1. Min Sook Kim 2. Green group urges Laos to stop dam expansion plan 3. Korean GNP presidential nominee, Lee Myung-bak wooed Korean voters with his vision for the nationwide canal project. Lee said he would build an in-land harbor in the city and this will help the local economy prosper.
Lee's opponents described him as a pro-business candidate and insisted his vision will only serve the interests of the top 20 percent of citizens. They criticized the former CEO of Hyundai Engineering and Construction for having little compassion and no effective vision for 80 percent of the population.
I say his growth-focused vision will corrupt the ecological systems in Korean Peninsular and harm 100 percent of Korean people with natural disasters. I hope not people be dazzled by his misleading campaigne. Like the irony in Laos, people see what they like to see. Once started, too late to turn back even though they see people suffered. -----------------------------
From: Reuters Published November 27, 2007 10:20 AM Green group urges Laos to stop dam expansion plan By Darren Schuettler
BANGKOK (Reuters) - A major expansion of a hydropower dam in communist Laos will cause serious flooding, ruin fisheries and displace thousands of people living downstream, a Norwegian environmental group said on Tuesday. Water releases from the Theun-Hinboun dam had already ruined the ecology of two rivers and damaged fisheries and farms since it was built a decade ago to supply electricity to neighboring Thailand, the group said in a new report. "In a cruel irony, many of the people to be affected by the expansion project have already been seriously affected by the existing Theun-Hinboun Hydropower Project," the report by the Association for International Water Studies (FIVAS) said. The Theun-Hinboun Power Co, owned jointly by Norwegian state power utility Statkraft, a Thai power firm and the Lao government, had so far failed to pay compensation to people living downstream, it said. The company should shelve the plan "until it has proven that it is capable of restoring the livelihoods of communities affected by the existing project," FIVAS director Andrew Preston said in a statement. Statkraft, which owns 20 percent of the joint venture, said $45 million had been set aside in the project to address the problems mentioned in the report such as by building houses, schools, infrastructure and health stations. But Statkraft brushed off FIVAS' demands to back out of the project, which will double power production from the dam. "We think this is a sustainable and a right project in a region experiencing strong growth and strong demand for energy," said Statkraft's spokesman Knut Fjerdingstad. The expansion involves the construction of a 65-metre (213-ft) high dam on the Nam Gnouang river and a water diversion to the Nam Hai and Nam Hinboun rivers. The report estimated it would "affect over 50,000 people who will suffer flooding, displacement, erosion and loss of livelihood if the project is approved," of whom 4,200 would be forced to move to higher ground. Fjerdingstad said the challenges cited in the report were known to Statkraft, and the company would take seriously any input that could contribute to improving the project. "This project will happen whether Statkraft is in on it or not. We can contribute to making this a better project," he said. The start-up is planned for 2008, though the final decision has not been made, he said. WESTERN INVESTMENTS The report was released ahead of a workshop on the expansion plan being held this week in the Lao capital, Vientiane. The study was conducted by a research team that interviewed people in five villages along the Hai and Hinboun rivers in May. Landlocked Laos says it wants to become "a battery for the region" by building a series of dams with funds mainly coming from neighboring Thailand, China and Vietnam. Western companies are also investing heavily in Laos, led by French electricity group EDF, which is involved in the massive Nam Theun 2 project. Lao Prime Minister Bouasone Bouphavanh told Reuters last week his country was committed to supply 7,000 megawatts to Thailand, 5,000 megawatts to Vietnam and 1,500 megawatts to Cambodia by 2015. The government has said it will use the profits from hydropower sales to fight poverty in the country of 6.5 million people, where the average monthly income is less than $2 a day. (Additional reporting by Aasa Christine Stoltz in Oslo; Editing by Michael Battye and Roger Crabb/James Jukwey) ----- http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/25931
1. Peaches Park 2. Economics vs. Environments 3. "Climate change is a big problem," says McClelland. "Just what the answer is I'm not sure. But whoever is in government, they've got to address it."
That statement to me, reflects much of our class lectures recently. We all see the problem, but most people don’t know where to start in creating a solution. Many people also see the government playing a huge role in environmental issues, and I’m glad to see that people are pushing their respective governments towards action. Overall though, this article proved quite pessimistic about changes in the environmental issues of Australia. ---------------------------------------------- Water Worries Friday, Nov. 16, 2007 By ELIZABETH KEENAN/SYDNEY At sea lake in Western Victoria, Bob McClelland is harvesting wheat — and grateful to be doing it. Thanks to a little rain and a pipeline from the Murray River, McClelland's farm is surviving the six-year drought that's parched much of southeast Australia. He isn't sure if it's just one of the region's periodic dry spells or if, as some scientists say, it's been worsened by global warming. But "I'm a bit of a believer in climate change," he says. "All those Arctic glaciers melting — there must be something happening." In poll after opinion poll, about 7 in 10 Australians say climate change and water are issues important enough to influence their (compulsory) votes at the Nov. 24 election. "Climate change is a big problem," says McClelland. "Just what the answer is I'm not sure. But whoever is in government, they've got to address it." It's not just farmers who are feeling the heat; water restrictions are now a fact of life for the 80% of Australians who live in cities. In Adelaide, Peg Wilson and her neighbors cannot hose their gardens for more than three hours a week. "You just get used to it," she says. In a country that's already 40% desert, scientists say climate change could make many areas hotter and drier. Says David Trebeck, of the national Water Commission: "It now seems clear that climate change and global warming — whether natural or man-made — will result in less water on average for all of us."
One of the few points of difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal-National government is over whether Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, thereby committing the nation to reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions. Labor leader Kevin Rudd calls climate change "the moral challenge of our generation" and says he will sign on to Kyoto "without delay" if his 10-point poll lead translates to victory. Prime Minister John Howard has refused to ratify Kyoto because it limits the emissions only of developed nations. For him the top election issue is the economy: "I don't think the world is going to come to an end because of climate change."
Australia generates 1.4% of global carbon emissions — mostly from coal-fired power stations — and that share is shrinking as Chinese and Indian emissions soar. No matter what Canberra does, the effects on the world's climate "are likely to be extremely small," says Australian National University economist Alex Robson, "almost certainly zero." Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull argues, with Howard, that climate change cannot be addressed without coordinated action by all major emitters. But Labor, he says, takes the view that "we must purify ourselves, regardless of how poor it makes us to become pure."
Australians rally readily to green causes; in a 2006 survey, 65% said they were "environmentalists at heart." But there are limits to how much they're willing to pay for virtue. Emissions-cutting measures that save money — like low-energy light bulbs and more efficient appliances — have been widely adopted. But costlier items, like gas and solar hot water heaters, solar power panels, and rainwater tanks, have needed government subsidies to win consumer support. And while 60-70% of Australians approve of renewable energy, only 8% have signed up to GreenPower schemes, in which they pay extra to get part of their electricity from wind, solar or water generators. The Liberal-National coalition has promised to phase out incandescent light bulbs and increase rebates for green appliances; Labor is offering voters low-interest loans of up to $9,000 to help climate-proof their homes.
Both parties are at pains to reassure voters that whatever they do to address climate change, it won't harm the $1 trillion economy that's grown up during Howard's 11-year tenure. For Labor, that priority has meant some less-than-pure-green policies. Rudd stunned many supporters last week when he abruptly embraced Howard's position on a post-Kyoto climate treaty. It would be "an essential prerequisite" for a Labor government's support, Rudd said, that developing nations also make binding commitments to rein in their carbon emissions. Explaining the now-mutual policy, Howard said: "We can't have a situation where Australian industry is bound to take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but competitive countries like China are not bound." That, he said, would effectively export Australian emissions and jobs to China.
Green as their hearts may be, for most Australians the environment seems to be a less pressing election issue than the economy or health care. Howard and Rudd are offering voters big tax cuts, and financial help with everything from first-home purchases to children's dentistry. Their rhetorical flourishes differ, but both are staking their political future on the belief that for now, at least, Australians fear storm clouds on the economic horizon more than their absence from the skies. ------------------------------ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1684787,00.html
3. Like what peaches said, this article also shows the developing country's dilemma between economy and environment. While China's industries become bigger and bigger, its impact on environemt also grow fast. The protection of environment is important. But, I don't think it is fair that the First World call for cutting gas emission to developing countries. ---------------------------- BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries, a senior climate change official, Gao Guangsheng, said on Thursday.
Gao was speaking days ahead of talks in Bali, Indonesia, expected to launch two years of formal negotiations to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming after 2012.
He was scathing about industrialized countries' limited efforts to help developing nations cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite commitments under the U.N.'s convention on climate change to share clean energy technologies.
That had made it more difficult for China to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for contributing to climate change, he said.
"Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.
"To reduce emissions, technology is a crucial issue. But here for various reasons the developed countries haven't shown much commitment and there basically hasn't been any progress."
China has set itself ambitious domestic targets to increase energy efficiency and replace high carbon-emitting coal with renewable energy sources like wind and hydropower -- although it failed to meet its efficiency target in 2006.
"The goals can often encounter upsets. But international commitments can't be messed about with. China always only makes international commitments that it can live up to. Not just empty cannon blasts. We do more and say less."
Gao cited the example of previous agreements between China and the United States to transfer clean power-generation technology that he said had been blocked by Congress.
He also recounted a conversation with the Danish environment minister, whom he had asked for assistance to transfer advanced wind power technology to China, but had been told it was a matter for companies, not government.
Denmark is home to the world's biggest maker of wind turbines, Vestas and the country is projected to source 25 percent of its electricity from wind power next year.
"If that's always the attitude, then how can we have international cooperation?" said Gao, speaking to a small number of reporters.
"Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (U.N.) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need."
China is under increasing pressure to act on climate change because of ballooning carbon emissions, especially from its coal-burning power plants and from its cement industry.
When pressed Gao said he could not rule out the possibility
China had overtaken the United States as the world's top carbon emitter, or would do so shortly, because Beijing had insufficient data to prove that one way or the other.
On the Bali talks he affirmed China supported a two-year timeframe to find a successor deal to Kyoto.
(Additional reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison; Editing by Jerry Norton) --- http://www.enn.com/climate/article/26237
3. Like what peaches said, this article also shows the developing country's dilemma between economy and environment. While China's industries become bigger and bigger, its impact on environemt also grow fast. The protection of environment is important. But, I don't think it is fair that the First World call for cutting gas emission to developing countries. ---------------------------- BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries, a senior climate change official, Gao Guangsheng, said on Thursday.
Gao was speaking days ahead of talks in Bali, Indonesia, expected to launch two years of formal negotiations to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming after 2012.
He was scathing about industrialized countries' limited efforts to help developing nations cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite commitments under the U.N.'s convention on climate change to share clean energy technologies.
That had made it more difficult for China to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for contributing to climate change, he said.
"Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.
"To reduce emissions, technology is a crucial issue. But here for various reasons the developed countries haven't shown much commitment and there basically hasn't been any progress."
China has set itself ambitious domestic targets to increase energy efficiency and replace high carbon-emitting coal with renewable energy sources like wind and hydropower -- although it failed to meet its efficiency target in 2006.
"The goals can often encounter upsets. But international commitments can't be messed about with. China always only makes international commitments that it can live up to. Not just empty cannon blasts. We do more and say less."
Gao cited the example of previous agreements between China and the United States to transfer clean power-generation technology that he said had been blocked by Congress.
He also recounted a conversation with the Danish environment minister, whom he had asked for assistance to transfer advanced wind power technology to China, but had been told it was a matter for companies, not government.
Denmark is home to the world's biggest maker of wind turbines, Vestas and the country is projected to source 25 percent of its electricity from wind power next year.
"If that's always the attitude, then how can we have international cooperation?" said Gao, speaking to a small number of reporters.
"Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (U.N.) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need."
China is under increasing pressure to act on climate change because of ballooning carbon emissions, especially from its coal-burning power plants and from its cement industry.
When pressed Gao said he could not rule out the possibility
China had overtaken the United States as the world's top carbon emitter, or would do so shortly, because Beijing had insufficient data to prove that one way or the other.
On the Bali talks he affirmed China supported a two-year timeframe to find a successor deal to Kyoto.
(Additional reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison; Editing by Jerry Norton) --- http://www.enn.com/climate/article/26237
1. YingQi Fan 2. a good case study as one doing good to both environment and economy 3. This news is about Scientists’ efforts to establish so called “no-take zones”, which not only ensure fish stocks are maintained but also help locals gain benefit financially. It reminded me of the article ”the Catch” and “Lobster Management”. Everyone knows the prevention of diseases is very important, rather more meaningful than the cure for them. Despite that, people always are not willing to put words into practical actions, mostly because they are uncertain about how the prevention works after funding so much. So it’s time for government to play a role to help fund improvements to infrastructure or establish “no-take zones” and as well as help people establish the awareness of environmental issues. ------------------------------ 'Nature's banks' pays dividends
Marine reserves, co-managed by local communities, can help alleviate the impact of poverty, a study suggests.
Research into four successful schemes showed that getting villagers involved in protection projects reduced harmful overfishing and protected incomes. Average incomes of people who had established no-fish zones were more than double those who did not have protected areas, the authors found.
The researchers produced the report for the Nature Conservancy, a US group.
They said the case studies provided a global blueprint for fishing villages.
Their report, Nature's Investment Bank, examined four marine protection areas in Fiji, Indonesia, Philippines and the Solomon Islands, to assess what constituted a successful scheme. "The key finding is that local communities have to be involved in the management of the fisheries," said co-author Craig Leisher, a policy adviser for the Nature Conservancy.
"It lowers the enforcement costs dramatically, and it ensures locals benefit financially." Marine protection areas are designed to ensure fish stocks are maintained, while allowing locals to land catches. However, fishing is prohibited in certain key locations, such as spawning and nursery areas.
He said locals initially expressed concern about the idea of establishing so called "no-take zones".
"Local fishers were quite reluctant, and worried that they were going to lose some of their prime fishing grounds.
"But what we saw in at least two of these sites was that within just two or three years, there was a dramatic increase in the number of fish that were spilling over from the no-take zones.
"It did not take long for the local communities to see the benefits and say 'hey, this may work'."
Net benefits As well as money from fishing, Mr Leisher added that a healthy aquatic ecosystem had other financial incentives.
"When we looked at the new jobs that were created and which had the biggest benefit to local communities, they were all in tourism.
"There is tremendous potential, certainly within South-East Asia and what we call the coral triangle," he told BBC News. In some areas, the additional revenue helped fund improvements to villages' infrastructure, such as water tanks and public toilets. Mr Leisher said that fish also played a vital role in locals' diets, especially children's. "In all four areas, fish was their primary source of protein and it is part of their staple diet so it could not be more important," he observed.
Secrets of success The report - co-funded by the Nature Conservancy, WWF Indonesia, the Australian government and Holland's Vrije University - was based on more than 1,100 interviews with locals and opinion formers.
Mr Leisher said the researchers had deliberately chosen areas where the introduction of conservation schemes had been successful.
"The objective was to learn from the sites that had been successful and to discern why they were successful, and look for the common factors," he explained. "In all four cases, the local fisheries were in crisis before the establishment of the protected areas.
"The primary indicator was declining fish catch - what we called catch per unit of effort. People were having to go out for longer and fish in new places in order to catch the same amount of fish as a few years earlier. "There has to be a sense of crisis before people are willing to change the status quo dramatically."
But he said the main factor underpinning the successful schemes was convincing people that marine protection areas were more than a paper exercise. "The key to the whole endeavour is education and awareness; they had to understand that it was something that could benefit them and that it was not an imposition."
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
6 comments:
1. Min Sook Kim
2. Green group urges Laos to stop dam expansion plan
3. Korean GNP presidential nominee, Lee Myung-bak wooed Korean voters with his vision for the nationwide canal project. Lee said he would build an in-land harbor in the city and this will help the local economy prosper.
Lee's opponents described him as a pro-business candidate and insisted his vision will only serve the interests of the top 20 percent of citizens. They criticized the former CEO of Hyundai Engineering and Construction for having little compassion and no effective vision for 80 percent of the population.
I say his growth-focused vision will corrupt the ecological systems in Korean Peninsular and harm 100 percent of Korean people with natural disasters. I hope not people be dazzled by his misleading campaigne. Like the irony in Laos, people see what they like to see. Once started, too late to turn back even though they see people suffered.
-----------------------------
From: Reuters
Published November 27, 2007 10:20 AM
Green group urges Laos to stop dam expansion plan
By Darren Schuettler
BANGKOK (Reuters) - A major expansion of a hydropower dam in communist Laos will cause serious flooding, ruin fisheries and displace thousands of people living downstream, a Norwegian environmental group said on Tuesday.
Water releases from the Theun-Hinboun dam had already ruined the ecology of two rivers and damaged fisheries and farms since it was built a decade ago to supply electricity to neighboring Thailand, the group said in a new report.
"In a cruel irony, many of the people to be affected by the expansion project have already been seriously affected by the existing Theun-Hinboun Hydropower Project," the report by the Association for International Water Studies (FIVAS) said.
The Theun-Hinboun Power Co, owned jointly by Norwegian state power utility Statkraft, a Thai power firm and the Lao government, had so far failed to pay compensation to people living downstream, it said.
The company should shelve the plan "until it has proven that it is capable of restoring the livelihoods of communities affected by the existing project," FIVAS director Andrew Preston said in a statement.
Statkraft, which owns 20 percent of the joint venture, said $45 million had been set aside in the project to address the problems mentioned in the report such as by building houses, schools, infrastructure and health stations.
But Statkraft brushed off FIVAS' demands to back out of the project, which will double power production from the dam.
"We think this is a sustainable and a right project in a region experiencing strong growth and strong demand for energy," said Statkraft's spokesman Knut Fjerdingstad.
The expansion involves the construction of a 65-metre (213-ft) high dam on the Nam Gnouang river and a water diversion to the Nam Hai and Nam Hinboun rivers.
The report estimated it would "affect over 50,000 people who will suffer flooding, displacement, erosion and loss of livelihood if the project is approved," of whom 4,200 would be forced to move to higher ground.
Fjerdingstad said the challenges cited in the report were known to Statkraft, and the company would take seriously any input that could contribute to improving the project.
"This project will happen whether Statkraft is in on it or not. We can contribute to making this a better project," he said. The start-up is planned for 2008, though the final decision has not been made, he said.
WESTERN INVESTMENTS
The report was released ahead of a workshop on the expansion plan being held this week in the Lao capital, Vientiane.
The study was conducted by a research team that interviewed people in five villages along the Hai and Hinboun rivers in May.
Landlocked Laos says it wants to become "a battery for the region" by building a series of dams with funds mainly coming from neighboring Thailand, China and Vietnam.
Western companies are also investing heavily in Laos, led by French electricity group EDF, which is involved in the massive Nam Theun 2 project.
Lao Prime Minister Bouasone Bouphavanh told Reuters last week his country was committed to supply 7,000 megawatts to Thailand, 5,000 megawatts to Vietnam and 1,500 megawatts to Cambodia by 2015.
The government has said it will use the profits from hydropower sales to fight poverty in the country of 6.5 million people, where the average monthly income is less than $2 a day.
(Additional reporting by Aasa Christine Stoltz in Oslo; Editing by Michael Battye and Roger Crabb/James Jukwey)
-----
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/25931
1. Peaches Park
2. Economics vs. Environments
3. "Climate change is a big problem," says McClelland. "Just what the answer is I'm not sure. But whoever is in government, they've got to address it."
That statement to me, reflects much of our class lectures recently. We all see the problem, but most people don’t know where to start in creating a solution. Many people also see the government playing a huge role in environmental issues, and I’m glad to see that people are pushing their respective governments towards action. Overall though, this article proved quite pessimistic about changes in the environmental issues of Australia.
----------------------------------------------
Water Worries
Friday, Nov. 16, 2007 By ELIZABETH KEENAN/SYDNEY
At sea lake in Western Victoria, Bob McClelland is harvesting wheat — and grateful to be doing it. Thanks to a little rain and a pipeline from the Murray River, McClelland's farm is surviving the six-year drought that's parched much of southeast Australia. He isn't sure if it's just one of the region's periodic dry spells or if, as some scientists say, it's been worsened by global warming. But "I'm a bit of a believer in climate change," he says. "All those Arctic glaciers melting — there must be something happening."
In poll after opinion poll, about 7 in 10 Australians say climate change and water are issues important enough to influence their (compulsory) votes at the Nov. 24 election. "Climate change is a big problem," says McClelland. "Just what the answer is I'm not sure. But whoever is in government, they've got to address it." It's not just farmers who are feeling the heat; water restrictions are now a fact of life for the 80% of Australians who live in cities. In Adelaide, Peg Wilson and her neighbors cannot hose their gardens for more than three hours a week. "You just get used to it," she says. In a country that's already 40% desert, scientists say climate change could make many areas hotter and drier. Says David Trebeck, of the national Water Commission: "It now seems clear that climate change and global warming — whether natural or man-made — will result in less water on average for all of us."
One of the few points of difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal-National government is over whether Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, thereby committing the nation to reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions. Labor leader Kevin Rudd calls climate change "the moral challenge of our generation" and says he will sign on to Kyoto "without delay" if his 10-point poll lead translates to victory. Prime Minister John Howard has refused to ratify Kyoto because it limits the emissions only of developed nations. For him the top election issue is the economy: "I don't think the world is going to come to an end because of climate change."
Australia generates 1.4% of global carbon emissions — mostly from coal-fired power stations — and that share is shrinking as Chinese and Indian emissions soar. No matter what Canberra does, the effects on the world's climate "are likely to be extremely small," says Australian National University economist Alex Robson, "almost certainly zero." Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull argues, with Howard, that climate change cannot be addressed without coordinated action by all major emitters. But Labor, he says, takes the view that "we must purify ourselves, regardless of how poor it makes us to become pure."
Australians rally readily to green causes; in a 2006 survey, 65% said they were "environmentalists at heart." But there are limits to how much they're willing to pay for virtue. Emissions-cutting measures that save money — like low-energy light bulbs and more efficient appliances — have been widely adopted. But costlier items, like gas and solar hot water heaters, solar power panels, and rainwater tanks, have needed government subsidies to win consumer support. And while 60-70% of Australians approve of renewable energy, only 8% have signed up to GreenPower schemes, in which they pay extra to get part of their electricity from wind, solar or water generators. The Liberal-National coalition has promised to phase out incandescent light bulbs and increase rebates for green appliances; Labor is offering voters low-interest loans of up to $9,000 to help climate-proof their homes.
Both parties are at pains to reassure voters that whatever they do to address climate change, it won't harm the $1 trillion economy that's grown up during Howard's 11-year tenure. For Labor, that priority has meant some less-than-pure-green policies. Rudd stunned many supporters last week when he abruptly embraced Howard's position on a post-Kyoto climate treaty. It would be "an essential prerequisite" for a Labor government's support, Rudd said, that developing nations also make binding commitments to rein in their carbon emissions. Explaining the now-mutual policy, Howard said: "We can't have a situation where Australian industry is bound to take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but competitive countries like China are not bound." That, he said, would effectively export Australian emissions and jobs to China.
Green as their hearts may be, for most Australians the environment seems to be a less pressing election issue than the economy or health care. Howard and Rudd are offering voters big tax cuts, and financial help with everything from first-home purchases to children's dentistry. Their rhetorical flourishes differ, but both are staking their political future on the belief that for now, at least, Australians fear storm clouds on the economic horizon more than their absence from the skies.
------------------------------
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1684787,00.html
1. SuJung,Kim
2. China wary on international climate goals
3. Like what peaches said, this article also shows the developing country's dilemma between economy and environment. While China's industries become bigger and bigger, its impact on environemt also grow fast.
The protection of environment is important. But, I don't think it is fair that the First World call for cutting gas emission to developing countries.
----------------------------
BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries, a senior climate change official, Gao Guangsheng, said on Thursday.
Gao was speaking days ahead of talks in Bali, Indonesia, expected to launch two years of formal negotiations to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming after 2012.
He was scathing about industrialized countries' limited efforts to help developing nations cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite commitments under the U.N.'s convention on climate change to share clean energy technologies.
That had made it more difficult for China to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for contributing to climate change, he said.
"Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.
"To reduce emissions, technology is a crucial issue. But here for various reasons the developed countries haven't shown much commitment and there basically hasn't been any progress."
China has set itself ambitious domestic targets to increase energy efficiency and replace high carbon-emitting coal with renewable energy sources like wind and hydropower -- although it failed to meet its efficiency target in 2006.
"The goals can often encounter upsets. But international commitments can't be messed about with. China always only makes international commitments that it can live up to. Not just empty cannon blasts. We do more and say less."
Gao cited the example of previous agreements between China and the United States to transfer clean power-generation technology that he said had been blocked by Congress.
He also recounted a conversation with the Danish environment minister, whom he had asked for assistance to transfer advanced wind power technology to China, but had been told it was a matter for companies, not government.
Denmark is home to the world's biggest maker of wind turbines, Vestas and the country is projected to source 25 percent of its electricity from wind power next year.
"If that's always the attitude, then how can we have international cooperation?" said Gao, speaking to a small number of reporters.
"Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (U.N.) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need."
China is under increasing pressure to act on climate change because of ballooning carbon emissions, especially from its coal-burning power plants and from its cement industry.
When pressed Gao said he could not rule out the possibility
China had overtaken the United States as the world's top carbon emitter, or would do so shortly, because Beijing had insufficient data to prove that one way or the other.
On the Bali talks he affirmed China supported a two-year timeframe to find a successor deal to Kyoto.
(Additional reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison; Editing by Jerry Norton)
---
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/26237
1. SuJung,Kim
2. China wary on international climate goals
3. Like what peaches said, this article also shows the developing country's dilemma between economy and environment. While China's industries become bigger and bigger, its impact on environemt also grow fast.
The protection of environment is important. But, I don't think it is fair that the First World call for cutting gas emission to developing countries.
----------------------------
BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries, a senior climate change official, Gao Guangsheng, said on Thursday.
Gao was speaking days ahead of talks in Bali, Indonesia, expected to launch two years of formal negotiations to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming after 2012.
He was scathing about industrialized countries' limited efforts to help developing nations cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite commitments under the U.N.'s convention on climate change to share clean energy technologies.
That had made it more difficult for China to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for contributing to climate change, he said.
"Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.
"To reduce emissions, technology is a crucial issue. But here for various reasons the developed countries haven't shown much commitment and there basically hasn't been any progress."
China has set itself ambitious domestic targets to increase energy efficiency and replace high carbon-emitting coal with renewable energy sources like wind and hydropower -- although it failed to meet its efficiency target in 2006.
"The goals can often encounter upsets. But international commitments can't be messed about with. China always only makes international commitments that it can live up to. Not just empty cannon blasts. We do more and say less."
Gao cited the example of previous agreements between China and the United States to transfer clean power-generation technology that he said had been blocked by Congress.
He also recounted a conversation with the Danish environment minister, whom he had asked for assistance to transfer advanced wind power technology to China, but had been told it was a matter for companies, not government.
Denmark is home to the world's biggest maker of wind turbines, Vestas and the country is projected to source 25 percent of its electricity from wind power next year.
"If that's always the attitude, then how can we have international cooperation?" said Gao, speaking to a small number of reporters.
"Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (U.N.) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need."
China is under increasing pressure to act on climate change because of ballooning carbon emissions, especially from its coal-burning power plants and from its cement industry.
When pressed Gao said he could not rule out the possibility
China had overtaken the United States as the world's top carbon emitter, or would do so shortly, because Beijing had insufficient data to prove that one way or the other.
On the Bali talks he affirmed China supported a two-year timeframe to find a successor deal to Kyoto.
(Additional reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison; Editing by Jerry Norton)
---
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/26237
1. YingQi Fan
2. a good case study as one doing good to both environment and economy
3. This news is about Scientists’ efforts to establish so called “no-take zones”, which not only ensure fish stocks are maintained but also help locals gain benefit financially. It reminded me of the article ”the Catch” and “Lobster Management”. Everyone knows the prevention of diseases is very important, rather more meaningful than the cure for them. Despite that, people always are not willing to put words into practical actions, mostly because they are uncertain about how the prevention works after funding so much. So it’s time for government to play a role to help fund improvements to infrastructure or establish “no-take zones” and as well as help people establish the awareness of environmental issues.
------------------------------
'Nature's banks' pays dividends
Marine reserves, co-managed by local communities, can help alleviate the impact of poverty, a study suggests.
Research into four successful schemes showed that getting villagers involved in protection projects reduced harmful overfishing and protected incomes.
Average incomes of people who had established no-fish zones were more than double those who did not have protected areas, the authors found.
The researchers produced the report for the Nature Conservancy, a US group.
They said the case studies provided a global blueprint for fishing villages.
Their report, Nature's Investment Bank, examined four marine protection areas in Fiji, Indonesia, Philippines and the Solomon Islands, to assess what constituted a successful scheme.
"The key finding is that local communities have to be involved in the management of the fisheries," said co-author Craig Leisher, a policy adviser for the Nature Conservancy.
"It lowers the enforcement costs dramatically, and it ensures locals benefit financially."
Marine protection areas are designed to ensure fish stocks are maintained, while allowing locals to land catches. However, fishing is prohibited in certain key locations, such as spawning and nursery areas.
He said locals initially expressed concern about the idea of establishing so called "no-take zones".
"Local fishers were quite reluctant, and worried that they were going to lose some of their prime fishing grounds.
"But what we saw in at least two of these sites was that within just two or three years, there was a dramatic increase in the number of fish that were spilling over from the no-take zones.
"It did not take long for the local communities to see the benefits and say 'hey, this may work'."
Net benefits
As well as money from fishing, Mr Leisher added that a healthy aquatic ecosystem had other financial incentives.
"When we looked at the new jobs that were created and which had the biggest benefit to local communities, they were all in tourism.
"There is tremendous potential, certainly within South-East Asia and what we call the coral triangle," he told BBC News.
In some areas, the additional revenue helped fund improvements to villages' infrastructure, such as water tanks and public toilets.
Mr Leisher said that fish also played a vital role in locals' diets, especially children's.
"In all four areas, fish was their primary source of protein and it is part of their staple diet so it could not be more important," he observed.
Secrets of success
The report - co-funded by the Nature Conservancy, WWF Indonesia, the Australian government and Holland's Vrije University - was based on more than 1,100 interviews with locals and opinion formers.
Mr Leisher said the researchers had deliberately chosen areas where the introduction of conservation schemes had been successful.
"The objective was to learn from the sites that had been successful and to discern why they were successful, and look for the common factors," he explained.
"In all four cases, the local fisheries were in crisis before the establishment of the protected areas.
"The primary indicator was declining fish catch - what we called catch per unit of effort. People were having to go out for longer and fish in new places in order to catch the same amount of fish as a few years earlier.
"There has to be a sense of crisis before people are willing to change the status quo dramatically."
But he said the main factor underpinning the successful schemes was convincing people that marine protection areas were more than a paper exercise.
"The key to the whole endeavour is education and awareness; they had to understand that it was something that could benefit them and that it was not an imposition."
-----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7119913.stm
Post a Comment