of consumers after two of its fridges - models L197NFS and P197WFS - were found to contain an illegal device that activates an energy-saving mode when it detects room conditions similar to those in a test laboratory.

It is the third time LG Electronics has been caught making false claims about the environmental credentials of its products. In 2008, it had to repay $3 million after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ruled it had inflated the energy-efficiency star rating of five models of air-conditioner. Source (SMH)

I wondered what other greenwash had been 'discovered' in Australia. After a very quick google search, I found the following:

GreenPower retailer led investors astray: ACCC
Global Green Plan Ltd, using the name GreenSwitch, was deregistered from the national GreenPower program in September 2008 for failing to buy enough renewable energy certificates, but it continued to trade through its website until November. The company will now have to buy 4000 renewable energy certificates to make up the shortfall. ''The ACCC investigated the GreenSwitch activities and found the numbers didn't match up,'' the acting chairman of the ACCC, Michael Schaper, said. ''To take money from customers and not use it as it was intended is simply unacceptable.'' Source (SMH)

Greenwash: company guilty of misleading claims

A carbon credits company, Prime Carbon, has been found guilty by the Federal Court of Australia of making misleading green claims. Prime Carbon is a private company that produces and trades carbon credits created through soil enhancement and carbon sequestration programs. Source (SMH)

Regulator demands muscle on 'green' ads
Graeme Samuel, the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, said a sharp rise in complaints about green advertising claims - from almost none two years ago to about 500 since early 2008 - was ''very unusual''.

''Five hundred suggests there's more than a moderate problem,'' Mr Samuel said. ''It's a new area and in some cases marketers don't understand - but in most cases marketers do understand and they are overselling.'' Source (SMH)

ACCC warns about 'green' marketing
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said as companies push to appear greener, it's becoming difficult to find products that do not promise some kind of environmental benefit. "Companies risk breaching the Trade Practices Act if they give an overall impression to consumers their product is environmentally friendly when it isn't," ACCC deputy chair Louise Sylvan said in a statement. Source (SMH)

I also found this:

The Six Sins of Greenwash

In December 2007, TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company in North America , released the findings of a study titled 'The Six Sins of Greenwashing'. The company, a leader in green marketing, found that 99% of the 1018 common 'environmentally friendly' consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of greenwashing. The findings of the report were alarming and from it the company created the six sins of greenwashing, which it believes will help equip consumers with the tools to figure out the truth about environmentally friendly products. They define the six sins as:
Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: eg, 'Energy-efficient' electronics that contain hazardous materials.
Sin of No Proof: eg, Shampoos claiming to be 'certified organic', but with no verifiable certification.
Sin of Vagueness: eg, Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde.
Sin of Irrelevance: eg, Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago.
Sin of Fibbing: eg, Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognised environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal.
Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: eg, Organic cigarettes or 'environmentally friendly' pesticides.

Source (www.Sustainabilitymatters.net.au)

So the message is very clear.

Beware of making 'greenwashed' claims for your products or you may end up on the front page of a major newspaper!!

That would not make good business sense.

If anyone finds any more examples of this type of thing, please let me know and I will add the company to the list of shameful behaviour. It is great to see people are making complaints when they see this type of thing ("from almost none two years ago to 500 complaints since 2008").

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

ACCC probing more 'green' ad claims

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.

So please, tell us what you think.

Climate change in Australia: website and report

2010-03-14T16:33:00.000-07:00

The Climate change in Australia website was developed by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in partnership with the Australian Greenhouse Office through the Australian Climate Change Science Program.

Climate change in Australia is based upon international climate change research including conclusions from the IPCC's fourth assessment report. It also builds on a large body of climate research that has been undertaken for the Australian region in recent years.
.
Climate change in Australia provides essential tools for government, industry and the community to understand the likely magnitude of climate change in Australia and the possible impacts.

The Climate Change in Australia report is available for download from the Technical Report page of their website.

Figure 1: Trends in annual mean Australian temperatures (left) and rainfall (right) since 1950.
Source: Summary brochure (page 2)

If you are short on time, I would suggest you at least check out the Summary brochure of the Climate change in Australia Report.

Well worth a read!

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report

Changing finance - Financing change

Overcoming barriers to beat climate change

Yes, psychologists are starting to go green here in Australia.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

Orangutans of Kota Kinabalu

2010-03-09T14:33:00.000-08:00

Please don't forget biodiversity!

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

2010 - International Year of Biodiversity

United Nations Year of the Gorilla 2009

Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change

Blue tongue lizard

Polar Bear Begs

Penguin Protest

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

Nanotechnology - both risks and benefits

2010-02-04T23:34:00.000-08:00

Some of my thoughts on nanotechnology:

.
When it comes to nanotechnology, there are both possible benefits and risks involved. Those that are pro-science tend to push the benefits (and the nanoproducts) and those that are against science tend to push the risks of nanotechnology and nanopollution. Will nanotechnology help to solve environmental issues or will dangerous nanopollution and nanoweapons be the result? Will nanoscience help to reduce human suffering for many (or few) people? Or will it increase suffering? Will it boost human lifespans and lifestyles or reduce them? And who will benefit or suffer as a result of the new science and technology and its products and effects? Well, that depends on what 'society' does with the new science and technology it now increasingly has at its disposal.
.

"There are many people, including myself, who are quite uneasy about the consequences of this technology of the future"

Eric Drexler.

Above: Microscopic faces of Barack Obama made using nanotechnology, and imaged using a scanning electron microscope. Each face consists of millions of vertically-aligned carbon nanotubes, grown by a high temperature chemical reaction. Image source here
.
Lets have a look at the benefits first.
.
Benefits of nanotechnology
.
Nanotechnology is already being used in many applications. For example, in modern medicine, nanotechnology is being used for fluorescent biological labels, drug and gene delivery, tissue engineering and MRI contrast enhancement. The benefits of these improved medical diagnostic methods and treatment options could be huge for those that are sick with a range of illnesses and diseases such as cancer. Those that support nanotechnology suggest the amazing possibilities of nanotechnology are almost endless.
.
Strong proponents believe that, with further research and development (and funding), nanotechnology could be used to help solve a wide range of environmental and social problems including: climate change; water/air pollution; and even world hunger. However, the hype and marketing surrounding nanotechnology makes it difficult to separate what is technically possible and what may one day be available.
.
It is also important to consider who will benefit. Can people access or even afford it when they may need it? Who owns, and therefore profits and controls nanotechnology? Much of the debate coming from the global 'South' in climate change, centres around the need for technology transfer, but will nanotechnology solutions be shared?
.

Risks of nanotechnology
.
Consider the case of the nanosock which has nanosilver particles in them to prevent bacteria and foot odor. Preliminary results from research being conducted by Troy Benn (an Arizona State University doctoral student) were presented at the American Chemical Societies 2008 conference. The research found that nanosilver particles would come out of the sock in the wash and therefore be released into the environment. This raises serious issues, such as what happens when bacteria killing particles are released into the environment? Science cannot yet answer that question adequately so we should remember the precautionary principle (PP) and be very careful until we can. Arguments over whether a strong or weak precautionary principle should be used then begin. Those that push for less regulation argue that a strong PP would limit the pace of discovery and therefore hold back the benefits of nanotechnology to those that may really need then now (i.e. the sick or the elderly). While those that want stronger regulation believe that the unknown risks out weigh the possible benefits and slowing the pace makes it safer.
.
New nanoproducts should be tested for safety before going onto the market, but currently the risk research lags behind the new products. Some of this is because we are only beginning to 'see' some of the possible risks of nanotechnology.
.
Molecular nanotechnology may allow the creation of self-replicating machines and the problem of ‘grey goo’. [See: the sci-fi book 'Prey' by Michael Crichton] Is this idea of nanotechnology 'getting out of control' only 'science fiction'? Or is it a very real nasty future that awaits?
.
Nanoweapons could be created, given almost half of all scientific research is for military purposes, there is a good chance that researchers will look towards nanoweapons that could deliver bioweapons – like a nanobot mosquito with a nasty toxin such as botulism). The development of nanoweapons could lead to a nanotechnology arms race, between nanotechnology superpowers or even smaller rogue states or terrorist group. There could be a large number of states with nanoweapons and because of there size they would be difficult to find and easy to smuggle which means they could be easily transported. There is also the possibility that a black-market for banned nanomachines could occur and because of the size of future nanomachines, it would be difficult to find them.
.
Microscopic surveillance devices raise serious privacy concerns because individuals, governments or businesses could misuse them and it would be very difficult to deal with negative antisocial uses of the technology e.g. hidden cameras in private places such as bathrooms, or used for industrial or government espionage.
.
Nanotechnology could have unintended consequences that could cause serious harm to society or the environment. Technocratic science has ‘blind-spots’ that result from its disciplinary and reductionist nature. These blind-spots could include unanticipated new illnesses, unintended negative environmental effects or major negative social change. These unintended consequences could also cause the public to lose of confidence in nanotechnology and this could effect funding.
.
A lack of effective regulations to deal with the unintended consequences of nanotechnology could allow dangerous risks to be placed upon society. I believe a precautionary approach is therefore needed. It is also important to consider who owns and controls the technology, and who can have access to it (when and where it is needed).
.
Having said all this - scientists actually working in fields of nanotechnology and nanoscience are increasingly aware of both the possible benefits and the possible problems. The example of genetically modified food has demonstrated to many scientists, some of the possible battles ahead. Good policy needs to stear through the minefield of the different assumptions and views on 'science' itself.
.
Will the public trust nanoscience if it is found being used for weapons or polluting the environment? What if it is providing much joy and saving many lives? Many governments (including the US Government, the European Union and the Australian Government) have began to investigate the question of what should society do with nanotechnology.
.
In conclusion, because there are many different values and worldviews in our society (e.g. anthropocentric, ecocentric and ecofeminism) and these values and worldviews are often conflicting, there is no one correct way of answering all the difficult ethical and environmental questions raised by rapidly progressing nanotechnology.
.
Therefore, there needs to be a dialogue between all the key stakeholders, rather than a narrow group of experts. In order for the public to gain some control over the technology (Habermas question), they need to be involved in the problem definition, problem framing, discussing of options, etc. It must be a bottom-up rather than the typical top-down decision (leave it to the 'experts' i.e. scientists and economists).
.
This could be achieved using a citizen’s jury (as they did with the UK nanojury). This is needed because nanotechnology has the potential to affect almost all aspects of modern society, so all people have a stake in their future and should help decide what risks they are prepared to take rather than having them thrust upon them without been consulted.
.

by Random Man

.
Comments most welcome, what do you all think about nanotechnology??

.
For more on nanotechnology see:
.
History of Nanotechnology
.
What is nanotechnology?

Environmental Nanotechnology

.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

PAJ Environmental Consulting

2010-01-30T20:21:00.000-08:00

"Providing interdisciplinary solutions to enhance and sustain the natural, built and social environment"

PAJ Environmental Consulting provides environmental and natural resources management consulting services to help individuals, businesses and organisations adapt and move towards a sustainable future.

If you require any advice or further information, please get in touch today to see how you can save money, time and the environment.

Specialising in:

Interdisciplinary understanding of environmental issues

Capacity to problem solve

Capacity to communicate complex ideas to a wide audience

Research and consultancy skills

Climate change science and policy advice

Sustainable development

Public participation and decision making

Environmental Sociology

Enviromental Psychology

"Providing interdisciplinary solutions to enhance and sustain the natural, built and social environment"

Comments and enquiries always welcome.

2010 - International Year of Biodiversity

2010-01-30T14:15:00.000-08:00

This year is the United Nations International Year of Biodiversity.

Here is the welcome:

The United Nations declared 2010 to be the International Year of Biodiversity. It is a celebration of life on earth and of the value of biodiversity for our lives. The world is invited to take action in 2010 to safeguard the variety of life on earth: biodiversity

So this year, have a think about the effect humans are having on biodiversity.

Note: last year (2009) was the United Nations International Year of the Gorilla

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Poor Turtle

Don't forget me . . .

Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change

Blue tongue lizard

Polar Bear Begs

Penguin Protest

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report

2009-11-24T14:41:00.000-08:00

If you want to know the latest climate change science, a new report has been released by The University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) called:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.

Also worth checking out is the website http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/ which has more information about the authors and the research itself including a great summary. Here is some of the blurb on the report from the website:

"It is more than three years since the drafting of text was completed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In the meantime, many hundreds of papers have been published on a suite of topics related to human-induced climate change.

The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report. The rationale is two-fold.

First, this report serves as an interim evaluation of the evolving science midway through an IPCC cycle - IPCC AR5 is not due for completion until 2013.

Second, and most important, the report serves as a handbook of science updates that supplements the IPCC AR4 in time for Copenhagen in December 2009, and any national or international climate change policy negotiations that follow."

Click to download report: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, (2009): Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science
.

"The report has been purposefully written with a target readership of policy-makers, stakeholders, the media and the broader public. Each section begins with a set of key points that summarises the main findings. The science contained in the report is based on the most credible and significant peer-reviewed literature available at the time of publication. The authors primarily comprise previous IPCC lead authors familiar with the rigor and completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature."

The main finding include:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions
Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming
Acceleration of melting of ice sheets, glaciers and ice-caps
Rapid Artic sea-ice decline
Current sea-level rise underestimates
Sea-level prediction revised
Delay in action risks irreversible damage
The turning point must come soon

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

Overcoming barriers to beat climate change

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

How to save the planet?

Overcoming barriers to beat climate change

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

Changing finance - Financing change

2009-10-24T16:56:00.000-07:00

I recently came across this wonderful image of a butterfly used on the poster for the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) 2009 Global Roundtable in Cape Town, South Africa (held 22-23 October 2009). The purpose of the meeting was "to explore ways towards achieving sustainable financial markets and economies".

Interesting image:

Reminds me of a couple of things:

First, ecological modernisation - the ugly Caterpillar changes into a beautiful butterfly - but have unsustainable financial markets and rationalist accounting systems really begun to 'change' into butterflies? Or are there simply planning more beautiful caterpillars which will continue to 'eat us out of house and home'? After all, the old 'ugly caterpillars' of 'progress' have already caused a lot of damage to the ecosystems of Earth.

Given that there is much being done by many businesses to become 'green' and much still to be done, the question remains 'is enough really being done?' or are we fooling ourselves that we are on the right track?

Second, the image reminds economists that biodiversity (esp. butterflies) and the environment are as important as having a healthy economy. Or will people simply want to continue to spray it with some (often hideous) chemical, already on sale for just such a purpose. Current thinking often suggests a narrow and technocratic 'solution' to 'cure' the increasing level of nasty 'bugs' we face. This global round table suggests that at least some economists are starting to rethink the basic assumptions of economics. Changing economics itself is definitely needed if we are ever going to build a sustainable society, but we also need to change the way we think about 'nature' itself. This is going to be difficult, given that many now live in unsustainable cities that are (often) far removed from 'nature' and its complex ecosystems. But we all need clean air to breath and clean water to drink and a climate that can support the ecosystems that humans depend upon. So really, we need to make some progress in the way way we think about the world around us all.

Third, the butterfly effect. This reminds me of the Ray Bradbury science-fiction story on the effects that follow from the actions of one butterfly (among others such as HG Wells "The Time Machine"). The effects of changing the way finance is regulated will have many profound effects indeed, but without proper levels of finance and technical support for the developing world to take up renewable energy technology, for example, there will never be a solution that is acceptable to the developing world in the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference in December. Not long to go now to get things in place.

Anyway, it is good to see some high level discussion of including social and environmental concerns into finance. I also like the 'financing change - changing finance' dualism, but wonder if perhaps this is a large part of the problem. Many people (including many economists and many governments) still see the choice as one of jobs versus the trees or economy versus the environment.

See my post on topic here.

What is needed is a wider (more holistic) worldview that considers the many things that cannot be measured using rationalistic methods (or worse done poorly) and are therefore given less importance in the 'grand scheme of things'.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

New Green Jobs ??

Top 10 Environmental Posts

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

How to save the planet? Psychology

2009-10-24T16:40:00.000-07:00

An interesting article by Professor David Uzzell (Professor of Environmental Psychology at University of Surry) on "challenging assumptions in the psychology of climate change".
.
He challenges 4 assumptions that are often made:
.
1. Everyone experiences similar barriers to acting sustainably
.
"Different strategies will be required for different groups depending upon the different barriers they erect to sustainable behaviour."
.
"In a study examining the barriers to changing from disposable to modern reusable cloth nappies, it became clear that different groups of parents had different constraints and needs - convenience, self belief, experience, initial institutional (e.g., hospital) support, incentives, information for spouses, stigma and cost (Uzzell & Leach, 2003)."
.
"One way of thinking about these barriers, the kind of strategies that are required to overcome them, and the prioritising of them as target groups is to define these groups in terms of 'would, could, can't, don't and won't'."
.
2. The young are most supportive of pro-environmental actions
.
Lyons, Uzzell & Storey (2001) found that young people (aged 18 - 35 years): were the most strongly opposed to changing their behaviour as they considered being forced to recycle was an infringement of individual freedom. They resented being told what to do and admitted that if they felt under pressure to recycle they were less likely to do it. They objected to penalties for not recycling and joked about the "recycling police and a police state", and about having bins with alarms fitted that went off when you threw out a recyclable item. They considered that recycling and pro-environmental behaviour change should not be a priority because they perceived few immediate, serious and tangible benefits or costs to the individuals concerned. They considered that the environmental effects of waste generation were too distant to motivate change, and small lifestyle changes were seen to have "zero effect" on what is regarded as a global problem.
.
3. Recycling has a positive image
.
"most of the role models associated with recycling were negative."
.
"The prototypical recycler identified by the young people was an "old man in his fifties with a beard or a woman in a tie-dyed t-shirt and dungarees". The young parents had various stereotypes of people who recycle: an ecowarrior image, Swedes or other Scandinavians, outdoors types, people who buy IKEA furniture or someone who is perfect."
.
"The middle-aged group described a recycler as "someone boring"."
.
4. Children will change their parents' attitudes and behaviours
.
Uzzell (1999) "concluded that the role of children in encouraging sustainable behaviours in the family occurs only rarely, typically in more middle-class and better educated families."
.
"In the majority of homes we found low levels of concern about environmental problems, with parents having little knowledge about environmental problems and in some cases negative attitudes towards education, low levels of motivation and poor self esteem in respect of their educational role."
.
"It cannot be assumed that simply giving children environmental change information and relying on a process of osmosis will lead to enhanced concern and action. "
.
Well worth a read and available at:

http://www.psychology.org.au/inpsych/challenging_assumptions/

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Some interesting podcasts on climate change

Adaption of People and Forests to Climate Change

Yes, psychologists are starting to go green here in Australia.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

Online Research Conference on Climate Change

2009-10-09T15:15:00.000-07:00

Climate 2009 is the world´s second on-line research conference on climate change and a major tool on climate change communication, worldwide.

The event will be held on-line from 2 to 6 November 2009 and around 100 papers prepared by some of the world´s leading researchers, will discuss the economic, social and political aspects of climate change.

The Conference will be organized around four main categories of papers:

Social aspects of climate change
Economic aspects of climate change
Political aspects of climate change
Projects which focus on the social, economic and political aspects of climate change, as well as educational and awareness-raising initiatives

Moreover, the Conference "Climate 2009 / Klima 2009" will pay a special emphasis to research linking climate change with one or more of the Millennium Development Goals categories:
poverty and hunger;
universal primary education;
gender equality and women's empowerment;
child mortality;
maternal health;
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases;
as well as environmental sustainability.
Join Climate 2009, join the chats and inform yourself about the latest developments in the field of climate change.

Further details and registration (which is free of any charges) are available at:

http://www.climate2009.net

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

Overcoming barriers to beat climate change

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

Clean Coal?

2009-09-09T03:34:00.000-07:00

Four Corners this week looked at the issue of 'clean' coal - also called Geosequestration or Carbon Capture and Storage (or CCS) or even 'burying the carbon pollution under the ground' - and whether it was a possible major part of any climate change solution.

Against clean coal was Mark Diesendorf (from the Institute of Environmental Studies at UNSW), who argued that the technology was: unproven; expensive; risky; and the money would be much better spent on already available renewable energy such as wind and solar.

Dr Joseph Romm was also interviewed. He argued that clean coal faced a number of challenges:

Expensive
Unproven
Risky

There were also pro-clean coal viewpoints put forward by the coal industry. I

nterestingly the program also had a look at the failed US attempt to get CCS technology 'off the ground' and working 'safely' (it faced increasing levels of community concerns). Given that any new technology must cross the technology 'valley of death' to get to market, it will be both difficult and expensive for Australia to succeed where the US is currently failing.

It needs a lot of Government funding and regulatory help. It is getting this at the State and Federal level, but given that the funding available here is relatively very small in size compared to the US (and they found it too expensive to get a demonstration plant running), it is a difficult task indeed.

The main question is: Could the money be better spent on other solutions?

Renewable energy is already available and needs further policy help to play a major part. The clean coal technology plant would have only lowered the carbon pollution emitted by the coal fired power station by 1.5%. Not a great reduction. "its the idea" said the coal spokesman. It would also take many years (decades even) to roll out any retrofit program for existing coal power stations. Dr Romm suggested we would also need to bury as much carbon pollution as we dill oil out of the ground each year.

Anyway, well worth a look.

Video available here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

EPA decides 'no new coal-fired power plants' (Well at least for now)

Greenpeace protests against coal carriers

Should coal-fired energy producers pay for greenhouse pollution permits???

Some interesting podcasts on climate change

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Estimated cost of adapting to climate change

2009-08-28T17:47:00.001-07:00

The UNFCCC had estimated annual global costs of adapting to climate change to be US$40-170 billion, but a new report released has suggested that this is a gross underestimate of the cost to adapt to climate change. The report was published by the International Institute for Environment and Development and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the Imperial College London.

Professor Martin Perry (who co-chaired the IPCC working group on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation between 2002 and 2008) said:

"Just looking in depth at the sectors the UNFCCC did study, we estimate adaptation costs to be 2-3 higher, and when you include the sectors the UNFCCC left out the true cost is probably much greater,”

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, (Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change) said:

"The costs of adapting to live with a changing climate are very uncertain. However, this new report suggests that previous attempts to figure out the costs have drastically under-estimated how expensive this could be. With such large sums potentially involved, the pressure to act now to reduce the extent of climate change is greater than ever.”

Download the full report here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Adaption of People and Forests to Climate Change

Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

AFL goes green

2009-08-18T04:04:00.000-07:00

In its efforts to help fight climate change the AFL (Australian Football League) has made Round 20 a GREEN round.

Now you may be wondering if this is helpful or just green wash? (After all, a green ball on green grass does seem a bit silly. Also on view were green umpires and green goal umpire flags and even a recycling symbol in the centre of the ground.)

Still, it did seem to be a positive start, in that, it did help to raise the issue of climate change and there were also some resources available if people wanted to find out more (and hopefully act). In did seem a bit 'light green' in its approach and suggestions, but it is a good starting point given AFL has such a wide following in Australia. It is a 'step by step' approach rather than a 'radical change' approach.

I will just have to wait and see what 'grows' out of the project. Hopefully a lot more to come as the AFL heads towards becoming 'carbon neutral'. Anyway, I like the photo below.

Photo: Judd and Rudd (and in the background Andrew Demetriou, Penny Wong and Kate Ellis) in Canberra on Tuesday to launch AFL Green Round.

More on the AFL green round here.

If you have never seen AFL check out:

video (3 minutes) or this video (1 minute).

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Great Barrier Reef - loss of value due to climate change

Can Sydney adapt to climate change?

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change

2009-08-18T01:31:00.000-07:00

Here is a great new report on the increasing risks to Australia's biodiversity due to climate change.

Some info on the report follows (from the NSW Government Climate Change website):

An assessment of the vulnerability of Australia’s biodiversity to climate change was commissioned by the Australian Government to help increase our understanding of how to help Australia’s rich biodiversity adapt to climate change.

The assessment finds that Australia’s biodiversity is at risk from even moderate climate change and already under stress, for example from habitat degradation, changed fire regimes and invasive species.

Climate change is likely to exacerbate these existing stressors and add additional stresses such as through declining water availability.

Rates of extinction of species are likely to increase as the global average temperature rises by just 1.0 or 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and likely to accelerate sharply as temperature rises beyond 2°C.

The Assessment was undertaken by an independent group of experts, led by Professor Will Steffen, for the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council.

To view the full report click here.

Also worth a quick look:

Kakadu – a climate change hotspot (fact sheet)

The Great Barrier Reef and Climate Change (fact sheet)

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Poor Turtle

Don't forget me . . .

United Nations Year of the Gorilla 2009

Blue tongue lizard

Polar Bear Begs

Penguin Protest

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Great Barrier Reef - loss of value due to climate change

2009-08-09T18:43:00.001-07:00

Here is a new report on the possible loss of value (due to climate change) for the Great Barrier Reef.

The analysis has been conducted using a Total Economic Value (TEV) approach, consistent with the concepts set out in the Queensland Government’s Environmental Economic Valuation: An introductory guide for policy-makes and practitioners (2003). The approach also draws on concepts developed in the recent Garnaut Report and environmental economics literature, including use of a 100 year timeframe and a social discount rate of 2.65%.

As a first step, the total value of the GBR and of the GBR in the Cairns area were derived. From this, estimates of the total cost of bleaching of the GBR and of the GBR in the Cairns area were then calculated.

Where there are uncertainties over data, a conservative approach has generally been adopted.

At a preferred discount rate of 2.65%, streamed over 100 years, holding present day values onstant, it is estimated that the present value (PV) of the GBR as a whole 9excluding indigenous values) is $51.4 billion, with a value of $17.9 billion estimated for the Cairns area.

From this, an estimate of the cost of bleaching for the Cairns area and the GBR can be derived. If a total and permanent bleaching of the GBR were to occur today, then (holding present day values constant over 100 years, at a discount rate of 2.65% the costs (in PV terms) are estimated at $37.7 billion with an estimate of $16.3 billion for the Cairns area.

Put another way, the bleaching cost for the whole of the GBR is roughly equivalent to a constant $1.08 billion per annum over the course of a century.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Yes, psychologists are starting to go green here in Australia.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think!

Don't forget me . . .

2009-08-07T16:01:00.000-07:00

"Don't forget biodiversity"

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change

Experts warn species in peril from climate change

Saving the Superb Parrot

Orange Bellied Parrot

Use 'synthetic trees' to capture carbon?

Save Blinky from Extinction

United Nations Year of the Gorilla 2009

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

.

Psychology and Climate Change - a new report by the American Psychology Association

2009-08-06T20:46:00.000-07:00

The APA (American Psychology Association) has just released a 'pre-print' copy of a new report on psychology and global climate change. It is well worth a read if you are interested in what psychology has to offer in the fight against climate change (i.e. overcoming barriers, etc). I have been waiting for several months for a chance to see this report. [Update: I have just read the section on population (as suggested)].

I should highlight that this is not the final report (think of it as a 'pre-print' or 'almost final copy') as graphics still need to be added. The final report should be ready for release in about a month.
.

The report includes:

Section 1: How do people understand the risks imposed by climate change?

Section 2: What are the human behavioural contributions to climate change and the psychological and contextual drivers of these contributions?

Section 3: What are the psychological impacts of climate change?

Section 4: How do people adapt to and cope with the perceived threat and unfolding impacts of climate change?

Section 5: Which psychological barriers limit climate action?

Section 6: How can psychologists assist in limiting climate change?

The 'pre-print' report is available at:

http://www.apa.org/releases/climate-change.pdf

Here is the blurb on the report:

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS HELP EXPLAIN SLOW REACTION TO GLOBAL WARMING, SAYS APA TASK FORCE

Report Urges Psychologists to Play Larger Role in Limiting Climate Change EffectsWhile most Americans think climate change is an important issue, they don’t see it as an immediate threat, so getting people to “go green” requires policymakers, scientists and marketers to look at psychological barriers to change and what leads people to action, according to a task force of the American Psychological Association.

Scientific evidence shows the main influences of climate change are behavioral – population growth and energy consumption. “What is unique about current global climate change is the role of human behavior,” said task force chair Janet Swim, PhD, of Pennsylvania State University. “We must look at the reasons people are not acting in order to understand how to get people to act.”

APA’s Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change examined decades of psychological research and practice that have been specifically applied and tested in the arena of climate change, such as environmental and conservation psychology and research on natural and technological disasters. The task force presented its findings at APA’s 117th Annual Convention in Toronto in a report that was accepted by the association’s governing Council of Representatives.

The task force’s report offers a detailed look at the connection between psychology and global climate change and makes policy commendations for psychological science. It cites a national Pew Research Center poll in which 75 percent to 80 percent of respondents said that climate change is an important issue. But respondents ranked it last in a list of 20 compelling issues, such as the economy or terrorism. Despite warnings from scientists and environmental experts that limiting the effects of climate change means humans need to make some severe changes now, people don’t feel a sense of urgency. The task force said numerous psychological barriers are to blame, including:

Uncertainty – Research has shown that uncertainty over climate change reduces the frequency of “green” behavior. Mistrust – Evidence shows that most people don’t believe the risk messages of scientists or government officials.
.
Denial – A substantial minority of people believe climate change is not occurring or that human activity has little or nothing to do with it, according to various polls.

Undervaluing Risks – A study of more than 3,000 people in 18 countries showed that many people believe environmental conditions will worsen in 25 years. While this may be true, this thinking could lead people to believe that changes can be made later.

Lack of Control – People believe their actions would be too small to make a difference and choose to do nothing. Habit – Ingrained behaviors are extremely resistant to permanent change while others change slowly. Habit is the most important obstacle to pro-environment behavior, according to the report.

The task force highlighted some ways that psychology is already working to limit these barriers. For example, people are more likely to use energy-efficient appliances if they are provided with immediate energy-use feedback. Devices that show people how much energy and money they’re conserving can yield energy savings of 5 percent to 12 percent, according to research.

“Behavioral feedback links the cost of energy use more closely to behavior by showing the costs immediately or daily rather than in an electric bill that comes a month later,” said Swim.

Also, some studies have looked at whether financial incentives can spur people to weatherize their houses. The research has shown that combined strong financial incentives, attention to customer convenience and quality assurance and strong social marketing led to weatherization of 20 percent or more of eligible homes in a community in the first year of a program. The results were far more powerful than achieved by another program that offered just financial incentives.
The task force identified other areas where psychology can help limit the effects of climate change, such as developing environmental regulations, economic incentives, better energy-efficient technology and communication methods.

“Many of the shortcomings of policies based on only a single intervention type, such as technology, economic incentives or regulation, may be overcome if policy implementers make better use of psychological knowledge,” the task force wrote in the report.

The task force also urged psychologists to continue to expand that knowledge. Environmental psychology emerged as a sub-discipline in the early 20th century but didn’t really gain momentum until the 1980s, according to the report. But the task force said studying and influencing climate change should not be left to a sub-discipline; many different types of psychologists can provide an understanding of how people of different ages respond to climate change. “The expertise found in a variety of fields of psychology can help find solutions to many climate change problems right now,” Swim said. “For example, experts in community and business psychology can address the behavioral changes necessary as businesses and nonprofits adapt to a changing environment.”

Members of the APA Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change:

Chair: Janet K. Swim, PhD, Pennsylvania State University

Susan Clayton, PhD, College of Wooster Thomas Doherty, PsyD, Lewis and Clark College

Robert Gifford, PhD, University of Victoria George Howard, PhD, University of Notre Dame

Joseph Reser, PhD, Griffith University Paul Stern, PhD, National Academies of Science Elke Weber, PhD, Columbia University

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

Overcoming barriers to beat climate change

Reframing climate change into a public health issue

Top 10 Environmental Posts

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

Overcoming barriers to beat climate change

2009-07-31T02:24:00.000-07:00

A new report by McKinsey & Company suggests that if "a significant set of barriers" can be overcome, the US economy could reduce its energy consumption by 23% by 2020. The report:

"offers a detailed analysis of the magnitude of the efficiency potential in non-transportation uses of energy, a thorough assessment of the barriers that impede the capture of greater efficiency, and an outline of the practical solutions available to unlock the potential."

"The research shows that the U.S. economy has the potential to reduce annual on-transportation energy consumption by roughly 23 percent by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2 trillion in waste – well beyond the $520 billion upfront investment (not including program costs) that would be required. The reduction in energy use would also result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually – the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads."

"Such energy savings will be possible, however, only if the United States can overcome significant sets of barriers. These barriers are widespread and persistent, and will require an integrated set of solutions to overcome them – including information and education, incentives and financing, codes and standards, and deployment resources well beyond current levels."

"In addition to the above central conclusion, five observations will be relevant to a national debate about how best to pursue energy efficiency opportunities of the magnitude identified and within the timeframe considered in this report."

Recognize energy efficiency as an important energy resource that can help meet future energy needs while the nation concurrently develops new no- and low-carbon energy source
Formulate and launch at both national and regional levels an integrated portfolio of proven, piloted, and emerging approaches to unlock the full potential of energy efficiency
Identify methods to provide the significant upfront funding required by any plan to capture energy efficiency
Forge greater alignment between utilities, regulators, government agencies, manufacturers, and energy consumers
Foster innovation in the development and deployment of next-generation energy efficiency technologies to ensure ongoing productivity gains.

Source and full report and executive summary here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

'Clean Coal' ???

Yes, psychologists are starting to go green here in Australia.

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

New Green Jobs ??

Six Americas - which one are you?

Americans and climate change

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

Environmental Nanotechnology: Predicting the Interaction of Artificial Nanoparticles with Natural Environments

2009-07-28T01:12:00.000-07:00

CSIRO scientist Dr Amanda Barnard has been awarded the prestigious Mercedes-Benz Environmental Research Award at the 21st annual Banksia Foundation Awards, held on Friday evening, 24 July 2009. Below is some information on her work on nanotechnology.

Dr. Amanda Barnard, CSIRO

Environmental Nanotechnology: Predicting the Interaction of Artificial Nanoparticles with Natural Environments

As we search for solutions to our future energy needs, carbon emissions, global warming, industrial toxins, and disease, it is clear that keeping the balance between technological development and environmental protection has never been harder.

Nanoscale materials, only millionths of a millimetre in size, may offer solutions to our biggest problems. However, care is needed as these new ‘nanoparticles’ are largely untested, are (literally) unique on an atomic scale, and we have little or no historical data to guide assumptions regarding the possible risks.

Using highly accurate supercomputer simulations, Dr Amanda Barnard's research focuses on predicting the environmental stability of nanoparticles, to understand how these tiny artificial pieces of matter interact with natural ecosystems.

Dr Amanda Barnard is an internationally renowned scientist, with many years experience in predicting the properties of dozens of different nanoparticles. Her ground-breaking theoretical models can see a path through the complexity of this problem, and investigate situations that experiments cannot.

As more and more nanoparticles are produced in laboratories, and introduced into everyday products, Dr Barnard’s predictive model will be in great demand, but priority number one is to understand what happens when nanoparticles are exposed to our most precious resources, air and water.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Yes, psychologists are starting to go green here in Australia.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Clive Hamilton lecture "The Rebirth of Nature and the Climate Crisis"

2009-07-24T16:54:00.000-07:00

Here is the blurb on a fantastic lecture called "The Rebirth of Nature and the Climate Crisis" given by Clive Hamilton recently as part of the Sydney Ideas lecture series being hosted by Sydney University.

In recent times a new theory of a living Earth has captured imaginations. According to James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, the Earth is a living system in which the biosphere interacts with other physical components of the Earth to maintain conditions suitable for life.

The prevention of climate catastrophe, some argue, requires a shift to a new consciousness, one based on a rediscovery of the idea of a living Earth. To understand how such a philosophical transition might occur, it helps to consider the last great historical transformation of consciousness, the one that gave us the modern view of the Earth.

The emergence of the mechanical philosophy in the second half of the 17th century changed our deepest conception of the world. Previously the Earth was seen as alive and intentioned; the new science saw it as dead. Although Renée Descartes is usually regarded as the seminal thinker of the mechanical philosophy, in fact its roots can be traced to the thirteenth century Scottish theologian Duns Scotus.

Isaac Newton’s work saw the triumph of the conception of a dead Earth, yet Newton himself did not reject the old ‘Hermetic’ philosophy for the new one but held to versions of both. While writing his great mathematical work, the Principia, he also devoted himself to esoteric studies. If Newton could simultaneously be the father of modern science and conceive of the world as alive, could his insights provide the seeds for a new ecological consciousness? And does Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis solve Newton’s conundrum of how to marry a conception of a living Earth with the methods of modern science?

Clive Hamilton is Charles Sturt Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics based at the Australian National University. Until early 2008 he was the Executive Director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive think tank, which he founded in 1993.

He has held a number of visiting academic positions, including ones at the University of Cambridge, the University of Sydney and the Australian National University. He has just returned from a period as a Senior Visiting Fellow in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University.

Clive is the author of a number of best-selling books, including Growth Fetish, Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change, Affluenza (with Richard Denniss) and Silencing Dissent (with Sarah Maddison). His most recent book, The Freedom Paradox: Towards a post-secular ethics, was published last year.

Watch the video here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Yes, psychologists are starting to go green here in Australia.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Climate simulator (C-Learn)

2009-07-02T01:50:00.000-07:00

This also came through the listserve today. C-Learn is quick and easy to use software that shows the outcomes of various climate change scenarios (above shows "Business as Usual"). Worth checking out!

Anyway, here is the message:

We are thrilled to announce the launching of C-Learn, an online freeware interactive climate simulator.
.
Check it out at: http://www.climateinteractive.org/
.
C-Learn is the 3-region version of the scientifically-reviewed policy-maker-oriented 15-20 region simulator "C-ROADS" built by Sustainability Institute, Ventana Systems, and MIT. You may have seen C-ROADS output in Jonathan Pershing's plenary presentation in April at Bonn. The simulator is being used by the Climate Action Initiative to support the UNFCCC negotiations with analysis and interactive policy exercises.

C-Learn allows users to test changes in fossil fuel emissions (in 3 global regions), deforestation, and afforestation and observe graphical and numerical results for CO2 concentrations, temperature, sea level rise, cumulative emissions, and emissions per capita.

C-Learn software, equations and interface will be shared using open source approaches via Climate Interactive, a partnership of organizations out of Sustainability Institute working to address climate change.

More information:

C-ROADS Overview:

http://www.climateinteractive.org/simulations/C-ROADS

Scientific Review Results:

http://www.climateinteractive.org/simulations/C-ROADS/technical

Project blog: http://climateinteractive.wordpress.com/

The slides Pershing presented:

http://climateinteractive.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/c-roads-and-pershing/

Direct link to C-Learn:

http://forio.com/simulation/climate-development/

Sustainability Institute:

http://www.blogger.com/www.sustainer.org and http://au.mc571.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=climateinteractive@sustainer.org

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Positions of the major GHG emitting countries

2009-07-02T01:32:00.000-07:00

I was looking around for some information on the GHG emission reduction policy positions of different countries (leading up to Copenhagen). Anyway, this information came through on the climate-l listserve (today).

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs' (UPI-FIIA) research programme on the International Politics of Natural Resources and the Environment has recently published the following publications that discuss the positions of major greenhouse gas emitting countries:

Climate sudoku: Japan's bumpy ride towars a post-2012 target
by Alex Luta
24 June 2009 -- UPI Briefing Paper 36

The Russian debate on climate doctrine: Emerging issues on the road to Copenhagen
by Anna Korppoo
5 June 2009 -- UPI Briefing Paper 33

Towards a new climate regime? Views of China, India, Japan, Russia and the United States in the road to Copenhagen
by Anna Korppoo, Linda Jakobson, Johannes Urpelainen, Antto Vihma, Alex Luta
4 May 2009 -- UPI Report 19

Also see the blog articles related to the Major Emitters:

Medvedev promised to cut emissions - or did he?
by Anna Korppoo, 23 June 2009

Is the new 'climate doctrine' marking a turning point in Russian policy?
by Anna Korppoo, 24 April 2009

Japanese Opinion Poll Supports 7% Emission Cuts
by Alex Luta, 26 May 2009

Additional complexities for Japanese mid-term target
by Alex Luta, 18 May 2009
http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/blog/161/

Economy versus the Environment on Japan's Road to Copenhagen
by Alex Luta, 22 April 2009

For more information on the research programme on the International Politics of Natural Resources of the UPI-FIIA, please visit their hompage:

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Use 'synthetic trees' to capture carbon?

2009-06-26T15:38:00.000-07:00

Above is an artists impression of a possible new high-tech method to capture carbon emissions. Professor Klaus Lackner suggests a 'synthethic tree' as a way of capturing carbon emissions from the air. [Plus, it looks like it could also be used as a bus shelter]. Should we be investing in 'synthetic tree' development? What do people think about this idea? It seems to be a very technocratic solution to climate change. Interesing idea. It sounds like the US Department of Energy may also be 'interested' in the idea.

Here is some more on the idea.

As the wind blows though plastic "leaves," the carbon is trapped in a chamber, compressed and stored as liquid carbon dioxide. The technology is similar to that used to capture carbon from flue stacks at coal-fired power plants, but the difference is that the "synthetic tree" can catch carbon anytime, anywhere.

"Half of your emissions come from small, distributed sources where collection at the site is either impossible or impractical," said Professor Klaus Lackner, Ewing-Worzel Professor of Geophysics in the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering at Columbia University.

Lackner started working on the concept of an ambient carbon catcher in 1998.

"I argued back then and I still argue that the reason this can be done, from a theoretical point of view, is that the CO2 in the air is actually surprisingly concentrated, therefore the device you need to collect CO2 is quite small."

"If you give me one of those big windmills which have those big areas through which the rotor moves -- how much CO2 can I avoid? And if I had an equally sized CO2 collector -- how much CO2 can I collect? It turns out the collector is several hundred times better than the windmill."

Source

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Hopenhagen

2009-06-25T01:02:00.000-07:00

The United Nations has teamed up with some of the leading advertising, marketing and media agencies to create a campaign to increase awareness of the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (COP15) in December later this year.

Hopenhagen aims:

"to help empower global citizens to engage in the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen".

The idea of 'hope' (as used by Obama) is obviously the key idea used to try and engage with people on this issue.

The website is www.hopenhagen.org/

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09)

2009-06-19T14:25:00.000-07:00

Video: Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, talks about the new UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09).

Here is some new information on UK climate projections from the Met Office Hadley Centre. So if you live in the UK, this is worth checking out! The website has many resources on climate change available to use free of charge. Isn't that nice!

The UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) confirm that the UK is likely to see hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters coupled with more frequent extreme weather such as flooding, heatwaves and droughts.

UKCP09 is the latest cutting edge science developed by the Met Office Hadley Centre and is the first time that a probabilistic approach has been used for climate projections, allowing us to take a risk-based approach to planning for the future.

Met Office Chief Scientist, Julia Slingo, said: “Through UKCP09 the Met Office has provided the world’s most comprehensive regional climate projections with a unique assessment of the possible changes to our climate through the rest of this century. For the first time businesses and authorities have the tools to help them make risk-based decisions to adapt to the challenges of our changing climate.”

For more information about UKCP09 see here.

You can read more detailed key findings for different parts of the UK, or look at UKCP09 maps of the UK showing how the climate could change in the future, and how this information should be interpreted.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Change is in the air

'Catastrophic' rise in temperature possible says the Met Office

Gambling with climate change: MIT updates its climate gamble wheels

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States

2009-06-17T16:11:00.000-07:00

Here is the blurb from the long awaited new report called "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States".

The report summarizes the science and the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. It focuses on climate change impacts in different regions of the U.S. and on various aspects of society and the economy such as energy, water, agriculture, and health. It’s also a report written in plain language, with the goal of better informing public and private decision making at all levels.

In addition to discussing the impacts of climate change in the U.S., the report also highlights the choices we face in response to human-induced climate change. It is clear that impacts in the United States are already occurring and are projected to increase in the future, particularly if the concentration of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise. So, choices about how we manage greenhouse gas emissions will have far-reaching consequences for climate change impacts. Similarly, there are choices to be made about adaptation strategies than can help to reduce or avoid some of the undesirable impacts of climate change. This report provides many of the scientific underpinnings for effective decisions to be made – at the national and at the regional level.

The key findings were:

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.

4. Climate change will stress water resources.

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.

7. Threats to human health will increase.

8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems.

10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

"Emission reductions by the USA in 2020 and the risk of exceeding 2°C warming"

Environmentalists draft roadmap for Obama

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

So please, tell us what you think.

Allan Schnaiberg

2009-06-08T15:25:00.000-07:00

Photo taken by: Alan Thomas

It is with much sadness, that I must announce that the 'village elder' of Bluesky-Greenwater - Allan Schnaiberg - has passed away in Chicago. Allan was my friend and a wonderful spirit. His energy and passion for the environment and people was fantastic. I am deeply upset at his passing and will keep his ideas and his spirit close to my heart forever. He was a special man that was always willing to share his wisdom and help me understand more about the social world.

Thank you Allan for being my friend and for all your help and inspiration.

I will really miss you!

Allan wrote (back in 1980) the best book I have read on the environment called:

The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity

In particular, it has an excellent chapter on population (Chapter 2) called "Paradoxes of the Hydra Monster". It is well worth a read!!! Allan was one of the 'elders' of environmental sociology and suggested the societal-environmental dialectic, back in 1975. He is also well known for his 'treadmill of production' ideas and wrote many other papers and books (see here).

Also worth reading, is his paper called "Reflections on My 25 Years Before the Mast of the Environmental and Technology Section", as it contains a great personal summary of his academic life (including background on how the theory of the treadmill of production came about). Anyway, I will leave you with some of what he wrote to me recently:

Thanks for staying in touch at a human level -- far more important that just a "professional" level. I suppose the paradox is that "human warmth" may be the best antidote to "global warming"...

See you, mate,

allan

UPDATE: Very touching to see the Allan Schnaiberg memorial website and to read all the comments about Allan.

Photo taken by: Alan Thomas

The New Green Economy

2009-05-25T18:11:00.000-07:00

The new green economy will ensure economic prosperity and create new green jobs.

The new green economy will ensure energy independence and self-sufficiency.

The new green economy will use clean, safe, natural sources of energy that will never run out.

The new green economy will get pollution under control.

The new green economy will make polluters pay for their own mess, so we protect our health and the health of our children.

The new green economy will preserve the majesty of our land (and the Great Barrier Reef).

The new green economy will reverse the deterioration of our atmosphere.

The new green economy will harness (Australian) ingenuity.

The new green economy will protect the future for our children.

The idea for this post came from reading "Speaking to Americans about climate change" and "Six Americans - which one are you?". I do realise that Americans and Australians are relatively different (socially), but they do also share many similarities (e.g. just think of Gridiron versus AFL). I decided to put the words "new green economy" with the main messages coming out of the 'Speaking to Americans' report. I have also throw in some "powerful images", although I realise that I should have more people in the images (more relevent to most people - look at magazine covers - they almost always have a face or person on them). Anyway, it was only a quick post idea.

I also understand that the message needs to be localised to be effective, but I have tried to get the core message without losing too much of the flavour of the message (i.e. using plain, values orientated language that resonates with the audiences underlying values and beliefs) so that it can be broadly understood (hopefully).

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Speaking to Americans about Climate Change

2009-05-25T16:02:00.000-07:00

On the back of the report into the six different 'types' of Americans (when it comes to climate change), I found an article in the Huffington Post called Speaking with Americans about Energy and Climate: From the Think Tank to the Kitchen Table. [The report is by Drew Westen, Ph.D., who is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University; and Celinda Lake who is President and Founder of Lake Research Partners].

It examines a new report called "Climate Truths: Making the Necessary Connections".

It is based on research undertaken in collaboration and under the sponsorship and guidance of ecoAmerica and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). For a description of the complete study and results (entitled, Climate Truths: Making the Necessary Connections), contact meighen@ecoAmerica.org, or fkoe@nrdc.org.

It looks good, so I have asked for a copy of their report. Anyway, here is what the study found:

What we found is that when we talk in plain, values-oriented language, we solidly move people, motivate them to action, and beat the industry's well-crafted messages by 20-40 points. What resonates with people are not specific fuel standards or the mechanics of how a cap and trade system would work or the precise tonnage of carbon emissions per year. What moves them is a set of themes that bring the issue home to them: economic prosperity and jobs; energy independence and self-sufficiency; clean, safe, natural sources of energy that will never run out; getting pollution under control and making polluters pay for their own messes so we protect our health and the health of our children, preserve the majesty of our land, and reverse the deterioration of our atmosphere; harnessing American ingenuity and restoring American leadership; and protecting our legacy to our children the way our parents and grandparents protected their legacy to us. And we learned that one striking fact that gets people to sit up and take notice -- for example, that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990 -- is worth a thousand policy descriptions.

So rather than trying to push 'scientific facts' at people and expect them to undergo some sort of amazing behaviour change. [Note: 'now they have the facts, they will see the light' does not work.] It is much better to use "plain, values orientated language" that "brings the issue home to them" if you want to achieve some real behaviour change.

They also have a lovely climate change narrative concept-map figure which looks at the often contradictory network of associations (blue positive and red negative) held by the public and illustrated below (see Figure 1 - below). So for solar power, the industry should be pushing the message that they are "clean", "safe", "never run out" and will "help build jobs for the future" rather than "will save x amount of CO2". Makes sense, as people often seem to just tune out when science or mathematics starts been discussed. Much better to include them in the conversation by making it about them, by using their values and what is important to them a part of the conversation.

Figure 1: Emotional connections and a possible climate narrative.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Six Americas - which one are you?

2009-05-20T01:01:00.000-07:00

A great new social science report has just been released that finds there are six different 'types' of Americas when it comes to climate change:

(i) Alarmed (18%)
(ii) Concerned (33%)
(iii) Cautious (19%)
(iv) Disengaged (12%)
(v) Doubtful (11%)
(vi) Dismissive (7%)

Here is the blurb (from the envirosoc listserve):

Just a quick note to let you know about a major report we just released today called, "Global Warming's Six Americas." Drawing on a scientific survey of American climate change beliefs, attitudes, policy preferences, and behaviors, our research has found that the public falls into six distinct groups – each of which currently engages (or not) with the issue in a unique way:

The report introduces the six groups by briefly describing each and highlighting how they differ from one another. As you know, one of the first rules of effective communication is to “know thy audience.” We hope the results are useful to you in your own efforts to constructively engage the public in this pressing issue. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Anthony Leiserowitz, Ph.D
Director, Yale Project on Climate Change
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University

The report can be downloaded here:

http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/6Americas2009.pdf

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

New research (2010) Reframing climate change into a public health issue

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

UNEP plans to plant seven billion trees in 2009

2009-05-14T02:02:00.000-07:00

Here is the blurb from the UNEP:

In the lead-up to World Environment Day, which will be celebrated on 5 June, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has set the new target to plant seven billion trees by the end of 2009, under the Billion Tree Campaign.
.

Currently, some 3.1 billion trees have been planted in 166 countries.
.
The World Environment Day global tree planting drive is the first in a series of mass participation events planned as part of the UN-led “Seal the Deal!” campaign in the lead-up the UN climate change conference to be held December 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Bill McKibben

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Clive Hamilton "Nordhaus' Carbon Tax: An excuse for more delay?"

2009-05-08T15:11:00.000-07:00

This email came through today on the climate-l listserve. Clive Hamilton explains why a carbon tax is not the solution to climate change. Originally from the Australia Institute, he has written a number of books that critique capitalism and consumerism (see list below). Well worth a read.

Anyway, here is the email:

William Nordhaus is perhaps the most influential US economist in the global warming debate. While climate scientists are calling for urgent and strong action, he has been urging a cautious response, stressing the high costs of cutting emissions and the uncertainties associated with climate change. This paper argues that his latest proposal for a carbon tax, based squarely on neoclassical economic assumptions, contravenes agreed international principles, exposes the environment to risk, accords unwarranted privilege to private over public decisions and would result in more years of delay before the world responds.

To read the paper please go to

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=articles

Clive Hamilton
Senior Visiting Fellow
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University

List of books by Australian author Clive Hamilton (source Wiki):

Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough (2005)
Capitalist Industrialization in Korea
Growth, Efficiency and Fixed Capital in Linkage Analysis
Growth Fetish (2003)
Human Ecology, Human Economy: Ideas for an Ecologically Sustainable Future (1997)
Running from the Storm: The Development of Climate Change Policy in Australia
Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change (2007)
Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate (2007)
The Economic Dynamics of Australian Industry (1992)
The ESD Process: Evaluating a Policy Experiment
The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics (2008)
The Mystic Economist (1994)
What's Left? The Death of Social Democracy (2006)

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Bill McKibben

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Bill McKibben

2009-05-06T04:31:00.000-07:00

Tonight I went to listen to Bill McKibben talk about climate change and his 350.org campaign. He is a good speaker and really got me thinking about several things. His approach seemed to be very inclusive (although perhaps lacking in specific focus on how to reach 350ppm). The 350.org website says:

How do we actually reduce carbon emissions to get to 350?
Make no mistake--getting back to 350 means transforming our world. It means building solar arrays instead of coal plants, it means planting trees instead of clear-cutting rainforests, it means increasing efficiency and decreasing our waste. Getting to 350 means developing a thousand different solutions--all of which will become much easier if we have a global treaty grounded in the latest science and built around the principles of equity and justice. To get this kind of treaty, we need a movement of people who care enough about our shared global future to get involved and make their voices heard.

There doesn't seem to be any mention of consumption, radical change or any specific technology or world-view offered as a solution. "A thousand different solutions" is really avoiding the detail (is it nuclear, reduced consumption, more science, economic solutions, technology, which technology, technology is the problem, bottom-up government, more experts, better laws, support local business, lifeboat ethics or in this together, the internet, NGOs or carbon taxes, etc, etc). He promotes the idea of community and vocal grass-roots action to generate real change.

Still it is great that he is trying to generate some political grass-roots action. I just wonder if it will work and this is the key question. Hopefully this action will add to the many other attempts that are been made.

He tends to use a story approach rather than technocratic science or powerpoint). The first story was set in Tibet (when he went to see a melting glacier for a story he was doing for National Geographic - when he asked why it was melting - he was told by a 17 year old villager "like he was from the planet dimwit" that it was "from global warming and too many factories") . The second is set in Bangladesh (you can have a listen if you want - he tells it better than I could here anyway). He uses lots of dramatic words and a common sense type of approach and keeps it very simple.

He finished by saying that he wasn't sure that we could solve the problem because of 4 reasons:

Carbon Dioxide isn't a trace gas (its an integral part of our economy).
Heavily defended industry (oil, gas, coal, etc).
Time is short (this is important).
Not enough people mobilized on climate change (this is where he thinks 350.org can help).

He suggested that instead of thinking about jobs versus environment, we should think of the laws of chemistry and physics versus our political and humans systems. The laws of nature bend for no committee or political process.

I will post the lecture when the link when it is put up.

[Update: Download video here)

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.

The New Green Economy

Clive Hamilton lecture "The Rebirth of Nature and the Climate Crisis"

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Two climate futures - new study published in the journal Nature

2009-04-29T12:53:00.000-07:00

Here is some of the press release for a new study called "Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C" that was published today in Nature.

Cover of the current edition of 'Nature'. Credits: 'Nature'

Less than a quarter of the proven fossil fuel reserves can be burnt and emitted between now and 2050, if global warming is to be limited to two degrees Celsius (2°C).

The study has, for the first time, calculated how much greenhouse gas emissions we can pump into the atmosphere between now and 2050, to have a reasonable chance of keeping warming lower than 2°C (above pre-industrial levels) – a goal supported by more than 100 countries (2). We can only emit 1000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) between the years 2000 and 2050. The world has already emitted one third of that in just nine years.

“If we continue burning fossil fuels as we do, we will have exhausted the carbon budget in merely 20 years, and global warming will go well beyond two degrees,” says Malte Meinshausen, lead author of the study and climate researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The three-year research project involved scientists from Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland (3).

The study concluded that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut by more than 50 percent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels, if the risk of exceeding 2°C is to be limited to 25 percent.

“Only a fast switch away from fossil fuels will give us a reasonable chance to avoid considerable warming. We shouldn’t forget that a 2°C global mean warming would take us far beyond the natural temperature variations that life on Earth has experienced since we humans have been around,” says Malte Meinshausen.

The study also compared the volume of CO2 emissions that could result from the burning of known economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves—oil, gas and coal—and found that these reserves are four times larger than the emission budget between now and 2050 (4). “To keep warming below 2°C, we cannot burn and emit the CO2 from more than a quarter of the economically recoverable fossil fuels up to 2050, and in the end only a small fraction of all known fossil fuel reserves,” concludes Bill Hare, co-author of the study.

Two possible futures: One in which no climate policies are implemented (red), and one with strong action to mitigate emissions (blue). Shown are fossil CO2 emissions (top panel) and corresponding global warming (bottom panel). The shown mitigation pathway limits fossil and land-use related CO2 emissions to 1000 billion tonnes CO2 over the first half of the 21st century with near-zero net emissions thereafter. Greenhouse gas emissions of this pathway in year 2050 are ~70% below 1990 levels. Without climate policies, global warming will cross 2°C by the middle of the century. Strong mitigation actions according to the blue route would limit the risk of exceeding 2°C to 25%. For more details, see Figure 2 in Meinshausen et al. (2009).

Credit: M. Meinshausen et al. (2009)

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Gambling with climate change
.
Americans and climate change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

300th Post - Happy Earth Day !!

2009-04-21T02:12:00.000-07:00

My 300th post has come just in time for Earth Day 2009.

It is celebrated in the United States on April 22nd.

It was founded by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson in 1970.

The United Nations celebrates an Earth Day each year on the March equinox (thanks Wiki).

More here

US EPA deems CO2 a health risk

2009-04-18T17:11:00.000-07:00

Here is the news release from the US EPA website:

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

“In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

More information here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being
.
Climate Literacy
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

Towards a Global Green Recovery
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Adaption of People and Forests to Climate Change

2009-04-17T17:30:00.000-07:00

Here is a new report called "Adaption of People and Forests to Climate Change" which will be published officially at the next session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF). Here is the blurb that came through the climate-l listserve:

"The report is the first product of the Global Forest Expert Panels of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) and presents the state-of-knowledge about the impacts of climate change on forests and people and options for adaptation."

"One of the key messages that emerged from this assessment is that the carbon-regulating services of forests are at risk of being lost entirely unless current carbon emissions are reduced substantially; this would result in the release of huge quantities of carbon to the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change."

Just to point it out again - "the carbon-regulating services of forests are at risk of being lost entirely unless current carbon emissions are reduced substantially". That really doesn't sound good.

Finally, here is some info on the IUFRO and the CPF.

"The International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) is the only world-wide organization devoted to forest research and related sciences. Its members are research institutions, universities, and individual scientists as well as decision-making authorities and other stakeholders with a focus on forests and trees."

For further information, please visit: http://www.iufro.org/

"The Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) is a voluntary arrangement among 14 international organizations and secretariats with substantial programmes on forests. Its mission is to promote the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forest and strengthen long-term political commitment to this end."

For further information, please visit: http://www.fao.org/forestry/cpf/en/

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

Boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.
the

Climate Literacy

2009-04-16T13:58:00.000-07:00

Here is a new (17 page) report called "Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science". It was put out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and is therefore well worth a read! Below is the description that came through on the climate-l listserve.

A guide is now available to help individuals of all ages understand how climate influences them -- and how they influence climate. A product of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, it was compiled by an interagency group led by NOAA.

"The Essential Principles of Climate Science" presents important information for individuals and communities to understand Earth's climate, impacts of climate change, and approaches for adapting and mitigating change. Principles in the guide can serve as discussion starters or launching points for scientific inquiry. The guide can also serve educators who teach climate science as part of their science curricula.

“As climate policy is being discussed, it is very important for the citizens of our nation to have an appreciation for some of the fundamental aspects of climate and climate change,” said Tom Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and lead for NOAA's climate services. “This guide is a first step for people who want to know more about the essential principles of our climate system, how to better discern scientifically credible information about climate, and how to identify problems related to understanding climate and climate change.”

“There is so much misinformation about climate. We want to provide an easily readable document to help everyone make the most informed decisions,” said Karl.

“Having one product endorsed by the nation’s top federal science agencies, as well as leading science centers and associations, makes this document an essential resource.”

The 17-page guide includes information on how people can help reduce climate change and its impacts. It also defines important terms and concepts used when talking about climate and approaches to adaptation and mitigation.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

Interdisciplinary understanding of environmental issues

Capacity to problem solve

Capacity to communicate complex ideas to a wide audience

Research and consultancy skills

Climate change science and policy advice

Sustainable development

Public Participation and decision making

Environmental sociology

Environmental psychology

Boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

PAJ Environmental Consulting

2009-04-03T20:42:00.001-07:00

"Providing interdisciplinary solutions to enhance and sustain the natural, built and social environment"

Please check out the following:

PAJ Environmental Consulting

PAJ Environmental Consulting provides environmental and natural resources management consulting services to help individuals, businesses and organisations adapt and move towards a sustainable future.

Specialising in:

If you require any advice or further information, please get in touch today to see how PAJ Environmental Consulting can help you save money, time and the environment.

Comments and enquiries always welcome.

PAJEnvironmentalConsulting@gmail.com

Forest Conservation, REDD and SFM

2009-04-03T00:56:00.000-07:00

Here is some information on forest conservation from the The Global Environment Facility’s (GEF) Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP). The aim of the workshop is to "develop the Panel’s scientific and technical guidance for the fifth GEF Replenishment (GEF-5) strategic programming on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), forest conservation and sustainable forest management (SFM)".
.
The main reason for this post is that a good friend of mine helped organise the event.

Anyway, here is the blurb for the workshop:

GEF STAP workshop on REDD, Forest Conservation and Sustainable Forest Management: Options for GEF-5 (LULUCF, SFM to REDD)
.
Tuesday 31 March 2009, 9:00am to 5:15pm. Room U3-435, World Bank U building, 1800 G Street, Washington, DC
.
Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) dominated by tropical deforestation contribute to nearly 25% of CO2 equivalent global emissions (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC concluded that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) are critical to addressing climate change through stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.
.
The Stern Review also reinforced this finding and concluded that curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has the potential to offer significant reductions fairly quickly.
.
In 2007, the World Bank started the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) to support the development of REDD. The United Nations Collaborative Programme on REDD in Developing Countries (UN-REDD) was launched in 2008 as a collaboration between FAO, UNDP and UNEP. The UNFCCC is in the middle of negotiations on the methods and guidelines for implementing positive incentives to address REDD. The GEF, being the operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, is likely to be involved in operationalising the emerging REDD framework.

More information here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.

Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being

Nanotechnology - Updated

Towards a Global Green Recovery.
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being

2009-03-31T01:00:00.000-07:00

Here is a new report called "Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being: Research and Monitoring Priorities Based on the Findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment". It was put together by the International Council for Science, UNESCO and the United Nations University.

Here are the key quotes:

"The MA has involved the work of more than 1360 experts woldwide. Their findings, contained in five technical volumes and six synthesis reports, provide a state of the art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world's ecosystems and the services they provide (such as clean water, food, forest products, flood control, and natural resources) and the options to restore, conserve or enhance the sustainable use of ecosystems.

The bottom line of the MA findings was that human actions are depleting Earth's natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.

At the same time, the assessment shows that with appropriate actions it is possible to reverse the degradation of many ecosystem services over the next 50 years, but the changes in policy and practice required are substantial and not currently underway."

Hmmm. We need to get changes in policy underway NOW; but climate change, for example, is a very difficult policy issue indeed and will take some time to get up going and then to get it 'right.' But with possible climate tipping points in play, the clock is ticking.

Please check out this report! (Even if it is only the executive summary).

It begins with an introduction to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the conceptual framework used in the assessment. It then goes on to cover humans influence on ecosystems; the relationship between changes in human well-being and changes in ecosystems; improving capabilities of predicting consequences of changes in drivers; mechanisms for the sustainable use of ecosystems; monitoring and data; improving mechanisms whereby knowledge can most effectively contribute to decision-making; and lastly, a new research agenda.

"It is important that mechanisms are developed to ensure that the science agenda can be developed in a participatory manner involving relevant stakeholders as well as ensuring that platforms for dialogue exist to ensure that scientific knowledge can inform decision - and policy making.

The report proposes the development of a new 10 year research program - Humans, ecosystems and Well-being (HEW) - with a mission to foster coordinated research to understand the dynamic relationship between humans and ecosystems.

There will be a regional focus with a few research sites, where multidisciplinary teams of scientists will undertake research guided by a common protocol within the context of the MA conceptual framework.

At the global scale, the focus will be on global drivers of change in ecosystem services and the implications of such change on multiple scales bridging the global and the local/regional scales."

This is music to my ears!!

Firstly - the "participatory" nature suggested for science development and policy is exactly what I think is needed (e.g. for issues such as nanotechnology and climate change policy).

Secondly, the HEW project sounds fantastic! I mean, anything with "a mission to foster coordinated research to understand the dynamic relationship between humans and ecosystems" - one of my favourite areas of interest - has got to be worth finding out more about. Doesn't that sound good, environmental sociologists, I mean you.

Thirdly, I just love the last bit - "the focus will be on global drivers of change in ecosystem services and the implications of such change on multiple scales bridging the global and the local/regional scales". Big picture stuff and also bring it down to the local level. Has it all. Love it.

I will be definatley be reading more of this report tonight. Especially the new research agenda section (part 8) which hopefully suggests LOTS of social science input and improved public participation in both the direction of science and policy.

Anyway, I suggest you check it out if you are interested in this sort of stuff.

Full Report here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

Boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Earth Hour is on today (28th March 2009)

2009-03-27T15:54:00.000-07:00

Here is some information on Earth Hour (which began in Sydney, Australia - two years ago) from Julia Marton-Lefevre (Director General, IUCN) that came through the climate-l listserve today. So don't forget at 8-30pm local time to turn off your lights for 1 hour.
.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,
.

I’m writing to invite you to join a global environmental action to voice our collective concern about climate change and to show world leaders we are serious about securing a Global Deal on climate in less than 11 months time. On Saturday, 28 March, at 8.30pm local time, cities and towns across the world will turn off their lights for one hour – Earth Hour – sending a powerful message to decision makers that we want an international agreement to reduce global warming by the next UN climate meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009. It is hoped that Earth Hour 2009 will produce the largest-ever groundswell of public support. One billion people in more than 1,000 cities, including businesses, governments and communities, are expected to participate. They will call for firm commitments to combat climate change, which are vital to the future of our planet. Taking the first step is as easy as turning off a light. Encouraging others – entire cities, multinational corporations and people around the world – to perform this simple act for just one hour, makes it possible for everyone to participate. This is why IUCN is supporting Earth Hour, and is asking all of our members to join us in this important action. Earth Hour is being led by WWF, and we will coordinate closely with them and other partners to make this a truly global effort. Two years ago, Earth Hour began in one city, in one country, when more than 2.2 million households and businesses in Sydney turned off their lights for one hour. Last year, Earth Hour reached 370 cities and towns in more than 35 countries across 18 time zones, and the campaign shifted from a Sydney event to a global sustainability movement. Earth Hour 2009 will be even bigger because the threats posed by unchecked climate change are escalating, along with people’s concern. We need every individual, government and business to play a part. Earth Hour provides a constructive platform for engaging these stakeholders and demonstrates the impact we can have when we act together. I hope you will join us in participating in an Earth Hour 2009 event taking place near you, or consider sponsoring one of your own if there is not one already planned. For more information, visit www.earthhour.org and help world leaders see the light on climate by taking action on 28 March.
Thank you and best regards,

Julia Marton-Lefèvre

Director General, IUCN

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Gambling with climate change
.
Americans and climate change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'