26.8 C
Lagos
Monday, May 5, 2025
Home Blog Page 2104

G7 Summit: David Cameron may leverage on party’s climate message

0

David Cameron should use the Conservative Party’s positive record on tackling climate change and promoting clean energy to press for more action on these issues at the G7 Summit in Germanywhich started on Sunday, June 7 2015, said Lord Howard of Lympne.

British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Photo credit: news.bfnn.co.uk
British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Photo credit: news.bfnn.co.uk

Michael Howard said: “The General Election was a personal triumph for the Prime Minister. In winning it, he pledged his commitment to securing a strong new global climate agreement later this year and this weekend the G7 summit provides an ideal opportunity to advance his case.

“Bringing in policies to tackle climate change and promote clean energy, as the Conservatives have done, is good for growth, good for jobs, and good for the environment, which is a powerful message that the Prime Minister can take to the G7.”

Dr Camilla Toulmin, Director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said that other countries would be looking to the G7 for leadership.

Dr Toulmin said: “A constant feature of David Cameron’s premiership has been as a champion of international development, including unwavering support for Britain’s overseas aid contribution.

“By common consent, securing a healthy and prosperous future for all the world’s people – rich and poor – depends on finding an effective response to climate change.

“The G7 Summit is an ideal opportunity for Mr Cameron to show that he is as serious and consistent in his commitment to tackling global poverty and climate change as he has been on the delivery of UKAid.”   

 Lord Howard and Dr Toulmin are members of the Advisory Board of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a UK-based non-profit initiative supporting informed debate on energy and climate change.

WED 2015: Waste not, want not – Achim Steiner

0

In this editorial to observe the World Environment Day 2015, Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), submits: From Wasted Economy to Wasted Planet: Why Changing Our Consumption Patterns is a Choice We Must Make!

Achim Steiner of UNEP
Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP

As we sit down to lunch or dinner on this World Environment Day, it is important to consider this: one-third of all food produced globally each year – 300 million tonnes – is wasted. This waste costs the global economy a staggering one trillion dollars a year.

Industrialised regions account for almost half of the total. The food we discard is still fit for human consumption and could feed more than 800 million people in the world today.

This is just the tip of the waste iceberg, and serves as a proxy for the ‘ecological footprint’ of our entire global economy. Our global food system is responsible for 80 per cent of deforestation and is the largest single cause of species and biodiversity loss.

It is also responsible for more than 70 per cent of freshwater consumption. A beef burger on your lunch plate could require an incredible 2400 litres of water to produce. Would you like fries with that? Add a another 100 litres, not to mention the impact of pesticides and non-degradable packaging.

Bon appetite.

Here is the startling truth: Our global consumption is already one-and-a-half times the Earth’s carrying capacity. If current population and consumption trends continue, humanity will need the equivalent of two Earths to support itself by 2030.

With the global population forecast to reach nine billion by mid-century, demands on these depleting resources will only compound, exacerbated by increasing pollution, conflicts over resources, and the effects of an atmosphere being rapidly heated by human greenhouse gas emissions, all of which could substantially lower global GDP. Record droughts, floods, choking air pollution and species threatened with extinction have become a regular feature in our daily news.

While some may dream of colonising other planets, we cannot escape the conclusion that on this Earth, ‘business-as-usual’ cannot maintain our 21st century lifestyles, let alone trying to lift a billion people out of absolute poverty and accomodate an additional one to three billion middle class consumers.

Our only choice to grow our economies is to radically increase what economists call ‘productivity’ – doing more with less. We must shift patterns of both our production and consumption from our current linear economic system of extraction, production, consumption and waste, to a inclusive green economy that mimics natural processes where is there is no concept of ‘waste’ – just food for another organism or process.

A green economy can improve human well-being and social equity while significantly reducing environmental risks, costs, and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy is low-carbon, resource-efficient and socially inclusive. In terms of productivity, a green economy ‘decouples’ economic growth from the rate of natural resource consumption, and thus environmental degradation.

The good news is that this is already happening in parts of the global economy, although not nearly fast enough. Today, 65 countries have embarked on green economy and related strategies. This includes many countries engaged with the Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) to shift investment and policies towards clean technologies, resource-efficient infrastructure, well-functioning ecosystems, green skilled labour and good governance.

As an input to virtually every human product or process, energy is a proxy for impacts and progress. In just a few decades, the renewable energy sector has grown almost exponentially and accounted for nearly half of all installed electrical generating capacity in 2014, excluding large hydro. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that boosting energy efficiency alone could not only provide a 10 per cent reduction in global energy demand by 2030, but also save $560 billion.

In all, harnessing existing technologies and appropriate policies to increase resource productivity would liberate $3.7 trillion globally each year that is otherwise wasted. These currently wasted funds could be invested in substantial health, education and development objectives.

One of the keys to productivity and decoupling environmental damage from GDP is to make prices tell the environmental truth. Again, the energy sector shows how important this can be. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the total cost of public subsidy to fossil fuels amounts to more than 5 trillion dollars a year when direct and indirect subsidies are counted.

Getting price signals right, educating consumers and making policies that foster a green economy are not only desirable, they are essential. How well we succeed will determine whether the ‘Anthropocene’ is an age when more than 9 billion people have access to food, energy and security without compromising the vital life support systems of our planet.

Group alleges Australian climate policy are ‘lies and statistics’

0

According to the Climate Action Network (CAN) International, the Australian Government has serious questions to answer on its climate policies and ambition ahead of Paris as well as their role in pushing ahead to open up vast coal reserves, which the environment watchdog claims will blow the global carbon budget.

Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Photo credit: papundits.wordpress.com
Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Photo credit: papundits.wordpress.com

“They are still yet to formally put forward their INDC. Today (Thursday 4 June) in Bonn, the Australian Government has been asked to ‘please explain’ by a large number of their key trading partners and historical allies- including China and the US. But how do their responses stack up against reality?” demands CAN International, as it ponders where the nation sits on climate, environmental and energy action and policy.

Criticising Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the group highlights a range of comments, statements and quotes in an apparent bid to buttress its point.

What progress has Australia made towards the achievment of its quantified economy- wide emission reduction target?
Australian Government: “The Australian Government is firmly committed to reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. The centrepiece of the Government’s emissions reduction efforts is the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund that commenced purchasing emissions abatement in April 2015. Accompanying the Fund will be the safeguard mechanism to ensure emissions reductions purchased in this way are not undone elsewhere in the Australian economy.”

·    When the government abolished the carbon price in 2014, it was replaced with Direct Action – primarily a taxpayer-backed Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF).

·    However, the fund is unlikely to achieve even a 5% emissions reduction by 2020. The first ERF auction held in April 2015 was hailed as a stunning move by the government. Assuming the cost for carbon emissions remains at the average of almost AUD$14 per tonne of CO2 as paid in the first auction, the $1.89 billion budgeted will buy another 135 million tonnes of emissions.

But even assuming all the 47.3 million tonnes bought in the first auction are delivered, and the price per tonne of carbon remains the same, then the total emissions reduction bought by the ERF will be around 182 million tonnes of CO2. This is 54 million tonnes (or about 23%) short of Australia’s overall target. However it is likely that this first auction has already picked most of the “low-hanging fruit.”

·       As Mr. Abbott explained, the ERF is not actually about a 5% target: “The bottom line is we will spend as much as we have budgeted, no more and no less. We will get… as much emission reduction as we can for the spending we have budgeted.” 

·    There is also no timeline for the reductions. In fact, much of the 47 million tonnes bought in the first round of auctions won’t be delivered until after 2020.

·     Almost all of the abatement to be delivered before 2020 from the first auction appears to be from projects that were already in place sometime before the ERF came along, or rely on a one-off land clearing permit regime.

·     Manufacturers, miners and electricity generators (equivalent to more than 60% of Australia’s emissions) won’t have to reduce their emissions and may in fact be able to increase them, which could cancel out the emissions reductions. Direct Action’s “safeguards mechanism” has been watered down to the extent it effectively safeguards against industry having to do anything. A government issues paper said baselines for emissions would “reflect the highest level of reported emissions for a facility over the historical period 2009-10 to 2013-14”. If companies exceeded the baseline calculated that way, they could have their emissions averaged out of the next three years, or apply for a baseline “expansion”, or apply for an exemption, for example after a natural disaster.

·      Elaine Prior, a senior analyst at the global investment bank Citigroup said: “It appears to us that the mechanism, as described in the consultation paper, is unlikely to impose any significant costs or constraints on companies … it also appears unlikely to make any significant positive contribution to Australia’s emissions reduction efforts.”

 

What is Australia’s level of ambition post-2020?

Australian Government: Australia has an existing national renewable energy target, a “national energy productivity plan” and national building and appliance energy standards.

·      Australia’s recent ‘discussion paper’ does not mention a two degree goal, instead citing the IEA ‘new policies scenario’ which could result in upwards of 3.6 degrees warming.

·    The government will set a post-2020 emissions reduction target without a policy. Its discussion paper asks what policies might be implemented to achieve a new target that are “complementary” to Direct Action. Direct Action may not have enough money to meet even the 5% target, and all analysis suggests it would be extremely difficult to “scale up” to a higher target.

·      In May 2015, the Government cut Australia’s large-scale renewable energy target of 41,000 gigawatt hours of annual renewable energy production by 2020 to 33,000 gigawatt hours. Bloomberg New Energy Finance says investment in Australian projects will fall from an expected $20.6 billion by 2020 to $14.7 billion.

·     The government is not including climate change in long-term planning exercises. The recent intergenerational report even claimed that some economic effects of climate change “may be beneficial – where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output, while others may be harmful”.

 

Does Australia have special circumstances?

Australian Government: Australia has special “national circumstances”, as “for the foreseeable future, Australia will continue to be a major supplier of crucial energy and raw materials to the rest of the world … At present, around 80% of the world’s primary energy needs are met through carbon-based fuels. By 2040, it is estimated that 74% will still be met by carbon-based sources.”

·       Australia is already one of the largest per capita emitters on the planet and is refusing to pull its weight.

·    Australia’s justification for it’s special circumstances is based on “new policies scenario” of the International Energy Agency’s world energy outlook 2014, which was a baseline calculation of what would happen if countries implemented only the policies announced at that time, a scenario which would pave the way for at least 3.6C of global warming.

Abbott Government – Highlights on climate and energy

Prime Minister Abbott was elected PM in September 2013 and quickly started dismantling Australia’s climate change framework, including:

  • Moving to become the first country in the world to abolish the legislated price on carbon emissions
  • Shutting down the Climate Commission, an independent panel of experts that provided information on how climate change is affecting the country
  • Drastically reducing funding to the United Nations Environment Programmme (UNEP)
  • Has successfully managed to massively reduce the country’s mandated 20% Renewable Energy Target (RET), bringing a number of major renewable energy companies and projects to their knees
Abbott also denied any link between bushfires and climate change and accused Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, of “talking through her hat.” Both Figueres and Al Gore criticised Abbott on climate.

 Abbott opted not to send a representative to the COP 19 UN conference in Warsaw, a move described by former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo de Boer as “puzzling”.

 He appointed climate sceptic Dick Warburton to review Australia’s renewable energy target, in a move widely seen as first steps to weakening the target.

In a play out of the FIFA playbook, the Australian government has spent $100,000 on travel to lobby against UNESCO over the Great Barrier Reef listing in an attempt to protect their interests of coal development in the Galilee Basin.

Not only does the Coalition not vote against climate science, it blatantly ignores it. As many lesser developed countries have already pledged their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), the Abbott government seems to be endeavouring to do what the Howard government managed under the Kyoto Protocol. That is, to plead special consideration and avoid responsibility.

Meanwhile, the Coalition has directed $4m to fund an Australian climate consensus centre fronted by political scientist and climate change contrarian Bjorn Lomborg. The University selected turned down the offer of funding after an outcry from students, academics and the public.

In an attempt to qualify for renewable energy subsidies under the RET, the Australian government plans to allow the burning of native forest biomass. Not only will this burnt forest power be forced into direct competition with genuinely renewable forms of energy generation (wind and solar), but it will reduce the renewable energy certificates available for genuine low or no emission technologies by up to 15%.

In its recent budget, the Abbott government has yet again cut funding to climate research, with the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility a new addition to the list of climate and energy agencies to be halted in 2017. This government has already cut hundreds of millions of dollars from climate science, international climate finance and clean technology research programs. Critics say this sets Australia’s climate change action policies back to the 1990s.

The government is instead pushing ahead with a “Direct Action” policy, widely criticised as ineffective.

Australia is one of the leading countries opposing limits on coal finance in international discussions. A recent report reveals foreign governments have given Australia more than $4 billion to fund coal projects since 2007. In addition to global funding, Australian taxpayers have put up $1.4 billion to subsidise coal mines and power plants via the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, a government bank that enables the finance of Australian projects in other countries.

Abbott attempted (and failed) to take climate change off the G20 agenda in 2014.

The United Nations world heritage body condemned Australia’s approval of the dredging and dumping of millions of tonnes of sludge for new coal ports in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.

In an unprecedented move, the Abbott government applied to have sections of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area delisted by the United Nations, incorrectly claiming it had been degraded.

The Federal government’s recent Energy White Paper is yet another indication of the massive missed opportunity to incentivise renewable technology, instead aligning Australia’s future in old, polluting technology.

Abbott’s personal approval rating has plummeted after just 18 months of rolling out and doing their best to destroy these meaningful climate and energy policies.

Abbott was recently criticised for a bizarre video he released on YouTube, in which he linked a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of WWII D-Day to his government’s policies, including cutting the taxes on carbon emissions and mining and saying that Australia is “open for business.”

John Oliver did a brilliant summary of Abbott gaffes, well worth watching as a backgrounder, describing him as “hard-line, right wing” and “religiously anti-immigration.

 

A range of Tony Abbott comments:

  • “We don’t support, as a government, and as a Coalition, further lock ups of our forests. We just don’t support it. We have quite enough national parks, we have quite enough locked up forests already, in fact, in an important respect, we have too much locked up forest.”
  • “Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We’ve had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we’ve recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic [sic] global warming.”
  • “Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”
  • “The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.”
  • “Coal is vital for the future energy needs of the world. So let’s have no demonisation of coal. Coal is good for humanity. Coal is essential for the prosperity of the world. Energy is what sustains our prosperity, and coal is the world’s principal energy source and it will be for many decades to come.”
  • “It sounds like common sense to minimise human impact on the environment and to reduce the human contribution to increased atmospheric-gas concentrations. It doesn’t make much sense, though, to impose certain and substantial costs on the economy now in order to avoid unknown and perhaps even benign changes in the future.
  • “The climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth the climate was considerably warmer than it is now […] Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.”
  • “These so-called nasty big polluters are the people that keep the lights on. I mean, let’s not forget how essential these people are to the business of daily life.”
  • “If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?”
  • “It is prudent to do what we reasonably can to reduce carbon emissions. But we don’t believe in ostracising any particular fuel and we don’t believe in harming economic growth.”

 Comments from a cross-section of politics, NGOs, academics, firefighters, health professional, religious leaders etc in response to The Abbott Government’s stance on climate and energy.

Australian Greens Deputy Leader and climate change spokesperson, Senator Larissa Waters:

“Other countries, including the US and China, have asked very valid questions about the inadequacy of the Abbott Government’s Direct Action program and lowly emissions reduction target. In response, the Abbott Government has come up with a whole lot of spin and hot air in an embarrassing attempt to cover up its shameful inaction on climate change.”

The Climate Institute Deputy CEO, Erwin Jackson:

“The government’s response to other countries questions on the effectiveness of its domestic pollution reductions policy lack transparency and try to avoid accountability. The government appears to be inflating the impact of its actions to 2020 without providing any estimate of the pollution reductions it will deliver. Its responses raise more questions than it answers.”

Friends of the Earth Activist, Cam Walker:

“The renewables industry has been brought to the brink of collapse because of the extreme opinions of key players in the Coalition government and this reduced target will mean fewer jobs and investment in regional Australia, and less action on climate change than the original target,”

GetUp Campaigns Director, Paul Oosting:

“It’s hard to believe the government that said we’re open for business is now sending renewables investors packing. The RET’s been a big success for the country, doubling renewable electricity generation and reducing wholesale electricity prices. It’s time to balance out the multi-billion dollar subsidies to the fossil fuel industry with support for the fledgling, but fast growing renewables sector.”

 The Australian Forests and Climate Alliance (AFCA) Member, Frances Pike:

“Decades of over-logging of public native forests has led to environmental degradation of vast tracts of native forest, loss of water yields from catchments and rain-making capacity.  Australia now faces a wildlife crisis in many regions, and loss of habitat from logging is a major cause. The last thing we now need is forests being degraded and destroyed as a source of power production” said Ms Pike.  

 Solar Citizens National Director, Claire O’Rourke:

“Australians have been betrayed by the Abbott government’s pandering to the big power companies at the expense of ordinary families who are struggling with the cost of living. The Prime Minister’s repeated attacks on solar have put jobs and investment at risk and undermines the cheap, clean, sun-powered future Australians want.”

 Greenpeace Australia Reef Campaigner, Shani Tager:

“UNESCO now joins a long line of scientists, banks, organisations and individuals who are deeply worried about the Reef’s health. The Australian government can’t talk about protecting the Reef while aggressively supporting the licensing of mega-mine and expansion of coal ports along the Great Barrier Reef coast.”

 Former Leader of the Liberal party, Chair of AODP.net Dr John Hewson (Tony Abbott was a former staffer of Dr Hewson):

“The economic, environmental and health risks of climate change are very real. Prime Minister Abbott would be smarter to back Obama, who is likely to lead the international response to climate change, as a priority, for the rest of his presidential term.”

Former international oil, gas and coal industry executive, former chair of the Australian Coal Association and the former CEO of the Institute of Company Directors, Ian Dunlop:

“The omens are not good. The federal government remains in total denial that climate change will have any material impact on Australia’s future. Sensible climate policy has been dismantled, replaced with token gestures. Climate change does not feature in the policy reviews underway, with ludicrously Orwellian efforts being made to remove any reference to it throughout government.”

 350.org Australia CEO, Blair Palese:

“As the world moves rapidly away from coal, oil and gas and toward clean energy, Tony Abbott’s lack of leadership on climate change has Australia shirking its global responsibility on the most important issue of our time. As the country with the most to gain by the take up of solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy, Abbott’s belief that ‘coal is good for humanity’ is relegating Australia to the energy dark ages.”

 Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO, David Ritter:

“The Abbott Government has consistently failed the responsibility test on climate change, leaving Australia as an embarrassing laggard in a world that is moving to act.  Both the Australian people and the world deserve better than this from the Australian Government on climate change.”

 Delegate of United Firefighter’s Union QLD, Queensland, Dean McNulty:

“Firefighters are right on the front lines of the climate threat. We need a leader who will stand and face the climate challenge with our international colleagues, not a leader who runs away.”

 Oxfam Australia Climate Change Advocacy Coordinator, Dr Simon Bradshaw:

“Climate change is the single biggest challenge in the fight against poverty and hunger. Our region is home to some of the most vulnerable nations on earth, many of which are already struggling with shifting rainfall, sea level rise and more extreme weather. The Australian Government is both swimming against the tide of international action and working against the needs of poor people in developing countries. Renewable energy, not coal, is the key to reducing poverty and supporting inclusive economic growth throughout the developing world.”

 Climate and Health Alliance (CAHA) President, Dr Liz Hanna:

“Health and medical professionals are increasingly sounding the alarm on the Australian government’s backward steps on action to tackle climate change, given the serious health impacts for people in Australia and around the world from failing to cut emissions. This, compounded by the Abbott government position on promoting the coal industry, is inconsistent with its duty to prevent further climate change and avoiding known risks to health and wellbeing.”

 Australian Religious Response to Climate Change President, Thea Ormerod:

“In a globalised world, it is morally unacceptable for the leaders of individual countries to take a stand which would frustrate a global deal on climate change. It is all the more reprehensible when such a stand serves the interests of the wealthy, and will come at the human cost of the poor and future generations.”

 The Climate Institute CEO, John Connor:

“Government and business figures have often opposed climate and energy initiatives on the basis that Australia shouldn’t “go it alone”. This budget shows that if there’s anywhere we’re at risk of going alone, it’s backwards.” This latest budget locks in the benefits that polluters now can to continue polluting for free, while loading up taxpayers and a supposedly stressed budget with the task of paying for emissions reductions.”

Australian Conservation Foundation Energy Analyst, Tristan Knowles:

“It’s hard to believe a government of an advanced developed nation in the second decade of the 21st Century can release a vision for an energy future that pays so little attention to climate change. The energy white paper could have provided a roadmap for a sustainable energy future, but instead it was merely a rubber stamp on Australia’s old dinosaur industries and further proof that the current government has its head in the sand on energy policy.”

Former Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator for Tasmania, Christine Milne:

“The depth of this government’s denial is alarming. They’re condemning Australia to economic dislocation, to being way behind the rest of the word, and to making life harder and more dangerous for everyone in our region, as extreme fires and storms intensify […] The Abbott government does not accept the science, continues to support coal expansion and can’t see that they will be left behind as plenty of countries commit to a fossil fuel free world.”

Daniel Spencer Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC):

“The Great Barrier Reef has lost 50% of its coral cover over the last 30 years, in large part due to climate change. It’s a warning sign that carbon-intensive fossil fuels must remain in the ground. Citizens and investors alike are sending a clear message that the world has to move beyond coal. Australia should be leading this shift by creating jobs in clean energy instead of trying to build unviable coal ports on the Great Barrier Reef.”

 

HOMEF on WED 2015: Restore the environment, build well-being

0

In its message to mark the World Environment Day 2015, the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) submits that currently dominant humankind’s view of the gifts of nature is at the root of many of the crises confronting the world today

Nnimmo Bassey, Director, HOMEF
Nnimmo Bassey, Director, HOMEF

When future generations look back on our actions today, it is likely that they will evaluate harshly our irresponsible relationship with natural resources. Unfortunately, we will not be granted the excuse of ignorance. Despite access to so much information about the consequences of our consumption patterns, we still consume resources at a rate that is destructive to the planet and the people in it. Today, the world’s population is climbing quickly away from 7 million, and Nigeria’s 170 million people are pursuing this number unrestrained.

Every year, the United Nations sets aside the 5th of June as World Environment Day (WED), to create a tornado of awareness across the world on environmental issues. For each WED, a specific theme is chosen and stakeholders in over 100 countries create a network of positive environmental actions. WED is the vehicle that pools together tiny drops of environmental action to form a mighty ocean to drive environmental policies, campaigns and changes throughout the planet.  The theme for WED 2015 is “Seven Billion Dreams. One Planet. Consume with Care.” The sharp and concise theme is not trivial because beneath the simplicity lies a very important note of caution; we have only one planet and it is our minimum responsibility to curtail our culture of consumption.

This year’s World Environment Day theme could not have been better chosen concerning the state of planet today. We cannot ignore the fact that the well-being of humanity, the environment and economies ultimately depend on ways we manage the planet’s resources.

Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) believes that currently dominant humankind’s view of the gifts of nature is at the root of many of the crises confronting the world today, including economic, climate, food and social disruptions. Conflicts continue to rage because of misguided economic ideologies and of power struggles for dominance and for selfish appropriating the abundant but finite gifts of nature.

“Until we see what we term natural resources as actually the gifts of Nature that require a stewardship relationship we will continue on the destructive and obviously unsustainable path,” says Nnimmo Bassey, Director of HOMEF. “Today we call to mind also that the United Nations has declared 2015 the Year of the Soil.  The soil is indeed the base of culture and life generally. Our attitude to the soil contributes immensely to our well-being. Degraded soils support degraded lives. Thus when citizens are forced to live in degraded soils and environments their right to life and well-being is heavily degraded. We only have to think of the pollutions in the Niger Delta, the lagoons of Lagos, abandoned tin mines of Jos and the deadly mining wastes of Zamfara to see the enormity of the problems.”

The thinking that Nature can only be appreciated when she is given monetary value, or when transformed for utility, is a way of thinking that has diminished cooperation and solidarity and has rather built systems of competition, destruction and marginalisation of the powerless. The Earth is a living entity and not an inanimate mineral to be used, abused and damaged. Our contribution to an alternative view is documented in our publication, Re-Source Democracy (available at http://www.homef.org/sites/default/files/pubs/resource-democracy.pdf ).

On this day, HOMEF calls for concerted efforts by the new government in Nigeria to tackle the restoration of our environment as a crucial way of building well-being as well as a new vision of citizenship. A safe environment will help to put Nigerians back to work and kindle the spirit of innovation, solidarity, care, respect and dignity of labour. As we celebrate the World Environment Day, let’s pause and show some care for the Earth and for one another.

WED 2015: CEGDEC tutors kids on eco-friendly lifestyles

0

Conservative Environmental Growth and Development Centre (CEGDEC) commemorated World Environment Day 2015 on Wednesday, June 3 with the pupils of Oke-Afa Junior and Senior Comprehensive College, Jakande Estate, Oke-Afa, Isolo, Lagos. The yearly event, an initiative of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) since 1972, was held to raise global awareness of the need to take positive environmental action.

Page-1The environmental education and awareness-raising programme was held to achieve a cleaner, greener, and brighter world. Examples on living sustainable lifestyles were cited from the everyday routine an average Nigerian student lives. Information kits given included taking positive actions and adopting an eco-friendly life. As agents of positive change to the environment, actions like doing an inventory of daily energy usage, consuming habits, reliance on unsustainable products and ways to curb the unsustainable activities must be done, said Mrs. Maryam Olayeni, the CEGDEC executive director. Taking public transportation or better still making a choice to take a walk often is a way to reduce our carbon footprint, she added.

Olayeni continued: “Before acquiring so much waste, it is necessary to first consider where the waste ends. Therefore, consider the habit of 3Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle, and then choose to make it a part of your daily life. 

“A simple gesture of acquiring permanent shopping bags rather than acquiring so much polythene bags from shopping at different times should be encouraged. Using energy saving bulbs and turning off light in an empty room is a way of sustainable lifestyle.

“More importantly, it is necessary to get involved in conservation, restoration, or local eco-community project. The students were admonished to get involved in planting trees, saving trees, saving water and living in clean environment. ‘Greening up’ the environment will translate to a fresh home and to fresh city, fresh country and on the whole fresh world.”

As part of co-curricular activities, some of the students were already part of Climate Change Club. It was however concluded that, all students should be involved as everyone should be an agent of positive change the environment needs.

In conclusion, she submitted: “Today is a great day to sign up and get involved with people who are doing rather than talking or reading. There are many activities that can be done to live in harmony with the environment rather than to personally impact on the planet. Also take time to help others to learn from you.”

Tanzania records catastrophic decline of elephant populations

0

There has been a catastrophic decline of elephant populations in Tanzania over the past decade, the country’s Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Lazaro Nyalandu, has disclosed. According to him, the latest estimates of elephant populations have seen numbers plummeting from an estimated 109,051 in 2009 to 43,330 in 2014. Government officials said that it was highly likely that the decline was caused by poaching for ivory.

A poached elephant. Photo credit: kiregodal.com
A poached elephant. Photo credit: kiregodal.com

“The government’s figures show Tanzania lost tens of thousands of elephants over the past decade,” said Steven Broad, TRAFFIC’s Executive Director. “It is incredible that poaching on such an industrial scale has not been identified and addressed before now.”

This news confirms concerns raised by TRAFFIC in 2013 in a report from the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), which pointed to a profound shift in ivory smuggling routes to Tanzania’s Indian Ocean ports of Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar as the principle exit points for vast quantities of ivory. 

Latest information compiled by TRAFFIC from seizure records indicates that more ivory – at least 45 tonnes – has flowed from Tanzania to international markets in Asia than any other African country since 2009. Forensic analyses have confirmed that seizures made in Uganda and Kenya have also involved ivory originating from Tanzania.

A breakdown of elephant numbers across the country presented by Nyalandu showed some smaller elephant populations had increased significantly, notably the elephant population in the famed Serengeti, which rose from 3,068 to 6,087 animals. However, beyond the most heavily visited, northern circuit tourist locations, elephant numbers were significantly down.

Of particular concern is the Ruaha-Rungwa ecosystem, where an estimated 8,272 elephants were found in 2014, compared to 34,664 in 2009, according to government figures. Surprisingly, relatively few elephant carcases were spotted during surveys that would account for the decline and wildlife officials were at a loss to explain the discrepancy.

Nyalandu did announce a suite of measures to protect the country’s elephants, including recruitment of an additional 500 rangers this year in addition to the 500 extra already hired by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in 2014, better support for existing rangers and a doubling of ranger numbers in the key elephant stronghold of Ruaha-Rungwa, plus closer co-operation with neighbouring Zambia on anti-poaching measures.

Tanzania was already under pressure to address elephant poaching and illegal trade from its fellow members of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).  Along with a number of other African and Asia countries, Tanzania was required to develop an Ivory Trade Action Plan to guide its protection and enforcement efforts.

“While the measures announced this week by the Tanzania government are welcome, there is a real risk that it could be a case of too little too late for some elephant populations”, said Broad.

“Tanzania has been haemorrhaging ivory with Ruaha-Rungwa the apparent epicentre and nobody seems to have raised the alarm; it is clearly essential that the government establish exactly how this has been allowed to take place, while taking urgent and incisive action to bring the situation under control.”

US, EU accused of neglecting land use sector emissions in INDCs

0

As countries prepare to finalise a climate agreement in Paris in December, global leaders like the United States and the European Union are releasing intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), which are country specific action plans that outline how they intend to reduce global warming emissions. An analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) evaluated how the INDCs from the U.S., the EU and Mexico address land use emissions, which include those from agriculture and forestry. UCS found that the U.S. and EU INDCs fall short in describing what they will do to reduce land use emissions, but that Mexico’s contribution ambitiously addresses emissions from this sector.

Doug Boucher, director of UCS’s Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative. Photo credit: ucsusa.org
Doug Boucher, director of UCS’s Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative. Photo credit: ucsusa.org

“With land use sector emissions accounting for 25 percent of all global warming pollution, it is essential that countries with the potential to reduce emissions in this sector – like the U.S., EU, and Mexico – clearly commit to doing so in their INDCs,” said Doug Boucherdirector of UCS’s Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative. “If we want to stay under two degrees, then we need to tackle emissions on all fronts, including the land use sector.”

The report, “The Land Sector in the First INDCs: Intended Climate Contributions of the United States, the European Union, and Mexico,” examined and compared the INDC’s in terms of transparency, ambition, accounting standards and proposed actions.

This analysis follows up on an earlier UCS report, Halfway There,” which found that of the eight countries that make up 57 percent of all land use emissions, the U.S. has the greatest potential for emission reductions in the land use sector. Unfortunately, the U.S. INDC does not include actions to address emissions from agriculture and forestry.

Another area for concern within the U.S. INDC is language suggesting that the U.S. plans to exclude emissions from natural disturbances. This exclusion clause could create perverse incentives against improving forest management.

“It is disappointing to see the U.S. neglect to address emissions from agriculture and forestry – especially when the potential for reductions is so considerable,” said Boucher.

The EU INDC similarly does not contain action or mitigation plans to address land use emissions, but includes vague language referencing land use emissions. The EU INDC mentions that policies on how to include land use emissions will be established as soon as “technical conditions allow.” The INDC does not however go into detail about what these technical conditions are or why they are preventing the EU from planning to reduce land use emissions.

This is despite the fact that a recent EU study found that small dietary changes to eliminate some high emissions foods, such as beef, could reduce agricultural emissions by 28 percent. Again, the potential to realize emissions reductions from the land use sector is being overlooked.

“While the U.S. and the EU INDCs offer cause for concern, Mexico’s emissions reduction target genuinely addresses the land use sector,” said Boucher. “Mexico is a true leader in this sense.”

Mexico’s detailed emissions reduction plans specifically mention action to reduce deforestation to zero by 2030, increasing reforestation, restoring ecosystems, and improving agricultural sustainability. As a developing country, Mexico only has so many resources to implement this action plan without foreign assistance. The country pledged to reduce pollution by 25 percent on their own and by 40 percent if offered international financing.

“Emissions from land use represent a significant piece of the problem and must be addressed if the world is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change,” said Boucher. “Moving forward, the U.S. and the EU should take a page from the Mexico playbook and amend their INDCs to account for land use emissions.”

Hidden threats of the rising energy costs

0

Although gas prices are temporarily low at the pump, long-term energy costs are on the rise. According to State of the World 2015 contributing author Nathan John Hagens, a former hedge fund manager who teaches human macro-ecology at the University of Minnesota, nations are papering over those costs with debt. Higher energy costs are leading to continued recessions, excess claims on future natural resources, and more-severe social inequality and poverty.

Rising energy costs will endanger highly energy-intensive industries and practices. Photo credit: blogs-worldwatch.org
Rising energy costs will endanger highly energy-intensive industries and practices. Photo credit: blogs-worldwatch.org

The relatively low cost of energy extraction compared to the benefits obtained from fossil fuels has been perhaps the most important factor in the industrialised world’s economic success. Historically, large quantities of inexpensive fuels were available even after accounting for the energy lost to extract and process them. But, as remaining fuels become less accessible, higher energy costs will have ripple effects through economies built around continued large energy-input requirements. Rising costs will endanger highly energy-intensive industries and practices – including the energy sector itself – as well as widen and deepen poverty as everything becomes more expensive.

“Despite having ‘plenty of energy,’ higher physical costs (of extraction) suggest that energy likely will rise from a historical average of five percent of GDP (gross domestic product), to 1015 percent of GDP or higher,” writes Hagens.

In the short term, nations are taking on growing debt to avoid losses in GDP – an indicator of the economic health of a country. Since 2008, the Group of Seven nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have added about $1 trillion per year in nominal GDP, but only by increasing their debt by over $18 trillion.

However, continued use of credit to mask the declining productivity of energy extraction is unsustainable. For each additional debt dollar, less and less GDP is generated, and, at the same time, our highest-energy-gain fuels are being depleted. Energy is becoming more expensive for the creditor in the future than for the debtor in the present.

“We have entered a period of unknown duration where things are going to be tough,” writes Hagens. “But humanity in the past has responded in creative, unexpected ways with new inventions and aspirations.” While policy choices such as banking reform, a carbon and consumption tax, and moving away from GDP as a proxy for well-being are good long-term ideas, “we urgently need institutions and populations to begin to prepare…for a world with the same or less each year instead of more.”

Worldwatch’s State of the World 2015 investigates hidden threats to sustainability, including economic, political, and environmental challenges that are often underreported in the media. Worldwatch is an independent research organisation based in Washington, D.C. that works on energy, resource, and environmental issues. The Institute’s State of the World report is published annually in more than a dozen languages.

World Environment Day 2015: Earth’s resources are finite

0

Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank, sheds some light on the theme of the 2015 World Environment Day

Danielle Nieremberg, President, Food Tank
Danielle Nieremberg, President, Food Tank

Friday, June 5, is World Environment Day (WED) which celebrates positive environmental action and calls on each of us to create change. The theme of WED – “Seven Billion Dreams. One Planet. Consume with Care” – reminds us that we only have one planet, and that the Earth’s natural resources are finite, not unlimited.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), if current consumption and production patterns remain the same with a rising population, by 2050, we will need three planets to sustain our way of living and consuming.

Food production is a major culprit in the consumption of natural resources, accounting for 10 percent of the energy consumed in the United States, 80 percent of freshwater consumed, and 50 percent of land usage.

Sustainable America’s “I Value Food” campaign highlights the numbers involved in food waste. In fact, according to I Value Food, American consumers spend US$371 per person per year on food that gets wasted; on average, food travels 1,500 miles from farm to table. Twenty-six percent of meat products end up in landfills, which adds up to more than 47 billion wasted calories—or enough to feed 8,600 children for a year.

U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon says, “Although individual decisions may seem small in the face of global threats and trends, when billions of people join forces in common purpose, we can make a tremendous difference.”

This WED – and every day – we can all take steps to minimise food-related resource consumption. Here are a few ways to consume food more responsibly:

Waste not, want not: In the United States, 40 percent of edible food is wasted. Throwing away good food wastes natural resources. There are many simple things eaters can do to reduce household food waste. Plan meals and inventory your refrigerator and freezer before heading to the store. Buy only what you need and will realistically use. Repurpose leftovers and food scraps. Portion carefully. Freeze or preserve excess food before it goes bad. Donate good food to food banks before throwing it away. Last but not least, compost what you can’t use in any other way.

If you want to get more involved in reducing food waste, here are some organisations doing important work on that issue:

  • Andrea Segrè, president of the Last Minute Market (LMM), analyses steps in the food chain to see where waste originates. LMM recovers and reuses unsold good from mass retailers.

  • In Berlin, Culinary Misfits repurposes ugly produce for use in catering.

  • DC Central Kitchen has recovered hundreds of thousands of pounds of food which they use to feed those in need.

  • Feedback works to end global food waste at every level of the food system through awareness events and repurposing campaigns.

  • Food Recovery Network creates food recovery programmes on college campuses across the country to salvage food that would otherwise be thrown away.

  • The Food Waste Reduction Alliance aims to keep food out of landfills and increase distribution of food to those in need.

  • FUSIONS tries to reduce Europe’s natural resource consumption by decreasing food waste.

  • Jonathan Bloom has been researching and writing about food waste since 2005 and his blog, Wasted Food, draws attention to how consumers can cut their waste.

  • Love Food Hate Waste is educating consumers in the United Kingdom about food waste.

  • Society of Saint Andrew salvages food from America’s farms and delivers it to food pantries.

  • Danish food waste expert Selina Juul founded the Stop Wasting Food movement in Denmark which has gathered thousands of followers as well as support from over 90 politicians, including members of parliament in Denmark and across Europe.

  • Think.Eat.Save seeks to raise awareness of and galvanize global action on food waste.

Buy organic when you can. There are more benefits to organic than simply avoiding toxins. Organic agriculture is inherently low-input, involving fewer natural resources, and embraces closed-loop systems that recycle those resources that are used. The U.S. Department of Agriculture organic standards include sustainability requirements, ensuring that organic producers are preserving natural resources and protecting biodiversity.

Choose foods with less packaging, or bring your own. Buy fresh, whole foods, and buy in bulk when possible. If buying in bulk, bring your own container or bag. Skip the produce bag or bring a reused one from home. If your grocery store offers it, buy milk in a glass bottle from a company that will reuse it.

Eat fewer industrial meat products. Michael Pollan put it best: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Industrial meat production consumes vastly more natural resources than plant-based agriculture. According to the Water Footprint Network, one pound of beef requires almost two thousand gallons of water. Even the federal nutrition panel emphasized choosing a plant-based diet for a sustainable food system in their new nutrition guideline recommendations. If you are going to consume animal products, buy from your local farmer, and buy grass-fed and pasture-raised. Go vegan one day a week or one meal a day.

Grow your own. On a patio, in a window box, in your kitchen, in your backyard, in a community garden; every little bit counts. You’ll reduce your food miles, avoid the unsustainable practices of industrial food production, and learn to value your food more.

If you do grow your own food, plant drought-tolerant crops, water in the evening, or use an irrigation system to save water. If you don’t, encourage your farmer to use these practices.

Encourage policymakers to support sustainable agriculture. Vote for representatives (and then write to them!) locally and nationally who support sustainable agriculture legislation and programs, and who are willing to stop subsidizing overproduction, unsustainable practices, and waste in our agriculture system. Organizations such as Food Policy Action are changing the national dialogue by holding legislators accountable for how they vote on policy that affects food and farming.

Make responsible, conscientious food choices. Not all food is created equal. Some products are less sustainable than others. Check how far your food has traveled, and choose items that journeyed a shorter distance, such as fruits from Florida or California instead of South America or Asia. When buying seafood, choose those items that are most eco-friendly, such as wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, or Chesapeake Bay catfish—products that don’t devastate the ecosystems from which they are harvested.

Wetlands International conducts Niger Delta ecosystems study

0

A breakthrough study sponsored by Wetlands International in collaboration with the Rivers State University of Science and Technology (RSUST) has successfully completed work on developing coherent information base on the ecosystem services delivered by various Niger Delta habitats.

Participants at the Wetlands International Nigeria-sponsored Sustainable Livelihoods and Biodiversity Project (SLBP) Restitution and Validation of the Niger Delta workshop: From left to right: Elizabeth Odetola (Wetlands International, Nigeria), Prof. Ike Ekweozor (The Dean of Science, Rivers State University of Science and Technology), Michael Uwagbae (Wetlands International, Nigeria), Ward Hagemeijer (Wetlands International, Netherlands), Dr. Ndinga Assitou (Wetlands International Africa, Dakar), Barineme B. Fakae (Vice Chancellor, Rivers State University of Science and Technology), John Onwuteak (Rivers state University of Science and Technology) and Dr. Chovwen (Living Earth Nigeria Foundation).
Participants at the Wetlands International Nigeria-sponsored Sustainable Livelihoods and Biodiversity Project (SLBP) Restitution and Validation of the Niger Delta workshop: From left to right: Elizabeth Odetola (Wetlands International, Nigeria), Prof. Ike Ekweozor (The Dean of Science, Rivers State University of Science and Technology), Michael Uwagbae (Wetlands International, Nigeria), Ward Hagemeijer (Wetlands International, Netherlands), Dr. Ndinga Assitou (Wetlands International Africa, Dakar), Barineme B. Fakae (Vice Chancellor, Rivers State University of Science and Technology), John Onwuteak (Rivers state University of Science and Technology) and Dr. Chovwen (Living Earth Nigeria Foundation).

Results of the study conducted by the Department of Applied and Environmental Biology of the RSUST, Port Harcourt, were validated at a recent workshop held in the Rivers State capital. The research which was conducted between February 2014 and April 2015 examined six ecosystem services associated with the communities identified from a listing and defined through both public and expert focus groups. These include Fish Nursery and Breeding, Forest Carbon Sequestration, Enhancing soil quality of stunted mangrove area, Water Quality Enhancement, Shoreline Protection and Erosion Control.

The workshop, held under the sponsorship of Wetlands International’s Sustainable Livelihoods and Biodiversity Project (SLBP), was on the values people place on ecosystem services in model communities of the Niger Delta.

Among the significance of the workshop was to provide information from the study on the role of wetland ecosystem services in supporting livelihoods in parts of the Niger Delta, with specific emphasis on the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) maps in highlighting the range and distribution of ecosystem service types linked to the different ecological zones, as well as the societal values of these ecosystem services, stakeholder linkages, and degree of access to services and possibility of improving livelihoods through wise use of resources.

The workshop was also able to provide information on a global feat achieved from the study which was the use of satellite imagery in the differentiation of Nypa Palm (Nypa fruticans) from mangrove plants. The information acquired from the imagery provides the opportunity to evaluate the “healthy state” capacity of the wetland ecosystems to deliver different ecosystem services in the Niger Delta. The health of the wetland ecosystem determines either a sustained flow of a variety of services or a maximum amount of one specific service.

Additionally, the massive land take of Nypa palm in parts of Niger Delta region and the gradual invasion in other areas of the region and their restriction to “one-to-no service” category can now be measured and integrated in any assessment across the member states in Nigeria’s Niger Delta.

Furthermore, the workshop provided step working structures that can be adopted to guide future work on ecosystem services in the Niger Delta. It provided operational structure of the five-step approach including mapping of the concerned wetland ecosystems, assessment of the condition of the wetland ecosystems and quantification of the services provided by the wetland ecosystems in pilot/model sites. Others are stakeholder mapping and their metrics of the wetland ecosystems and the conduct of an ecosystem valuation using an empirical choice experiment.

The workshop similarly afforded basic understanding of the habitat types with wetland characteristics in the Niger Delta.

Likewise, the workshop produced awareness on the need to complete inventory, documentation and re-classification of the Niger Delta wetland ecosystem that would ensure a coherent approach to support their integration into a wetland accounting system across member states in the Niger Delta.

On the overall, the workshop showed evidence of the use of pluralism and grass root participation from community stakeholders to value and quantification of indirect use ecosystem services for integration into traditional cost benefit analysis.

Beyond validating findings from the study, the workshop brought together several scientists across institutions in Nigeria and across Africa with the focus on raising awareness among key stakeholders on the importance of the Niger Delta ecosystems to human well-being and economic prosperity.

Key speakers include Professor B. B. Fakae  (Vice Chancellor, RSUST),  Dr. John Onwuteaka (also of RSUST who was the Principal Investigator), Professor Stella Madueme (University of Nigeria, Nsukka), Dr. Ndinga Assitou (Wetlands International Africa, Dakar), Mr. Ward Hagemeijer (Wetlands International, Netherlands) and Dr. Richard Mulwa of the Centre for advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP), University of Nairobi, Kenya.

×