Simon

Yvo de Boer, who heads the Bonn-based U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, is a bit more optimistic about the current financial crisis than George Monbiot is. Yvo de Boer says that the current financial crisis could "hasten" countries efforts to create a greener and more sustainable economy. "The credit crisis can be used to make progress in a new direction, an opportunity for global green economic growth," Yvo de Boer told a news conference. "The credit crunch I believe is an opportunity to rebuild the financial system that would underpin sustainable growth," and that "governments now have an opportunity to create and enforce policy which stimulates private competition to fund clean industry", Yvo de Boer said. Yvo de Boer said that to be able to "create new markets, investment opportunities and job creation" the climate meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009 must be successful. Read the whole interview over at wbcsd.org

Photo credit: masonvotes Sarah Palin, Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency and running mate with John McCain, ignores basic climate science by claiming that climate change is not man-made and that weather patterns are to be blamed instead. And during an interview in Las Vegas two days ago Sarah Palin couldn't name a single man-made cause that contributes to climate change. Q: I've also heard you hint that you do think there might be some man-made causes that are contributing to this. Can you describe what those are? PALIN: Right, well what I have said about this is really the debate at some point, had better shift to, no matter the cause, whether it all be attributed to man’s activities or just the natural cycle of climate changes in our earth's history. We have seen this before. Watch the interview below: ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"> Either Sarah Palin is totally clueless, about anything, or she refuses to acknowledge man-made climate change because she is bought by the oil and coal industry. Either way it's bad. Really bad. Just like Joe Biden said, the Democratic Vice President candidate: "if you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution."

As most of the political spotlight is on the presidential election in USA you might have missed the election in Canada last week. Unfortunately not much changed there. Stephen Harper and his Conservative party remained in power, the Liberals lost 19 seats and the Greens failed to even win a seat. The outcome of the election was a blow to the environment and anyone who wants tough actions against climate change. Mitchell Anderson, from the DeSmogBlog, said that "the Canadian election saw little talk of dealing with climate change since stock markets tanked in the final week of the campaign." Live Poll[poll id="4"] "Newly elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper successfully campaigned on a pro-carbon platform of making burning fossil fuels even cheaper. While carbon taxes ore old hat elsewhere in the world, here in Canada Harper managed to portray the idea as "crazy", "insane", and something that would "screw everyone across the country" and "wreck" the economy." Anderson continued by saying that "Canada under Stephen Harper will have a far less credible climate policy than virtually any developed country in the world". He also pointed out that "John McCain is calling for far more stringent carbon cuts than Canada under Harper." The Greens in Canada, led by Elizabeth May, failed to win a seat, but their election outcome was still seen as a victory as they managed to raise their share of the popular vote. "[We] grabbed national attention," Ms May told supporters, "not because we were tilting at windmills, but because we set out to do something right and we set out to do it for the right reasons."

Photo credit: azrainman A new report from WWF says that climate change is happening much faster than the scientists have predicated earlier. The report says that we must take action on a global scale to avert devastating climate effects such as more and heavier storms, flooding, droughts, crops failures, collapse of eco systems on land and sea and rising sea levels just to name a few. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Professor of Climatology and Environmental Sciences at the Université catholique de Louvain and newly elected Vice Chair of the IPCC, said that "it is clear that climate change is already having a greater impact than most scientists had anticipated, so it's vital that international mitigation and adaptation responses become swifter and more ambitious." He also said, like we here on Green Blog have pointed out several times, that the 2°C climate target that the EU have agreed on (that Italy and Poland tried to wreck) is not enough to combat climate change: "The last IPCC report has shown that the reasons for concern are now stronger, and this should lead the EU to plead for a lower temperature target than the 2°C they adopted in 1996. But even with a 2°C target, the IPCC says that emission reductions between 25 and 40% compared to 1990 are needed by 2020 from developed countries. Reductions by 20% are therefore insufficient," Jean-Pascal van Ypersele said. The WWF wants the EU to take the lead in climate change. Instead of a 20% emission reduction by 2020 they say the EU should "adopt an emission reduction target of at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020". WWF also says that the emission reductions should be made inside the EU and not being outsourced to Third World countries. "If the European Union wants to be seen as leader at UN talks in Copenhagen next year, and to help secure a strong global deal to tackle climate change after 2012, then it must stop shirking its responsibilities and commit to real emissions cuts within Europe," said Dr. Tina Tin, Climate Scientist and author of the report. Instead of funding their offsets in Third World countries the WWF asks the EU to instead provide these countries with "substantial support and funding" to help them "tackle future climate change and adapt to those impacts that are already unavoidable". "Climate change is a major challenge to the future of mankind and the environment, and this sobering overview highlights just how critical it is that EU Environment Ministers discussing the EU legislations against climate change today commit to a strong climate and energy package, in order to ensure a low carbon future," said Dr. Tina Tin.

photo credit: rockcohen The governments of Italy and Poland are, as I write this, trying to weaken the already weak climate goals that the European Union agreed on in January. Italy and Poland blames their will to inaction against climate change because of the current financial crisis. They argue that they can't afford to implement tough emissions targets on their industrial sector. This is a fine example of ignorance from these right-wing governments in Europe. The climate package will not worsen the economy for Europe. Instead the plan will create millions of new green jobs, reduce our fuel costs and avert a catastrophe beyond our wildest dreams. During a summit Nicolas Sarkozy said that they will look for "solutions" for those European countries who have expressed concerns about the climate goals and their economy. "The climate package is so important that we cannot simply drop it, under the pretext of a financial crisis," said Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently holds the EU's rotating presidency. The European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said that "we are not going to let up on the battle against climate change." The European Commissioner for energy policy, Andris Piebalgs, wrote on his blog that "this financial crisis should not be an excuse to delay even more our climate and energy package, to promote renewables or to boost our energy efficiency. On the contrary, it has shown us that remedies are always worse than prevention. Therefore we cannot fail to implement the necessary measures to change from a fossil fuel based economy to a low carbon one, because this time citizens will not forgive us." Fine words indeed, but that doesn't mean there is a reason to sit back and hope for the best. That is why Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Climate Action Network Europe needs your help to let the European Environment Ministers know that "we're all watching them." "The EU package of climate measures MEPs debated last week is under threat again -- and we need your help before Monday evening (yes, Monday 20 October). Environment Ministers will negotiate the details of the European package on Monday, and we want them to know that we're all watching them. Please visit the timetolead.eu website again, and write to your government minister. (Yes, even if you've been there before. Last time you wrote to your MEPs -- this time it's Environment Ministers.)" Greenpeace says that "the next days are crucial if we are to get a strong package of measures agreed by December", and that "we must keep the pressure on Europe's leaders now". Tell your ministers it's time to lead!

Apple recently released their new line of MacBook and MacBook Pro laptops, which are mainly made from aluminium. They say that they are their greenest latops ever and claims that they are "highly recyclable and even more energy efficient", and that they are "designed with the environment in mind". But really, how green are the new laptops? Greenpeace, who is running a hard and successful campaign for greener electronics, says that the new laptops are "not quite the breakthrough" they "were hoping for": "A check of the full specs revealed the MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air - as well as the LED Cinema Display will now have internal cables free of PVC and will have internal components containing no BFRs. Not quite the breakthrough we were hoping for. These new MacBooks are currently on a similar level of toxics reduction to the Sony Viao laptop series on PVC, and the Lenovo Think Vision in monitors. The BFR free internal components represent an improvement from the bar set by the Vaio line." Hank Green, over at EcoGeek, is a bit more negative saying the new laptops are "wasteful": "I'm glad to see Apple focusing on the efficiency of their computers, not to mention decreasing the amount of toxic materials they contain. But this new carved-brick process isn't green, it's wasteful, and I'm happy to be sticking with my good-ol' plastic clunker." Jaymi Heimbuch, from TreeHugger, on the other hand is a bit more positive: "It seems that this process allows the MacBook Pro to use 50% fewer parts. In the manufacturing stage, they start with a 2.5 pound piece of aluminum. The end structure is only 0.5 pounds (for the MacBook Air). That means that 2 pounds of aluminum is cut away. Nevertheless, it looks like this process, despite flaws, has some real improvements for the notebook in the big picture of its lifetime and total footprint." Apple explains how green their MacBook and MacBook Pro are on their website.

photo credit: James Bird According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration renewable energy now accounts for more than 10% of the domestically-produced energy in USA during the first half of 2008. Most of the energy comes from renewable energy sources such as biomass/biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind. This number can be compared to the 11.98% of energy that nuclear energy contributes to in USA. According to the SUN DAY Campaign the total consumption of nuclear power dropped by 1% during the first half of 2008 while the renewable energy increased by 5%. "The significant contribution being made by renewable energy sources to the nation's energy supply documented by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is far greater than most Americans realize," said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. "Repeated statements by nuclear and fossil fuel interests that renewables contribute only a tiny fraction of the nation’s energy supply are not only misleading but flatly wrong." In these 10% biomass and biofuels accounts for the largest amounts of renewable energy shortly followed by hydropower. Wind power increased by almost 49% from the first half of 2007 compared to the first half of 2008. Solar and geothermal energy were at roughly the same levels in 2008 as they were in 2007. Although many predict that their share of the market will significantly increase in the near future.

photo credit: Nrbelex George Monbiot says that the motor industry has long sabotaged eco-innovations and that they are now demanding billions to cut its carbon emissions. The green subsidy for car makers, Monbiot says, is just a disguised corporate bail-out. "Their sabotage of green technology has been both subtle and comprehensive. The film Who Killed The Electric Car? shows how the manufacturers, working with oil companies and corrupt officials, sank California's attempt to change vehicle technologies. Having bumped off battery power, they persuaded the federal government to pour money instead into hydrogen vehicles, aware that the technological hurdles are so high that a cheap, mass-produced model might never be possible. Electric cars, by contrast, have been ready for the mass market for almost a century. The $1.2bn that the US government is spending on research and development for hydrogen cars - like the €2bn pledged to the same quest by the European Union - is a subsidy for avoiding technological change." Continue to read over at the Guardian.

Al Gore have said, during the annual World Economic Forum Meeting in 2008, that you can't solve climate change or poverty in the developing world "without dealing with the other": "Earlier this year, Bono and I spoke about the intersection between the extreme poverty in the developing world – especially in Africa – and the climate crisis. It is impossible to solve one of these issues without dealing with the other." A video from the event can be found below: ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

On December 12, 1991, Lawrence Summers, the chief economist for the World Bank, wrote an internal memo that was leaked to the British publication the Economist on February 8, 1992. DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP 'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons: 1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. 2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste. 3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable. The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization. After the memo became public Jose Lutzenburger, Brazil's Secretary of the Environment back then, wrote to Lawrence Summers: "Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane... Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in... If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said... the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to disappear." Shortly after writing his response Jose Lutzenburger was fired. Lawrence Summers, on the other hand, became the U.S. Treasury Secretary on July 2nd, 1999, and served through the remainder of the Clinton Admistration. Afterwards, he was named president of Harvard University.