Mobilization for Climate Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Climate Connections’

Leave a Comment

Filed under Actions, Chiapas, Climate Justice, Indigenous Peoples, Latin America

The March outside of the Conference of Polluters in Durban. Photo: Petermann/GJEP-GFC

Burlington, VT–Global Justice Ecology Project’s Anne Petermann,  Orin Langelle and Jeff Conant along with Keith Brunner and Lindsey Gillies will give a report back from last month’s controversial UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa on Wednesday, January 11, at the Fletcher Free Library Community Room in Burlington, Vermont from 6:30 to 8:30 pm.  All five presenters were in Durban for the climate negotiations.

Fletcher Free Library is located at 235 College Street in Burlington, VT.  Burlington Action Against Nukes and the Environmental Action Group of Occupy Burlington are sponsoring the event, which is free and open to the public.

“The Durban disaster marks the lost decade in the fight against climate change,” said Anne Petermann, Executive Director of GJEP, whose international office is in Hinesburg, VT. ”These talks accomplished nothing except to delay any implementation of a UN plan to stop climate change until 2020,” she stated.

Both Petermann and Brunner were carried out of the talks by UN security, ejected from the UN grounds and turned over to the South African police for staging an unpermitted sit-in protest of the corporate take-over of the negotiations. [1] Gillies was also ejected.

Earlier that week, photojournalist Orin Langelle, on assignment for Z Magazine, had his camera shoved into his face by a UN security officer because Langelle was taking a photograph of the officer ejecting a person who was giving an interview to the media following a UN-approved Global Justice Ecology Project press conference. This incident led Langelle to file a formal complaint against UN security. [2] Langelle will show his documentary photographs of the “Durban Disaster” at the upcoming event.

Jeff Conant, Global Justice Ecology Project’s Communications Director who was also present in Durban, will take part via live-stream from the GJEP Oakland, CA office to discuss the perspectives of other climate justice groups on the Durban negotiations.

The entire two weeks in Durban were marred with controversy, which included the corporate takeover of the UN climate talks, heavy handed security measures to prevent civil society participation in the talks, and the attempt by “Big Green” Non Governmental Organizations (i.e. Greenpeace and 350.org) to control a major “Occupy” protest there.  This attempted control of dissent prompted Petermann to write a controversial critique of the big NGOs, titled “Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the Big Green Patriarchy.” [3]

Notes:

[1] Global Justice Ecology Project Director Anne Petermann Ejected from COP17   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3hX

[2] Formal Complaint Filed Against UN Security Actions in Durban  http://wp.me/pDT6U-3jy

[3] Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the ‘Big Green’ Patriarchy   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3iE

Advertisement

The March outside of the Conference of Polluters in Durban. Photo: Petermann/GJEP-GFC

Burlington, VT–Global Justice Ecology Project’s Anne Petermann,  Orin Langelle and Jeff Conant along with Keith Brunner and Lindsey Gillies will give a report back from last month’s controversial UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa on Wednesday, January 11, at the Fletcher Free Library Community Room in Burlington, Vermont from 6:30 to 8:30 pm.  All five presenters were in Durban for the climate negotiations.

Fletcher Free Library is located at 235 College Street in Burlington, VT.  Burlington Action Against Nukes and the Environmental Action Group of Occupy Burlington are sponsoring the event, which is free and open to the public.

“The Durban disaster marks the lost decade in the fight against climate change,” said Anne Petermann, Executive Director of GJEP, whose international office is in Hinesburg, VT. ”These talks accomplished nothing except to delay any implementation of a UN plan to stop climate change until 2020,” she stated.

Both Petermann and Brunner were carried out of the talks by UN security, ejected from the UN grounds and turned over to the South African police for staging an unpermitted sit-in protest of the corporate take-over of the negotiations. [1] Gillies was also ejected.

Earlier that week, photojournalist Orin Langelle, on assignment for Z Magazine, had his camera shoved into his face by a UN security officer because Langelle was taking a photograph of the officer ejecting a person who was giving an interview to the media following a UN-approved Global Justice Ecology Project press conference. This incident led Langelle to file a formal complaint against UN security. [2] Langelle will show his documentary photographs of the “Durban Disaster” at the upcoming event.

Jeff Conant, Global Justice Ecology Project’s Communications Director who was also present in Durban, will take part via live-stream from the GJEP Oakland, CA office to discuss the perspectives of other climate justice groups on the Durban negotiations.

The entire two weeks in Durban were marred with controversy, which included the corporate takeover of the UN climate talks, heavy handed security measures to prevent civil society participation in the talks, and the attempt by “Big Green” Non Governmental Organizations (i.e. Greenpeace and 350.org) to control a major “Occupy” protest there.  This attempted control of dissent prompted Petermann to write a controversial critique of the big NGOs, titled “Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the Big Green Patriarchy.” [3]

Notes:

[1] Global Justice Ecology Project Director Anne Petermann Ejected from COP17   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3hX

[2] Formal Complaint Filed Against UN Security Actions in Durban  http://wp.me/pDT6U-3jy

[3] Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the ‘Big Green’ Patriarchy   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3iE

Advertisement

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

The March outside of the Conference of Polluters in Durban. Photo: Petermann/GJEP-GFC

Burlington, VT–Global Justice Ecology Project’s Anne Petermann,  Orin Langelle and Jeff Conant along with Keith Brunner and Lindsey Gillies will give a report back from last month’s controversial UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa on Wednesday, January 11, at the Fletcher Free Library Community Room in Burlington, Vermont from 6:30 to 8:30 pm.  All five presenters were in Durban for the climate negotiations.

Fletcher Free Library is located at 235 College Street in Burlington, VT.  Burlington Action Against Nukes and the Environmental Action Group of Occupy Burlington are sponsoring the event, which is free and open to the public.

“The Durban disaster marks the lost decade in the fight against climate change,” said Anne Petermann, Executive Director of GJEP, whose international office is in Hinesburg, VT. ”These talks accomplished nothing except to delay any implementation of a UN plan to stop climate change until 2020,” she stated.

Both Petermann and Brunner were carried out of the talks by UN security, ejected from the UN grounds and turned over to the South African police for staging an unpermitted sit-in protest of the corporate take-over of the negotiations. [1] Gillies was also ejected.

Earlier that week, photojournalist Orin Langelle, on assignment for Z Magazine, had his camera shoved into his face by a UN security officer because Langelle was taking a photograph of the officer ejecting a person who was giving an interview to the media following a UN-approved Global Justice Ecology Project press conference. This incident led Langelle to file a formal complaint against UN security. [2] Langelle will show his documentary photographs of the “Durban Disaster” at the upcoming event.

Jeff Conant, Global Justice Ecology Project’s Communications Director who was also present in Durban, will take part via live-stream from the GJEP Oakland, CA office to discuss the perspectives of other climate justice groups on the Durban negotiations.

The entire two weeks in Durban were marred with controversy, which included the corporate takeover of the UN climate talks, heavy handed security measures to prevent civil society participation in the talks, and the attempt by “Big Green” Non Governmental Organizations (i.e. Greenpeace and 350.org) to control a major “Occupy” protest there.  This attempted control of dissent prompted Petermann to write a controversial critique of the big NGOs, titled “Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the Big Green Patriarchy.” [3]

Notes:

[1] Global Justice Ecology Project Director Anne Petermann Ejected from COP17   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3hX

[2] Formal Complaint Filed Against UN Security Actions in Durban  http://wp.me/pDT6U-3jy

[3] Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the ‘Big Green’ Patriarchy   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3iE

Advertisement

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Note: It sure would be nice if the US incorporated some justice-based and scientific approaches to their climate change mitigation actions, but we’re not holding our breath…

–The GJEP Team

New Report Reviews 10-Year Plan for Federal Program On Climate and Global Environmental Change Research 

Date:  Jan. 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — The draft 10-year strategic plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) — which shapes and coordinates climate and related global environmental change research efforts of numerous agencies and departments across the federal government — is “evolving in the right direction,” but several key issues could strengthen these planning efforts, says a new reporthttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 from the National Research Council.

The committee that wrote the report found that the proposed broadening of USGCRP’s scope to address not only climate change but also other climate-related global changes is appropriate and an important step.  However, the draft plan does not always acknowledge significant challenges, such as increasingly constrained budget resources, involved in meeting its goals, nor does it offer clear strategies for how such challenges could be addressed.  There is also the practical challenge of maintaining clear boundaries for an expanded program.

The committee emphasized the need to identify initial steps the program would take to achieve the proposed broadening of its scope, develop critical science capacity that is now lacking, and link the production of knowledge to its use.  It also stressed that without a strong governance structure that could compel reallocation of funds to serve overarching priorities, the program would likely continue as merely a compilation of efforts deriving from each member agency’s individual priorities.

Broadening the program to better integrate the social and ecological sciences, inform climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and emphasize decision support is welcome and essential for meeting the legislative mandate for the program, the committee said.  Nevertheless, implementing this wider scope requires more than incremental solutions.  For instance, there is insufficient expertise within member agencies in the social and ecological sciences, and some agencies lack clear mandates to develop the needed expertise.

The report also suggests that the USGCRP plan could be strengthened by:

*   offering a more coherent summary of past important accomplishments, including an assessment of successes that were possible only because of USGCRP actions;
*   establishing clear processes for setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the program;
*   employing iterative processes for periodically evaluating and updating the program and its priorities; and
*   more carefully defining the education, communication, and work-force development efforts that belong within the program and which efforts would be best organized by entities outside the program.

The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, is an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter granted to the NAS in 1863.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-publication copies of A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Draft Strategic Planhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.eduhttp://www.nap.edu/.  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

#       #       #

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Warren M. Washington1 (chair)
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Kai N. Lee (vice chair)
Program Officer
Conservation and Science Program
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Los Altos, Calif.

Mark R. Abbott
Dean and Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis

Doug Arent
Executive Director
Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colo.

Susan K. Avery
President and Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas
Austin

Thomas Dietz
Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research, and
Professor of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy, and Animal Studies
Michigan State University
East Lansing

Henry D. Jacoby
Professor of Management, and
Co-Director
Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Maria Carmen Lemos
Professor
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

Ian Roy Noble
Chief Scientist
Global Adaptation Institute
Washington, D.C.

Camille Parmesan
Associate Professor of Integrative Biology
University of Texas
Austin

Karen C. Seto
Associate Professor of the Urban Environment
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Kathleen J. Tierney
Professor of Sociology, and
Director
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado
Boulder

Charles J. Vorosmarty
Director
Global Environmental Sensing and Water Sensing Initiative, and
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
City University of New York
New York City

John M. Wallace
Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle

Gary W. Yohe
Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies
Wesleyan University
Middletown, Conn.

Note: It sure would be nice if the US incorporated some justice-based and scientific approaches to their climate change mitigation actions, but we’re not holding our breath…

–The GJEP Team

New Report Reviews 10-Year Plan for Federal Program On Climate and Global Environmental Change Research 

Date:  Jan. 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — The draft 10-year strategic plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) — which shapes and coordinates climate and related global environmental change research efforts of numerous agencies and departments across the federal government — is “evolving in the right direction,” but several key issues could strengthen these planning efforts, says a new reporthttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 from the National Research Council.

The committee that wrote the report found that the proposed broadening of USGCRP’s scope to address not only climate change but also other climate-related global changes is appropriate and an important step.  However, the draft plan does not always acknowledge significant challenges, such as increasingly constrained budget resources, involved in meeting its goals, nor does it offer clear strategies for how such challenges could be addressed.  There is also the practical challenge of maintaining clear boundaries for an expanded program.

The committee emphasized the need to identify initial steps the program would take to achieve the proposed broadening of its scope, develop critical science capacity that is now lacking, and link the production of knowledge to its use.  It also stressed that without a strong governance structure that could compel reallocation of funds to serve overarching priorities, the program would likely continue as merely a compilation of efforts deriving from each member agency’s individual priorities.

Broadening the program to better integrate the social and ecological sciences, inform climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and emphasize decision support is welcome and essential for meeting the legislative mandate for the program, the committee said.  Nevertheless, implementing this wider scope requires more than incremental solutions.  For instance, there is insufficient expertise within member agencies in the social and ecological sciences, and some agencies lack clear mandates to develop the needed expertise.

The report also suggests that the USGCRP plan could be strengthened by:

*   offering a more coherent summary of past important accomplishments, including an assessment of successes that were possible only because of USGCRP actions;
*   establishing clear processes for setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the program;
*   employing iterative processes for periodically evaluating and updating the program and its priorities; and
*   more carefully defining the education, communication, and work-force development efforts that belong within the program and which efforts would be best organized by entities outside the program.

The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, is an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter granted to the NAS in 1863.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-publication copies of A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Draft Strategic Planhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.eduhttp://www.nap.edu/.  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

#       #       #

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Warren M. Washington1 (chair)
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Kai N. Lee (vice chair)
Program Officer
Conservation and Science Program
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Los Altos, Calif.

Mark R. Abbott
Dean and Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis

Doug Arent
Executive Director
Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colo.

Susan K. Avery
President and Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas
Austin

Thomas Dietz
Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research, and
Professor of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy, and Animal Studies
Michigan State University
East Lansing

Henry D. Jacoby
Professor of Management, and
Co-Director
Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Maria Carmen Lemos
Professor
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

Ian Roy Noble
Chief Scientist
Global Adaptation Institute
Washington, D.C.

Camille Parmesan
Associate Professor of Integrative Biology
University of Texas
Austin

Karen C. Seto
Associate Professor of the Urban Environment
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Kathleen J. Tierney
Professor of Sociology, and
Director
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado
Boulder

Charles J. Vorosmarty
Director
Global Environmental Sensing and Water Sensing Initiative, and
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
City University of New York
New York City

John M. Wallace
Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle

Gary W. Yohe
Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies
Wesleyan University
Middletown, Conn.

Note: It sure would be nice if the US incorporated some justice-based and scientific approaches to their climate change mitigation actions, but we’re not holding our breath…

–The GJEP Team

New Report Reviews 10-Year Plan for Federal Program On Climate and Global Environmental Change Research 

Date:  Jan. 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — The draft 10-year strategic plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) — which shapes and coordinates climate and related global environmental change research efforts of numerous agencies and departments across the federal government — is “evolving in the right direction,” but several key issues could strengthen these planning efforts, says a new reporthttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 from the National Research Council.

The committee that wrote the report found that the proposed broadening of USGCRP’s scope to address not only climate change but also other climate-related global changes is appropriate and an important step.  However, the draft plan does not always acknowledge significant challenges, such as increasingly constrained budget resources, involved in meeting its goals, nor does it offer clear strategies for how such challenges could be addressed.  There is also the practical challenge of maintaining clear boundaries for an expanded program.

The committee emphasized the need to identify initial steps the program would take to achieve the proposed broadening of its scope, develop critical science capacity that is now lacking, and link the production of knowledge to its use.  It also stressed that without a strong governance structure that could compel reallocation of funds to serve overarching priorities, the program would likely continue as merely a compilation of efforts deriving from each member agency’s individual priorities.

Broadening the program to better integrate the social and ecological sciences, inform climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and emphasize decision support is welcome and essential for meeting the legislative mandate for the program, the committee said.  Nevertheless, implementing this wider scope requires more than incremental solutions.  For instance, there is insufficient expertise within member agencies in the social and ecological sciences, and some agencies lack clear mandates to develop the needed expertise.

The report also suggests that the USGCRP plan could be strengthened by:

*   offering a more coherent summary of past important accomplishments, including an assessment of successes that were possible only because of USGCRP actions;
*   establishing clear processes for setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the program;
*   employing iterative processes for periodically evaluating and updating the program and its priorities; and
*   more carefully defining the education, communication, and work-force development efforts that belong within the program and which efforts would be best organized by entities outside the program.

The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, is an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter granted to the NAS in 1863.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-publication copies of A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Draft Strategic Planhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.eduhttp://www.nap.edu/.  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

#       #       #

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Warren M. Washington1 (chair)
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Kai N. Lee (vice chair)
Program Officer
Conservation and Science Program
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Los Altos, Calif.

Mark R. Abbott
Dean and Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis

Doug Arent
Executive Director
Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colo.

Susan K. Avery
President and Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas
Austin

Thomas Dietz
Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research, and
Professor of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy, and Animal Studies
Michigan State University
East Lansing

Henry D. Jacoby
Professor of Management, and
Co-Director
Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Maria Carmen Lemos
Professor
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

Ian Roy Noble
Chief Scientist
Global Adaptation Institute
Washington, D.C.

Camille Parmesan
Associate Professor of Integrative Biology
University of Texas
Austin

Karen C. Seto
Associate Professor of the Urban Environment
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Kathleen J. Tierney
Professor of Sociology, and
Director
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado
Boulder

Charles J. Vorosmarty
Director
Global Environmental Sensing and Water Sensing Initiative, and
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
City University of New York
New York City

John M. Wallace
Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle

Gary W. Yohe
Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies
Wesleyan University
Middletown, Conn.

Note: It sure would be nice if the US incorporated some justice-based and scientific approaches to their climate change mitigation actions, but we’re not holding our breath…

–The GJEP Team

New Report Reviews 10-Year Plan for Federal Program On Climate and Global Environmental Change Research 

Date:  Jan. 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — The draft 10-year strategic plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) — which shapes and coordinates climate and related global environmental change research efforts of numerous agencies and departments across the federal government — is “evolving in the right direction,” but several key issues could strengthen these planning efforts, says a new reporthttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 from the National Research Council.

The committee that wrote the report found that the proposed broadening of USGCRP’s scope to address not only climate change but also other climate-related global changes is appropriate and an important step.  However, the draft plan does not always acknowledge significant challenges, such as increasingly constrained budget resources, involved in meeting its goals, nor does it offer clear strategies for how such challenges could be addressed.  There is also the practical challenge of maintaining clear boundaries for an expanded program.

The committee emphasized the need to identify initial steps the program would take to achieve the proposed broadening of its scope, develop critical science capacity that is now lacking, and link the production of knowledge to its use.  It also stressed that without a strong governance structure that could compel reallocation of funds to serve overarching priorities, the program would likely continue as merely a compilation of efforts deriving from each member agency’s individual priorities.

Broadening the program to better integrate the social and ecological sciences, inform climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and emphasize decision support is welcome and essential for meeting the legislative mandate for the program, the committee said.  Nevertheless, implementing this wider scope requires more than incremental solutions.  For instance, there is insufficient expertise within member agencies in the social and ecological sciences, and some agencies lack clear mandates to develop the needed expertise.

The report also suggests that the USGCRP plan could be strengthened by:

*   offering a more coherent summary of past important accomplishments, including an assessment of successes that were possible only because of USGCRP actions;
*   establishing clear processes for setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the program;
*   employing iterative processes for periodically evaluating and updating the program and its priorities; and
*   more carefully defining the education, communication, and work-force development efforts that belong within the program and which efforts would be best organized by entities outside the program.

The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, is an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter granted to the NAS in 1863.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-publication copies of A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Draft Strategic Planhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.eduhttp://www.nap.edu/.  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

#       #       #

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Warren M. Washington1 (chair)
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Kai N. Lee (vice chair)
Program Officer
Conservation and Science Program
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Los Altos, Calif.

Mark R. Abbott
Dean and Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis

Doug Arent
Executive Director
Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colo.

Susan K. Avery
President and Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas
Austin

Thomas Dietz
Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research, and
Professor of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy, and Animal Studies
Michigan State University
East Lansing

Henry D. Jacoby
Professor of Management, and
Co-Director
Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Maria Carmen Lemos
Professor
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

Ian Roy Noble
Chief Scientist
Global Adaptation Institute
Washington, D.C.

Camille Parmesan
Associate Professor of Integrative Biology
University of Texas
Austin

Karen C. Seto
Associate Professor of the Urban Environment
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Kathleen J. Tierney
Professor of Sociology, and
Director
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado
Boulder

Charles J. Vorosmarty
Director
Global Environmental Sensing and Water Sensing Initiative, and
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
City University of New York
New York City

John M. Wallace
Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle

Gary W. Yohe
Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies
Wesleyan University
Middletown, Conn.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Frightening new research shows honey bees are being exposed to deadly neonicotinoid insecticides and several other agricultural pesticides throughout their foraging period. The research, published in the scientific journal PLoS One says extremely high levels of clothianidin and thiamethoxam were found in planter exhaust material produced during the planting of treated maize seed. The work, which could raise new questions about the long-term survival of the honey bee, was conducted by Christian H. Krupke of the Department of Entomology at Purdue University, Brian D. Eitzer of the Department of Analytical Chemistry at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and Krispn Given of Purdue.

“Neonicotinoids  were found in the soil of each field we sampled, including  unplanted fields,” they report. Dandelions visited by foraging bees growing near these fields were found to contain neonicotinoids as well. “This indicates deposition of neonicotinoids on the flowers, uptake by the root system, or both. Dead bees collected near hive entrances during the spring sampling period were found to contain clothianidin as well.”

“These results have implications for a wide range of large-scale annual cropping systems that utilize neonicotinoid seed treatments,” the report says. The research was funded by grants from the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign and the Managed Pollinator Coordinated Agricultural Project.

Neonicotinoids are persistent. The new report says the half-lives of these compounds in aerobic soil conditions can vary widely, but are best measured in months – 148 – 1,155 days for clothianidin.

Among the largest single uses of these compounds is application to maize seed. Production of maize for food, feed and ethanol production represents the largest single use of arable land in North America, reaching a record
88,216,620 acres in 2010 and is expected to increase.  All of the maize seed planted in North America except for 0.2% used in organic production is coated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

Two major compounds are used – clothianidin and thiamethoxam, with the latter metabolized to clothianidin in the insect. The application rates for these compounds range from 0.25 to 1.25 mg/kernel. These compounds are highly toxic to honey bees – a single kernel contains several orders of magnitude of active ingredient more than the published LD50 values for honey bees – defined as the amount of material that will kill 50% of exposed individuals.
In fact, the amount of clothianidin on a single maize seed at the rate of 0.5 mg/kernel contains enough active ingredient to kill more than 80,000 honey bees.

The results prompted researchers to carry out more experiments to determine how honey bees may be gaining exposure to clothianidin and other pesticides commonly applied to either maize seed or to plants later in the season. They collected samples from a variety of potential exposure routes near agricultural fields and analyzed them to determine whether pesticides were present. They sampled soils, pollen both collected by honey bees and directly from plants, dandelion flowers, and dead and healthy bees. They even checked waste products produced during the planting of treated seed. Maize seed is sewn with tractor-drawn planters that use a forced air/vacuum system and a perforated disc to pick up individual seeds and drop them into the planting furrow at the selected spacing. Maize kernels treated with neonicotinoids and other compounds such as fungicides do not flow readily and may stick to one another, causing uneven plant spacing. To overcome this, talc (a mineral composed of hydrated magnesium silicate) is added to seed boxes to reduce friction and stickiness and ensure the smooth flow of seed. Much of the talc is exhausted during planting, either down with the seed or behind the planter and into the air using an exhaust fan. Researchers sampled the waste talc after planting to determine whether this material was contaminated with pesticides abraded from treated seeds. The waste is a mixture of the talc that has been in contact with treated maize kernels and minute pieces of the seeds.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, Energy, False Solutions to Climate Change, Greenwashing, Hydrofracking, politics, Pollution, Tar Sands, Videos

Tagged as Climate Change, coal, energy, oil, pollution, Tar Sands

Leave a Comment

Filed under Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, Energy, False Solutions to Climate Change, Greenwashing, Hydrofracking, politics, Pollution, Tar Sands, Videos

Tagged as Climate Change, coal, energy, oil, pollution, Tar Sands

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Leave a Comment

Filed under Actions, Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, Occupy Wall Street, Political Repression, politics

Tagged as activists, american winter, arab spring, develpment, human rights, Occupy Movement, occupy wall street, protests, sustainability, Time’s person of the year: the protester

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Chinese government to invest $1.78B in Nigerian biofuels, the latest in a series of projects announced in West Africa.

Jim Lane | January 2, 2012

Cross-posted from BiofuelsDigest 

In Nigeria, Bloomberg and several local outlets are reporting that the Nigerian government has signed a $2.55 billion development deal with Global Biofuels, to construct 15 integrated biorefineries throughout the West African nation. According to reports, the first pilot plant will be completed in Ilemeso, in Ekiti State by Q4 2012, and projects thereafter will be completed in Ondo, Osun, Kwara, Kogi,Benue,  Gombe, Bauchi, Zamfara, Kano, Kaduna, Nasarawa and  Plateau states.  Project cost for the initial pilot plant is $108M, while full-scale plants are expected to cost $183 million each.

According to Global Biofuels, $1.78 billion, or 70 percent of the financing will come from the Chinese government. The remainder will come from NEXIM Bank, ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development, Africa Finance Corporation; Fond Gari, and First Bank of Nigeria. The projects expect to generate 100 tons of total biomass per hectare, per yearn, using two cropping cycles per year, with total tonnage including tops, leaves, stalks and the primary crop. That equates to roughly 20 tons of total biomass per growing season, per acre.

But the massive Nigerian investment is just one of several announced in recent weeks and months in West Africa.

Nigerian Export-Import Bank:$695M

Just last week, the Nigerian Export-Import Bank gave $695 million to five companies investing in renewables including $12 million for a jatropha project and $56 million for a sorghum ethanol project. The majority of the funding went to a sugarcane project that will include a bagasse co-generation component while the rest of the funding was for waste-to-energy projects.

Just before the US Thanksgiving holiday, the Ondo State Commissioner for Agriculture, Ademola Olorunfemi, said that the state would approve development of three sugarcane plantations and ethanol plants, with a focus on the production of biofuels and rural economic development. The Commissioner also said that the plants could provide materials for the bio-pharma industry.

The projects, whose goals center around industrialization and employment, indicate a new direction for the economy of this agriculture-heavy area of Nigeria.

Dangote Group, $7.7B

The same week, Aliko Dangote, the president of Dangote Group, announced an investment of $7.7 billion in Rivers Energy City, home of the budding $2 billion fertilizer and ethanol plant project put on by Indorama Eleme Petrochemical Company. His investment, says a top government source, will span into the methane and ethanol industries and provide thousands of jobs in the upcoming energy city.

Global Biofuels: $91M

In August, Global Biofuels has announced plans for ethanol plants across the West African region, with $91 million in sellers credit from COZA of Hong Kong and WEMET of China.  The final project is expected to cost over $183 million, and produce 72 million liters of ethanol from 1.95 million tons of sorghum per year, and 216 gigawatts of electricity.  Total land use as reported would be 65,000 ha in Nigeria and 32,500 ha in neighboring Economic Community of West African States member countries.

Also in August, Nosak Distilleries Ltd said it would raise production capacity at its Lagos facility to 540,000 liters per day from its current 350,000 liters per day. It also announced plans to commission a new 150,000 liter per day facility in Calabar, Cross River. Its first facility was commissioned in 2001 and together the company supplies about 70% of local ethanol demand.

The Bottom Line

Announcements of MOUs should be taken for what they are – an understanding that steel will go into the ground, as opposed to the actual construction of actual capacity. However, the trend is clear, scale is happening, project financing is becoming easier to source, especially overseas, and China is definitely expanding its ambitions with respect to countering the US lead in advanced biofuels technology, with a Chinese lead in actual gallons of renewable fuel.

More Coverage on this Topic

• Nigeria training farmers in jatropha biodiesel and pineapple peel ethanol
• AMG Bioenergy launches jatropha, eucalytpus venture in China
• AMG Bioenergy raises $1.47M for Chinese jatropha project
• Nigeria proposes to limit large-scale jatropha cultivation
• Chinese group seeks 10,000 hectares in DR Congo for jatropha
• Jatoil lines up Chinese investor for jatropha expansion
• Aura Bio, Tolao Energy partner for Nigerian jatropha venture
• Tolao, Aura Bio partner in 7,500 acre Nigerian jatropha project

<!– Advertisement –>

Chinese government to invest $1.78B in Nigerian biofuels, the latest in a series of projects announced in West Africa.

Jim Lane | January 2, 2012

Cross-posted from BiofuelsDigest 

In Nigeria, Bloomberg and several local outlets are reporting that the Nigerian government has signed a $2.55 billion development deal with Global Biofuels, to construct 15 integrated biorefineries throughout the West African nation. According to reports, the first pilot plant will be completed in Ilemeso, in Ekiti State by Q4 2012, and projects thereafter will be completed in Ondo, Osun, Kwara, Kogi,Benue,  Gombe, Bauchi, Zamfara, Kano, Kaduna, Nasarawa and  Plateau states.  Project cost for the initial pilot plant is $108M, while full-scale plants are expected to cost $183 million each.

According to Global Biofuels, $1.78 billion, or 70 percent of the financing will come from the Chinese government. The remainder will come from NEXIM Bank, ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development, Africa Finance Corporation; Fond Gari, and First Bank of Nigeria. The projects expect to generate 100 tons of total biomass per hectare, per yearn, using two cropping cycles per year, with total tonnage including tops, leaves, stalks and the primary crop. That equates to roughly 20 tons of total biomass per growing season, per acre.

But the massive Nigerian investment is just one of several announced in recent weeks and months in West Africa.

Nigerian Export-Import Bank:$695M

Just last week, the Nigerian Export-Import Bank gave $695 million to five companies investing in renewables including $12 million for a jatropha project and $56 million for a sorghum ethanol project. The majority of the funding went to a sugarcane project that will include a bagasse co-generation component while the rest of the funding was for waste-to-energy projects.

Just before the US Thanksgiving holiday, the Ondo State Commissioner for Agriculture, Ademola Olorunfemi, said that the state would approve development of three sugarcane plantations and ethanol plants, with a focus on the production of biofuels and rural economic development. The Commissioner also said that the plants could provide materials for the bio-pharma industry.

The projects, whose goals center around industrialization and employment, indicate a new direction for the economy of this agriculture-heavy area of Nigeria.

Dangote Group, $7.7B

The same week, Aliko Dangote, the president of Dangote Group, announced an investment of $7.7 billion in Rivers Energy City, home of the budding $2 billion fertilizer and ethanol plant project put on by Indorama Eleme Petrochemical Company. His investment, says a top government source, will span into the methane and ethanol industries and provide thousands of jobs in the upcoming energy city.

Global Biofuels: $91M

In August, Global Biofuels has announced plans for ethanol plants across the West African region, with $91 million in sellers credit from COZA of Hong Kong and WEMET of China.  The final project is expected to cost over $183 million, and produce 72 million liters of ethanol from 1.95 million tons of sorghum per year, and 216 gigawatts of electricity.  Total land use as reported would be 65,000 ha in Nigeria and 32,500 ha in neighboring Economic Community of West African States member countries.

Also in August, Nosak Distilleries Ltd said it would raise production capacity at its Lagos facility to 540,000 liters per day from its current 350,000 liters per day. It also announced plans to commission a new 150,000 liter per day facility in Calabar, Cross River. Its first facility was commissioned in 2001 and together the company supplies about 70% of local ethanol demand.

The Bottom Line

Announcements of MOUs should be taken for what they are – an understanding that steel will go into the ground, as opposed to the actual construction of actual capacity. However, the trend is clear, scale is happening, project financing is becoming easier to source, especially overseas, and China is definitely expanding its ambitions with respect to countering the US lead in advanced biofuels technology, with a Chinese lead in actual gallons of renewable fuel.

More Coverage on this Topic

• Nigeria training farmers in jatropha biodiesel and pineapple peel ethanol
• AMG Bioenergy launches jatropha, eucalytpus venture in China
• AMG Bioenergy raises $1.47M for Chinese jatropha project
• Nigeria proposes to limit large-scale jatropha cultivation
• Chinese group seeks 10,000 hectares in DR Congo for jatropha
• Jatoil lines up Chinese investor for jatropha expansion
• Aura Bio, Tolao Energy partner for Nigerian jatropha venture
• Tolao, Aura Bio partner in 7,500 acre Nigerian jatropha project

<!– Advertisement –>

Chinese government to invest $1.78B in Nigerian biofuels, the latest in a series of projects announced in West Africa.

Jim Lane | January 2, 2012

Cross-posted from BiofuelsDigest 

In Nigeria, Bloomberg and several local outlets are reporting that the Nigerian government has signed a $2.55 billion development deal with Global Biofuels, to construct 15 integrated biorefineries throughout the West African nation. According to reports, the first pilot plant will be completed in Ilemeso, in Ekiti State by Q4 2012, and projects thereafter will be completed in Ondo, Osun, Kwara, Kogi,Benue,  Gombe, Bauchi, Zamfara, Kano, Kaduna, Nasarawa and  Plateau states.  Project cost for the initial pilot plant is $108M, while full-scale plants are expected to cost $183 million each.

According to Global Biofuels, $1.78 billion, or 70 percent of the financing will come from the Chinese government. The remainder will come from NEXIM Bank, ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development, Africa Finance Corporation; Fond Gari, and First Bank of Nigeria. The projects expect to generate 100 tons of total biomass per hectare, per yearn, using two cropping cycles per year, with total tonnage including tops, leaves, stalks and the primary crop. That equates to roughly 20 tons of total biomass per growing season, per acre.

But the massive Nigerian investment is just one of several announced in recent weeks and months in West Africa.

Nigerian Export-Import Bank:$695M

Just last week, the Nigerian Export-Import Bank gave $695 million to five companies investing in renewables including $12 million for a jatropha project and $56 million for a sorghum ethanol project. The majority of the funding went to a sugarcane project that will include a bagasse co-generation component while the rest of the funding was for waste-to-energy projects.

Just before the US Thanksgiving holiday, the Ondo State Commissioner for Agriculture, Ademola Olorunfemi, said that the state would approve development of three sugarcane plantations and ethanol plants, with a focus on the production of biofuels and rural economic development. The Commissioner also said that the plants could provide materials for the bio-pharma industry.

The projects, whose goals center around industrialization and employment, indicate a new direction for the economy of this agriculture-heavy area of Nigeria.

Dangote Group, $7.7B

The same week, Aliko Dangote, the president of Dangote Group, announced an investment of $7.7 billion in Rivers Energy City, home of the budding $2 billion fertilizer and ethanol plant project put on by Indorama Eleme Petrochemical Company. His investment, says a top government source, will span into the methane and ethanol industries and provide thousands of jobs in the upcoming energy city.

Global Biofuels: $91M

In August, Global Biofuels has announced plans for ethanol plants across the West African region, with $91 million in sellers credit from COZA of Hong Kong and WEMET of China.  The final project is expected to cost over $183 million, and produce 72 million liters of ethanol from 1.95 million tons of sorghum per year, and 216 gigawatts of electricity.  Total land use as reported would be 65,000 ha in Nigeria and 32,500 ha in neighboring Economic Community of West African States member countries.

Also in August, Nosak Distilleries Ltd said it would raise production capacity at its Lagos facility to 540,000 liters per day from its current 350,000 liters per day. It also announced plans to commission a new 150,000 liter per day facility in Calabar, Cross River. Its first facility was commissioned in 2001 and together the company supplies about 70% of local ethanol demand.

The Bottom Line

Announcements of MOUs should be taken for what they are – an understanding that steel will go into the ground, as opposed to the actual construction of actual capacity. However, the trend is clear, scale is happening, project financing is becoming easier to source, especially overseas, and China is definitely expanding its ambitions with respect to countering the US lead in advanced biofuels technology, with a Chinese lead in actual gallons of renewable fuel.

More Coverage on this Topic

• Nigeria training farmers in jatropha biodiesel and pineapple peel ethanol
• AMG Bioenergy launches jatropha, eucalytpus venture in China
• AMG Bioenergy raises $1.47M for Chinese jatropha project
• Nigeria proposes to limit large-scale jatropha cultivation
• Chinese group seeks 10,000 hectares in DR Congo for jatropha
• Jatoil lines up Chinese investor for jatropha expansion
• Aura Bio, Tolao Energy partner for Nigerian jatropha venture
• Tolao, Aura Bio partner in 7,500 acre Nigerian jatropha project

<!– Advertisement –>

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog