Today was the first day of the Bangkok climate change talks. This is the first UN negotiation since the Bali conference in December. In Bali, the world decided that a final agreement on the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol would have to be concluded by December 2009 at a conference in Copenhagen. Bangkok will be the start of the tough 2-year road to that final agreement.
The first day of these negotiating sessions is always pretty light on substance, especially the opening ceremony. Typically, high-ranking officials—this one featured the deputy minister of Thailand—give speeches filled with platitudes on the importance of tackling global warming. The opening plenaries are somewhat more interesting, though they usually involve countries reiterating the positions they have already made public through submissions to the UN. Today was no different.
The most interesting part of the Bangkok meeting will no doubt be the kick off of the negotiations on what developing countries will take on as obligations in Kyoto II. There has been increased attention—even finger pointing from countries such as the U.S. and Canada—paid to China, India and other "major emitters" in the developing world on what they will do to contribute to the global fight on climate change. Yes, rapidly industrializing countries will have to accept greater responsibility, but expecting the same obligations right now from poor countries like India and rich countries like the U.S., as suggested by the U.S. and supported by Canada's environment minister, is simply not fair or feasible.
And then there are the continued talks on what emission targets rich countries will accept. Canada has to decide whether it wants to really and truly get back into the Kyoto game or would prefer to tie itself to a lame duck U.S. president. Bali did not resolve that question.
The sense of urgency on global warming is reflected in the fact that there are four UN meetings this year instead of the usual two. Let's hope that this week produces more than just a work plan and schedule for 2008. Two years is not a lot of time to hammer out a very complex and pretty contentious agreement.
Are you going to be one of them?
Saturday March 29, between 8:00 and 9:00 pm, people all over the world will be powering down and going unplugged in celebration of Earth Hour, a global expression of solidarity in support of green living sponsored by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). It all started last year in Sydney and has spread (officially) to 24 cities across the planet, including Charlottetown, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver (to name but a few).
Latest word is that a staggering 70 per cent of Canadians say they will be participating! Imagine what it will look like from space: a rolling darkness symbolizing how many of us have seen the light.
It's funny -- both funny "ha ha" and funny strange -- that one of the most consistently intelligent and engaging news sources is a half-hour comedy program that runs four nights a week. But we shouldn't be surprised at that. Juvenal knew it several thousand years ago when he wrote "It is difficult not to write satire." (Italics ours.) (Although when Juvenal wrote that, it went like this: "Difficile est satiram non scribere.")
In addition to being a consistently excellent source of news, Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart also frequently features authors, and last night's author has written a book about global warming from his perspective as a historian and anthropologist. The Great Warming is anthropologist Brian Fagan's third volume examining climate change and its impact on human behavior and civilization. It looks backward -- globally -- at the positive and negative result of climate changes in history, and the parallels with what's happening now and what we can expect to happen are striking.
Scientists are alarmed as a massive chunk of the Antarctic ice shelf melts and breaks off. It's a lot of ice -- a chunk the the size of the state of Connecticut or the frozen equivalent of six Manhattan Islands. No matter how you slice it, it's bigger and happening sooner than anybody anticipated. NBC's George Lewis reports.
There is a growing demand among university students for courses that will teach them how to take care of the environment. At a lot of schools, that means environmental studies. It also means being able to major in sustainability, as Anne Thompson reported on the Easter Monday edition of NBC Nightly News.
Canada's Boreal Forest, nursery to billions of species of migratory birds, is steadily being carved up by unchecked oil and gas, mining, logging, and hydro development. This online petition will be submitted to federal and provincial leaders to demonstrate that we expect the Boreal Forest to be protected and that the bird declines already being experienced are not acceptable.
So what can you do? For starters, sign the Save our Boreal Birds petition. Then if you want to do more, check out the Save our Boreal Birds website for suggestions of things you can do to help - in the classroom, at the store, and even by birdwatching.
It's bad enough seeing a Robert Bateman artwork getting smeared with black goo, but it would be far worse if it were a real landscape. The Dogwood Initiative is trying to make sure that doesn't happen. Find out how you can help.
A few months ago, supporters of the Foundation--Ted Grand and Tara MacLean-- threw a party. But it wasn't just any party.
It was a Naked Ape party!
Grand
and MacLean succeeded in raising $25,000 for the Foundation. They've
posted some photos and a short video from David Suzuki's speech on
their website from the event. Check it out!
It used to be that environmental damage or destruction was seen economically as an "externality," meaning something that was somebody else's problem; sure, it was the product of economic activity, but not something the person who created it had to pay for or worry about. For example, pollution caused by a factory belching smoke wasn't the factory owner's problem. It was something the people breathing the smoke had to deal with.
That view obtains less and less. And now the securities regulators who make the rules for financial disclosure are eliminating externalities as a loophole. That's at the heart of a new regulation by the Ontario Securities Commission. Sandra Rubin's story in today's Report On Business in The Globe And Mail spells it out clearly:
In the notice released Feb. 27, the OSC says companies traded on the
Toronto Stock Exchange should quantify all environmental exposure
likely to be material, no matter how remote the possibility, how far
into the future and even if, individually, they are not material, but
collectively could be.
The regulator says financial estimates must be provided to investors
where quantitative information is “reasonably available,” and the
company should explain that the estimate is highly uncertain. It should
also consider providing the upper and lower ranges of financial
exposure, as well as an analysis of the likelihood the event will
actually occur.
Almost overnight, environmental liability has been escalated to a major
governance issue. Public companies are being asked to come clean or
risk a big legal mess.
That's a fundamental shift, and one that will mean an entirely different way of calculating and disclosing every kind of economic activity. Gives an entirely new meaning to the phrase "the cost of doing business."
We covered this in the Recycle Radar Roundup section of this week's podcast, but it bears fully explanation and detail. There are no Chinook salmon on the American west coast, and that means no Chinook (also known as king) salmon from northern Oregon to Mexico. Normally, the Chinook season opens May 1 and runs for four months. Not this year. As the New York Times story explains, part of what makes this situation so frightening and baffling is the lack of a clear explanation or cause, and the fact that any number of human activities could have made it happen.
Watching TV this morning, we were kind of surprised by this commercial:
We saw this spot during NBC's Today show, which means it was not cheap to place and it's aiming for a wide audience.
The spot is aiming to influence both the House of Representatives and the Senate, where carbon legislation is coming under consideration and debate. Here's the release from Environmental Defense about the commercial, the campaign and what it hopes to achieve. Here's the background in Cleveland, where the Eaton Corporation is based.
NBC's Anne Thompson finds many faiths adopting environmental stewardship as a way of serving God. That eleventh commandment? Thou shalt reduce, reuse, and recycle.
It's St. Patrick's Day, so you'll likely be drinking Guinness, or perhaps a shot of Jameson's or Old Bushmills.
But what will you be drinking the rest of the time? How about an earth-friendly vodka? Keep reading further down in the story and learn that so many companies are making claims about their environmental sensitivity that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is speeding up its plans to scrutinize such claims.
One of the biggest solar power installations on the continent is in the Nevada desert, and its power is keeping the bright lights on in Las Vegas, and keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. NBC's chief environmental correspondent Anne Thompson has the story, preceded by a short VO about solar panels in Long Beach, California.
Not something that medicine comes in. But medicine does come in the water of a number of large cities in the United States. That's what a five-month study by the Associated Press uncovered. The amounts are tiny. But they're in the drinking water of 41 million people, and they're having impacts on wildlife and throughout the ecosystem. One of the reasons the problem wasn't found until now is because standard tests don't search for things like birth control, anti-depression or pain relief medications. And researchers and doctors don't know what the likely effects of long-term, low-level exposure to these kinds of drugs are likely to be.
Canadians are facing some complicated choices when they visit their local grocery store.
Do you buy the organically grown fruit that was shipped in from halfway around the world, or the unlabeled produce from a farm in the Okanagan? Was that bag of coffee produced by a farmer in return for a fair price? What are the climate impacts of the food choices that we make? Canada’s leading environmental organizations released their call to action this week, Tomorrow Today: How Canada can make a world of difference. One key recommendation from the report was for mandatory labeling of our food by 2010. The labels would provide information on nutrition, country of origin, fair-trade, and organic standards to help Canadians make informed decisions when they buy their food.
When Paul Dewar, MP Ottawa Central, heard about the plight of the Monarch butterfly along the Ottawa River Parkway from constituent Rachel Plotkin, a policy analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation, he took immediate action.
“While we focus on global environmental issues like the climate change, it is important that we take steps at the local level,” said Mr. Dewar.
After Ms. Plotkin brought the matter to his attention, Mr. Dewar suggested that Ottawa’s National Capital Commission (NCC) modify its mowing standards to leave a broader stretch of uncut meadow near the Ottawa River. (The NCC is a crown corporation that acts as the steward of federal lands and buildings in the National Capital Region.)
While it may not sound like a big deal, small actions such as leaving more milkweed along the river provides critical habitat for Monarch butterflies. And the Monarch butterflies need all the help it can get. They are classified as a species of Special Concern under the Federal Species at Risk Act.
People on Canada's West Coast have earned bragging rights when it comes to taking the lead on green issues.
But New Brunswickers, on our nation's East Coast, clearly care about ensuring that the environment is a top priority; a majority believe that current forestry practices are causing long-term damage to the environment, according to a government-commissioned survey (CBC News). The survey also showed that most respondents think the economic benefits of forestry do not outweigh the environmental damage done by industry.
They're definitely on to something. Timber companies in Canada are using technology to make it easier to chop down trees and process the logs. But sustainable forestry management is still lagging, with many operations simply using variations on the clearcutting theme.
As it happens, the David Suzuki Foundation has developed principles for sustainable forestry on the B.C. coast using ecosystem-based management. Forestry companies across Canada really need to keep paying attention to sustainable practices. After all, it's essential to promoting a sustainable economy.
-- Jonathon Narvey is Principal consultant at WRITEIMAGE He blogs about politics and life in Vancouver at Currents