Climate change action in Malawi - building from the community level

This is not about global action for a change - it is about grassroots action.

I am presently in Malawi supporting a community project called the Beehive Centre for Social Enterprise.

One aspect of it is using hydraform bricks for construction. These are made without the need to cut down trees to fire them. Here's a clip I put together showing how they are made. You can support the project by purchasing bricks for buildings. See:

http://www.maravilha.co.uk/krizevac/shop/

We should have acted on climate change yesterday - please do so today

At the end of 2009 our leaders will meet in Copenhagen to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol for addressing climate change. On past experience, they will stress the need for urgent action and do little, fearing the steps necessary are to unpalatable for their citizens. And it is short-term considerations and the fear of losing power that drives them, that and the industrialists whispering in their ears threatening disinvestment and loss of jobs while pushing a wadge of money into their election campaign chests.

Climate change scientists have been meeting in Copenhagen to discuss the latest scientific findings. It is scary stuff. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to zero today would not be enough: the gases in the system are already having an impact and will continue to do so. Limiting mean global temperature increases to 2C is likely a lost battle. Much above this and the human race itself is facing defeat. Here is part of the analysis from George Monbiot in The Guardian yesterday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/17/monbiot-copenhagen-emission-cuts

---
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that "global mean temperature changes greater than 4C above 1990-2000 levels" would "exceed ... the adaptive capacity of many systems". At this point there's nothing you can do, for instance, to prevent the loss of ecosystems, the melting of glaciers and the disintegration of major ice sheets. Elsewhere it spells out the consequences more starkly: global food production, it says, is "very likely to decrease above about 3C". Buy your way out of that.

And it doesn't stop there. The IPCC also finds that, above 3C of warming, the world's vegetation will become "a net source of carbon". This is just one of the climate feedbacks triggered by a high level of warming. Four degrees might take us inexorably to 5C or 6C: the end - for humans - of just about everything.
---

In its last drought, the Amazon rainforest is calculated to have emitted more carbon dioxide than Japan and Europe combined. With more disruption to the climate, droughts will become increasingly common and severe. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/17/monbiot-copenhagen-emission-cuts

Our leaders have failed us and may well fail us again in Copenhagen. There are two things that you can do about this.

Firstly, join in marches to put pressure on the leaders of the main industrialised nations meeting at the G20 in London. There are various groups organising things. One is AVAAZ. For details see:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/london_citizens_march_28/

Secondly, call on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. The measures that are needed to address climate change are being discussed within the democratic space created by Simpol. Anyone can join in by signing up as a Simpol Adopter, which is free to do. Adopters can propose, discuss and vote on proposals. In the last annual vote climate change came out as the top issue and 'Contraction and Convergence' to deal with it as the top issue. See:
http://www.simpol.org/ - to sign up.

http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/ - to join in the discussion.

Combine the two actions and go on a march with a Simpol placard. Hopefully Simpol will make resources available on the website.

You can write to your elected representatives at any time. Or better still arrange a meeting. My Member of Parliament signed the Simpol pledge after a 10 minute briefing from me. A candidate in the European elections brought a signed pledge along to a local group meeting I invited her to. The more pledges from politicians, the sooner we get governments on board and the sooner implementation of the Simultaneous Policy can be triggered. If they let us down in Copenhagen and waste another decade, Simpol may be our best hope. Please support it as a parallel strategy to marching!

The European Parliament elections are coming up, so now is a key time to contact the candidates. We cannot let these opportunities pass by. For information on how to do this, see:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2009/03/countdown-eu-election.html

If we cannot move to constructive cooperation between nations to address climate change and other global problems, the future is bleak: nations battling for resources as food supplies diminish and mass movement of refugees leads to social breakdown.

Better to contact your politicians now while there is still time.

The Amazon rainforest is wobbling on a climate change tipping point

On 28 February 2007 I heard Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute speak on his proposal for addressing climate change: Contraction and Convergence.

He spoke of climate change tripping points, citing in particular the risk that the Amazon rain forest could dry out to such an extent that it becomes a net producer of carbon dioxide. In other words, it would change from being a carbon sink to a carbon source. He said that an increase in forest fires (not at all common in a rain forest) had already been noticed.

Well there is a report yesterday that during a drought in 2005 the Amazon was a significant producer of carbon dioxide due to tree death. There is a report here:
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=351

---extract
The unusual and severe Amazon drought in 2005 led to the region emitting an extra five billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This exceeds the annual emissions of Europe and Japan combined, according to new research published today.
---extract ends

Previously I have written here about efforts to protect the Amazon from deforestation. The Brazilian government has set up an Amazon fund to this end. If the Simultaneous Policy (or other means of forming global policies) bring in polluter-pays taxes, some of these could go to such a fund. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/amazon-fund.html

But we should be very afraid because it was not deforestation as such that caused the Amazon to be a carbon source in 2005, it was climate change itself. As the climate changes, weather patterns become unstable, leading to droughts and flooding, unprecedented heat waves and cold snaps. The destruction of trees that took decades, if not centuries, to develop is not something that can easily be reversed. More carbon dioxide is released and there are less trees to absorb it. Weather becomes more extreme, and so on in a positive feedback cycle that could run away.

The 100 months campaign has suggested there is a very narrow and closing window for the necessary action: it has now closed to 93 months. Certainly this is a campaign strategy designed to galvanize action, nobody can be so precise. But this research suggests the tipping point on which the Amazon forest pivots is already starting to wobble.

NOTE: I recorded Aubrey Meyer and other speakers at the event in 2007 and subsequently played his talk at a virtual meeting in Second Life (international meetings without air travel), see:
http://luzoorbit.blogspot.com/2007/03/report-on-climat-change-event-on-11.html

You can hear the talk on the rolling programme of Second Life Simultaneous Policy Adopters' Group (SL-SPAG) radio at:
http://www.live365.com/stations/luzoorbit/

President Obama urged to use carbon tax, not carbon trading, to address climate change

As the era of President Obama dawns, the top climate change scientist in the US has warned he has to take decisive action in his first term.

As I have suggested here before, the 'carbon trading' approach pushed by Europe is having little effect. For example, it is far cheaper to pay the Congo not to cut down trees than to invest in carbon capture development for power stations. The net result being that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/clean-coal.html

Here's what caught my eye in the Guardian report of the comments from Jim Hansen, described as "Nasa scientist and leading climate expert":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

---
Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels.
---

The advantage of a carbon tax is that it enables policy makers to set a price for producing greenhouse gases that will make reducing emissions economically viable. With market-derived prices for licences for the right to pollute, it is proving to be more economic to buy the licences rather than reduce emissions. Though it seems to me it would be better to levy this on carbon emitters, rather than the producers of fossil fuels. That will drive efficiencies in use of fossil fuels as well as switching to other sources of energy. It may, however, be harder and more controversial to measure.

Another advantage of a tax on fossil fuels or the greenhouse gases they produce is tax income can be used directly for investing in sustainable energy, carbon capture and ameliorating the effects of climate change.

A third advantage is that carbon taxes, to a greater or lesser degree, could be used to offset other taxes. For example, green goods could be zero rated for sales tax, providing an added incentive for consumers to select them - and, incidentally, helping the economy out of recession as society is restructured to be low carbon.

These are the type of practical, national policy steps that could be taken within the framework of global commitments to contract total emissions, while converging the right each person on the planet has to produce greenhouse cases to be equitable. This 'contraction and convergence' approach is the best-supported proposal for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy's annual voting yet again. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=14.0

Can we be sensible?

There is a succint analysis of why the world is facing a financial crisis from Larry Elliott in The Guardian today. You can read it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/21/us-economy-recession

I posted the response below:

---
What is the sensible response to an economic crisis caused by people being up to their eyes in debt?

One would think it would be for people to spend less and to sort out the finances. Get used to the idea of putting money aside for a rainy day, or, novel idea, actually saving for things before buying them.

And isn't that actually what the masses are doing? Seeing troubled times ahead, people are spending less, thinking of having a more frugal Christmas and putting money by in case they lose their jobs. Getting used to living within our means and valuing what is closer to us, taking local holidays instead of weekend breaks in Prague, etc. will also have positive repurcussions when it comes to the depletion of resources and the carbon-overloaded atmosphere.

Sensible steps, which could mark a shift in how people consume.

Except these are exactly the opposite of what is needed to preserve the global financial system. Our leaders are worried that people aren't taking on yet more debt, so trying to make it as attractive as possible. They are toying with the idea of tax cuts, but worried people may save the money instead of blowing it. Deflation is feared because people may wait before buying in the expectation that prices may fall further.

It is sensible behaviour that our leaders fear.

The question is, can the global financial system be re-engineered so it not only allows for sustainable living, but promotes it?

Or is it our duty to spend and consume more because the system cannot even stand us being satisfied? The economy has to grow year after year after year.

Again, maybe we should trust the masses to answer this question, by putting forward their proposals to the Simultaneous Policy campaign. The recent policy supplement was on the theme of avoiding financial and climate meltdown, which may be a good starting point if you want to get involved in telling our leaders what they need to do. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/10/avoiding-meltdown.html
---

You can add to the sensible, planet-saving action from people, the switch from gas-guzzling SUVs. Ford's sales fell by 53.9% GM is rushing to get out an electric car. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/21/automotive-useconomy

Action on climate change could help end recession, says Stern Report author

There is an article from Nicholas Stern in The Guardian today. He wrote the Stern Review for the UK government on the economics of climate change, arguing there is a financial case for taking necessary action.

His article today argues that a concerted programme of work to transform societies into sustainable, low-carbon ones would also be part of an effective response to the coming global recession which has been sparked by the credit crunch.

Given the UK government has put up £500 billion to save its banking system and has then convinced many other countries to do the same, there may be a chance our leaders will actually act in this visionary way. But don't hold your breath. And Nicholas Stern, being an economist of, I believe, a fairly conventional mindset, sees growth as fundamental to the world's economic system - some of the proposals put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy - on Monetary Reform and Beyond GDP for example, might spark his interest if his attention can be captured.

Anyway, here's the link to the article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/23/commentanddebate-energy-environment-climate-change

The type of approaches that Professor Stern proposes could perhaps flesh out the Contraction and Convergence proposal submitted for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy.

For more information on policy proposals and to participate in the 2008 annual vote (running to 1 November) go to:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

The Amazon Fund could be incorporated into an emissions taxation scheme

An idea I've floated here a few times in postings on climate change is that instead of putting faith in emissions trading schemes, which do not provide sufficient incentive for development of technologies such as carbon capture, emissions could simply be taxed. They are an external cost borne by the rest of the planet, when the cost should be borne by the polluter.

Taxes could be ring-fenced (or hypothecated, to use the jargon) for spending on measures to address climate change. One contender could be the Amazon fund created at the end of July by Brazil. See The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11885784

Countries can certainly gain kudos from contributing to the fund even now, as Norway is doing, but not as a way to excuse further pollution. That seems to be the motivation for a recent fund in support of the Congo Basin Forest. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/protecting-congo-basin.html

As Aubrey Meyer, of the Global Commons Institute, explained at one of Simpol's policy fora, without action to contract greenhouse gas emissions pretty quickly, carbon sinks such as the Amazon could become carbon sources, as a drier forest experiences fires that release carbon. His proposal for a 'contraction and convergence' approach to emissions is on of the best supported in annual voting amongst Simultaneous Policy Adopters, so far. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

Sustainable populations and joined-up thinking

What I like about the Simultaneous Policy approach is that it promotes up joined-up thinking, in a way that current global policy making does not, as evidenced by our leaders efforts to tackle climate change, while increasing oil production or refusing to listen to the concerns of farmers in developing countries at the World Trade Organisation, while there is evidence that forcing open developing country markets has impoverished farmers and increased food insecurity in some countries (see past blogs).

Since starting this blog and thinking in a little more depth of the possibilities of the Simultaneous policy, there seem to be a multiplicity of ways that different global problems can be tackled in a coherent way.

Sustainability, population growth and protecting the right to food came together for me this week, re-reading Michael Latham's chapter in Global Obligations for the Right to Food about tackling the curse of worms, measles and malaria. Professor Latham recommends governments to take a Resolution to the World Health Assembly calling for a strategic program for tackling these three illnesses. This could be worth proposing for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy.

Here's how some issues were joining up for me this week. I read that in Brazil, the birth rate has fallen to 1.8 children per woman, a level similar to that in industrialized countries. This level was not anticipated by the Brazilian National Institute of Geography and Statistics until 2043. The rapid drop is attributed to urbanization, where more children cost more money, in contrast to the countryside where historically more children have been seen as more hands to tend the land. But the rate has fallen in rural areas as quickly as in cities, attributed to the success in promoting family planning and the rising living standards experienced, or aspired to.

The expectation is that Brazilian's population will stabilise around 290 million inhabitants in 2050. The population if growth was at the rate of 1991, would be 377 million. With the rate of 1970, it would be 623 million.

If the average Brazilian was to increase their demand on the land to 4.1 hectares per person (the same as in Switzerland), then a population of 220 million could be supported. With present consumption levels, Brazil could support 384 millions. This is based on a study by the World Wide Fund for nature. All the above statistics are drawn from Brazil's news weekly, Veja, whose 30 July issue led with the cover story: "Where are all the babies?"

So achieving a sustainable population is within easy reach for Brazil, somewhere around the 220 - 290 million mark.

Sometimes in my work campaigning against the aggressive marketing of baby foods, practices which contribute to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies in conditions of poverty and compromises development elsewhere, I come across people who suggest that it is better that babies are dying in poor countries to limit population growth. Really. That's how some people think.

But the fact is that populations stabilise when parents have the expectation their babies will survive and outlive them. It is in conditions with high infant and young child mortality that birth rates tend to be higher. Rising standards of living also reduce birth rates as people are both more educated and raising children is more expensive. Parents choose to focus resources on a fewer number.

In the interests of sustainability for the global human population - and our lives on this planet are inextricably linked - reducing childhood mortality rates and raising standards of living benefits us all.

Michael Latham, like the rest of us who contributed chapters to Global Obligations for the Right to Food, makes the case that governments have obligations under existing human rights conventions to take collective action to deliver and protect the right to food. Promoting, protecting and supporting breastfeeding is part of the measures he highlights for improving child short and long-term health.

He also argues that relieving hunger encompasses relieving malnutrition and that is achieved not only by providing more food, but ending endemic parasites and illnesses that compromise nutrition.

I don't want to reiterate everything that is in his chapter - you really should buy the book - but the three principal concerns (worms, measles and malaria) are embarrassingly cheap to address. Embarrassing, because governments with the resources are failing to do so. They are not only failing in their human rights and moral obligations, they are, in some respects, costing themselves unnecessary expenditure.

Worms, parasites in the intestines that may affect organs such as the lungs, infect probably 2 billion people. Cambodia's de-worming programme cost US$ 0.06 per child.

There are about 50 million cases of measles every year, with about 1 million deaths. Immunization can have significant impact. "Six southern African countries that recorded 60,000 measles cases in 1996 reduced this to 117 cases in 2000". While national governments should be taking this action, where they cannot, the support of the international community is vital, argues Professor Latham, and will save them money if a concerted global campaign wipes out measles.

He writes: "It cost the United States US$ 124 million a year to keep itself free of smallpox for the twenty-five years prior to when smallpox was eradicated in 1978. Thus the US$32 million that the United States invested in the global Smallpox Eradication Program was recouped in about three months once smallpox vaccinations could be discontinued."

It is estimated that there are 1200 million cases of malaria every year, resulting in 1.5 million deaths annually. Impregnated bed nets are seen as an effective way to greatly reduce this toll. A net costs typically just US$ 3, but many people in poor countries cannot afford them. Malaria is so widespread that its impact is far greater than that counted in deaths. Lost schools days, days off work and unmet potential are also a blight.

Governments have signed up to the human rights instruments, that include the right to health as well as the right to food, and the Millenium Development Goals, but are failing to meet the obligations that arise from these.

A joined up approach would suggest serious and concerted effort to tackle worms, measles and malaria is a worthy candidate for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy as it will not only address the injustice of people on our planet suffering from preventable illness, but will help reduce costs for all people and lead to lower mortality rates and smaller families and towards sustainable populations.

Join the discussion in the Simpol Forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

Sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter to vote on suggestions and put forward your own. Call on your political representatives to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments.

Clean coal may not exist in reality, but it is being used to divert climate change action all the same

It is a contradiction in terms to speak of 'clean coal' argue campaigners gathering to try to shut down one of the UK's largest coal-fired power stations, at Kingsnorth in Kent. The aim is to highlight plans to re-build the plant as part of the government's energy strategy.

One of those joining the 'climate camp' protest is George Monbiot, who writing in The Guardian today recalls:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/05/kingsnorthclimatecamp.climatechange

'Last year Al Gore remarked: "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."'

Well, in the UK young and old are doing just that at Kingsnorth.

Also in The Guardian, is an article by David Porter, Chief Executive of the Association of Electricity Producers. He defends 'clean coal' in his article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/05/kingsnorthclimatecamp.climatechange1

---extract begins
Some campaigners criticise the use of the word "clean" in relation to coal. It might be very confident, but it indicates the direction of travel. It stands for highly efficient technologies, so less coal has to be burnt for the same electricity output, causing fewer emissions. In the long term, the industry wants to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) – a technology which would allow 90% of emissions or more to be captured and stored underground. However, CCS is expensive and unproven, and we need the government to support the development and demonstration of CCS.
---extract ends

The industry's claim is that 90% of emissions would be prevented from entering the atmosphere using this unproven technology, that has not yet been developed nor demonstrated. The industry expects the government (ie taxpayers) to foot the bill.

The government, however, is relying on the European Emissions Trading Scheme to solve the problem by making it more attractive to industry to pay for the technology than to have to buy carbon credits. Back to George Monbiot, who looks at the sums:

---extract begins
Last month the House of Commons environmental audit committee examined this proposition and found that it was nonsense. It cited studies by the UK Energy Research Centre and Climate Change Capital which estimate that capturing carbon from existing coal plants will cost €90-155 (£71-£122) per tonne of CO2. Yet the government predicts that the likely price of carbon between 2013 to 2020 will be around €39 (£31) per tonne. Even E.ON believes that it won't rise above €50. "The gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS," the committee finds, "is enormous." The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, confessed to MPs: "I hope that the strengthening of carbon markets ... will bring forward a sufficiently good price for carbon that it will provide some of the financial incentive for CCS. Will it be enough? I do not know."
---extract ends

It will be cheaper for companies to pay someone else to cut their emissions than to stop polluting themselves. Indeed, if they paid for people in the Congo to not cut down trees, they would make massive savings, as the offsets are costing just £3 per tonne of CO2:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/protecting-congo-basin.html

The industry is being a little disingenuous when it talks of 'clean coal' therefore. Carbon capture does not yet exist, no-one is wanting to pay to develop, let alone install, the technology and the economic mechanism intended to prompt investment actually discourages it. The Cornerhouse has produced a series of briefings and papers looking in depth at emissions trading:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/carbon-trading-critiques.html

Taxing emissions or otherwise limiting them would actually incentivise cutting output. Taxes could be applied to funds for protecting the great forests all the same, if joined up thinking was demonstrated:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/protecting-amazon.html

There are different ways to focus the debate. Joining the carbon camp is one way. Sending a message to the Prime Minister calling for an end to coal powered fire stations is another. The iCount website makes this easy. The One Hundred Months campaign has tried to inject urgency with its claim that we are that far from the climate change tipping point when it will be too late. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/onehundredmonths.html

Supporting alternatives to emissions trading (or defending that system if you really think it will work) with the Simultaneous Policy campaign is another approach. You can see the ideas under discussion and find out how to put forward your own in the policy forum. An increasing number of politicians around the world have pledged to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other countries. Why not sign up as an Adopter and ask your elected representatives to make the pledge if you have not done so already?

While it is certain time is running out (even if not exactly one hundred months), it is also certain that the industry will use all the arguments, influence and resources it can muster to protect profits. We, the people, need to take the lead, whether through protest or through withdrawing support from politicians who refuse to back the Simultaneous Policy. Or both.

Will the world end with a whimper? You decide.

The clock is ticking. There are 100 months left from today until the Earth's climate reaches a tipping point where the greenhouse gases we humans have put into the atmosphere will provoke changes that will be beyond our power to undo, even if we stopped polluting. The only solution is to scale back emissions to sustainable levels before the tipping point is reached.

If you think this is the scaremongering strategy of a campaign group, then you are correct. One hundred months is a shocking and precise deadline to wake people up. But the calculation is a conservative one and is based on the very deep understanding of feedback systems influencing the climate built up over decades. Andrew Simms, of the alliance behind the campaign, explains more in today's Guardian at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

Here is an extract:

---extract from the Andrew Simms article
For once it seems justified to repeat TS Eliot's famous lines: "This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper."

But does it have to be this way? Must we curdle in our complacency and allow our cynicism about politicians to give them an easy ride as they fail to act in our, the national and the planet's best interest? There is now a different clock to watch than the one on the office wall. Contrary to being a counsel of despair, it tells us that everything we do from now matters. And, possibly more so than at any other time in recent history.

---extract ends

Grasping at bogus claims that temperature increases are due to the sun and all planets are getting hotter (they are not) or seeing climate change as an Illuminati plot for introducing a fascist global state are some of the obstacles to action I've written about here recently.

A more mainstream obstacle is the fear that action will harm the economy. Hence instead of taking the type of action proposed in the Guardian article, the UK Prime Minister has been advocating increased oil production to try to bring down fuel prices.

This is how the world ends.

There are clear, thought through, evidence-based actions we can take as individuals, governments and the global community. We need to press ahead and support campaigns like One Hundred Months. Visit their site to sign up for monthly updates:
http://www.onehundredmonths.org/

Also check out the iCount website, which has a current action against the building of coal-fired power stations in the UK. We need investment in renewables. We need changes in lifestyle. In the longer term there are proposals for solar power stations in North African deserts that could meet all of Europe's energy needs.

The solutions exist - all that is missing is the will to act.

In parallel to these campaign actions, you can sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter and use your vote and voice in the development of a coherent set of policies for addressing climate change, trade injustice, unsustainablity and other problems requiring a global response. Call on your politicians to sign the pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. You can send a message to the US Presidential candidates using this form:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

Will the world end with a whimper? You decide.

Climate change : what's happening to planetary temperatures in the rest of the solar system?

The claim that other planets in the solar system are showing temperature increases came up on the Simpol Forum discussion board. This was one of the issues discussed at the recent meeting in Second Life on climate change. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/second-life.html

When I queried the claim on the discussion board, I was directed to this link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Search the internet and you find plenty of blogs saying planets from Mars to Pluto (sadly no longer a planet) are showing temperature increases. But dig a little further for evidence and the idea that climate change is a natural phenomena caused by changes with the sun is quickly shown to be incorrect.

The evidence is still overwhelmingly that we are experiencing human-caused climate change and that we could enter a runaway situation if action is not taken. Action such as achieving implementation of proposals like Contraction and Convergence through the Simultaneous Policy campaign. If you have not done so already, then sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter today. If you believe that no action is necessary, also sign up so you can vote against the proposals.

My post to the forum below also refers to David Icke, who suggests that the call for action on climate change is an Illuminati plot.

---Post to forum
The National Geographic article is based on three years of observation of Mars. It strikes me as odd that this should be used to try to suggest all planets are warming at the same time as dismissing (as David Icke does) the vast amount of written and natural data showing the climatic history of the Earth and the impact that human activity has had since the industrial revolution. Nothing like this type of data exists for other planets and it would be difficult to obtain it, when on Earth we are talking of temperature changes of a few degrees and on the outer planets the fluctuations would surely be far less, if due to solar activity. While there are not SUV's on Mars and Pluto, neither are there meteorology stations, nor has there been ice-core analysis, tree ring analysis etc. etc.

There are plenty of blogs saying that Pluto is increasing in temperature. However, it is worth looking a bit deeper into where this data comes from as this website does:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

An extract: "Pluto's warming consists of two observations 14 years apart noting a difference in atmospheric thickness which implies warming - scientists are unable to explain why yet. But considering Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years, this says nothing about climate change. It's like saying Earth is warming when comparing winter to summer. Plus Pluto is more than 30 times farther away from the Sun than the Earth is. If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would blowtorch the Earth."

It would also have an impact on Uranus, which is closer to the sun than Pluto, but there is evidence suggesting that the temperature on Uranus is falling (citation on the above site).

The speaker at the recent climate change discussion in Second Life says that NASA has said there is no evidence, though there are records of the activity of the sun itself, which is surely a more reliable guide and one that is far easier to observe, and that evidence disproves the theory it is solar activity that is to blame (he was Al Gore-trained, though, and David Icke says Al Gore is part of the inner circle). See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/second-life.html

Also from the above website (which links to the supporting source material): "The whole theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider solar output hasn't risen over the past 30 years (when warming has been highest) according to direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years."

Theories are there to explain the world and need to change when they are found to be wanting, rather than ignore or dismiss the evidence. If a theory cannot accommodate it - and the evidence is something that can be replicated - then the theory has to change.

It seems to me that David Icke goes beyond what evidence demonstrates in his theory of reptilian shape changers driving human history through secret societies and there is much wrong with his analysis (as the above shows regarding his climate change conspiracy theory).

Proposals for solar power stations are a good sign, but we need a framework for action

There is an exciting sign of things to come if the world really is to move to address climate change. The European Union's Institute for Energy is backing proposals for a massive solar power project (ie the size of Wales) in North African deserts. Massive sums will have to be found for the distribution system, but there is the potential for Europe to meet all its energy needs from this project, according to this report in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower

There are some provisos as to whether the political will for action will be forthcoming. The key one is, of course, economic. According to the Guardian article, an investment of Euros 450 billion is required for a distribution system to provide 100 GW by 2050. There is the potential for solar systems to provide energy more cheaply than other methods. Renewable energy is becoming even more feasible as oil prices rise, and they will inevitability rise further as increased demand for energy chases finite oil resources, which are widely believed to be past their peak already.

But it is not quite as rosy as it may appear - and reminds me of some sandwiches I bought once when catching the train to London from Cambridge (more on those in a moment). The rising oil price is having another effect. In Brazil it is now becoming economically viable to tap oil reserves that lie below many kilometres of rock off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. Yesterday the Secretary for Economic Development for Rio de Janeiro State said the country must capitalise on the high price of oil. In the US the cost of oil is prompting ever louder calls for reserves off the coast of California and Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico to be tapped.

Supply and demand increasing the price of oil is clearly not going to address the problem of carbon emissions or peak oil if it leads to an increase in oil production. As another example, Gordon Brown recently appealed to Middle Eastern countries to increase oil production to help meet demand and damp down prices. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/gordon-brown-in-saudi-arabia.html

Ideas under discussion within the Simultaneous Policy democratic process offer better solutions. Contraction & Convergence envisions a reduction of emissions to sustainable levels, with equitable distribution of the right to emit. The Oil Depletion Protocol proposes a managed weaning off of oil. It seems that whatever approach is taken, there is merit in taxing carbon emissions rather than trading them as trading does not necessarily provide an incentive to develop new, cleaner technologies.

Which brings me to my sandwiches, bought at Cambridge train station. They were organic, packaged with cardboard from recycled sources and the transparent film was made from cellulose and so 100% bio-degradeable. They were perhaps the most sustainable sandwiches I have ever bought. There are some that argue that we should rely on consumers favouring such products to change business practices. They argue that instead of imposing regulations, companies should be encouraged - and rewarded - for showing Corporate Social Responsibility, in other words, doing the right thing voluntarily. They would point to my sandwiches as an example of this working.

I see the lesson of the sandwiches differently. This product was the only one that had gone the sustainable route. If, however, there was a requirement that manufacturers of goods had to use recyclable or bio-degradable components wherever possible and take responsibility for processing any that are not (a so-called circular economy rather than a linear economy - see this clip on Youtube), then sustainable products would be the norm, rather than the exception. We need to be moving in this direction as, by definition, the world cannot survive unsustainably for ever.

Another example more directly linked to climate change, comes from my previous life as an electronic engineer. I worked on a computer-controlled diesel engine. The motivation for this research and development project was new European Union regulations on emissions which could not be met with conventional mechanical pumps. Greater control of the engine was required to improve efficiency and so reduce emissions. The main pump manufacturers were competing to produce the best solution and win orders from car manufacturers.

The Simultaneous Policy aims to provide the framework to prompt the innovation and other changes required to address global problems. Present mechanisms of commodity trading ramping up prices and emissions trading offsetting emissions may not quite do it when it comes to climate change and peak oil. We need the coherent set of policies being developed through the Simultaneous Policy campaigns democratic and transparent process (you can join in with proposals and cast your vote by signing up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter on the official websites). The implementation strategy means that powerful vested interests that currently divert and undermine political effort are side-stepped.

The news on solar power stations is a sign that there is a way through the transition to a sustainable economy. We just need to provide the framework to make things like this happen. Play your part by signing up as an Simultaneous Policy Adopter.

The Oil Depletion Protocol in the UK media - but no mention of SP

Michael Meacher MP, former UK Environment Minister, has written on a national newspaper website yesterday about peak oil and, in particular, the Rimini Protocol (or Oil Depletion Protocol), which received 69% support from Simultaneous Policy campaign supporters (SP Adopters) in the last annual voting round.

Sadly Mr. Meacher does not mention the Simultaneous Policy as a way to achieve action on peak oil. I have posted a comment to the website referring to the past support for the Rimini Protocol within SP and encouraging people to investigate the campaign.

The more people that can post similar messages, the more likely visitors to the site will see them and investigate.

The article is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/29/oil.oilandgascompanies

Mr. Meacher's article includes the following:

“The most direct means of constraining world demand would be the proposed Rimini protocol, which prescribes that oil-importing countries cut their imports to match the world depletion rate (ie annual production as a percentage of remaining global reserves) now running at about 2% a year. Of course, the fundamental political problem remains that the most powerful oil-hungry countries will not agree. If not Kyoto, why Rimini?”

To send a letter to the Editor of The Guardian, email letters@guardian.co.uk (with full contact details):

Here is my effort:

“Michael Meacher MP, former Environment Minister, highlights the Rimini Protocol for addressing depletion of oil reserves, but raises the difficulty of oil-hungry countries being persuaded to support this strategy for weaning us off oil, which will also help in addressing climate change. The Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign is succeeding in persuading a growing number of politicians to pledge to implement, alongside other governments, policies to effectively address global problems. Simultaneous implementation removes the fear that unilateral action will harm competition and so the national economy. The Rimini Protocol gained 69% support in the last annual round of voting. SP is not an alternative to other forms of advocacy, but has the potential to achieve far more. By registering with the campaign, participating and voting in policy discussions and/or calling on politicians to make the SP pledge, everyone can help the transformation to people-led cooperation between nations.”

Mike Brady
Coordinator Cambridge SP Adopters Group
http://www.simpol.org.uk/

The Simpol forum talkboard on the Oil Depletion Protocol is at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

Climate change discussion in Second Life

I went to a meeting in Second Life, the on-line virtual world, a couple of weeks ago.

The Greenpeace group had a guest speaker who is an expert on climate change.

Second Life is great for international meetings. You can listen to and talk to speakers. The audience can chat to each other using text while the presentation is going on without detracting from it. You can show information on screens. You can play audio and film clips.

If you are so inclined you can dress up your avitar and explore, meeting people from across the planet in the process. If so, you will see how, when given a brand new world to populate, it fills with hustlers in pursuit of money and sex. And Star Trek fans.

This was the announcement for the more elevated event:

---
Group Notice From: PlanetThoughts Raymaker

Peter Sinclair, one of the early Al Gore-trained presenters, will give the latest on climate change Sat. June 7 at 9am SLT, including a unique how-to on answering the skeptics -- really enlightening slides with valuable details on the science.

Since January 2007, he has made this presentation to thousands of citizens throughout Michigan. He is a life long resident of Michigan, a graduate of the University of Michigan, and a long time advocate of environmental awareness in the Great Lakes area.
---

Here's a screenshot of the meeting:


Amongst the chat during the initial presentation were some of the climate change deniers common arguments, which were either addressed in the talk or in subsequent discussion.

One response I found particularly interesting was the suggestion that climate change is happening throughout the solar system and it is not just on Earth temperatures are increasing. The implication is that it is changes in the sun that is responsible.

Peter Sinclair commented how on the one hand doubters of climate change question the science that suggests average temperatures on Earth are increasing, yet on the other hand seem certain that temperatures on Mars and other planets are going up.

In fact there is no evidence of increased output from the sun or of the temperatures on other planets increasing in the timescales being seen on Earth.

What we do have plenty of evidence about are the temperature changes on Earth, their relationship with carbon in the atmosphere and the fact that carbon levels are leading the temperature rises seen since the industrial revolution.

There was a whole lot more in the presentation and discussion, which I believe will appear on the associated website, which is:
http://www.planetthoughts.org/

From time to time there are similar events organised by Second Life SP Adopters' Group. See:
http://luzoorbit.blogspot.com/

Gordon Brown in Saudi Arabia and in a political bind

There is a good analysis of the bind the UK Prime Minister is in when trying to form policy to cope with climage change and rising oil prices. It comes in an Observer article by Andrew Rawnsley entitled: "Don't rely on the boys with the black stuff, Mr Brown" and concerns Gordon Brown's attempt to get Middle East oil producers to pump more oil.

'Voters' say they want action on climate change, but call for contrary action when their own financial interests are at stake.

Another good opportunity to flag up the need for the Simultaneous Policy campaign. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/22/greenpolitics.gordonbrown

This is the comment I left:

---
This is a good analysis and we have to hope that politicians can lead the debate and explain why a low-carbon economy is better than pumping more oil to keep the price down.

I do take slight issue with this comment, however: "The culprit is easy to identify. I blame the voters. When they told pollsters that the environment was high in their concerns, the politicians made it high in theirs. With the economy sagging and the cost of essentials rising, the understandable response of voters is to tell the opinion pollsters that they are now less bothered about the planet and much more agitated about taxation and inflation."

It is true as far as it goes. But we need to go further. The reason why the government tried to backtrack on its commitments to the European Emissions Trading Scheme was pressure from business interests, which threatened that investment and jobs would move overseas if UK targets were too demanding. That would harm the economy and lose votes. So such pressure works and will continue to work.

Unless the voters can regain their democratic rights. A way to do so - as well as demonstrating and writing to MPs - is to support the Simultaneous Policy campaign, which brings people together around the world to discuss and agree the policies they wish to see implemented to address global problems and calls on politicians to pledge to implement them alongside other governments. Simultaneous implementation breaks the power of vested interests. Politicians from all major parties in Parliament are already signing up. The more voters that support the Simultaneous Policy, the more MPs that will pledge to implement it and the sooner that will become government policy, moving us closer to implementation.

It's not an alternative to other action, but can potentially take us far further, such as to implementation of the 'Contraction and Convergence' approach to climate change which is gaining support in the annual Simultaneous Policy voting rounds.
---

This meeting takes place as a new opinon poll in the UK suggests that there is still a lot of confusion about climate change, with 60% incorrectly believing "many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change."

The information sharing role of the SP campaign has a role to play here. Amongst SP Adopters (anyone can sign up for no charge), in the last annual voting round 80% put climate change as the top global problem they want to see addressed.

The need for its strategy of putting people in charge of leading politicians is demonstrated by the lack of confidence those polled put in their leaders. According to The Guardian:

"More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes."

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

There is a lot of action taking place at more local level, sometimes motivated by the lack of it at national level, as with New Mexico's solar panel fields and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

As The Guardian reports: "Although 25 states have approved their own RPS, a national standard has stalled in the face of resistance from traditional coal-powered utilities and their allies in Congress."

These innovations show that contraction of carbon emissions is possible. The introduction of a global strategy of Contraction and Convergence would serve as a motor for further innovation and provide a global market for the technology, so bringing down prices.

Technology isn't the whole answer, but those in early with refining technology are likely to see great benefits.

Carbon trading critiques from The Cornerhouse

I have received the following email from The Cornerhouse, with analysis of carbon trading schemes. This will be useful for anyone advocating such schemes for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy. There is a lot here, so I'll aim to digest at least some of it for future blogs.

On the Simpol discussion boards, take a look at the policy proposals: Contraction and Convergence and Tradeable Energy Quotas.

You can find a full listing of climate change related documents on the Cornerhouse website at:
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/subject/climate

---Quote cornerhouse email
MOVING FORWARD ON CLIMATE

'Billions wasted on UN climate programme'

'European Union’s efforts to tackle climate change a failure'

'UN effort to curtail emissions in turmoil'

'Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved'

These recent newspaper headlines tell the story. The world's dominant approach to dealing with the climate crisis –- carbon trading, the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol and the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme –- isn't working.

Yet, as if sleepwalking, international agencies and government authorities around the world continue to squander millions of taxpayer dollars trying to build or repair carbon markets.

As country after country undertakes its own complicated efforts to partition the world's carbon cycling capacity into saleable commodities, and entrepreneurs flood news media with unverifiable claims that they are increasing that capacity, fossil-fuelled industries are getting a new lease on life.

As speculators seek quick profits in a fast-growing 'wild west' marketplace, the need to find reliable ways to promote the structural change that would allow fossil fuels to be kept in the ground is being ignored or forgotten.

Why is this happening? What lies behind the belief that carbon markets can somehow be 'fixed' or 'regulated'? What can be done to move climate politics onto a saner path?

The Corner House has recently posted nearly a dozen new items on its website that shed light on these and related questions. We hope you find them useful and informative.

Best wishes from all at The Corner House

NEW ADDITIONS
ARTICLES FOR ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS

1) 'Carbon Trading: Solution or Obstacle?'

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/Indiachapter.pdf

More and more commentators now recognise that carbon markets are not helping to address the climate crisis. But more discussion is needed of: how carbon markets damage more effective approaches; whether carbon markets could ever work at all; and why carbon trading has been successful in political terms despite failing in climatic terms.

2) 'Carbon Trading, Climate Justice and the Production of Ignorance: Ten Examples'

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/Ignorance.pdf

Carbon trading schemes have helped mobilise neoclassical economics and development planning in new projects of dispossession, speculation, rent-seeking and the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich and from the future to the present. A central part of this process has been creating new domains of ignorance. What does the quest for climate justice become when it is incorporated into a development or carbon market framework?

3) 'Toward a Different Debate in Environmental Accounting: The Cases of Carbon and Cost-Benefit'

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/EnvAcctg.pdf

Many mainstream environmentalists suggest that calculating and internalising 'externalities' is the way to solve environmental problems. Some critics counter that the spread of market-like calculations into 'non-market' spheres is itself causing environmental problems. This article sets aside this debate to examine closely actual conflicts, contradictions and resistances engendered by environmental accounting techniques and suggest what the long-term political and environmental consequences are likely to be.

4) 'Gas, Waqf and Barclays Capital: A Decade of Struggle in Southern Thailand'

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/Waqf.pdf

Slowing and halting new fossil fuel developments must eventually move to the top of the global climate change agenda. But what are the obstacles to, and resources for, such a project? The 10-year struggle against a large natural gas development project in one corner of Southeast Asia offers lessons in some of the relevant themes of global politics: the use of military force to secure and transport fossil fuel resources; the regulation of international finance; sectarian violence; corporate social responsibility; intensely locally-specific yet internationally-reinforced, forms of class conflict and racism; and the question of how a more tenacious solidarity for the defence of community and commons might be built among diverse and all-too-often isolated movements in different geographical and cultural locations.

POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS

5) 'Pictures from the Carbon Market, Part 2'

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/OffsetsMarket2.pdf

This slide show of photographs continues a series portraying the practical, on-the-ground effects of the trade in carbon credits through the United Nations' Clean Development Mechanism and the voluntary 'offset' market.

6) 'How Carbon Trading Undermines Positive Approaches to the Climate Crisis'

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/CTvsPos.pdf

Carbon trading proponents often assert that trading is merely a way of finding the most cost-effective means of reaching an emissions goal. In fact, carbon trading undermines a number of existing and proposed positive measures for tackling climate change. These include the survival and spread of existing low-carbon technologies, movements against expanded fossil fuel use, and well-tested green policy measures. Carbon trading also undermines public awareness and political participation, as well as creating ignorance.

VIDEO PRESENTATIONS

7) 'A Chicago Conversation on Carbon Trading' (at De Paul University)

http://www.blip.tv/file/778753

A discussion hosted by the Climate Justice Chicago Coalition at De Paul University examines how carbon trading creates transferable rights to dump carbon, slows social and technological change, promotes socially and ecologically destructive practices and is ineffective and unjust.

8) 'Carbon Trading: A Lecture at Brigham Young University'

http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=17937&username=guest@tni.org&password=9999&publish=Y

WRITINGS BY KEVIN SMITH OF CARBON TRADE WATCH

9) 'The Limits of Free Market Logic' (published in 'China Dialogue')

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/LimitsFML.pdf

Carbon trading, its backers claim, reduces emissions and brings sustainable development in the global South. But in fact it may do neither, and is harming efforts to create a low-carbon economy. A Chinese version is appended.

10) 'Pollute and Profit' (published in Parliamentary Brief)

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/ParlBrief.pdf

When will it be publicly admitted that the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme is not working? Industries are not switching to clean energy technology. The Scheme's guiding principle seems to be 'polluter profits' rather than 'polluter pays'.

11) 'The Carbon Neutral Myth: Offset Indulgences for Your Climate Sins' (published by the TransNational Institute)

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/CarbonNeutralMyth.pdf

Buying 'carbon offsets' to 'neutralize' your carbon emissions is all the rage in middle-class society in Europe and North America. This book explains why offsets are not a constructive approach to climate change.

Protecting the Congo Basin Forest

A few days ago I wrote of the possibility of polluter-pays taxes levied as part of the way to deal with climate change being used for a stewardship fund for the great forests, such as the Amazon. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/protecting-amazon.html

Another candidate forest for such support is in the Congo Basin, the focus of an article in today's Guardian. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/17/forests.endangeredhabitats

Here is an extract:

---extract begins
The biggest ever fund set up to battle deforestation was launched today, targeting the vast Congo basin rainforest in central Africa. Britain and Norway are providing £108m and will also supply satellite imaging technology to monitor the area.

The fund is intended to provide African governments and people living in the rainforest with a viable alternative to logging, mining, and felling trees for firewood and subsistence farming.

The Congo basin rainforest is the world's biggest after the Amazon, at about twice the size of France, but is rapidly dwindling. It is being cut down at the rate of 25,000 football pitches a week. Loss of trees is one of the biggest sources of the carbon dioxide warming the atmosphere, accounting for 18% of annual emissions.
---extract ends

The forest is a resource for the people of the Congo Basin. They can live off it sustainably, they can use it as a timber resource, they can clear the land for agriculture (as is happening with the Amazon forest). I imagine the situation is similar to Brazil where there are conflicting demands between preservation and using the forest to earn foreign income, perhaps on a managed way, more likely in an uncontrolled way.

An alternative option is to use the forest to earn income for preserving it.

Perhaps the UK and Norway are making funds available in a paternalistic way - you can find out more about the fund at:
http://www.cbf-fund.org/

There is the potential for the great forests to be valued as carbon sinks, with the capacity sold to carbon emitters. Instead of selling felled trees, rent the trees still standing. This provides a business for people in the region and, I think, is far better than arguing that the great forests should be internationalised or governments punished for not protecting them.

The Guardian article suggests this is a cheap way of off-setting emissions: "The estimated cost of reducing emissions by halting deforestation is £3 per metric tonne of CO2, compared to £50-100 a tonne for carbon capture schemes. Norway believes that their annual expenditure on combating deforestation could cut emissions equivalent to twice Norway's annual total."

Paying the Congo the basic cost of stopping deforestation is undervaluing their resource. The Congo can charge far closer to the costs of carbon capture schemes and still find custom, using the income to both protect and expand the forest and fund development.

The problem is there is an unequal power balance. Polluter nations feel they can offer a pittance for their carbon offsets, because there is not as yet a rigorous scheme in place such as 'Contraction and Convergence'. If such a scheme was brought in through the Simultaneous Policy, countries with forests would suddenly find they have a resource that earns them money by protecting the planet.

Protecting the Amazon

Last week pictures went around the world of natives in the Amazon rainforest firing arrows at the aircraft taking the pictures (here's a video news report on the BBC). The aircraft was from FUNAI, a Brazilian government organisation that exists to protect the interests of indigenous people. Official policy is to leave uncontacted tribes alone having learned from past experience that populations are devasted when they come into contact with new diseases for the first time.

FUNAI took the pictures to prove its case that there was an uncontacted tribe in the region and so they should be left alone. The tribe is believed to have arrived there having moved across the border from Peru to escape loggers.

Who owns the Amazon? Is it these tribes which date back thousands of years? The Brazilian government, which has sovereignty in international law for that on its territory? Or is it a resource that belongs to the whole of humanity?

A story popular in Brazil - that has been claimed to be an urban myth - is that in school books in the United States the Amazon is shown separately from Brazil as part of a plot to deny Brazilian sovereignty. Certainly there are calls for the rainforest to be taken into global stewardship as it locks up so much of the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere.

We all have reason to be concerned about the Amazon. Ashleigh Meyer of the Global Commons Institute, which proposes the Contraction and Convergence approach to dealing with climate change (see yesterday's blog) talked of this at a past Simultaneous Policy forum. There is a risk that carbon sinks such as the Amazon could become carbon sources if climate change dries them out to the extent that forest fires start to become commonplace, so releasing the stored carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Apparently the frequency of forest fires is increasing. You can hear Ashleigh's presentation on SL-SPAG radio, which broadcasts a programme of talks on SP at:
http://www.live365.com/stations/luzoorbit?site=live365

We have had meetings about this in the virutal world Second Life SP Adopters' Group (SL-SPAG).

I was very fortunate to be able to visit the Amazon delta last month. I was speaking at Brazil's National Breastfeeding Conference on regulating the baby food companies, including a policy proposal I have submitted for inclusion in SP. I'll say more about that another time.

After the conference I was able to take a trip into the delta. Natives are living from the forest, collecting fruit to sell in the city.


In the course of the tour I spoke with Oswaldo, our guide, of the need to protect the Amazon as the 'lungs of the world'. He objected to this. Firstly on the basis that the Amazon does not produce all the oxygen we use (he cited a figure of 22%) and that at night it emits carbon dioxide. I corrected the terminology so we spoke instead of it being a carbon sink, locking up carbon in the timber.

Secondly he objected on the assumption that my next suggestion would be that the Amazon should be taken into global ownership to protect it. But this was not where I was heading and in the end we found ourselves in agreement.

It seems to me that if the Amazon is such a vitally important resource for locking up carbon dioxide which industrialised countries are churning into the atmosphere, most having largely destroyed their own forest cover, then it needs to be respected. It is a resource that benefits the world as a whole and so the rest of the world should help to pay for its maintenance, just as we pay a country for other resources, such as oil.

A polluter-pays approach to climate change would see collect taxes from polluters. This would provide an incentive to improve efficiency and so pay less tax. At the same time, the taxes raised should be used to address climate change too, both nationally (such as for investment in renewable sources of energy) and for a stewardship fund for important resources such as the Amazon.

The Brazilian government is trying to protect the Amazon with satellite surveys and armed authorities to enforce protected areas and licenses for permitted economic activity. But the place is absolutely immense. The stewardship fund could help pay for policing the Amazon.

But we need to go further. Brazil also wants to improve the living conditions of Brazilians and this places conflicting pressures on the Amazon. Around its edges, it is being cleared for agriculture. An analysis in the news weekly in Brazil, Veja, calculated that it is cheaper for a farmer to clear virgin forest than maintain cleared land for sustainable agriculture. Whatever the regulations may say, money talks. People in every country use their resources to improve their standard of living. So let us see if maintaining the forest for the benefit of others can me a more profitable use of it.

Farmers could receive funds for stewardship of the land, as is increasingly the case in European countries. Legally a licensed Brazilian farmer has to maintain 80% forest cover on owned land. This rule is often breached and poorly enforced. If farmers received payment for forest cover then the situation would change radically.

No doubt there would be all sorts of problems, as with 'set-aside' schemes that have paid farmers not to farm in industrialised countries. But perhaps those problems will be easier to deal with and less catastrophic than the Amazon dwindling away.


It was very interesting to have a Brazilian perspective on this idea. Unsurpisingly it is much more appealing - and practical - than the rest of the world trying to take over responsibility for the Amazon.

It would be great to have much more feedback and, ideally, a group of interested SP Adopters who can develop and promote any such schemes they have thought up. A good place to do this is on the 'Contraction and Convergence' discussion board at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=14.0

Let's shout about the price of oil

Being selfish could kill us all, but could also save us. That's my thought on reading of protests arising in disparate countries over the price of fuel and its knock on effect on the price of food.

Roads have been blockaded by angry truckers in the France, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom.

The Guardian is reporting today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/10/oil.france

---extract begins
Protests at rising fuel prices are not confined to Europe. A succession of developing countries have provoked public outcry by ordering fuel price increases. Yesterday Indian police forcibly dispersed hundreds of protesters in Kashmir who were angry at a 10% rise introduced last week. Protests appeared likely to spread to neighbouring Nepal after its government yesterday announced a 25% rise in fuel prices. Truckers in South Korea have vowed strike action over the high cost of diesel. Taiwan, Sri Lanka and Indonesia have all raised pump prices. Malaysia's decision last week to increase prices generated such public fury that the government moved yesterday to trim ministers' allowances to appease the public.
---extract ends

An article in the same newspaper reminds us of the need to cut emissions of greenhouse gases: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global emissions must be slashed by 50% to 80% by the year 2050 to avoid severe environmental disruption from global warming."

One proposal receiving high levels of support for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy is Contraction and Convergence, which proposes a per capita limit on emissions, leading to a country total, which some countries are currently below, while others are well above it. The proposal is they converge so everyone has their fair share. Overall emissions are to be steadily contracted to sustainable levels which, as the IPCC suggests, are far lower than at present.

The price increases being experienced at the moment will have some impact as they will reduce the number of journeys taken, encourage local consumption (through increased prices for goods transported long distances) and not only result in less carbon gases going into the air, but less oil being used. It is, after all, a precious resource and some suggest we are at Peak Oil - the point where we have already used half of total conceivable resources, meaning we will fairly rapidly be reaching the bottom of the barrel.

Instead of welcoming high prices as part of the solution our leaders are doing exactly the opposite. They are calling for pumping of oil to be increased in the hope that extra supply will dampen the price.

The protests teach us two things. Firstly, our leaders think precious little about the future of the planet when faced with hostile headlines and people blockading roads. They think of lost votes, harm to the economy and their own political mortality. Hence the immediate response is to cut prices rather than, say, slapping a windfall tax on the bloated oil companies to invest in sustainable energy while appealing for efficiency improvements everywhere possible.

Secondly, people think precious little about the future when faced with increased prices for everyday necessities such as transport, energy and food. Yes, we want to save the planet, but living in a financial system that relies on loading people with debt, we also want to save ourselves from tipping into penury.

Because we are selfish, the politicians act as they do, for their own survival. Governments will fall if they cannot manage the crisis - or at least convince us the other lot would have done no better.

The problem with out-of-control and generally unexpected sudden increases is they have not been managed. They are a sudden blow to the wallet in the rich world and missed meals in the poor world. In the scramble to secure oil supplies, there is no targeting, no amelioration for those who end up being losers. As it is with oil and food, so it could be with many other aspects of our world if controlled transitions to new realities are not achieved.

Our leaders are ill-placed to achieve them, because they are driven by economic and political realities. Long-term planning may include some aspect of moving to a lower carbon economy and away from dependence on fossil fuels, but will more likely be focused on protecting the national interest and securing as much oil as possible, through coersion, blackmail and even force if necessary.

If something like Contraction and Convergence was in place things would be very different. The cut backs called for by the IPCC would not be aspirations, forgotten in the face of economic realities. They would be hard and fast limits, in the knowledge that failing to meet them would cause severe environmental disruption. The IPCC may keep saying it, but without an international agreement - ideally with some carrots and sticks to make it work - no targets will ever be hit.

We, the people, can take the lead by saying that we don't want out-of-control and unexpected price rises that can tip us over into insolvency and perhaps malnutrition, depending on where we live. We can take a look at the Contraction and Convergence proposal, alternatives to it and complementary policies. We can think about how we would like the world to be and build a consensus on how to get there, pretty darn quick. If we need to cut back on oil use, how about every person having the right to their per capita limit? If we use less, then we can sell our excess quota to someone else. If we want more, we pay those who are more efficient. If we live in a rural area, we can have a higher quota. And so on.

This would be no more complex than assigning tax codes and no harder to manage than swiping a bank card.

We learn to live within our income (including our credit limits in the calculation) so we can live within our energy limit. We can plan how to change our lifestyles as limits are cut. We can take to the streets not to protest just over the price of fuel, but over the lack of renewable energy, which could be exempt from quotas. If I want to buy my household energy from an offshore wind farm so I can save my quota for a flight to Brazil, but not enough wind farms have been built to meet the demand, then I will no longer be in a minority calling for them.

With this coming in through the Simultaneous Policy, my country will not be shooting itself in the foot by acting alone. Everyone will be taking similar action. Not identical, because countries are at different starting points, but there will be a global cooperative effort.

Today it is right to shout about fuel prices, particularly if they make it impossible to buy enough food to survive. But if we really want to protect our interests, the louder shout should be for our leaders to sign the pledge to implement SP alongside other governments so that, as quickly as possible, the various crises that threaten to spiral out of control come under effective management.

Transition will definitely happen. Let it be to a new cooperative reality, not a collapse.

The best way to shout is by signing up as an SP Adopter, which is free, by clicking here:
http://www.simpol.org/

To preview policy suggestions before the next round of voting, or to discuss your own ideas, visit the Simpol discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

Hear from your MP

If you are in the UK you can sign up to receive emails from your Member of Parliament. This is how I was alerted to a forthcoming event on climate change I sent to people on the Cambridge SP Adopters' Group email list (contact me if you are in the Cambridge area and want to be added).

Hear from your MP is a great site. Your MP gets emails encouraging him or her to use the service if not doing so already. As well as putting you on the mailing list, it allows you to post replies or email your MP directly. See:
http://www.hearfromyourmp.com/

This is what I have posted in response to the announcement for the event "How do we meet the climate change challenge?"

http://www.hearfromyourmp.com/view/message/514

Action is required at every level: personal, local, national and international.

Significantly, however, national action faces an obstacle because governments fear it will harm the economy to act if other countries are not. Business leaders lobby for carbon caps and taxes to be as limited as possible, threatening to move production overseas. To overcome this genuine fear simultaneous action is needed. But at the international level action is watered down as countries put their own national economic interests first.

Overcoming the problem of competition between nations is the aim of the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, which brings people together around the world to discuss the policies they wish to see implemented to address global problems. On climate change the policy of 'Contraction and Convergence' has gained significant support in annual voting rounds, though other proposals may eventually win through in the democratic process.

MPs are asked to sign a pledge to implement SP alongside other governments, when all, or sufficient, have made the same pledge. This is not an alternative to other action, but could take us so much further. Mr. Howarth has not yet signed, unlike many of his colleagues in the LibDems, and I ask him to do so. The more MPs that sign, the sooner this becomes government policy and the sooner SP can be finalised and implemented.

If you think this is a good approach, you can sign up as an SP Adopter to take part in the policy development and to send a signal to politicians that you will favour those who sign the pledge to implement SP. Find out more and join the discussion at: http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/