Imagine a World Without Seafood for Supper -- It's Nearer Than You Think
By Andrew Purvis, The Observer UK
April 29, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/environment/138874/imagine_a_world_without_seafood_for_supper_--_it%27s_nearer_than_you_think/
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/138874
http://www.alternet.org/story/138874/
As I step off the train at Heysel, the vast art deco structure of the Palais du Centenaire rises like a cathedral. With its four soaring buttresses topped by statues, the Palais forms the centrepiece of the Parc des Expositions in Brussels, Belgium - a trade-fair complex built in the 1930s to commemorate a century of independence from the Netherlands. This is the temporary home of thousands of fish products from around the world as 23,000 delegates descend from 80 countries for the annual European Seafood Exposition - the world's largest seafood trade show and a grim reminder of man's dominion over the oceans.
"If I wanted people to understand the global fishing crisis, I would bring them here," says Sally Bailey, a marine program officer with the World Wide Fund for Nature, one of the more moderate NGOs combating the exploitation of the seas. Last year, one of the more militant groups - Greenpeace - managed to "close down" five exhibitors trading in critically endangered bluefin tuna, by deploying 80 activists to drape their stands in fishing nets, chain themselves to fixtures and put up banners that read: "Time and tuna are running out".
To read the full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/138874/
Showing posts with label issue: global dimming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issue: global dimming. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Long Droughts, Rising Seas Predicted Despite Future CO2 Curbs
Long Droughts, Rising Seas Predicted Despite Future CO2 Curbs
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 27, 2009; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602037.html
[Read comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602037_Comments.html ]
Greenhouse gas levels currently expected by mid-century will produce devastating long-term droughts and a sea-level rise that will persist for 1,000 years regardless of how well the world curbs future emissions of carbon dioxide, an international team of scientists reported yesterday.
Top climate researchers from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Switzerland and France said their analysis shows that carbon dioxide will remain near peak levels in the atmosphere far longer than other greenhouse gases, which dissipate relatively quickly.
"I think you have to think about this stuff as more like nuclear waste than acid rain: The more we add, the worse off we'll be," NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon told reporters in a conference call. "The more time that we take to make decisions about carbon dioxide, the more irreversible climate change we'll be locked into."
At the moment, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere stand at 385 parts per million. Many climate scientists and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have set a goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm, but current projections put the world on track to hit 550 ppm by 2035, rising after that point by 4.5 percent a year.
The new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, projects that if carbon dioxide concentrations peak at 600 ppm, several regions of the world -- including southwestern North America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa -- will face major droughts as bad or worse than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Global sea levels will rise by about three feet by the year 3000, a projection that does not factor in melting glaciers and polar ice sheets that would probably result in significant additional sea level rises.
Even if the world managed to halt the carbon dioxide buildup at 450 ppm, the researchers concluded, the subtropics would experience a 10 percent decrease in precipitation, compared with the 15 percent decrease they would see at 600 ppm. That level is still akin to mega-droughts such as the Dust Bowl. The already parched U.S. Southwest would probably see a 5 percent drop in precipitation during its dry season.
Mary-Elena Carr, associate director of the Columbia Climate Center, called the new projections "very sobering." She noted that while societies can try to adapt to reduced precipitation with better farming techniques and other measures, there is a limit to the ability to cope with severe drought.
"When it's drought, that is hard, because we have a finite amount of water and a growing population we need to feed," Carr said, adding that the severe storm surges associated with higher sea levels also pose a dangerous challenge to large populations.
The rising sea levels anticipated under a conservative projection, the authors wrote, would cause "irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged."
The scientists noted that the world's oceans are already absorbing an enormous amount of carbon, but over time this will reach a limit and they will no longer absorb as much. As this happens, the atmospheric temperature will remain nearly constant.
Most previous scientific analyses, including the U.N. panel's summary report for policymakers, have assessed climate change impacts on a 100-year time scale. A few researchers, such as Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, have argued that it makes more sense to look at a time scale of at least 500 years.
In an e-mail yesterday, Caldeira wrote that he had debated this point with other contributors to the U.N. reports in 2001, adding, "If you took our long term climate commitment seriously, you would not use 100-year [global warming projections] to compare effects of different gases."
Carbon dioxide emissions account only for about half of human-induced global warming, but the several other gases that play a role, including methane, dissipate more quickly. Solomon said policymakers could take this into account when deciding how best to reduce greenhouse gases overall.
"We ought to be extra careful about how much carbon dioxide we put out in the future," she said, adding that politicians often focus on the less certain but potentially disastrous impacts of climate change but would do well to focus on the more predictable consequences. "The parts that we don't know, that are possible but very uncertain, shouldn't get in the way of what we do know."
A separate study in the same journal yesterday suggests that the iconic emperor penguins of the Antarctic could be headed to extinction by 2100 if the sea ice shrinks by the predicted amounts. That paper -- written by scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., and France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique -- projects that the number of breeding pairs in a colony in Terre Adelie, Antarctica, will decline from about 6,000 to 400 by the end of the century because the animals depend on sea ice for breeding, foraging and molting habitat.
Emperor penguins would have to migrate or change the timing of their growth stages to avoid extinction, the authors write, but "evolution or migration seem unlikely for such long-lived species at the remote southern end of the Earth."
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 27, 2009; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
[Read comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Greenhouse gas levels currently expected by mid-century will produce devastating long-term droughts and a sea-level rise that will persist for 1,000 years regardless of how well the world curbs future emissions of carbon dioxide, an international team of scientists reported yesterday.
Top climate researchers from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Switzerland and France said their analysis shows that carbon dioxide will remain near peak levels in the atmosphere far longer than other greenhouse gases, which dissipate relatively quickly.
"I think you have to think about this stuff as more like nuclear waste than acid rain: The more we add, the worse off we'll be," NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon told reporters in a conference call. "The more time that we take to make decisions about carbon dioxide, the more irreversible climate change we'll be locked into."
At the moment, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere stand at 385 parts per million. Many climate scientists and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have set a goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm, but current projections put the world on track to hit 550 ppm by 2035, rising after that point by 4.5 percent a year.
The new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, projects that if carbon dioxide concentrations peak at 600 ppm, several regions of the world -- including southwestern North America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa -- will face major droughts as bad or worse than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Global sea levels will rise by about three feet by the year 3000, a projection that does not factor in melting glaciers and polar ice sheets that would probably result in significant additional sea level rises.
Even if the world managed to halt the carbon dioxide buildup at 450 ppm, the researchers concluded, the subtropics would experience a 10 percent decrease in precipitation, compared with the 15 percent decrease they would see at 600 ppm. That level is still akin to mega-droughts such as the Dust Bowl. The already parched U.S. Southwest would probably see a 5 percent drop in precipitation during its dry season.
Mary-Elena Carr, associate director of the Columbia Climate Center, called the new projections "very sobering." She noted that while societies can try to adapt to reduced precipitation with better farming techniques and other measures, there is a limit to the ability to cope with severe drought.
"When it's drought, that is hard, because we have a finite amount of water and a growing population we need to feed," Carr said, adding that the severe storm surges associated with higher sea levels also pose a dangerous challenge to large populations.
The rising sea levels anticipated under a conservative projection, the authors wrote, would cause "irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged."
The scientists noted that the world's oceans are already absorbing an enormous amount of carbon, but over time this will reach a limit and they will no longer absorb as much. As this happens, the atmospheric temperature will remain nearly constant.
Most previous scientific analyses, including the U.N. panel's summary report for policymakers, have assessed climate change impacts on a 100-year time scale. A few researchers, such as Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, have argued that it makes more sense to look at a time scale of at least 500 years.
In an e-mail yesterday, Caldeira wrote that he had debated this point with other contributors to the U.N. reports in 2001, adding, "If you took our long term climate commitment seriously, you would not use 100-year [global warming projections] to compare effects of different gases."
Carbon dioxide emissions account only for about half of human-induced global warming, but the several other gases that play a role, including methane, dissipate more quickly. Solomon said policymakers could take this into account when deciding how best to reduce greenhouse gases overall.
"We ought to be extra careful about how much carbon dioxide we put out in the future," she said, adding that politicians often focus on the less certain but potentially disastrous impacts of climate change but would do well to focus on the more predictable consequences. "The parts that we don't know, that are possible but very uncertain, shouldn't get in the way of what we do know."
A separate study in the same journal yesterday suggests that the iconic emperor penguins of the Antarctic could be headed to extinction by 2100 if the sea ice shrinks by the predicted amounts. That paper -- written by scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., and France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique -- projects that the number of breeding pairs in a colony in Terre Adelie, Antarctica, will decline from about 6,000 to 400 by the end of the century because the animals depend on sea ice for breeding, foraging and molting habitat.
Emperor penguins would have to migrate or change the timing of their growth stages to avoid extinction, the authors write, but "evolution or migration seem unlikely for such long-lived species at the remote southern end of the Earth."
Friday, January 23, 2009
How the Rich are Destroying the Earth
How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth
November 24, 2008
http://www.enn.com/lifestyle/commentary/38716
http://www.enn.com/lifestyle/commentary/38716/print
Environment: There is an emergency. In less than a decade we will have to change
course, but there are a few major obstacles blocking the way.
The following is reprinted from the new book How the Rich Are Destroying the
Earth by Herve Kempf and published by Chelsea Green.
There is an emergency. In less than a decade we will have to change course --
assuming the collapse of the U.S. economy or the explosion of the Middle East
does not impose a change through chaos. To confront the emergency, we must
understand the objective: to achieve a sober society; to plot out the way there;
to accomplish this transformation equitably, by first making those with the most
carry the burden within and between societies; to take inspiration from
collective values ascribed to here in France by our nation's motto: "Liberty,
ecology, fraternity."
What are the main obstacles that block the way?
ADVERTISEMENT
First of all, received wisdom -- prejudices really -- so loaded that they orient
collective action without anyone really thinking about them. The most powerful
of these preconceived ideas is the belief in growth as the sole means of
resolving social problems. That position is powerfully defended even as it is
contradicted by the facts. And it is always defended by putting ecology aside
because the zealots know that growth is incapable of responding to the
environmental issue.
The second of these ideas, less cocky although very broadly disseminated,
proclaims that technological progress will resolve environmental problems. This
idea is propagated because it allows people to hope we will be able to avoid any
serious changes in our collective behaviors thanks to technological progress.
The development of technology, or rather of certain technical channels to the
detriment of others, reinforces the system and fosters solid profits.
The third piece of received wisdom is the inevitability of unemployment. This
idea is closely linked to the two previous ideas. Unemployment has become a
given, largely manufactured by capitalism to assure the docility of the populace
and especially of the lowest level of workers. From a contrary position, the
transfer of the oligarchy's wealth for the purpose of public services, a system
of taxation that weighed more heavily on pollution and on capital than on
employment, sustainable agricultural policies in the countries of the South, and
research into energy efficiency are immense sources of employment.
A fourth commonly associates Europe and North America in a community of fortune.
But their paths have diverged. Europe is still a standard-bearer for an ideal of
universalism, the validity of which it demonstrates by its ability to unite --
despite problems -- very different states and cultures. Energy consumption,
cultural values -- for example, the critical significance of food -- the
rejection of the death penalty and torture, less pronounced inequality and the
maintenance of an ideal of social justice, respect for international law, and
support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate are some of the many traits that
distinguish Europe from the United States.
Europe must be separated from the obese power and draw closer to the South,
unless the United States shows it can really change.
The Oligarchy Could Be Divided
Then there are the forces at work.
The first, of course, is the power of the system itself. The failures that will
occur will not in themselves be sufficient to undo the system, since, as we have
seen, they could offer the pretext to promote an authoritarian system divested
of any show of democracy.
The social movement has woken up, however, and may continue to gain power. But
it alone will not be able to carry the day in the face of the rise of
repression: it will be necessary for the middle classes and part of the
oligarchy -- which is not monolithic -- to clearly take sides for public
freedoms and the common good. The mass media constitute a central challenge.
Today they support capitalism because of their own economic situation. They
depend, for the most part, on advertising. That makes it difficult for them to
plead for a reduction in consumption.
On top of that, the development of free papers that depend solely on advertising
further increases the pressure on widely distributed paid newspapers, many of
which have entered the stables of big industrial groups. It's not certain that
the information possibilities generated by the Internet, although immense -- and
for as long as these remain open -- will be adequate to counterbalance the
weight of the mass media should it wholly become the voice of the oligarchy.
Nevertheless, not all journalists are totally enthralled yet, and they could be
galvanized around the ideal of freedom.
The third, wobbly force is the left. Since its social-democratic component
became its center of gravity, it has abandoned any ambition of transforming the
world. The compromise with free-market liberalism has led the left to so totally
adopt the values of free-market liberalism that it no longer dares -- except in
the most cautious terms -- to deplore social inequality. On top of that, the
left displays an almost cartoonish refusal to truly engross itself in
environmental issues.
The left remains pickled in the idea of progress as it was conceived in the
nineteenth century, still believes that science is produced the same way it was
in the time of Albert Einstein, and intones the chant of economic growth without
the slightest trace of critical thinking. Moreover, "social capitalism" rather
than "social democracy" is undoubtedly the more apposite term.
Nonetheless, can the challenges of the twenty-first century be addressed by the
currents of tradition other than the one that identified inequality as its
primary motive for revolt?
This hiatus is at the heart of political life. The left will be reborn by
uniting the causes of inequality and the environment -- or, unfit, it will
disappear in the general disorder that will sweep it and everything else away.
And yet, let us be optimistic. Optimistic, because there are ever more of us who
understand -- unlike all the conservatives -- the historical novelty of the
situation: we are living out a new, never-seen-before phase of the human
species' history, the moment when, having conquered the Earth and reached its
limits, humanity must rethink its relationship to nature, to space, to its
destiny.
We are optimistic to the extent that awareness of the importance of the current
stakes becomes pervasive, to the extent that the spirit of freedom and of
solidarity is aroused. Since Seattle and the protests against the World Trade
Organization in 1999, the pendulum has begun to swing in the other direction,
toward a collective concern about the choices for the future, seeking
cooperation rather than competition.
The somewhat successful, although still incomplete, battle in Europe against
GMOs, the international community's continuance of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001
despite the United States' withdrawal, the refusal by the peoples of Europe to
participate in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the general recognition of the
urgency of climate-change challenge are signs that the wind of the future has
begun to blow. Despite the scale of the challenges that await us, solutions are
emerging and -- faced with the sinister prospects the oligarchs promote -- the
desire to remake the world is being reborn.
Herve Kempf is the environmental editor of Le Monde, France's most influential
newspaper and the author of the new book, How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth.
November 24, 2008
http://www.enn.com/lifestyle/commentary/38716
http://www.enn.com/lifestyle/commentary/38716/print
Environment: There is an emergency. In less than a decade we will have to change
course, but there are a few major obstacles blocking the way.
The following is reprinted from the new book How the Rich Are Destroying the
Earth by Herve Kempf and published by Chelsea Green.
There is an emergency. In less than a decade we will have to change course --
assuming the collapse of the U.S. economy or the explosion of the Middle East
does not impose a change through chaos. To confront the emergency, we must
understand the objective: to achieve a sober society; to plot out the way there;
to accomplish this transformation equitably, by first making those with the most
carry the burden within and between societies; to take inspiration from
collective values ascribed to here in France by our nation's motto: "Liberty,
ecology, fraternity."
What are the main obstacles that block the way?
ADVERTISEMENT
First of all, received wisdom -- prejudices really -- so loaded that they orient
collective action without anyone really thinking about them. The most powerful
of these preconceived ideas is the belief in growth as the sole means of
resolving social problems. That position is powerfully defended even as it is
contradicted by the facts. And it is always defended by putting ecology aside
because the zealots know that growth is incapable of responding to the
environmental issue.
The second of these ideas, less cocky although very broadly disseminated,
proclaims that technological progress will resolve environmental problems. This
idea is propagated because it allows people to hope we will be able to avoid any
serious changes in our collective behaviors thanks to technological progress.
The development of technology, or rather of certain technical channels to the
detriment of others, reinforces the system and fosters solid profits.
The third piece of received wisdom is the inevitability of unemployment. This
idea is closely linked to the two previous ideas. Unemployment has become a
given, largely manufactured by capitalism to assure the docility of the populace
and especially of the lowest level of workers. From a contrary position, the
transfer of the oligarchy's wealth for the purpose of public services, a system
of taxation that weighed more heavily on pollution and on capital than on
employment, sustainable agricultural policies in the countries of the South, and
research into energy efficiency are immense sources of employment.
A fourth commonly associates Europe and North America in a community of fortune.
But their paths have diverged. Europe is still a standard-bearer for an ideal of
universalism, the validity of which it demonstrates by its ability to unite --
despite problems -- very different states and cultures. Energy consumption,
cultural values -- for example, the critical significance of food -- the
rejection of the death penalty and torture, less pronounced inequality and the
maintenance of an ideal of social justice, respect for international law, and
support for the Kyoto Protocol on climate are some of the many traits that
distinguish Europe from the United States.
Europe must be separated from the obese power and draw closer to the South,
unless the United States shows it can really change.
The Oligarchy Could Be Divided
Then there are the forces at work.
The first, of course, is the power of the system itself. The failures that will
occur will not in themselves be sufficient to undo the system, since, as we have
seen, they could offer the pretext to promote an authoritarian system divested
of any show of democracy.
The social movement has woken up, however, and may continue to gain power. But
it alone will not be able to carry the day in the face of the rise of
repression: it will be necessary for the middle classes and part of the
oligarchy -- which is not monolithic -- to clearly take sides for public
freedoms and the common good. The mass media constitute a central challenge.
Today they support capitalism because of their own economic situation. They
depend, for the most part, on advertising. That makes it difficult for them to
plead for a reduction in consumption.
On top of that, the development of free papers that depend solely on advertising
further increases the pressure on widely distributed paid newspapers, many of
which have entered the stables of big industrial groups. It's not certain that
the information possibilities generated by the Internet, although immense -- and
for as long as these remain open -- will be adequate to counterbalance the
weight of the mass media should it wholly become the voice of the oligarchy.
Nevertheless, not all journalists are totally enthralled yet, and they could be
galvanized around the ideal of freedom.
The third, wobbly force is the left. Since its social-democratic component
became its center of gravity, it has abandoned any ambition of transforming the
world. The compromise with free-market liberalism has led the left to so totally
adopt the values of free-market liberalism that it no longer dares -- except in
the most cautious terms -- to deplore social inequality. On top of that, the
left displays an almost cartoonish refusal to truly engross itself in
environmental issues.
The left remains pickled in the idea of progress as it was conceived in the
nineteenth century, still believes that science is produced the same way it was
in the time of Albert Einstein, and intones the chant of economic growth without
the slightest trace of critical thinking. Moreover, "social capitalism" rather
than "social democracy" is undoubtedly the more apposite term.
Nonetheless, can the challenges of the twenty-first century be addressed by the
currents of tradition other than the one that identified inequality as its
primary motive for revolt?
This hiatus is at the heart of political life. The left will be reborn by
uniting the causes of inequality and the environment -- or, unfit, it will
disappear in the general disorder that will sweep it and everything else away.
And yet, let us be optimistic. Optimistic, because there are ever more of us who
understand -- unlike all the conservatives -- the historical novelty of the
situation: we are living out a new, never-seen-before phase of the human
species' history, the moment when, having conquered the Earth and reached its
limits, humanity must rethink its relationship to nature, to space, to its
destiny.
We are optimistic to the extent that awareness of the importance of the current
stakes becomes pervasive, to the extent that the spirit of freedom and of
solidarity is aroused. Since Seattle and the protests against the World Trade
Organization in 1999, the pendulum has begun to swing in the other direction,
toward a collective concern about the choices for the future, seeking
cooperation rather than competition.
The somewhat successful, although still incomplete, battle in Europe against
GMOs, the international community's continuance of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001
despite the United States' withdrawal, the refusal by the peoples of Europe to
participate in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the general recognition of the
urgency of climate-change challenge are signs that the wind of the future has
begun to blow. Despite the scale of the challenges that await us, solutions are
emerging and -- faced with the sinister prospects the oligarchs promote -- the
desire to remake the world is being reborn.
Herve Kempf is the environmental editor of Le Monde, France's most influential
newspaper and the author of the new book, How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Bush rushes through harmful environment laws
Bush rushes through 'harmful' environment laws
New Scientist staff and Reuters
03 November 2008
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15105-bush-rushes-through-harmful-environm\
ent-laws.html?full=true&print=true
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15105-bush-rushes-through-harmful-environm\
ent-laws.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
As the US presidential candidates sprint toward the finish line, the Bush
administration is also sprinting to enact environmental policy changes before
leaving power.
The rule changes include getting wolves off the Endangered Species List,
allowing power plants to operate near national parks, relaxing regulations for
factory farm waste and making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations.
None have found much favour with environmental groups.
Even some free-market organisations have joined conservation groups to urge a
moratorium on last-minute rules proposed by the Interior Department and the
Environmental Protection Agency, among others.
"The Bush administration has had eight years in office and has issued more
regulations than any administration in history," says Eli Lehrer of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute. "At this point, in the current economic
climate, it would be especially harmful to push through ill-considered
regulations."
The Bush team has urged that regulations be issued no later than Saturday, so
they can be put in effect by the time George W. Bush leaves office on 20 January
2009.
Hard to undo
If they are in effect then, it will be hard for the next administration to undo
them, and in any case, this may not be the top priority for a new president,
says Matt Madia of OMB Watch, which monitors the White House Office of
Management and Budget through which these proposed regulations must pass.
"This is typical," Madia says of the administration's welter of eleventh-hour
rules. "It's a natural reaction to knowing that you're almost out of power."
According to Madia, industry is likely to benefit if Bush's rules on the
environment become effective. "Whether it's the electricity industry or the
mining industry or the agriculture industry, this is going to remove government
restrictions on their activity and in turn they're going to be allowed to
pollute more and that ends up harming the public."
What is unusual is the speedy trip some of these environmental measures are
taking through the process.
For example, one Interior Department rule that would erode protections for
endangered species in favour of mining interests drew more than 300,000 comments
from the public, which officials said they planned to review in a week, a pace
that Madia calls "pretty ludicrous."
Rules only go into effect 30 to 60 days after they are finalised, and if they
are not in effect when the next president takes office, that chief executive can
decline to put them into practice - as Bush did with many rules finalised at the
end of the Clinton administration.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto denied the Bush team was cramming these
regulations through in a hasty push.
New Scientist staff and Reuters
03 November 2008
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15105-bush-rushes-through-harmful-environm\
ent-laws.html?full=true&print=true
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15105-bush-rushes-through-harmful-environm\
ent-laws.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
As the US presidential candidates sprint toward the finish line, the Bush
administration is also sprinting to enact environmental policy changes before
leaving power.
The rule changes include getting wolves off the Endangered Species List,
allowing power plants to operate near national parks, relaxing regulations for
factory farm waste and making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations.
None have found much favour with environmental groups.
Even some free-market organisations have joined conservation groups to urge a
moratorium on last-minute rules proposed by the Interior Department and the
Environmental Protection Agency, among others.
"The Bush administration has had eight years in office and has issued more
regulations than any administration in history," says Eli Lehrer of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute. "At this point, in the current economic
climate, it would be especially harmful to push through ill-considered
regulations."
The Bush team has urged that regulations be issued no later than Saturday, so
they can be put in effect by the time George W. Bush leaves office on 20 January
2009.
Hard to undo
If they are in effect then, it will be hard for the next administration to undo
them, and in any case, this may not be the top priority for a new president,
says Matt Madia of OMB Watch, which monitors the White House Office of
Management and Budget through which these proposed regulations must pass.
"This is typical," Madia says of the administration's welter of eleventh-hour
rules. "It's a natural reaction to knowing that you're almost out of power."
According to Madia, industry is likely to benefit if Bush's rules on the
environment become effective. "Whether it's the electricity industry or the
mining industry or the agriculture industry, this is going to remove government
restrictions on their activity and in turn they're going to be allowed to
pollute more and that ends up harming the public."
What is unusual is the speedy trip some of these environmental measures are
taking through the process.
For example, one Interior Department rule that would erode protections for
endangered species in favour of mining interests drew more than 300,000 comments
from the public, which officials said they planned to review in a week, a pace
that Madia calls "pretty ludicrous."
Rules only go into effect 30 to 60 days after they are finalised, and if they
are not in effect when the next president takes office, that chief executive can
decline to put them into practice - as Bush did with many rules finalised at the
end of the Clinton administration.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto denied the Bush team was cramming these
regulations through in a hasty push.
Bush's Parting Shots at the Environment are Major
Bush's Parting Shots at the Environment Are Major
By Amanda Paulson, Christian Science Monitor
November 12, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/106444
http://www.alternet.org/water/106444/
http://www.alternet.org/story/106444/
[Read comments:
http://www.alternet.org/water/106444/#comments ]
The changes seem minor: clarifications of regulations, revisions to rules, updated land-management proposals.
But some recent proposals from the Interior Department - many likely to be finalized in the waning months of the Bush administration and pushed through with a shortened comment period - are seen by critics as an assault on America's environmental resources and an attempt to solidify industry-friendly policy.
The proposals include changes to the Endangered Species Act, new management plans for 11 million acres in Utah, an effort to revoke congressional committees' emergency powers to protect public lands, and a rule change for mountaintop mining regulations.
The Interior Department says the changes are common-sense ones that balance the needs of conservation with those of national energy policy. Environmentalists counter that the actions represent the final efforts of an administration that has been hostile to the environment since Day 1.
"Overall, it certainly is consistent with the approach this administration has taken for the past eight years," says Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. "It's one final push before they go out the door to really open up public resources for private and industry gain."
Mr. Bush is not the first lame-duck president to change environmental rules. Bill Clinton, in the last few days of his presidency, pushed through regulations to protect vast areas of the West.
The proposals include the following:
A change to the Endangered Species Act to disallow the ESA from being used to regulate global climate change even if a species, like the polar bear, is suffering as a result of it. The change also reduces the number of scientific reviews of projects performed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
Six new resource management plans for 11 million acres of federal land in Utah that critics say would open more roads and trails, make nearly 9 million acres available for oil and gas development, and reduce the areas managed primarily for environmental value. Five of the plans were finished on Friday.
A rule change eliminating one of the few regulations governing mountaintop mining, a common practice in Appalachia in which a mountain's top is blown off to get access to the rich coal beds beneath. Currently, a largely ignored "buffer zone" rule bars mining companies from dumping debris within 100 feet of any stream. The new rule would require them to either avoid the buffer zone or show why that is not possible, and to minimize harming the streams "to the extent possible" if they must dump there.
A proposal to remove an "emergency powers" provision that allows the Interior Department or two congressional committees to protect public lands. The rule gained prominence this summer when the House Natural Resources Committee declared 1 million acres next to the Grand Canyon off limits to uranium mining.
These proposals have been portrayed incorrectly, says Chris Paolino, a spokesman for the Interior Department.
The proposed changes to the ESA, Mr. Paolino says, would clarify the Interior secretary's belief that the ESA is not the right mechanism for regulating climate change. "Science at this point cannot make the link between the specific greenhouse-gas emissions from, say, Kansas, and link it to the effect on a subset of polar bears or an individual polar bear in the Arctic region," he says. As for the reduced number of federal scientific reviews of projects, he believes it will allow the Fish & Wildlife scientists to give more time to projects that are more likely to affect listed species.
Environmental groups counter that allowing different agencies to determine whether a project needs independent scientific review hasn't worked in the past and could lead to a scattershot approach in which potential hazards to species are overlooked. "They won't have good sense of the cumulative impacts if they're not tracking projects across species and agencies," says Noah Greenwald, science director for the Center for Biodiversity in Tucson, Ariz.
As for the ESA's role in climate change, Mr. Greenwald argues that it provides a focus for assessing the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions. He notes that even in the past, when the ESA was used to regulate DDT because of its impact on the bald eagle, officials did not tie one use of DDT to the death of one particular eagle.
Some of the harshest criticism is reserved for the land-management proposals in Utah and the easing of restrictions on drilling and oil-shale exploration, in part because they would be difficult for a future administration to overturn.
"Defaulting to providing more and more routes for oil and gas and more land for oil and gas development effectively prohibits other uses of these lands," says Nada Culver, senior counsel for The Wilderness Society. Encouraging oil-shale development and geothermal leasing, and creating new "energy corridors" in the West, could lead to an "industrialization of the landscape," she adds.
The Bureau of Land Management, for its part, says most of the lands were already open to potential drilling and off-road vehicles. The new plans would get rid of some of the unrestricted vehicle use, they say, and put designated routes in play. "There seems to be a perception ... that these plans would throw open vast new acreage to development and use," says Don Ogaard, planning lead for Utah's BLM. "The land is open to that use now."
Amanda Paulson is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor.
By Amanda Paulson, Christian Science Monitor
November 12, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/water/
http://www.alternet.org/story/
[Read comments:
http://www.alternet.org/water/
The changes seem minor: clarifications of regulations, revisions to rules, updated land-management proposals.
But some recent proposals from the Interior Department - many likely to be finalized in the waning months of the Bush administration and pushed through with a shortened comment period - are seen by critics as an assault on America's environmental resources and an attempt to solidify industry-friendly policy.
The proposals include changes to the Endangered Species Act, new management plans for 11 million acres in Utah, an effort to revoke congressional committees' emergency powers to protect public lands, and a rule change for mountaintop mining regulations.
The Interior Department says the changes are common-sense ones that balance the needs of conservation with those of national energy policy. Environmentalists counter that the actions represent the final efforts of an administration that has been hostile to the environment since Day 1.
"Overall, it certainly is consistent with the approach this administration has taken for the past eight years," says Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. "It's one final push before they go out the door to really open up public resources for private and industry gain."
Mr. Bush is not the first lame-duck president to change environmental rules. Bill Clinton, in the last few days of his presidency, pushed through regulations to protect vast areas of the West.
The proposals include the following:
A change to the Endangered Species Act to disallow the ESA from being used to regulate global climate change even if a species, like the polar bear, is suffering as a result of it. The change also reduces the number of scientific reviews of projects performed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
Six new resource management plans for 11 million acres of federal land in Utah that critics say would open more roads and trails, make nearly 9 million acres available for oil and gas development, and reduce the areas managed primarily for environmental value. Five of the plans were finished on Friday.
A rule change eliminating one of the few regulations governing mountaintop mining, a common practice in Appalachia in which a mountain's top is blown off to get access to the rich coal beds beneath. Currently, a largely ignored "buffer zone" rule bars mining companies from dumping debris within 100 feet of any stream. The new rule would require them to either avoid the buffer zone or show why that is not possible, and to minimize harming the streams "to the extent possible" if they must dump there.
A proposal to remove an "emergency powers" provision that allows the Interior Department or two congressional committees to protect public lands. The rule gained prominence this summer when the House Natural Resources Committee declared 1 million acres next to the Grand Canyon off limits to uranium mining.
These proposals have been portrayed incorrectly, says Chris Paolino, a spokesman for the Interior Department.
The proposed changes to the ESA, Mr. Paolino says, would clarify the Interior secretary's belief that the ESA is not the right mechanism for regulating climate change. "Science at this point cannot make the link between the specific greenhouse-gas emissions from, say, Kansas, and link it to the effect on a subset of polar bears or an individual polar bear in the Arctic region," he says. As for the reduced number of federal scientific reviews of projects, he believes it will allow the Fish & Wildlife scientists to give more time to projects that are more likely to affect listed species.
Environmental groups counter that allowing different agencies to determine whether a project needs independent scientific review hasn't worked in the past and could lead to a scattershot approach in which potential hazards to species are overlooked. "They won't have good sense of the cumulative impacts if they're not tracking projects across species and agencies," says Noah Greenwald, science director for the Center for Biodiversity in Tucson, Ariz.
As for the ESA's role in climate change, Mr. Greenwald argues that it provides a focus for assessing the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions. He notes that even in the past, when the ESA was used to regulate DDT because of its impact on the bald eagle, officials did not tie one use of DDT to the death of one particular eagle.
Some of the harshest criticism is reserved for the land-management proposals in Utah and the easing of restrictions on drilling and oil-shale exploration, in part because they would be difficult for a future administration to overturn.
"Defaulting to providing more and more routes for oil and gas and more land for oil and gas development effectively prohibits other uses of these lands," says Nada Culver, senior counsel for The Wilderness Society. Encouraging oil-shale development and geothermal leasing, and creating new "energy corridors" in the West, could lead to an "industrialization of the landscape," she adds.
The Bureau of Land Management, for its part, says most of the lands were already open to potential drilling and off-road vehicles. The new plans would get rid of some of the unrestricted vehicle use, they say, and put designated routes in play. "There seems to be a perception ... that these plans would throw open vast new acreage to development and use," says Don Ogaard, planning lead for Utah's BLM. "The land is open to that use now."
Amanda Paulson is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor.
Dirty Coal to Remain World's Top Power Source
Dirty coal to remain world's top power source: IEA
By Nao Nakanishi
Wed Nov 12, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE4AB2QB20081112
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AB2QB20081112
LONDON (Reuters) - Coal, the dirtiest source of fuel, will remain the world's main source of power until 2030 and nuclear will lose market share, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday.
Expectations of slower economic growth have led the IEA to downgrade its 2030 world electricity demand forecast to 23,141 terawatt hours (TWh), but the share of coal generated power would rise to 44 percent by 2015 from 41 percent in 2006.
It would stay at that level to 2030.
"Globally, coal-based electricity is projected to rise ... to almost 14,600 TWh by 2030, giving rise to significant increases in associated CO2 emissions," the Paris-based agency said in its World Energy Outlook.
Most of the growth was expected in non-OECD countries, such as China, which the IEA expected soon to become the world's biggest electricity consumer. Its demand for power doubled between 2000 and 2006.
The IEA urged stronger policies for carbon capture and storage (CCS), saying the world was likely to make only a minor contribution in the period.
"Market mechanisms alone will not be sufficient to achieve the demonstration program on the scale required. Another challenge is financing the necessary CO2 transport infrastructure," it said.
Despite a global nuclear renaissance sparked by efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change, the IEA expected nuclear's share in power generation to drop to 10 percent by 2030 from 15 percent in 2006.
"Over the past few years, a large number of countries have expressed renewed interest in building nuclear power plants," it said. "Few governments, however, have taken concrete steps to build new reactors."
CHINA IN THE LEAD
As of the end of August, China topped the list of countries with nuclear power plants under construction, with 5,220 megawatts (MW), followed by India at 2,910 MW and Korea at 2,880 MW.
On a brighter note, the IEA predicted the share of renewable energy to rise to 23 percent by 2030 from 18 percent in 2006.
"Higher fossil fuel prices, increasing concerns over energy security and climate change are expected to encourage the development of renewable energy for electricity," the IEA said.
The agency said high prices would constrain growth in gas-fired generation, although it remained attractive due to lower capital costs and shorter construction time. Its market share was likely to fall slightly from 20 percent.
Looking into per capita electricity demand around the world, the IEA saw a gloomy outlook for some non-OECD countries, despite overall anticipated strong growth.
"A large number of people living there are not expected to have access to electricity even in 2030. India and Africa have the highest number of people in this category," it said.
Per capita electricity consumption in non-OECD countries was likely to rise to almost 2,400 kilowatt hours (kWh) by 2030, but the IEA saw it rising only to 671 kWh in Africa from 518. It would rise to 4,776 kWh in China from 1,788 in 2006.
By Nao Nakanishi
Wed Nov 12, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/
http://www.reuters.com/
LONDON (Reuters) - Coal, the dirtiest source of fuel, will remain the world's main source of power until 2030 and nuclear will lose market share, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday.
Expectations of slower economic growth have led the IEA to downgrade its 2030 world electricity demand forecast to 23,141 terawatt hours (TWh), but the share of coal generated power would rise to 44 percent by 2015 from 41 percent in 2006.
It would stay at that level to 2030.
"Globally, coal-based electricity is projected to rise ... to almost 14,600 TWh by 2030, giving rise to significant increases in associated CO2 emissions," the Paris-based agency said in its World Energy Outlook.
Most of the growth was expected in non-OECD countries, such as China, which the IEA expected soon to become the world's biggest electricity consumer. Its demand for power doubled between 2000 and 2006.
The IEA urged stronger policies for carbon capture and storage (CCS), saying the world was likely to make only a minor contribution in the period.
"Market mechanisms alone will not be sufficient to achieve the demonstration program on the scale required. Another challenge is financing the necessary CO2 transport infrastructure," it said.
Despite a global nuclear renaissance sparked by efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change, the IEA expected nuclear's share in power generation to drop to 10 percent by 2030 from 15 percent in 2006.
"Over the past few years, a large number of countries have expressed renewed interest in building nuclear power plants," it said. "Few governments, however, have taken concrete steps to build new reactors."
CHINA IN THE LEAD
As of the end of August, China topped the list of countries with nuclear power plants under construction, with 5,220 megawatts (MW), followed by India at 2,910 MW and Korea at 2,880 MW.
On a brighter note, the IEA predicted the share of renewable energy to rise to 23 percent by 2030 from 18 percent in 2006.
"Higher fossil fuel prices, increasing concerns over energy security and climate change are expected to encourage the development of renewable energy for electricity," the IEA said.
The agency said high prices would constrain growth in gas-fired generation, although it remained attractive due to lower capital costs and shorter construction time. Its market share was likely to fall slightly from 20 percent.
Looking into per capita electricity demand around the world, the IEA saw a gloomy outlook for some non-OECD countries, despite overall anticipated strong growth.
"A large number of people living there are not expected to have access to electricity even in 2030. India and Africa have the highest number of people in this category," it said.
Per capita electricity consumption in non-OECD countries was likely to rise to almost 2,400 kilowatt hours (kWh) by 2030, but the IEA saw it rising only to 671 kWh in Africa from 518. It would rise to 4,776 kWh in China from 1,788 in 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
