Simon

Meet Casey Neistat, a male bicyclist in New York, who got fined $50 for not riding in the bike lane by a police officer. Casey tried to convince the officer that many times it was more safe to ride on the road instead of the bike lane but the officer didn't care. So Casey decided to make a point about the NYPD ticketing bicyclists and show what could happen if you only ride in the bike lane. Despite the numerous objects blocking the bike lane Casey keeps on riding in the bike lane only. And as a result he ends up crashing into various piles of construction equipments, boxes, cars and even a police car. You can watch the video below. The video starts with his conversation with the police officer. The actual crashing starts about a minute in. You may laugh at him and his video, just like I did. But being a bicyclist, or even a pedestrian, in a car-centric world is dangerous and could easily get you killed. For example. In the UK cyclists made up only 0.5% of the total traffic but accounted for 5% of the entire number of road deaths and 11% of the serious injuries during 2009. The report, done by the road safety charity Brake, also concluded that "while road casualties overall had decreased, cyclist deaths and injuries had not". And a recently released report shows that between 2000 and 2009 more than 47000 pedestrians were killed in the USA. The study also shows that more than 668000 other pedestrians were injured because of accidents. "The Transportation for America report asserts that transportation agencies across the country continue to design infrastructure with only vehicle traffic in mind. “It's a serious problem that doesn't get a lot of attention,” said Michelle Ernst, who wrote the report. Most pedestrian deaths occur on “arterial” roadways, designed for traffic without sidewalks or bike lanes to accommodate walkers or cyclists, the report said." But luckily there are cities where they have bicycles and pedestrians in mind when they design their streets and transportation systems.

A new survey titled "Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology" (pdf) from the Pew Resarch Center shows that public support for the environment and alternative energy sources is strong on both sides of the political scale in America. When it comes to the question about energy priorities for America there is a strong consensus. A majority wants the US to invest in renewable energy sources such as wind, hydrogen and solar instead of expanding the oil, natural gas and coal sector. "Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say developing alternative sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology should be the more important priority for addressing America’s energy supply; 29% say expanding exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas should be the more important priority." Some findings that didn't really surprise anyone was the result that right-wing libertarians and conservatives doesn't like environmental regulations while being more supportive of corporations. While 39% of the general public agree with the statement that "stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy" as many as 79% of libertarians agree on that. "Staunch Conservatives and Libertarians are the only groups in which majorities say the U.S. has gone too far in its efforts to protect the environment. In all other groups – including Main Street Republicans and the GOP-leaning Disaffecteds – most say that this country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment." The only ones who rather want to see more investments in the fossil fuel industry than the development of renewable energy sources are "staunch conservatives". Libertarians also misses a majority agreement on this issue. "Staunch Conservatives are the only group in which a majority says expanding oil, coal and natural gas should be the priority; fully 72% say this should be the focus, while just 15% would emphasize alternative energy sources." When it comes to the question of global warming you can still, unfortunately, see that it "remains a deeply partisan issue". A majority of the public says there is evidence that the global temperature is rising and that the climate is changing. "Overall, 58% of the public says there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades while 34% say there is no solid evidence of warming. Just over a third (36%) say this warming is mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, while 18% say it is mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment." But what is more interesting, and satisfying to read, is that 71% of Americans believe the USA "should do whatever it takes to protect the environment". And 59% believe strongly in that.

According to an unpublished report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) global greenhouse gas emissions has increased to new record levels. And this despite one of the worst economic recessions in recent history which analysts thought would lower the carbon emission levels from last year. Analysts from IEA says the extreme rise in greenhouse gas emissions will make it impossible to reach the 2 degrees target that politicians have claimed is the threshold we should aim for to prevent dangerous runaway climate change. Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA, says that if the current rise in carbon emissions continues the 2 degrees target will just become "a nice Utopia". "I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say." The British top climate economist Nicholas Stern, who recently endorsed the 350 ppm target, said in a response to the new shocking figures that we could see "widespread mass migration and conflict" as a result: "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path ... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100. Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce." John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, warned that time is now seriously running out for us: "This news should shock the world. Yet even now politicians in each of the great powers are eyeing up extraordinary and risky ways to extract the world's last remaining reserves of fossil fuels – even from under the melting ice of the Arctic. You don't put out a fire with gasoline. It will now be up to us to stop them." And just two days ago preliminary data from the US government's Earth Systems Research Laboratory was released showing that carbon dioxide levels peaked at the highest levels on record last week. The data show that "2011 CO2 levels peaked last week at 394.97ppm. This is an increase of nearly 1.6ppm on last year and the highest ever recorded".

The Guardian reports that the famous Amazon rainforest activist Jose Claudio Ribeiro da Silva has been killed in an ambush near his home in Brazil. Six months after predicting his own murder, a leading rainforest defender has reportedly been gunned down in the Brazilian Amazon. Jose Claudio Ribeiro da Silva and his wife, Maria do Espírito Santo, are said to have been killed in an ambush near their home in Nova Ipixuna, in Pará state, about 37 miles from Marabá. According to a local newspaper, Diário do Pará, the couple had not had police protection despite getting frequent death threats because of their battle against illegal loggers and ranchers. Da Silva said in a speech at TEDxAmazonia in November last year that he was afraid loggers would try to kill him: "I could be here today talking to you and in one month you will get the news that I disappeared. I will protect the forest at all costs. That is why I could get a bullet in my head at any moment … because I denounce the loggers and charcoal producers, and that is why they think I cannot exist. [People] ask me, 'are you afraid?' Yes, I'm a human being, of course I am afraid. But my fear does not silence me. As long as I have the strength to walk I will denounce all of those who damage the forest." Al Jazeera correspondent Gabriel Elizondo is, one of the few journalist, at the scene covering the murder of rainforest defender Da Silva. You can follow his reporting on Twitter under the hashtag #ZeClaudio. You can also watch his report below: Watch the speech he gave at TEDxAmazonia last year: Zé Cláudio Ribeiro lives in the Maraba, in Para, producing nuts in a sustainable way and resisting the construction boom in the Amazon, and the pressure to bring down these impressive trees. He has received several death threats.

According to a recently published study by Dan Hoornweg, a lead urban specialist at the World Bank, Rotterdam is one of the "dirtiest" cities in the world. The European city releases around 29,8 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per capita every year and as a result Rotterdam gets a top position among the 100 different cities examined. The study looks at how much CO2 and methane emissions the citizens and the industries inside the city borders generate every year. Hoornweg and the other co-authors base their study on 100 different cities from 33 different countries around the world. The study, titled "Cities and greenhouse gas emissions: moving forward", shows that the emissions varies greatly between poor and rich cities around the world. The per capita greenhouse gas emissions vary with more than 15 tonnes in wealthy industrialized cities such as Sydney, Calgary, Stuttgart and several major US cities to less than half a tonne in poorer cities such as Nepal, India and Bangladesh. According to the study the top 9 "dirtiest" cities in the world are: (1) Rotterdam in the Netherlands with 29,8 tonnes per capita, (2) Austin in USA with 24 tonnes, (3) Denver in USA with 21,5 tonnes, (4) Washington DC in USA with 20 tonnes, (5) Minneapolis in USA with 18 tonnes, (6) Calgary in Canada with 18 tonnes, (7) Menlo Park in USA with 16 tonnes, (8) Dallas in USA with 15 tonnes and (9) Stuttgart in Germany with 12 tonnes per capita. This study helps strengthen activists calls for "climate justice" to help stop the huge inequality between rich and poor nations that fuels a climate of mistrust and sabotages efforts to secure a climate deal.

One month after the horrifying earthquake and tsunami hit Japan the country is considering raising the severity level of its nuclear crisis to the highest level available. This would put the Japanese nuclear crisis on a par with the Chernobyl accident 25 years ago, the worst nuclear power disaster in history. Since the problems at the Fukushima nuclear power plant unfolded there have been raging a heated debate over the future of nuclear energy. Such as the debate between George Monbiot and Helen Caldicott over at the Guardian. In this presentation (below) from 2008 Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of the Kyoto-based NGO Green Action, talks about how nuclear power can't fight global warming. Over the next decade there will be ZERO additional contribution from nuclear power in the fight to combat global warming, she says. Other flaws with nuclear energy is the fact that the construction takes too long, and that the costs are rising. She says that nuclear power is unreliable for fighting global warming due to accidents, mismanagement and earthquakes. Watch it: Other news from Japan: 17,500 gather for Tokyo rallies against nuclear plants, Kyodo news agency report. ''We've learned that nuclear plants cannot be controlled by human power,'' said photographer Gentaro Todaka, 34, among the participants. ''We hope to halt the Hamaoka plant which is said to be the most dangerous, and the campaign to halt nuclear plants will spread elsewhere.'' For more updates on the Fukushima crisis you can also follow us on Twitter.

While the situation at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan continues to be severe, following the devastating and massive earthquake earlier last month, it seems that none of the wind farms in the country have been reported damaged. Kelly Rigg, from the global climate change alliance (GCCA), writes on the Huffington Post: "Colleagues and I have been directly corresponding with Yoshinori Ueda leader of the International Committee of the Japan Wind Power Association & Japan Wind Energy Association, and according to Ueda there has been no wind facility damage reported by any association members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami." She reports that the Kamisu wind farm, which is located 300km from the epicenter of the earthquake, managed to survive without any damages. Mostly thanks to its "anti-earthquake battle proof design". According to Yoshinori Ueda most of the wind farms in Japan are now operational. The remaining ones are offline due to grid failures caused by the earthquake and tsunami. So while the awful nuclear crisis continues, with experts warning that the Fukushima disaster could become worse than Chernobyl and that the deconstruction of the plant could take decades, this story really should give a boost of confidence to the renewable energy sector. And it seems that the stock markets agree on this. The stock price of Japan Wind Development Co. Ltd. has risen from 31,500 yen on 11 March to 74,700 yen today. And the Guardian reports that the Japanese nuclear crisis has made shares in renewable energy sources rocket as public and investors recoil from the nuclear energy industry. Fukushima really does makes the case for renewable energy, as Antony Froggatt writes on BBC. Another article worth reading is this one by Leuren Moret on "Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette". It was published seven years ago and warned about the potential consequences of investing heavily in nuclear energy near such a dangerous earthquake zone as Japan: "Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list." It's like Naomi Klein says. Our societies have become addicted to extreme and reckless risk-taking.

[caption id="attachment_2749" align="alignnone" width="550" caption="The photo shows the second hydrogen explosion at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 3 reactor in Japan."][/caption] The ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan has sparked new life in the nuclear energy debate in many countries. And the fear for possible nuclear accidents in other countries forces politicians to reconsider and review their current energy policy stance. The continued protests against nuclear energy in Germany has seen an upswing during these past days. About 60,000 people formed a chain around a nuclear power station in Germany this weekend to protest its continued operation. And chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to announce the suspension of the country's plans to extend the life of its nuclear power stations later today, the Guardian reports. In USA people and politicians are starting to question President Barack Obama's plans to expand and build new nuclear power plants to meet growing energy demands in the country. The independent and strongly pro-nuclear Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, have said that the USA should "put the brakes on nuclear power plants": "I don't want to stop the building of nuclear power plants. But I think we've got to kind of quietly put, quickly put, the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami and then see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming on line." In Britain the Green lawmaker Caroline Lucas have said that the Japanese nuclear crisis strengthens the case against new nuclear construction. "You will never be able to completely design out human error, design failure or natural disaster," she said. Walt Patterson, associate fellow at London's Chatham House thinktank, said that, the financial damages of a potential nuclear accident also played a big role in shaping the energy debate in Brian and Europe. "That is undoubtedly going to filter back to the debate in Europe as a further factor in the very dubious economics of these plants," he told Reuters. The plans to expand nuclear energy in India for around $175 billion might, in light of the current situation in Japan, see a strong public backlash, analysts and experts say: “The Japan accident has created a very, very tough situation for India, actual implementation of nuclear power projects will now certainly take a backseat,” said Debasish Mishra, Mumbai-based senior director at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. “It will be very difficult to sell the idea of nuclear power to people for any political party after the Japan disaster.” While the nuclear crisis in Japan might not change the Chinese government's plans to develop more nuclear power it could force China to review their energy policies. The current situation in Japan "may become a factor in the drafting of China’s energy plans, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in Beijing." “The accident in Japan may trigger increased public concerns over building atomic plants,” said Dave Dai, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Daiwa Securities Capital Markets Co. “China will become more cautious while developing nuclear-power plants but is unlikely to alter its long-term nuclear development plans.”

In less than three weeks it's time for another annual event of Earth Hour - the global happening which millions of people from around the world participate in by turning off their lights. I have complained earlier that I think this is just a pointless publicity stunt with no real effects. This time though it seems the campaigners want to do something more substantial than just encourage people to turn off their lights for one hour. For 2011 they are asking people to go "beyond the hour": "At 8.30 PM on Saturday 26 March 2011, lights will switch off around the globe for Earth Hour. This year, when the lights go back on, we want you to think about what you can change in your daily life that will benefit the planet." It's just too bad that they are still focusing on individual responsibility. Individual actions are important, of course. But they will never solve our climate crisis. It doesn't matter how many of us that change our light bulbs, drive less or buy more organic food. The climate crisis will still continue head-on in full speed. We need major and far-reaching collective actions, regulations and transformation from both the public and private sector for us to have a chance of slowing down the effects of climate change. Global warming is an effect of our current economic structures, and until we deal with that fact (corporate) events such as Earth Hour will continue to be meaningless in my opinion. Next year I hope the campaigners turns Earth Hour into "a day of action", where they organize and encourage people to go out in the streets and protest against the current inaction. I've said it before and I say it again. The only thing that will get the politicians attention are mass protests. Something which we clearly can see examples of in the Middle East these days. What do you think? Is Earth Hour still a relevant and important climate change event?

Naomi Klein, the well-known Canadian journalist and social activist who is the author of books such as the highly acclaimed "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism", recently held a TED Talk about our addiction to risks (see video below). In short, Klein talks about how our societies have become addicted to extreme reckless risk-taking from an interesting gender perspective. Her examples are the BP oil spill catastrophe in the Mexico Gulf, the invasion of Iraq, the collapse of the financial sectors and the ever more pressing case of climate change. Klein says that the hottest and poorest countries are the ones who are being hit first and hardest by the effects of climate change. And that the rich nations, who mainly bear the historical responsibility for global warming, roll the dice on the risks because they think they can handle and control the devastating effects of climate change. According to Klein the challenges we face today can be traced back to the deep inequality in the world that separates the powerful from the ones who have to suffer the effects of their actions. And before you start to foolishly criticize her gender perspective: .bbpBox39352356986552320 {background:url(http://a3.twimg.com/profile_background_images/186681281/hmb_sky.jpg) #C0DEED;padding:20px;} p.bbpTweet{background:#fff;padding:10px 12px 10px 12px;margin:0;min-height:48px;color:#000;font-size:18px !important;line-height:22px;-moz-border-radius:5px;-webkit-border-radius:5px} p.bbpTweet span.metadata{display:block;width:100%;clear:both;margin-top:8px;padding-top:12px;height:40px;border-top:1px solid #fff;border-top:1px solid #e6e6e6} p.bbpTweet span.metadata span.author{line-height:19px} p.bbpTweet span.metadata span.author img{float:left;margin:0 7px 0 0px;width:38px;height:38px} p.bbpTweet a:hover{text-decoration:underline}p.bbpTweet span.timestamp{font-size:12px;display:block} Men are more prone to reckless risk taking than women but it's social privilege, not biology, that is the culprit. http://bit.ly/gDtpoZless than a minute ago via webNaomi Klein NaomiAKlein Now be sure to check out Klein's interesting talk!

Al Jazeera English takes a closer look at the forests in Latvia which are being cut down at an unsustainable rate in one of their recent episodes of People & Power. "The Baltic nation of Latvia is blessed with some of the most beautiful forests in the world, millions of square kilometres of pristine woodland that support a complex biodiversity of rare species of animals and plants. [...] As the UK aims to become one of the greenest countries in Europe, we expose its role in the deforestation of Latvia." The clear cutting, which is a total loss not only for biological diversity but also for social and economic reasons, is the result of the current economic crisis in Latvia. It is being fueled by the demand from overseas markets, particularly the UK which has been Latvia's main export market for over 300 years. Al Jazeera shows how corporations and the Latvian government ignores EU habitat directives, laws and nature reserves to be able to satisfy the market demand for timber. They also question the validation of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certificate which is said to only label timber that is sustainable produced. "Many of the products of the trade from furniture to wood pulp and paper are sold in the UK under a labelling scheme run by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international NGO that certifies timber is being sustainably produced. Is that really true?" This episode shows not just the world's ecological unequal exchange but also how unattainable sustainability is in today's capitalistic system which is based on a never-ending growth rate.

According to climate scientists from NASA and the National Climatic Data Center last year's temperatures ended in a tie with 2005 as the warmest on record. NASA writes that: "Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year." "If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," James Hansen, the director of GISS, said. "The warmth this year reinforces the notion that we are seeing climate change," said David Easterling, from the National Climatic Data Center.