Mobilization for Climate Justice

Archive for January, 2011

We are supporting Grassy Narrows First Nation and nearby mercury-affected communities in their call for a National Inquiry into the historic and continuing impact of mercury poisoning and other
contamination.

This Inquiry is necessary as a result of continued pressure on the Grassy Narrows community from industrial forestry, the devastation of their traditional economy and livelihood, and continuing health
impacts. The health of community members in Grassy Narrows and nearby
mercury-affected communities continues to deteriorate. Two generations
after the Dryden pulp mill released pollution into the English-Wabigoon
river system, children are still being born with health problems from
mercury and other contamination.

As we find ourselves upon the 8th anniversary of the blockade against clearcutting in Grassy Narrows’ territory, and following upon AFN Resolution No. 04/2010, Support for Grassy Narrows and Other Mercury Impacted Communities,

1. WE CALL ON the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to
hold a National Inquiry to assess the historic and continuing impact of mercury and other contamination in Grassy Narrows and the surrounding communities, to evaluate the success of efforts to date to address this issue, and make recommendations on effective next steps. We urge Canada and Ontario to each take responsibility, under their respective jurisdictions, by calling this inquiry by March 1, 2010

2. WE RESOLVE THAT, should Canada and Ontario fail to take their responsibility, the responsibility for holding this inquiry will fall upon First Nation governments and we will meet that responsibility. With the support of the Assembly of First Nations, a national inquiry would then be held under the jurisdiction of Grand Council Treaty #3 and Grassy Narrows First Nation.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

Background on the pollution situation at Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong First Nations in Northern Ontario, Canada:

http://freegrassy.org/2010/01/06/mercury-still-killing-in-grassy-narrows/

Grassy Narrows Health Study:

http://freegrassy.org/wp-content/uploads/Harada_report_2004_FINAL.pdf

Canada’s Mercury Pollution on Indigenous Lands:

http://intercontinentalcry.org/canadas-mercury-pollution-on-indigenous-lands/

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Source: La Via Campesina

Stop land grabbing, defend food sovereignty and say no to violence against women farmers!

The international peasant’s movement La Via Campesina will join the World Social Forum in Dakar, Senegal from February 6 to 11. More than 70 farmers’ representatives from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas will take part in this forum, a place where social movements and civil organizations are going to debate alternatives for a better world, pursuing their thinking, formulating proposals and sharing their experiences.

At a time of rising food prices and upcoming food crisis, La Via Campesina will defend Food Sovereignty as the solution to the food and climate crises.

La Via Campesina will join the caravan organised by the social movements from Lomé (Togo) to Dakar (Senegal). The Caravan will depart on 23 January and is expected to arrive in Dakar on 5 January, to participate at the opening ceremony of the World Social Forum on 6 February.

During the World Social Forum, La Via Campesina will launch its campaign against violence towards women in Africa.

In the context of the WSF, the international farmers movement will also showcase African farmers’ food products and seeds at FIARA, a dynamic place for the integration of African people through local markets and exchange, as well as debates on issues challenging peasants’ lives in Africa. With its allies, La Via Campesina will organize a debate at FIARA on “Land grab in the context of food and climate crises – the need for land policies that protect peasant production for local markets”. Land grabbing, as an integral part of the dominant corporate agribusiness model with large-scale industrial monoculture, is affecting peasants from Africa, Asia and the Americas.

For the first time, FIARA will also provide spaces for conferences and debates on food sovereignty.

The farmers’ movement, with allies, will organise several debates, such as “Defending peasant seeds against genetically modified organisms, transnational companies such as Monsanto and initiatives such as AGRA” and “Food Sovereignty, violence against women and Climate Change”. It will also be actively involved in the debate on the preparation of the Social Movements’ mobilisations for the next UN Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011.

La Via Campesina will have a stand at the World Social Forum where printed information can be found. The stand will also be a meeting point with La Via Campesina’s people.

Appointments with the media:

• 9 February (from 10 to 11 pm) – Via Campesina Press conference “Farmers’ expectations of the WSF” at LVC stand (venue to be confirmed).

Other Via Campesina’s activities

• 5 February – Participation in a special day on migration island Gorée.
• 7 February (9am-12 midday) – Debate: “land grab in the context of food and climate crises - the need for land policies that protect peasant production for local markets” at FIARA.
• 8 February (12.30pm-3.30pm) – Debate: “defending peasant seeds against GMOs, transnationals like Monsanto and AGRA” at WSF.
• 9 February (12.30pm-3.30pm) - Debate on Food Sovereignty, violence against women, and climate Change at WSF
• 9 February (4pm-7pm) – Launch in Senegal and Africa of La Via Campesina’s campaign to stop violence against women peasants, at WSF.

Contacts for the media (to interview farmers’ representatives)

• Mamadou Ba – phone: +221707052485 

• Boaventura Monjane – +221773942234 (from 3 February)
  E-mail: boa.monjane@viacampesina.org

• Lamine Coulibaly – téléphone: +221773942235 (from 3 February)

E-mail: laminezie@gmail.com
More on www.viacampesina.org

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Source: This was posted on the Climate Justice Now! listserv by Cory Morningstar of Canadians for Action on Climate Change in response to Ban-Ki Moon’s announcement about the world economic model being ‘environmental suicide’. Please see previous post.

_____________________________________________

Although Ban-Ki moon’s announcement that “the world’s economic model is ‘environmental suicide’” is important: – it is also a vital piece of what is certain to become a massive a green wash campaign – to convince the world’s citizens that ‘sustainable growth’ actually exists – and that green consumerism/green capitalism is the solution for all of our crisis which are now peaking simultaneously.

Therefore it is imperative that we seize this opportunity – to further advance the critical dialogue on our current economic model – recognized as the root cause of climate change. We need to bring this discussion to the very forefront and shine a spotlight on it … a spotlight as big as the sun.

If we don’t – we can watch the false solutions spread like terminal cancer.

Growth is not compatible with solving our climate crisis. The industrial system is predicated on economic growth without limit; economic growth is inherently unsustainable. The evidence is all around us. The same system that created our crisis cannot solve our crisis. We need to campaign and educate on the false misconceptions of ‘sustainable growth’ and very concisely shape/outline what such a ‘new revolutionary economy’ would look like – one that rejects and exposes the current global agenda for securing/furthering corporate domination of our planet and remaining shared commons.

Which brings me to this question RE: Economics.

I wondered if anyone has watched the new Zeitgeist documentary film – ‘Moving Forward‘ … and if you did watch it  – what you thought of it. I thought it was excellent. Especially the brilliant interviews (see the list below). The ending is amazing. I found it one of most inspiring and optimistic documentary films I have ever watched.

I realize Peter Joseph‘s documentary films are often framed by many as ‘conspiracy theory’ etc.  - yet I personally believe it would be most difficult to difficult to ‘debunk’ or try to rip to shreds the ideas so beautifully and articulately presented in this film. Peter Joseph has written, directed and produced the freely-distributed documentary films as public awareness expression. To my knowledge, Peter is also an activist – which makes it a bit strange – that this current film – said to be the largest non-profit independent film release in history – has not yet been discussed on the list.

Part 1, titled Human Nature, begins with a must watch animated short story narrated by the brilliant visionary Jacque Presco (now 94) speaking a few minutes about his school experience and observations during the depression. (starts at 5:55 – ends at 8:35) [Here is a discovery channel video featuring Jacque's visionary ideas: http://youtu.be/rBH1Y6WfpVM]

I’m not suggesting everyone will embrace and agree on the ideas and visions proposed in the films. Rather, I’m suggesting why not begin the discussion on what a new economy should look like. Why not start by looking at a vision which was created by an individual gifted with intelligence and imagination – driven by deep respect of the planet and unwavering faith in humanity. A vision detailed and critiqued over decades – by a man who has devoted his entire lifetime in hopes of creating a better world for all.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Cross-posted from The Guardian

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia’s president, said his country was trying to plant 1bn trees a year. It is often called the keeper of one of the world’s last major rainforests. Photograph: Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images

The world’s current economic model is an environmental “global suicide pact” that will result in disaster if it isn’t reformed, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, warned today.

Ban said that political and business leaders need to embrace economic innovation in order to save the planet.

“We need a revolution,” he told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on how best to make the global economy sustainable. “Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete.”

He called the current economic model a recipe for “national disaster” and said: “We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change, time to ensure sustainable … growth.” The Guardian revealed yesterday that Ban is ending his hands-on efforts to reach a global climate deal through UN negotiations, and move to focus on a broader sustainability agenda.

His words received a mixed reception from other panelists, including Felipe Calderón, Mexico’s president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia’s president, Walmart chief executive, Mike Duke, and Microsoft’s Bill Gates.

Jim Balsillie, co-chief executive of BlackBerry maker Research in Motion, said technology alone wouldn’t solve the problem of how to sustain economic growth while reducing its impact on the environment. “We have to fundamentally rethink economics,” he said, suggesting that a new model was needed to hold businesses to account for their impact on the planet.

Yudhoyono, whose country is often labeled a keeper of one of the world’s last major rainforests, said Indonesia was trying to plant 1bn trees a year. But he pushed back against the suggestion that developing countries should give up on their aspiration to achieve the same level of wealth as the rich world.

This view was partly shared by Gates, who said that “you cannot have a just world by telling people to use less energy than the average European”. One way to cap the world’s consumption and carbon emissions would be to invest in family planning said Gates, who has invested much of his fortune in health projects in the developing world.

The annual meeting of business and political leaders in Davos has been accused by some of producing little more than hot air.

The panel moderator, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, said he hoped next year participants would return to the Swiss ski resort “and be able to say that a molecule of CO2 was actually affected by what we say and do here”.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Source: Indigenous Environmental Network

“Stop sabotaging climate action!”

[LONDON]. This morning a group of campaigners protested outside the Canadian High Commission in London, to mark the visit of Ron Liepert, Alberta’s Energy Minister. The minister is here to lobby on behalf of the Province of Alberta’s Tar Sands industry, and encourage Europe to get more involved in what has been dubbed the world’s most destructive project.

The protesters held banners saying “Stop the Tar Sands Trade Talks” and “Canadian Tar Sands: Global Climate Crime” outside the High Commission in Grosvenor Square, and handed out flyers. There was heavy security, and they were not allowed to meet the Minster himself, nor even hand in a letter for him, explaining their concerns.

Unbeknownst to most citizens, the EU and Canada are in the midst of negotiating an ambitious free trade deal (the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA). The Albertan and Canadian governments are trying to use these talks to undermine EU climate policy. Specifically, they are pressuring the EU to water down a key piece of climate legislation (the Fuel Quality Directive, or FQD), calling it an “unfair trade barrier” [2]. The FQD is currently on course to set a precedent in recognising, and penalising, Tar Sands oil as dirty oil.

Liepert’s trip is clearly timed to influence vital decisions around CETA and the FQD that are being taken in Europe over the next few weeks. After two days in London, where he will meet, among others, the Canadian High Commissioner, the UK Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs, and many oil and gas industry representatives, he will travel to Brussels to lobby members of European Parliament, the chair of the Environment Committee and the Commissioner for Energy for the EU Parliament [3].

Today’s protest is just the latest expression of opposition to the Tar Sands in the UK. In the past year, British shareholders, NGOs, politicians and campaigners have expressed increasing concern over the involvement of UK banks and oil companies in the highly polluting extraction of “dirty oil” from the Tar Sands [4]. Emitting three to five times as much CO2 as conventional oil drilling, the Tar Sands industry is destroying the livelihoods and health of local Indigenous communities and decimating ancient forests and wildlife across an area of Alberta larger than England [5].

Suzanne Dhaliwal from the UK Tar Sands Network said: “Ron Liepert has come to London on a mission to scupper the EU’s attempts to ban Tar Sands oil imports into Europe. This blatant meddling on behalf of Big Oil is unacceptable. Europe must put effective climate action ahead of corporate profits, by standing firm on the Fuel Quality Directive and putting the CETA negotiations on hold.”

Andrea Harden, Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians added: “No doubt Liepert will be extolling the virtues of the Tar Sands as so-called ‘ethical oil’. They are nothing of the kind. The watershed is showing signs of stress, massive toxic tailings ponds are leaking, people downstream are getting sick and the Tar Sands are Canada’s largest source of industrial carbon emissions. What’s ethical about that?”

ENDS

Notes for editors

[1] The CETA negotiations are about halfway through and due to be completed towards the end of 2011. The latest round of talks took place in Brussels earlier this month, and were targeted by Tar Sands protests: http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/2011/17-Jan-11.html. For a full explanation of the problems with CETA, please see “Keep Europe out of the Tar Sands!”, a briefing by Council of Canadians, Indigenous Environmental Network and UK Tar Sands Network, available at http://www.no-tar-sands.org/?page_id=58

[2] The EU has been negotiating a ‘Fuel Quality Directive’ (FQD), aimed at encouraging the use of low carbon energy products and discouraging the use of high-emission crude oil. In its original form the FQD would have prevented fuels with a high carbon content from being used in Europe – an effective ban on Tar Sands . But the initial draft has been significantly weakened following Canadian lobbying, and all reference to Tar Sands has been removed until after the CETA negotiations. See http://www.co-operative.coop/upload/ToxicFuels/docs/MEP_FQD_briefing_paper.pdf for more details.

[3] Ron Liepert’s full itinerary can be seen at http://www.alberta.ca/acn/201101/29818C3959971-9862-982B-67D0E6D0B5B47B40.html

[4] The last 18 months have seen a growing number of organisations taking action against British banks and companies with links to the Tar Sands. Both BP and Shell have faced shareholder resolutions over their Tar Sands investments, as well as protests at their offices and petrol stations. The Royal Bank of Scotland has also come under fire for being the 7th largest global investor in the industry, using British taxpayers’ money, and were targeted by the Camp for Climate Action, who camped for a week in the grounds of their global headquarters in Edinburgh last summer. For more information see:

Indigenous Environmental Network: http://www.ienearth.org/tarsands.html
UK Tar Sands Network: http://www.no-tar-sands.org/

FairPensions: http://www.fairpensions.org.uk/tarsands/news
Platform: http://blog.platformlondon.org/category/tags/tar-sands

Camp for Climate Action: http://www.climatecamp.org.uk

[5] For more information on the destructive nature of the Tar Sands, please see:

Indigenous Environmental Network: http://www.ienearth.org/tarsands.html
Dirty Oil Sands: http://dirtyoilsands.org/

UK Tar Sands Network: http://www.no-tar-sands.org/

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Source: Climate Justice Network

~ español abajo ~

RANCHO MIRAGE, CA — Today, over two thousand everyday Americans from across the United States – including San Diego, Los Angeles and Orange County – converged at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort in Rancho Mirage, CA to protest a secret right-wing strategy meeting held by billionaires David and Charles Koch. The Kochs are some of the major funders of climate denial front groups in the United States, along with being funders of anti-migrant, anti-health care reform, Prop 23 (CA) and extreme conservative politicians.

Attendees, deputized as members of the “People’s Center for Disease Control”, occupied the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Rancho Las Palmas as part of the demonstration to voice opposition to the Koch’s funding of climate denial groups, far-right political candidates, and anti-health care reform efforts.

The entrance to the Rancho Las Palmas Resort was blocked off by several dozen members of a quarantine squad dressed in hazmat suits, holding banners and a 140 foot yellow police tape marked “Quarantine the Kochs”.

Twenty-seven arrests were made as part of the peaceful demonstration.

Groups organizing today’s protest included: The Other 98%, Ruckus Society, Courage Campaign, Common Cause and the California Nurses Association. The Other 98% is a voice for the vast majority of Americans who are tired of corporate control of Washington and the Tea Party extremism that—wittingly or unwittingly—works to protect it.

* * * * *

Para difusión inmediata

Contactar: Samantha Corbin 203/470-8675, srcorbin@gmail.com (inglés)

AVISO: Decenas de persons fueron arrestados en protesta contra la reunión secreta de los hermanos billonarios Koch, fuente económico de varios grupos contra la justicia climática

RANCHO MIRAGE, CA — Hoy, más de dos miles de personas de todo los Estados Unidos de Norte America – incluyendo residentes de San Diego, Los Angeles y Orange County – vinieron al Rancho Las Palmas Resort en Rancho Mirage, CA, para llamar atención a una reunión secreta de planeación estratégica del extremo-derecho, llamado por los hermanos billonarios David y Charles Koch (pronunciado “Coke” en inglés). Los hermanos Koch son una fuente economico importante para los grupos en contra de la justicia climática, y también de otros grupos y politicos del extremo-derecho anti-migrante, y en contra de la reforma de salud.

Las y los participantes, deputizados como miembros del “Centro Popular para el Control de Enfermedades,” llenaron la intersección de Bob Hope Drive y Rancho Las Palmas Drive en frente del hotel exclusivo, en contra del papel de los Kochs en dar dinero de grandes cantidades que niegan al cambio climático, de políticos de extremo-derecho, y en contra de los esfuerzos para la reforma de salud.

Luego, decenas de personas vestidos como un equipo de cuarantena cerraron la entrada al complejo hotelero, con banderas de 140 pies pintados como señales de advertencia “Materiales Peligrosos” y cinta amarilla señalando, “Cuarentena a los Kochs.”

27 personas fueron arrestados como parte de las manifestaciones pacificas, incluyendo latinos y latinas de varios lugares de California.

Las organizaciones en carga de la manifestación incluyen: The Other 98%, Ruckus Society, Courage Campaign, Common Cause and the California Nurses Association. The Other 98% is a voice for the vast majority of Americans who are tired of corporate control of Washington and the Tea Party extremism that—wittingly or unwittingly—works to protect it.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

An investigative report. [Part 1: http://bit.ly/fV8slf | Part II: http://bit.ly/gMITca ]

By Cory Morningstar

Part II

Post Cancún: North America. The New Energy Kingdom

On 13 December 2010 directly following the disastrous Cancún conference (“one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War” [10]), a revealing post is found on the “oilprice.com” website. The article is titled North America: The New Energy Kingdom. From the article: “Beyond shale oil and shale gas, there’s the awesome energy promise of methane hydrates, frozen crystals of water and gas that lie beneath the northern permafrost and beneath oceans floors around the world in quantities that boggle the imagination.”

“Assuming 1 per cent recovery,” the US Geological Survey says, “these deposits [in US territory] could meet the natural gas needs of the country (at current rates of consumption) for 100 years.” The obstructionist corporate-colluded states – the ones responsible for climate change in the first place – have no intention of going to zero carbon in the single decade as direly warned by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) in 2009 – what is necessary for the world to avoid reaching and exceeding a global catastrophic 2ºC. They have no intention of going to zero, ever, until the Earth is literally drilled to death – or we annihilate humanity. Whichever comes first.

NASA Has Known All Along

As we work like the busy little worker proles we are, amusing ourselves with irrelevant trivia and nonsense, the global power structures that form the plutocracy have long understood our future demise at the expense of an insatiable economy – and have kept silent. In a 2007 NASA report titled Methane Hydrates: More Than a Viable Aviation Fuel Feedstock Option, NASA unequivocally states that it is not a matter of if the methane from hydrates escapes, rather it is only a matter of when: “The unabated release of methane sequestered in these hydrates could impact the planet to the point of extinction of life as we understand it. Considering the predicted Earth thermal events, the stability of methane hydrates, and the impact of methane on the environment, the question is not will this methane be released, but when. It is suggested in this report that enhanced efforts be placed on a comprehensive program to locate, assess, and recover the sequestered methane at surface levels to meet the energy demand rather than permitting natural release into the environment.” The report later states, “Still, the world energy producers and consumers are encouraged to turn to the Sun and learn to capture, store, condition, and transmit that energy to meet energy needs and to maintain planetary stability.” Fat chance. Corporations would only be interested in the sun if they could drill it.

Blinded by Addiction: Methane Hydrates – The Oil of the Future

The OECD originated in 1948 as the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC). In the early 1990s, intergovernmental negotiations soon transformed the vision of prevention into a more restricted mitigation/adaptation agenda. By 1992 it is clear that influential interest groups and powerful institutions had become heavily involved in the negotiations, including the OECD, OPEC countries, oil-importing developing nations and private industry/corporations. The OECD has been heavily criticized by several civil society groups as well as developing states. The main criticism has been the narrowness of the OECD on account of its limited membership to a select few wealthy states. [11]

An unclassified document was prepared in May 2003 by the OECD and the International Energy Agency (IEA) Secretariats at the request of the Annex I Expert Group on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The acknowledgements cite Cédric Philibert at the IEA who prepared the document while thanking the US’s Jonathan Pershing for the information, comments and ideas he provided.

From the unclassified document: Technology Innovation, Development and Diffusion – OECD/IEA Information Paper:

“No technology currently exists to use this enormous energy resource. Depressurisation, thermal stimulation and solvent injection are possible candidates for commercial exploitation – but a prerequisite would be to develop tools for identifying and characterising concentrated deposits. If a technology were to be developed, it could have, with respect to climate change, a kind of Janus’ double face. On the one hand, it could prolong the era of fossil fuels and ultimately add a supplementary 10 000 Pg of carbon into the atmosphere (on top of the 5 000 Pg from the combustion of the currently known fossil resource base). Absent associated developments of CO2 capture and storage technologies, such uses would imply an increase in atmospheric concentrations of up to 20-fold (substantially higher than the seven-fold increase projected with full combustion of current resources). On the other hand, such developments could stimulate the near-term replacement of coal and oil.” [Gas hydrates may contain three orders of magnitude more methane than exists in today's atmosphere. Because hydrate breakdown, causing release to the atmosphere, can be related to global temperature increases, gas hydrates may play an even more important role in global climate change.]

The introduction within this document correctly identifies that only zero carbon can stabilize our planet: “… the ultimate objective of the UN Convention on Climate Change: ‘stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.’ Such an achievement is likely to eventually require near elimination of CO2 emissions. Without radical changes in lifestyles, only a massive deployment of carbon-free (or close to carbon-free) energy technologies can power the world economy and satisfy growing energy needs, especially of the developing world, while making stabilisation sustainable over the long term.”  Yet, the authors of this document cite the solution of “new technologies” as playing the critical role in achieving the UN objective of avoiding dangerous atmospheric interference — outlining pages of false solutions that will continue to line the bank vaults of corporate powers and keep the power structures intact.

The truth that few wish to acknowledge is that a radical change in our economic system must be the imperative central role and task of this ultimate objective, along with the existing clean, safe, renewable technologies we already possess – the ones that serve to benefit citizens throughout the world with energy independence but which are the greatest threat to the very foundation of corporate powers. A further truth is that we are already beyond dangerous climate interference in the climate system – made clear by John Holdren in 2006.

The OECD report says “without radical changes in lifestyles” – omitting the fact that the wealthiest 15% are responsible for 75% of global emissions. The remaining 85% of humanity emit only 25% of all emissions while the poorest 3 billion emit essentially nothing. Such brilliant tactics using language and framing have been essential in ensuring that current power structures remain unthreatened. Such tactics have thus far succeeded in keeping global citizens in the dark by essentially employing “big green” co-opted NGOs who reverberate the same messages and language. These co-opted groups serve their vital purpose – to successfully lend the illusion of democracy, which is critical in ensuring the public is kept passive, thereby ensuring the system will not be threatened in any meaningful way. The message is consistent and repetitive: place the emphasis on the individual, frame the climate issue around false solutions of green consumerism and symbolic actions, keep the dialogue successfully away from the root causes of climate change – thereby ensuring business as usual and uninterrupted profits.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), who wrote the unclassified document mentioned above:

• Fossil fuels account for almost 90% of the growth in energy demand between now and 2030. Energy trade between regions more than doubles by 2030, most of it still in the form of oil.
• Global emissions grow 62% between now and 2030.
• Global oil demand for transport increases very closely in line with GDP.
• World emissions increase by 1.8 % per year to 38 billion tonnes in 2030 – 70% above 2000 levels.

Make no mistake that world governments have no plans of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Global emissions are set to soar and no one disputes this. A MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) video filmed in September 2010 showcasing the views of Shell and ExxonMobil executives begins with the statement: “But the truth is that a civilization is largely defined by the energy technologies they use.” If this is true, we can easily and truthfully define, at minimum, our own ethically bankrupt society 1) by the unconcealed disrespect for our Earth, which graciously sustains us; 2) as a society that commits and condones infanticide, genocide, ecocide and now progenycide; 3) as a society that condones occupations and invasions; 4) as a socially bankrupt society that easily exploits others with no empathy; and 5) as a society that places economic value over the value of life. In the film, a comment follows: ” … powering the planet we actually possess.” The narcissistic tendencies of those at the centre of the energy dialogue are spectacular beyond imagination. Read the rest of this entry »

Ros-Lehtinen and Mack are well aware that Honduras matters immensely as a vulnerable testing ground for expanded US domination of the hemisphere. That’s why the presidents of almost every country in Latin America closed ranks immediately to condemn the coup, aware that they could easily be the next domino to fall; and why Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela and many other countries continue to oppose Honduras’s readmission to the Organization of American States (OAS).

As we brace ourselves for the Florida Congress members’ attacks on Obama, it’s important to be clear how dangerous Obama’s policies on Honduras have been. Thanks to a WikiLeaked cable, we know that Hugo Llorens, US ambassador to Honduras, informed the State Department in July 2009 that “there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup.” Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton avoided using the phrase “military coup,” chastised Zelaya when he tried to return to his own country and eschewed a full condemnation of post-coup de facto President Roberto Micheletti, treating him as Zelaya’s equal during negotiations.

Llorens’s leaked cable further calls into question the Obama administration’s eager embrace of current President Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo in a bogus November 2009 election, which was managed by the coup perpetrators and boycotted by most of the opposition and international observers. Since the coup, the United States has constructed two new military bases in Honduras (in Gracias a Dios and on the island of Guanaja), ramped up police training and, most recently, on December 27, announced that drones will be operating out of the joint US/Honduras air force base at Palmerola.

Meanwhile, the coup government continues its vicious repression of the opposition. On September 15, Honduran Independence Day, police and the military invaded an opposition radio station, tear-gassed it, and then tear-gassed and clubbed a peaceful demonstration. On November 15, paramilitaries allegedly working for Miguel Facussé, a wealthy oligarch and key backer of the coup, assassinated five more campesino activists in the Aguán Valley, which remains under military occupation. On January 8, Juan Ramón Chinchilla, a journalist and prominent representative from the Aguán Valley to the national resistance front, was kidnapped and tortured by paramilitary forces. He escaped after two days, but not José Luis Sanabria, a teacher active in the resistance, who was kidnapped on December 30 in Florida, Copán, and found dead two days later. All this continues with near impunity. As Eduardo David Ardón wrote recently in the Honduran daily El Tiempo, “State terrorism has a green light to exercise every kind of violence and commit crimes of every sort across the spectrum, without being judged or investigated.”

The State Department, though, desperately wants to legitimize Lobo’s government internationally, especially through its readmission to the OAS. It very much wants to revive the corrupt two-party system in Honduras so that the country can simulate a democratic electoral process. The giant elephant in the room, though, is Zelaya, the deposed president still in exile in the Dominican Republic and still the grand symbol of resistance to the coup, uniting the broad movement for social justice that has risen up since. The Honduran right wants his hide, in jail; the United States wants him back in Honduras, freed of the trumped-up charges against him. Lobo is afraid, however—quite rightly—that Zelaya’s cult of personality is so immense that the minute he steps into the country, Lobo’s ability to govern, already marginal, will evaporate.

Now Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Mack are riding in to raise the stakes, with Honduras at the top of their long ultra-right to-do list in Latin America, rolling back the wave of left and left-center governments that came to power democratically in the past fifteen years. (Ros-Lehtinen has openly called for Fidel Castro’s assassination.) Both visited Honduras after the coup to demonstrate their support for the Micheletti dictatorship. On January 5, in one of her first acts as chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ros-Lehtinen wrote Arturo Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, and said that she was “gravely concerned” about reports that the United States was pressuring the government of Honduras to drop charges against Zelaya, and demanded that US officials cease interfering in Honduran judicial processes.

Mack, meanwhile, has indicated that he wants to hold new hearings on Honduras. He, too, wants to push the dialogue back to cast Zelaya as the criminal. “What happened in Honduras was not a coup,” he insists. “To this day we’re still punishing Honduras for doing what we would hope all countries in Latin America would do.” In response to the leaked cable from Llorens stating that it definitely was a coup, Mack has called for the ambassador’s resignation and promised to investigate him.

The shady figure behind much of the pro-coup spin in Washington is lobbyist Lanny Davis, Hillary Clinton’s longtime confidant. Davis was recently forced to resign from representing Laurent Gbagbo, the vicious strongman currently terrorizing the Ivory Coast—fueling “growing criticism that Mr. Davis has become a kind of front man for the dark side,” as the New York Times put it nicely. Quickly after the Honduran coup, Davis went to work for an elite group of its backers, selling the coup in the United States. Now he has signed a contract with Lobo promising a “rapid response” to US media criticisms of the regime.

Congressional liberals, then, face an immediate and daunting challenge regarding Honduras. They are under tremendous pressure to close ranks behind Obama against the resurgent GOP, on this and many other fronts. Will they help the White House pacify Ros-Lehtinen and Mack by softening their line on Lobo? Or will they assert themselves and call for an end to US support for his repressive regime? On October 19, twenty-nine Congress members joined Representative Sam Farr in signing a letter to Clinton demanding that the United States stop all aid to Honduras and stop pressuring the OAS to readmit the country. Will their numbers continue to grow, and will any Democratic senators speak out on ongoing human rights abuses in Honduras?

On the ground, the resistance is alive and well despite terrifying and relentless repression. But in order for the Honduran people to rebuild their country from below, with their own broad vision of social justice, they desperately need progressives in the United States to back them, and to take on repressive policies in Latin America—whether they’re Obama’s version or the even scarier agenda of the right.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Palawan Island

On the Philippine island of Palawan, a tragedy is looming:  The Government is handing out new concessions to mining corporations.  The highly destructive mining of nickel and chrome would destroy the most biodiverse area in the Philippines.  UNESCO declared the whole Province of Palawan a Man and Biosphere Reserve in 1990, due to its high biodiversity.  Despite repeated appeals by human rights and environmental organisations, UNESCO remains silent about the destruction of people’s livelihoods and tropical forests.

For protest mail  please click here

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

The USDA Has Announced Final Approval of Monsanto’s GE Alfalfa

Take Action NOW to Demand President Obama Reverse this Decision

Genetically Engineered Alfalfa Has Been Approved, But President Obama Can Have the Final Say

Demand President Obama Stop GE Alfalfa!

Yesterday afternoon, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack approved Monsanto’s genetically engineered alfalfa for widespread planting this spring. This is outrageous and wrong, and it will hurt organic farmers.

Demand that President Obama reverse this disastrous approval.

The USDA decision to allow GE alfalfa to be planted unleashes another unnecessary genetically engineered crop into our environment and puts organic farmers at risk of widespread GE contamination. The agency did no real assessment of the harm that GE alfalfa could do, and caved to pressure from big agribusiness to approve this genetically engineered crop before the spring planting season.

President Obama is the last line of defense, and can stop the widespread planting of Monsanto’s GE alfalfa.

Take action now to demand President Obama stop this disastrous approval.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

A Report on Biomass, Bio-energy and Global Warming

From the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League www.BREDL.org

For the full report, click here

Foreword

This report is based in part on many years of work by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League in the communities of the Southeast. For a quarter of a century we have dedicated a large part of our resources to preventing the damage created by the burning of waste materials: municipal solid waste, animal manure, sewage sludge, hazardous wastes and radioactive wastes. We have succeeded in shutting down operating incinerators and halting the construction of new ones. For a period of time, it seemed the tide had turned against the wholesale acceptance of burning waste. However, during this decade we have seen a proliferation of new proposals for incineration wrapped in novel packages and coat-tailing on contemporary issues. Hence the title, Smoke and Mirrors.

The threat of global warming caused by the rise in greenhouse gases has sparked genuine interest in alternative fuels. Among these fuel sources are biomass, a largely carbon-based fuel source which includes by-products and waste materials as well as dedicated resources. The technology of biomass is still developing but our experience in communities with ethanol plants and waste incinerators indicates these plants suffer from some of the same flaws as the fossil-fueled units which they are supposed to replace. In addition to waste-burning units, bio-fuels based on woody biomass and agricultural products are being promoted by commercial vendors and favored with government subsidies.

Clearly, the evidence supporting human impact on global warming is mounting steadily, approaching scientific certainty. Also, the carbon cycle in which plants and animals exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen is a fact of nature. However, promoting biomass energy based on a so-called carbon-neutral impact is wrong. Carbon-neutral may sound plausible to some renewable energy advocates and too many opinion leaders, but upon examination, the carbon-neutral construct used to justify combustion of biomass fuel has no sound scientific support. And the fundamental problems of waste incineration and fossil fuel combustion also plague biomass units whether they are branded waste-toenergy, pyrolysis, bio-energy or plasma arc.

Biomass energy systems do release global warming gases. This is not in dispute.

What are problematic are the assumptions and the justifications upon which bio-energy advocates seek to excuse their progeny from being good carbon citizens.

This report delves into two broad questions about biomass energy: What are the impacts on human health and the environment caused by the thermal energy technologies? And what are the true impacts on the carbon cycle? Smoke and Mirrors is a detailed investigation into the science, the technology and the hyperbole of biomass energy.

For the full report, click here

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

USDA DECISION ON GE ALFALFA LEAVES DOOR OPEN FOR CONTAMINATION, RISE OF SUPERWEEDS

ROGUE AGENCY CHOOSES “BUSINESS AS USUAL” OVER SOUND SCIENCE

CENTER ANNOUNCES IMMEDIATE LEGAL CHALLENGE TO USDA’S FLAWED ASSESSMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Center for Food Safety criticized the announcement today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that it will once again allow unlimited, nation-wide commercial planting of Monsanto’s genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa, despite the many risks to organic and conventional farmers USDA acknowledged in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).  On a call today with stakeholders, Secretary Vilsack reiterated the concerns surrounding purity and access to non-GE seed, yet the Agency’s decision still places the entire burden for preventing contamination on non-GE farmers, with no protections for food producers, consumers and exporters.

“We’re disappointed with USDA’s decision and we will be back in court representing the interest of farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops and its decision to appease the few companies who seek to benefit from this technology comes despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment.”

On Monday, the Center sent an open letter to Secretary Vilsack calling on USDA to base its decision on sound science and the interests of farmers, and to avoid rushing the process to meet the marketing timelines or sales targets of Monsanto, Forage Genetics or other entities.

CFS also addressed several key points that were not properly assessed in the FEIS, among them were:

·         Liability, Implementation and Oversight — Citing over 200 past contamination episodes that have cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales, CFS demands that liability for financial losses incurred by farmers due to transgenic contamination be assigned to the crop developers.  CFS also calls on USDA to take a more active oversight role to ensure that any stewardship plans are properly implemented and enforced.

·         Roundup Ready alfalfa will substantially increase herbicide use – USDA’s assessment misrepresented conventional alfalfa as utilizing more herbicides than it does, which in turn provided a false rationale for introducing herbicide-promoting Roundup Ready alfalfa.  In fact, USDA’s own data shows that just 7% of alfalfa hay acres are treated with herbicides.  USDA’s projections in the FEIS show that substantial adoption of Roundup Ready alfalfa would trigger large increases in herbicide use of up to 23 million lbs. per year.

·         Harms from glyphosate-resistant weeds – USDA’s sloppy and unscientific treatment of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds ignored the significant contribution that RR alfalfa could make to their rapid evolution.  USDA failed to analyze how GR weeds fostered by currently grown RR crops are increasing herbicide use; spurring more use of soil-eroding tillage; and reducing farmer income through increased weed control costs, an essential baseline analysis.

“We in the farm sector are dissatisfied but not surprised at the lack of courage from USDA to stop Roundup Ready alfalfa and defend family farmers,” said Pat Trask, conventional alfalfa grower and plaintiff in the alfalfa litigation.

The FEIS comes in response to a 2007 lawsuit brought by CFS, in which a federal court ruled that the USDA’s approval of GE alfalfa violated environmental laws by failing to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa, the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and increased use of glyphosate herbicide, sold by Monsanto as Roundup.  The Court banned new plantings of GE alfalfa until USDA completed a more comprehensive assessment of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on GE alfalfa planting.  In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation occurs.

“Last spring more than 200,000 people submitted comments to the USDA highly critical of the substance and conclusions of its Draft EIS on GE Alfalfa,” said Kimbrell.  “Clearly the USDA was not listening to the public or farmers but rather to just a handful of corporations.”

CFS press release on today’s USDA announcement re GE alfalfa deregulation, online

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Cross-posted from the African Biodiversity Network and the Gaia Foundation

The African Biodiversity Network and the Gaia Foundation present ‘Stories of change’ and the voices of local and indigenous communities working to regenerate their ecosystems and to strengthen community cohesion through enhancing their traditional knowledge and practices.

Forest, Clan, Community – The Story of Sheka has been produced by ABN and Gaia’s Ethiopian partner Melca Mahiber. The film follows the story of the indigenous clans and local community working with the local government to protect and preserve their beautiful Sheka Rainforest. This is a taster of the film which will be released in the New Year.

Reviving our Culture, Mapping our Future tells the story of a special gathering of indigenous leaders from Venda (South Africa), Altai (Russia) and the Colombian Amazon, and a training in eco-cultural mapping of Venda territory. You can view this film in Spanish, Portuguese and French, or watch a longer version of the mapping process by visiting our second vimeo channel vimeo.com/​channels/​abntranslations

The Kamburu Story – tells how Kago and Rosemary, and the Kamburu community in central Kenya, took back control of their farming system by reviving their knowledge and seed diversity, and in 18 months had a food surplus.

These videos were produced by the African Biodiversity Network (ABN) and The Gaia Foundation in partnership with Melca Mahiber in Ethiopia, the Mupo Foundation in South Africa, the Institute of Culture Ecology (ICE) in Kenya.

Visit africanbiodiversity.org to find out more about The African Biodiversity Network. Visit gaiafoundation.org to find out more about The Gaia Foundation.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

This week Daphne Wysham gives a response to the President’s State of the Union and addresses the facts about “clean” energy and climate change.

Daphne Wysham’s bio from the Institute for Policy Studies:

Daphne Wysham is a fellow and board member of the Institute for Policy Studies, founder and co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, a project of IPS, and founder and co-host of Earthbeat Radio, which airs on 54 stations in the U.S. and Canada, reaching over 2 million potential listeners.  Wysham is a former Fellow of the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam; former editor-in-chief of Greenpeace Magazine; and associate of the Center for Investigative Reporting. She is the acting board chair of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and a member of the Durban Group for Climate Justice. She obtained her BA with high honors from Princeton University in 1983.

Ms. Wysham’s analysis and critiques have been featured in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Grist, The Guardian, The Financial Times, and on Al Jazeera, Democracy Now!, MSNBC, BBC, NPR, and Marketplace, among others.

Click here to listen!

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Cross-posted from Reuters

Smoke rises from factories at Keihin industrial zone in Kawasaki, south of Tokyo November 30, 2009. Credit: Reuters/Toru Hanai

By Risa Maeda

TOKYO (Reuters) – Japan said it aims to propose an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol in coming months, after criticizing the international climate framework as neither using effective technology nor including major emitters.

Tokyo will come up with a set of proposals to fight global warming beyond 2012, including bilateral agreements between countries on emission offsets generated by the use of clean-energy technology, government officials said on Thursday.

The move underlined Japan’s urgent need to regain the trust of developing countries, many of which have blamed Japan’s opposition to extending the Kyoto Protocol for causing a major delay in U.N.-led climate talks.

“We are not at all looking backward. We now think we should come up with a Japan proposal,” said Ikuro Sugawara, director-general at the trade ministry’s industrial science and technology policy and environment bureau.

“We should draw a vision of what the globe should be, use Japan’s wisdom (on clean-energy technology) and propose what can be done with the remaining 96 percent of emissions,” he said at a meeting of the ministry’s climate policy advisory panel.

At the last U.N. meeting in Cancun, Mexico, at the end of 2010, governments put off tough decisions until this year on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Japan at that time argued that Kyoto is out of date because it covers less than 30 percent of current global emissions, including a 4 percent share for Japan, and fails to provide a solution.

The protocol, whose current round ends in 2012, obliges almost 40 rich countries — except the United States — to cut emissions or face penalties.

Last week, Prime Minister Naoto Kan made public, albeit with few details, Japan’s intention to take the lead in areas of the environment this year.

“In addition to the existing framework for environmental countermeasures … I would like to put forth a new international initiative addressing Asian environmental challenges in particular,” Kan said in a speech on foreign policy.

The internal process to come up with such a proposal in Japan will have little to do with a split parliament, which makes it difficult to pass bills related to next fiscal year’s budget as well as those for policy measures on domestic emission cuts.

(Editing by Jane Baird)

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog