Ecological News

The global average temperature in 2011 was 14.52 degrees Celsius (58.14 degrees Fahrenheit). According to NASA scientists, this was the ninth warmest year in 132 years of recordkeeping, despite the cooling influence of the La Niña atmospheric and oceanic circulation pattern and relatively low solar irradiance. Since the 1970s, each subsequent decade has gotten hotter — and 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the twenty-first century.

Each year’s average temperature is determined by a number of factors, including solar activity and the status of the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon. But heat-trapping gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere, largely from the burning of fossil fuels, have become a dominant force, pushing the Earth’s climate out of its normal range. The planet is now close to 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than it was a century ago. Hidden within annual averages and expected variability are startling instances of new temperature and rainfall records in many parts of the world — weather extremes that would once be considered anomalies but that now risk becoming the new norm as the Earth heats up.

Worldwide, 2011 was the second wettest year on record over land. (The record was set in 2010, which also tied 2005 as the warmest overall.) Heavier deluges are expected on a warmer planet; each temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius increases the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold by about 7 percent. Higher temperatures also can fuel stronger storms.

Brazil started the year with the deadliest natural disaster in its history: in January, a month’s worth of rain fell in a single day in Rio de Janeiro state, leading to floods and landslides that killed at least 900 people. That same month, flooding in eastern Australia covered an area nearly the size of France and Germany combined. Overall, it was the third wettest year in Australia since recordkeeping began in 1900.

The most expensive weather disaster of 2011 was the flooding in Thailand in the second half of the year, which ultimately submerged one third of the country’s provinces. At $45 billion worth of damage — equal to 14 percent of Thailand’s gross domestic product — it was also the costliest natural catastrophe the country ever experienced.

In October, more than 100 people died as two storms — one from the Pacific and the other from the Caribbean — pounded Central America with rain. In western El Salvador, nearly 1.5 meters of rain (almost 5 feet) fell over 10 days. And in December, Tropical Storm Washi hit the Philippines, creating flash floods that killed more than 1,200 people.

The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season had 19 named storms. Hurricane Irene brought extreme flooding to the northeastern United States in August, with total damages topping $7.3 billion. The year was the wettest on the books for seven states in the country, while it was among the driest for several others. Although the extremes appear to balance out, making for a near-average year, in fact a record 58 percent of the contiguous United States was either extremely wet or extremely dry in 2011.

Indeed, as is expected on a hotter planet, while some parts of the globe were overwhelmed by rain in 2011, others were distinguished by dryness. A severe drought in the Horn of Africa that began in 2010 devolved into a crisis situation in 2011, characterized by crop failure, exorbitant food prices, and widespread malnutrition. Exacerbated by chronic political instability and a belated humanitarian response, the death toll may have exceeded 50,000 people.

Back in North America, a drought that began in late 2010 and worsened over 2011 led hundreds of farmers from northern Mexico to march to that nation’s capital in January 2012 to draw the government’s attention to their suffering. Nearly 900,000 hectares of farmland (some 2.2 million acres) and 1.7 million head of livestock were lost due to the dryness — the worst in Mexico’s 70+ years of data collecting.

Scorching heat, drought, and wildfires across the U.S. Southern Plains and Southwest caused farm, ranch, and forestry damages that exceeded $10 billion in 2011. Wichita Falls, Texas, experienced 100 days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit — far more than the previous record of 79 days set in 1980. Oklahoma and Texas had the hottest summers of any states in history, breaking by a wide margin the record set in 1934 during the Dust Bowl. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, writes that the likelihood of such extreme heat waves “was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming.” Texas also had its lowest rainfall on record. Invigorated by the heat and drought, wildfires burned across an estimated 1.5 million hectares (3.7 million acres) in the state.

For the continental United States, summer 2011 was the second warmest in history. Nearly three times more weather stations hit record highs than lows in 2011, in line with a trend of increasing heat extremes. Whereas in the middle of the 20th century there were close to the same number of record highs and lows — as would be expected absent a strong warming trend — in the 1990s highs began outpacing lows. In the first decade of this century, there were twice as many record highs as record lows.

Worldwide, seven countries set all-time temperature highs in 2011: Armenia, China, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Republic of the Congo, and Zambia. Interestingly, Zambia also was the only country to experience an all-time low temperature when it dropped to -9 degrees Celsius (16 degrees Fahrenheit) in June. Kuwait experienced the year’s highest temperature, with thermometers measuring a searing 53.3 degrees Celsius (127.9 degrees Fahrenheit), the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth during the month of August. Even more threatening to health than daytime highs are extra hot nighttime minimum temperatures, which do not allow any respite from the heat. The world’s hottest 24-hour minimum ever — 41.7 degrees Celsius (107 degrees Fahrenheit) — was recorded in Oman in June 2011.

Even the Arctic had a notably warm year, with the 2011 temperature a record 2.2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the mean for 1951–80. Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost U.S. city, spent a record-breaking 86 consecutive days at or above freezing, far more than the previous record of 68 days set in 2009.

In fact, over the last 50 years temperatures in the Arctic have risen more than twice as fast as the global average, melting ice and thawing permafrost. Arctic sea ice has been shrinking more rapidly, falling to its lowest volume and second lowest area on record during the 2011 summer melt season. With the summertime ice loss outpacing wintertime recovery, Arctic sea ice has thinned, making it increasingly vulnerable to further melting. Scientists expect a completely ice-free summertime Arctic by 2030 or even earlier.

As the reflective ice disappears, it exposes the dark ocean, which more readily absorbs solar energy, further warming the region. This sets forth a climate cascade, accelerating ice loss both in the ocean as well as on nearby Greenland, which contains enough ice to raise global sea level by 7 meters (23 feet) if it completely melted. The warming also thaws Arctic permafrost, releasing carbon dioxide and methane, further accelerating global warming.

Even without fully incorporating such climate feedback, models show that continued reliance on fossil fuels could raise the global temperature by up to 7 degrees Celsius (over 12 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. Such an elevated temperature would amplify temperature and precipitation extremes enough to make the weather events of recent years look tame in comparison. Only a rapid, dramatic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can hold future temperatures in a range bearing any resemblance to what civilization has known.

By Janet Larsen and Sara Rasmussen

In a recent Feature, Al Jazeera English talked to five professional economists about their views on Ron Paul’s economic policies. One of the economic points discussed was Paul’s idea to lower the price of fuel.

Ron Paul believes, just like the other Republican front-runners in the 2012 election, that the price on fuel could be lowered if the US just allowed companies to drill for oil (both offshore and on land) in sensitive areas such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explained that oil drilling in ANWR wouldn’t result in any noteworthy changes to fuel prices. This idea would mean “a lot of risk both to the environment and the economy for really very little gain,” Baker said.

Here’s his full quote on drilling for oil in ANWR:

"We have a world market, so how much are we talking about increasing supply? The analyses I've seen from ANWR is that peak production – and we're typically talking about ten years or so until we get there – would be about a million barrels per day (bpd), and this is in the context of a world market of around 90 million bpd. So you're talking about lowering the price of oil maybe one or two per cent if you're lucky.

"And the amount that you can get from additional offshore drilling – because it's not as if we're drilling not at all now – that's typically put at around 200,000 – 300,000 bpd, so the impact is even less. To my mind, you're talking about risking a lot of environmental damage – these are also places where people fish, and it's also a big tourism destination – you don't want to go to a beach that's covered in oil. So you're talking about a lot of risk both to the environment and the economy for really very little gain."

#greenblog #ANWR

Embedded Link

Economists weigh in on Ron Paul
Al Jazeera speaks to five economists about the presidential candidate’s economic policies.

Google+: View post on Google+

So Keystone has become a high-stakes political chess game following the president’s decision to kill the project. This Talking Points Memo article says Republicans have no expectations of getting Obama to sign infrastructure legislation including a Keystone rider, but they’ll attach the rider anyway as a pure political play: to blame Obama during the campaign for opposing job creation and economic growth.

Frankly, I’m not betting the farm on Obama vetoing the bill, particularly if Republicans in exchange go along with his cherished hike in infrastructure spending, designed precisely to create jobs. As the article says, even his Democratic base is split on the pipeline, at a time when jobs truly are THE issue in this election.

The case for a veto no matter what is, I believe, stronger. Politically, he shows backbone and principle, can blast Republicans for the same anti-job position they want to pin on him, and secures the grassroots support he so desperately needs from his environmental base, the same base he has mutilated into apathy with other antagonistic ecodecisions.

But then again, on the subject of backbone and principle, the president has been quite convincing of late that he doesn’t have any when it comes to climate change. The signs are anything but reassuring.

The U.S. was one of the countries that most blocked progress (even simple steps) at Durban. Obama’s new all-or-nothing energy policy proudly includes record hikes in American oil and gas exploration. And when he “killed” Keystone, I’ve warned earlier that we would be ill advised to celebrate much, so absent from his statement was any mention of climate change. Now, if he was willing to turn on the climate at these crucial moments, what makes us think he’ll stick to the Keystone decision in the face of potential political risk?

The writing is all over the wall, folks. This man has simply abandoned the climate in favor of his reelection. He fails to see the political, historical and economic value (to him!) of standing up to the Republicans on this all-important issue. So don’t let his support of cleantech fool you. On Keystone, we simply do not know which way he’ll go.

Some years back I delivered a memorial lecture at Rohtak inHaryana. The Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda was in the chair.Knowing how flawed his economic thinking of acquiring large tracts of farmlandfor the sake of industry in the name of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) was, Idwelled upon the dangers and the disastrous fallout waiting to happen as far aslivelihood security of the masses and country’s food security was concerned. 

Hooda was obviouslyirked, and visibly angry. Cutting me short, he got up and intervened saying howright his policy was for the farmers, and for the state’s ultimate economicprogress. I asked him where and when was a public discourse held to know whetherSEZ was a good investment, and he retaliated by challenging me to an opendiscussion anytime later in Chandigarh,which of course never happened.

Several yearslater, I stand bemused to find Hooda take a complete u-turn: “It is true thatSEZs have not succeeded, not only in the state but in the entire country. Therewas economic slowdown in the entire world, so SEZs could not succeed,” he saidrecently. Although he acknowledges the fault, what he says in its defence isalso not correct. And this is true for the entire policy making process, whichstill refuses to accept the fundamental flaws in the SEZ policy. As IMF chiefeconomist and an advisor to the prime minister, Raghuram Rajan, had stated wayback in 2007: “India’sSEZ policy was a tax give-away and was likely to shift Indian production toSEZs rather than create new economic activity.” He was quoted in the WallStreet Journal as saying “these zones would be viable only if they focused onproviding superior infrastructure, business-friendly regulations and exemptionsfrom labour laws rather than offering often misdirected subsidies, guarantees,and tax sops that a stretched budget can ill-afford”.
By October 2011,ministry of commerce had approved 583 SEZs. As per news reports, one-third ofthese – approximately 202 -- have been already withdrawn. A majority of thosewho are still struck are known to be looking for better escape options. Forinstance, the realty giant DLF with its joint venture partner Hubtown, hasrecently sold its IT SEZ in Pune to a private equity firm Blackstone for Rs810-crore. In Haryana, Reliance Haryana SEZ Limited (RHSL), a Mukesh Ambani’sReliance Ventures Ltd and Haryana State Industrial and InfrastructureDevelopment Corporation (HSIDC), is the latest one to drop out. It had earliershelved its Jhajjar SEZ and converted it into a model economic township to beimplemented by a new company.

Reliance wasseeking further extension for its Gurgaon SEZ, but has been finally asked toreturn 1,383 acres that it got from the state government. In Andhra Pradesh,109 SEZs were approved, only 36 are operational. The Andhra Pradesh IndustrialInfrastructure Corporation has scrapped the MoUs with the major defaulters andtaken back the land assigned, including from Unitech and Caparo. In Haryana,only 3 of the 46 approved SEZ are in operation. 
SEZ were promotedas a engine house of economic liberalisation. These were primarily set up toprop-up the slowing economy. These were supposed to drive exports, and, in turnemployment and growth. All kinds of sops – tax waivers and giveaways –including precious land provided at a throwaway price, were given to energisemanufacturing and exports. To blame the economic slowdown therefore for thefailure of SEZs to take-off is to find an easy escape route for thefundamentally flawed policy. Even before the global economic meltdown of2009-10, SEZs had failed to live up to the expectations and at the same timefailed to demonstrate any significant upswing in export growth. In reality, itprovided a massive windfall for realty developers. SEZ were perceived as realestate ventures and therefore an opportunity for land grab where developerscould use 65 per cent of the acquired land to build hotels, restaurant andapartments.  

Why blame Hoodaalone, prime minister Manmohan Singh too was mesmerised by the SEZ potential.At an award ceremony in Mumbai in 2007, he had said: “Special Economic Zone(SEZ) is an idea whose time has come.” Supported by all political parties,including the Left Front, he actually launched a nationwide campaign toforcibly acquire and make available land on a platter to the industry,displacing lakhs of farmers. What began with SEZ subsequently continued inthe name of industrial development. Farmers resisted, and pitched land battleswere waged across the country, the likes of which have not been witnessed inliving memory. The resulting social unrest across the rural spectrum wasconsidered to be a small price the country must pay for achieving long-termdevelopment. As companies lined up for SEZs, most state governments wentaggressively into property dealing.  

As expected, notmany states have realised the social and economic benefits that were originallypromised. Except for the IT sector, which has very cleverly used SEZ to seekfurther extend the tax exemption period, the enthusiasm from other sectors wasclearly missing. In essence, SEZ was a misplaced idea whose time had lapsedmuch before it caught the imagination of policy makers in India.

Yesterday hundreds of demonstrators dressed in referee uniforms called the US Congress to end the huge tax breaks and other subsidies to Big Oil and the fossil fuel industry.

Bill McKibben, founder of the +350.org movement and one of the key speakers at the event, said that this year the US Congress will give "billions of dollars in taxpayer money" to the fossil fuel industry:

"The thing we really want to start talking about today is the fact that this year, as most years, Congress will vote to give subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Billions and billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Not because they need a subsidy. We’ve known how to burn coal and gas and oil for 250 years. There’s no secret to it that we need to subsidize for them to figure out. And it’s not because they need the money. They’re the most profitable industry on earth. Exxon made more money last year than any company in the history of money. What’s going on instead is that they are giving small presents to our legislators, and in return our legislators are giving them big presents with our money."

+Bernie Sanders, the only democratic socialist in the US Senate, who fought to block construction of the Keystone XL pipeline was also there to give his support. "We've got to end all of the tax breaks for the oil companies and coal companies and I'm going to introduce legislation to do just that," Sanders promised the demonstrators.

"Ending tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas companies would reduce the deficit by more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. Sanders' legislation will end those tax breaks and tens of billions of dollars in other special subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

The five largest oil companies in the United States have earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very largest oil companies in America like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, paid absolutely nothing in federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten rebates from the Internal Revenue Service."

You can read more about the huge tax breaks and subsidies that the fossil-fuel industry receives every year on Green Blog: http://bit.ly/AxMZx8

See photos from the event here: http://bit.ly/w5rWGh

#greenblog

Google+: View post on Google+

Fossil fuel burning yielding the greenhouse gas (GHG) carbon dioxide (CO2) is a major component of man-made global warming. In relation to carbon pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, Net Carbon Debt is equal to the Historical Carbon Debt (from fossil fuel burning since the start of the Industrial Revolution in circa 1750) minus the Carbon Credit (the residual carbon pollution from fossil fuel burning permitted between now and zero emissions in 2050). As outlined below and based on fossil fuel burning, Net Carbon Debt (Net Climate Debt) has been estimated for all Carbon Debtor countries and Net Carbon Credit (Net Climate Credit) has been estimated for all Carbon Creditor countries. This information is crucial for climate justice as the World faces a worsening climate crisis born of GHG profligacy and climate change inaction.

The Historical Carbon Debt (aka Climate Debt) of the World has been estimated at 12 Gt CO2 (12 billion tonnes CO2) in 1751-1900 and 334 Gt CO2-e for 1901-2008, for a total of 346 Gt CO2 in the period 1751-2008 (see “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”). Most of this greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution has occurred in the last half century.

In a 2008 letter to Australian PM Kevin Rudd, NASA’s Dr James Hansen provided a breakdown of global responsibility for fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution between 1751 and 2006 that is summarized below as a percentage (%) of the Historical Climate Debt (1751-2006) of 346 Gt CO2.

Ships/air (4%): 4% of 346 Gt CO2 = 13.84 Gt. This has been allocated proportionately to the other groups as shown below.

India (2.5%) = (0.025 x 346 = 8.65) + (2.5 x 13.84/96 = 0.36) = 9.01 Gt CO2.
Japan (3.9%) = 13.49 + 0.56 = 14.05 Gt CO2.
UK (6.0%) = 20.76 + 0.87 = 21.63 Gt CO2.
Germany (6.6%) = 22.84 + 0.95 = 23.79 Gt CO2.
Russia (7.4%) = 25.60 + 1.07 = 26.67 Gt CO2.
China (8.2%) = 28.37 + 1.18 = 29.55 Gt CO2.
USA (27.5%) = 95.15 + 3.97 = 99.12 Gt CO2.
Canada-Australia (3.1%) = 10.73 + 0.45 = 11.18 Gt CO2 -> Canada 5.59 Gt CO2 & Australia 5.59 Gt CO2.
Rest of Europe (18.0%) (population 451.2 million) = 62.28 + 2.60 = 64.88 Gt CO2.
Rest of World (12.8%) (population 3,197.1 million) = 44.29 + 1.85 = 46.14 Gt CO2.

The Carbon Debtors are stealing from the poor Carbon Creditors that are increasingly threatened by the worsening climate crisis.

Post-2010 Carbon Credits (aka Climate Credits) relate to the last amount of GHG pollution the World can sustain before zero emissions in 2050 if it is to avoid a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise. In 2009 the WBGU which advises the German Government on climate change estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature rise (EU policy), the World must emit no more than 600 billion tones of CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. From this information it was possible to use data for annual per capita GHG pollution (i.e. of CO2-e; see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”) to calculate years left to zero emissions for every country in the world (see “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions”). This analysis based on current per capita pollution of CO2-e (CO2-equivalent i.e. considering GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide in addition to CO2) was used to estimate Carbon Debt (Climate Debt) in US dollars for most countries (see “Climate Debt, Climate Credit”).

However a simpler and much more comprehensive analysis of Carbon Debt (Climate Debt) for all countries of the World is presented below that reports Carbon Debt in millions of tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuel burning alone (and ignores GHG pollution deriving from land use (agriculture and forestry), methane, nitrous oxide (N2O) and other GHGs).

Net Carbon Debt (aka Net Climate Debt) and Net Carbon Credit (aka Net Climate Credit) can be estimated from the difference between Historical Carbon Debt and post-2010 Carbon Credits. Thus, by way of example, if one accepts that “all men are created equal”, the Carbon Credit for India (population 1,210.2 million out of a total global population of 6,983.2 million) is 600 billion tonnes CO2 x 1,210.2 million/6,983.2 million = 103.981 billion tones CO2. The Net Carbon Debt for India is therefore 9.010 billion tonnes CO2 (Historical Carbon Debt) – 103.981 billion tonnes CO2 (post-2010 Carbon Credit) = – 94.971 billion tonnes Net Carbon Debt or a Net Carbon Credit of + 94.971 billion tones CO2.

Conversely, the Carbon Credit for the US (population 312.8 million out of a total global population of 6,983.2 million) is 600 billion tonnes CO2 x 312.8 million/6,983.2 million = 26.876 billion tonnes. The Net Carbon Debt for the US is therefore 99.120 billion tonnes CO2 (Historical Carbon Debt) – 26.876 billion tonnes CO2 (post-2010 Carbon Credit) = 72,244 billion tonnes CO2 Net Carbon Debt.

For “Rest of Europe” countries the Net Carbon Debt is 64,880 million tonnes CO2 /451.2 million people = 143.79 million tonnes CO2/person (Historical Carbon Debt) – 600,000 million tonnes /6,983,2 persons = 85.92 tonnes per person (Carbon Credit) = 57.49 tonnes per person i.e. there is a positive Net Carbon Debt which is in magnitude 57.87 x100/85.92 = 67.4% of the 2010-2050 Carbon Credit.

For “Rest of World “ countries the Net Carbon Debt is 46,140 million tonnes CO2/3,197.1 million persons = 14.43 million tonnes CO2/person (Historical Carbon Debt) – 85.92 tonnes per person (Climate Credit) = -71.49 tonnes per person i.e. there is a positive Net Carbon Credit which is in magnitude 71.49 x100/85.92 = 83.2% of the 2010-2050 Carbon Credit.

Net Carbon Debt (millions of tonnes of CO2) of Climate Debtor countries (descending order).

United States (72,244), Germany (16,765), United Kingdom (16,277), Russia (14,392), France (3,763), Australia (3,631), Japan (3,069), Italy (3,515), Spain (2,671), Ukraine (2,643), Canada (2,617), Poland (2,204), Romania (1,241),

Netherlands (967), Belgium (627), Greece (624), Czech Republic (611), Portugal (611), Hungary (578), Belarus (548), Sweden (548), Austria (487), Switzerland (455), Bulgaria (426), Serbia (412), Denmark (323), Slovakia (315), Finland (313), Norway (289), Ireland (265), Croatia (248), Macedonia (241), Bosnia & Herzegovina (222), Moldova (206), Lithuania (186), Albania (164), Latvia (128), Macedonia (119), Slovenia (119),

Estonia (78), Cyprus (46), Montenegro (36), Luxembourg (30), Malta (24), Iceland (18),

Jersey (5.7), Andorra (4.9), Isle of Man (4.8), Guernsey (3.6), Greenland (3.3), Faroe Islands (2.8), Liechtenstein (2.1). Monaco (2.1), San Marino (1.9), Gibraltar (1.7),

Saint Barthélemy (0.5), Saint Pierre et Miquelon (0.4), Falklands Islands (0.2), Vatican City (0.05).

Net Carbon Credit (millions of tonnes of CO2) of Climate Creditor countries (ascending order).

Tokelau (0.07), Niue (0.07), Saint Helena Ascension and Trista da Cunha (0.3), Montserrat (0.4), Tuvalu (0.7), Nauru (0.7), Cook Islands (0.8),

Wallis & Futuna (1.0), Anguilla (1.1), Palau (1.5), British Virgin Islands (2.0), Saint Martin (2.7), Turks and Caicos Islands (3.0), Saint Kitts and Nevis (3.7), Northern Mariana Islands (3.9), Marshall Islands (3.9), Cayman Islands (3.9), American Samoa (4.0), Bermuda (4.5), Dominica (5.1), Antigua and Barbuda (6.4), Seychelles (6.5), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (7.2), Kiribati (7.2), Aruba (7.3), Federated States of Micronesia (7.3), Tonga (7.5), United States Virgin Islands (7.6), Grenada (7.9),

Curaçao (10), Guam (11), Saint Lucia (12), São Tomé and Principe (12), Samoa (13), Mayotte (15), French Guiana (16), Vanuatu (17), New Caledonia (18), French Polynesia (20), Barbados (20), Belize (22), Maldives (23), Bahamas (25), Martinique (28), Guadeloupe (29), Brunei (30), Cape Verde (35), Suriname (38), Western Sahara (39), Macau (40), Bhutan (51), Equatorial Guinea (51), Comoros (54), Guyana (56), Réunion (58), Fiji (62), Djibouti (65), Timor-Leste (76), Swaziland (86), Bahrain (88), Mauritius (92), Trinidad and Tobago (94),

Guinea-Bissau (101), Gabon (110), Qatar (119), Gambia (127), Botswana (145), Lesotho (157), Namibia (166), Jamaica (193), Mongolia (196), Oman (198), Kuwait (201), Armenia (234), Mauritania (239), Uruguay (241), Panama (243), Liberia (249), Puerto Rico (266), Republic of the Congo (296), Occupied Palestinian Territories (298), Lebanon (304), Costa Rica (308), New Zealand (317), Georgia (319), Central African Republic (321), Turkmenistan (365), Singapore (371), Eritrea (387), Kyrgyzstan (389), Togo (411), Nicaragua (416), Sierra Leone (429), El Salvador (445), Jordan (447), Paraguay (453), Laos (454), Libya (459), Papua New Guinea (501), Hong Kong (508), Tajikistan (544), Israel (558), Honduras (587), United Arab Emirates (591), South Sudan (591), Burundi (613), Benin (651), Azerbaijan (651), Dominican Republic(670), Somalia (683), Haiti (721), Guinea (731), Bolivia (745), Tunisia (763), Rwanda (766), Cuba (804), Chad (806), Zimbabwe (912), Senegal (919), Zambia (933), Malawi (935), Cambodia (958),

Ecuador (1,035), Mali (1,038), Guatemala (1,052), Niger (1,125), Burkina Faso (1,125), Kazakhstan (1,188), Chile (1,233), Madagascar (1,349), Cameroon (1,387), Angola (1,402), Sri Lanka (1,476), Syria (1,527), Côte d’Ivoire (1,530), Mozambique (1,648), Taiwan (1,660), Yemen, (1,704), North Korea (1,719), Ghana (1,732), Nepal (1,903), Saudi Arabia (1,940), Uzbekistan (2,002), Malaysia (2,026), Venezuela (2,108), Peru (2,130), Sudan (2,209), Iraq (2,295), Afghanistan (2,313), Morocco (2,317), Uganda (2,355), Algeria (2,595), Kenya (2,760), Argentina (2,868), Tanzania (3008), Colombia (3,310), Myanmar (3,456), South Korea 3,473), South Africa (3,616), Congo, Democratic Republic (formerly Zaire) (4,844), Thailand (4,970), Turkey (5,270), Iran (5,429), Egypt (5,811), Ethiopia (5,865), Vietnam (6,137), Philippines (6,721), Mexico (8,028),

Bangladesh (10,173), Nigeria (11,617), Pakistan (12,737), Brazil (13,753), Indonesia (16,989), China (85,558), India (94,971).

Some major observations arise from this data set

1. Some will argue that it is “unfair” to the major polluters of the European countries to saddle them with the Carbon Debt of previous generations. However these same countries have no problem with continuing to run up huge national debts, with demanding debt repayment by vulnerable countries (as in the current Eurozone crisis) or with crippling Third World countries with massive debt (for a damning account read John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”). Indeed Germany finally paid its last reparations for World War 1 (1914-1918) in 2010 and 96.5% of the 1751-2008 Historical Carbon Debt considered in this analysis was generated between 1901 and 2008. It should be also noted that this analysis is actually rather unfair to India, China , the “Rest of World” and indeed much of the “Rest of Europe” because it ignores the reality that most of these countries were variously subject in this period of 1751-2006 to colonial subjugation or crippling hegemony by the major polluters, namely the UK, Germany, the USA, Russia and Japan.

2. This analysis is only concerned with available data on Carbon Debt arising from the burning of fossil fuels and ignores Carbon Debt from greenhouse gas (GHG) production from deforestation and methanogenic livestock production. Using the data that methane (CH4) is 72 times the global warming potential (GWP) of carbon dioxide (CO2) on a 20 year time frame (as compared to 25 times worse on a 100 year time frame) World Bank analysts have re-assessed annual global GHG pollution as 50% bigger than hitherto thought with methanogenic livestock production contributing over 51% of the bigger figure (see Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009). However this re-assessment in turn needs further re-assessment because Dr Drew Shindell and colleagues at NASA have shown that CH4 is actually 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time frame when aerosol impacts are taken into account (see Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions” and Shindell et al (2009), Fig.2).

3. The set of all the Carbon Debtor (Climate Debtor) countries include all the European countries and Japan. The set of all the Carbon Creditor (Climate Credit) countries includes all the non-European countries , excluding Japan, as well as the European colonies New Zealand and Israel (that could arguably be put in the “Rest of Europe” category).

4. One can convert the Carbon Debt or Carbon Credit from units of “million tonnes of CO2” simply by multiplying by whatever carbon price you desire in, say, US dollars. Thus a genuine Carbon Price of US$100 per tonne of CO2 would permit a transition from coal- and gas-burning for electric power. Using this value the Carbon Debt of the US would be 72, 244 million tonnes CO2 x $100/ tonne CO2 = $7,200, 244 million = $7.2 trillion. Likewise the Carbon Credit of China and India would be $8.6 trillion and $9.5 trillion, respectively.

5. The US is steadily increasing its current $15.3 trillion national debt and is devaluing this debt by printing money. Conversely, the US has a 72,244 million tonne CO2 ($7.2 trillion @ $100 per tonne CO2) Net Carbon Debt but is steadily increasing this debt at the rate of 6,946 million tonnes CO2-e per year (2008) i.e. the US Carbon Debt is increasing at about 10% per year. The US under Obama shows no indication of reducing its GHG pollution profligacy. Obama’s declining to approve the current Keystone XL pipeline proposal to carry oil from Canadian tar sands to Texas may only be a temporary reprieve to keep pro-environmentalists on side in a Presidential election year. According to leading US climate scientist Dr James Hansen, exploitation of the Canadian tar sands will mean “game over” for the Planet.

6. Australia is the worst annual per capita GHG polluter of the Carbon Debtor countries but shows no indication of changing its disproportionate GHG pollution. Australia’s Domestic plus exported GHG pollution was 1,077 million tonnes CO2-e in 2000 but under the Australian Labor Government’s dishonest “Carbon Tax-ETS Scheme” this is estimated to increase to 1,799 million tonnes by 2020 (a 1.7-fold increase) and to 4,490 million tonnes CO2-e by 2050 (a 4.2-fold increase). In vain top US, UK, German and Australian climate scientists and biologists demand that global GHG pollution must be rapidly reduced to zero emissions in about 2050 and that the atmospheric CO2 concentration must return to about 300 parts per million (ppm) from the current damaging 394 ppm (increasing at 2.4 ppm per year) (see “300,org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm”). Australia’s Net Carbon Debt (3,631 million tonnes CO2) is currently increasing at about 1,415 million tonnes CO2-e per year i.e. at 39% per year.

7. “Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included, 64 being the 2010 figure). The major Climate Creditor countries are vastly lower in per capita GHG pollution than Australia (see “Climate Genocide”). Thus Australia’s current annual per capita of 64 tonnes CO2-e per person per year (with Exported GHG included) is 71 times that of Bangladesh.

8. The Carbon Debtors are stealing from the poor Carbon Creditors that are increasingly threatened by the worsening climate crisis. The Carbon Debtors (Climate Debtors) should be held to account through public advocacy, boycotts, sanctions, green tariffs, International Court of Justice (ICJ) litigations and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions applied against Climate Debtor countries by Climate Creditor countries, notably the numerous Island States and major mega-delta countries such as Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Egypt, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The climate criminals and Carbon Debtors (Climate Debtors) must be brought to account before it is too late.

The climate activist group Climate Justice Now! has stated that “Communities in the global south as well as low-income communities in the industrialised north have borne the toxic burden of this fossil fuel extraction, transportation and production. Now these communities are facing the worst impacts of climate change – from food shortages to the inundation of whole island nations” and demands “Huge financial transfers from north to south, based on the repayment of climate debts and subject to democratic control. The costs of adaptation and mitigation should be paid for by redirecting military budgets, innovative taxes and debt cancellation”. The present fossil fuel-based Carbon Debt analysis provides a quantitative basis for such transfers and should be used by Island States, mega-delta countries and other threatened Climate Creditor countries to force urgently needed climate change action.

Regular readers of Climate & Capitalism know that David Attenborough, in addition to making nature films, is a patron of Optimum Population Trust, a British outfit that, using the name Population Matters, promotes birth control for poor people and immigration restrictions to keep those same people out of Britain.

Last year we reported a talk he gave to a posh gathering in London, chaired by no less a personage than Prince Phillip, in which he said only “flat earthers” disagree with his view that only population reduction can save the planet. Contraception, he said, “is the humane way, the powerful option which allows all of us to deal with the problem, if we collectively choose to do so.”

We haven’t previously mentioned that Sir David is also a patron of World Land Trust. This week he spoke on behalf of that group to yet another posh meeting in London, this one attended by “lawyers, city investors and business people.” (The meeting is reported in the UK Guardian.)

He repeated his message that Third World overbreeding is a huge threat, but this time he was less sanguine about the efficacy of “the humane way.”

In fact, he said, it just isn’t possible to stop population growth in time to save the planet. “Nothing we can do will stop that increase. We may be able to slow it, but stop it in our lifetimes we cannot.”

Since the population bomb can’t be stopped, Attenborough says we need to focus on “making sure mankind doesn’t spread willy nilly over every square yard of the globe.”

How? By buying large tracts of rainforest, and converting them into private wildlife reserves.

Two questions arise immediately. Who will pay for this land? And what happens to the people who live there?

The answer to the first question is simple. Attenborough thinks big businesses should contribute the needed cash to World Land Trust, which will buy the land and hand it over to local NGOs that promise to keep it safe.

Some might object that business doesn’t have a great record of environmental protection, but Attenborough is more than willing to slather greenwash over any corporation that makes a tax deductible donation. Businesses may have defiled the earth in the past, but they just didn’t know better. Today, he says, “Wealth empowers, and businesses have by no means been slow in helping. We’ve gone to multinationals over and over again.”

As for the second question – WLT preserves are no-go areas for those overbreeding locals. According to the WLT website, donors may be allowed to visit as ecotourists, but no one else gets in. “If there is occasional incursion into the forests this is quickly dealt with by the park wardens who are familiar with the borders.”

WLT is all in favor of REDD+, the UN-sanctioned program to privatize Third World forests and use them for carbon trading. In a recent statement, WLT president John Burton described the plan as “by far the best option on the table for raising significant funds for biodiversity conservation.”

The people who actually live in those forests, in contrast, say that REDD+ “threatens the survival of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities and could result in the biggest land grab of all time.”

Through Optimum Population Trust, Attenborough works to prevent poor people from coming to England. And through World Land Trust, he works to prevent them from living in their homelands.
And his rich donors, who do more to destroy the earth every day than his Third World victims do in their lifetimes, get tax deductions and carbon credits.

We already know that the nuclear industry is quite comfortable colluding with governments to deceive the public or spying on environmental groups so that senior executives are sent to jail or lying to regulators to cover up radioactive leaks that are contaminating groundwater.

So, it should come as very little surprise that the nuclear industry has the same ‘flexible’ view on ethics, legality and basic decency when dealing with its own people. In fact, not even the CEO of France’s nuclear giant, Areva, was safe: the Financial Times has recently revealed a catalogue of incompetence, espionage and massive financial failure (follow-up article) swirling around the French nuclear industry:

• Areva purchased a uranium mine for €1.8 billion that was valued at only €1.4 million two years earlier
• after purchase of the mine it became apparent that it contained a fraction of the uranium deposits that the Areva board believed
• a senior Areva executive was exposed as having hired a Swiss private investigation firm to spy on then Areva CEO, Anne Lauvergeon (known as ‘Atomic Anne’ in France)
• Lauvergeon alleges that her husband’s phone was hacked as part of this and is now starting legal proceedings
• the web of intrigue goes as high as the president of France, Sarkozy, who became personally involved when he forced Lauvergeon out and installed a friend of his, Henri Proglio who also happens to be CEO of EDF, one of the largest energy companies in France and the UK
• Areva have now written off almost €2 billion as a result of the failed uranium mine purchase, amid accusations of fraud – although no evidence for this has been revealed so far

This debacle is piled on top of the disastrous nuclear projects that are unravelling in Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France where Areva are trying to build their new “Nuclear Renaissance” power plants.

It all paints a picture of a desperate industry in turmoil as nuclear power continues its long-term trend of global decline, with the IEA reporting that nuclear is down 10% year-on-year as renewable energy climbs 24%. Given that the industry operates more like a crime syndicate than a legitimate business, it is a little difficult to feel any sympathy.

Along with flying atomic cars and glittering cities on the Moon, the claims of “unlimited, clean and safe energy” that is “too cheap to meter” that the nuclear lobby began promising in the 1950s have been utterly discredited. Let’s hope that the nuclear piranhas continue eating their own and finish themselves off quickly so that the planet can focus its full resources on deploying clean, safe and truly sustainable renewable energy in order to mitigate the worst of climate change.

This is the first advertisement from Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. The ad targets “secretive oil billionaires”, which is a clear response to the Koch brothers recent $6 million attack ads (http://bit.ly/xrdzBH). The advertisement is also touting the rapidly growing clean-energy economy, saying that 2.7 million jobs have been created in the clean energy industry in the US, and that the dependence on foreign oil is the lowest it's been in 16 years. The advertisement is currently running in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

"Secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama, with ads factcheckers say are “not tethered to the facts.” While independent watchdogs called this president’s record on ethics “unprecedented.” And America’s clean energy industry? 2.7 million jobs and “expanding rapidly.” For the first time in 13 years our dependence on foreign oil is below fifty percent. President Obama kept his promise to toughen ethics rules and strengthen America’s energy economy."

It’s interesting to note that Obama and the advertisement completely ignore to mention climate change. Instead of saying that fuel economy standards help reduce greenhouse gas emissions they are only described as a way to reduce our oil consumption. And the renewable energy investments are only mentioned in terms of job created. The advertisement also fails to mention that the dependence on foreign oil is largely due to a surge in oil and natural gas drilling and not because of a noteworthy decreased consumption.

#greenblog

Google+: View post on Google+

Sally Kohn has a good opinion piece on Fox News, of all places, where she lists six important reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline was a bad deal all along:

1. The Keystone XL pipeline would not reduce foreign oil dependency.
2. Contrary to popular opinion, Keystone XL would have increased domestic oil prices.
3. Proponents of the pipeline overstated the number of jobs that would be created.
4. Current Keystone pipeline leaked 12 times in last year.
5. And the environmental concerns about oil leaks are justified.
6. Mining tar sands would worsen global warming. Or in the words of NASA climate scientist James Hansen, be "game over for the planet."

Here is a little summary of the Keystone XL project so far:

1. Nebraska objects to the Keystone XL pipeline as they are concerned over potential oil spill accidents in the Ogallala Aquifer area, which supplies water to a large portion of US farm land. Climate activists around the US mobilized, and risked arrests in acts of civil disobedience, to raise the alarm about the environmental and climate risks of tar sands.

2. In response to Nebraska’s objections, TransCanada promises to find a better route for the pipeline and to revise the plans. But Republicans in the US congress decides to put an unreasonable deadline on the permit application to be able to gain political points in the upcoming general election. As a result of the deadline, TransCanada is not able to provide revised plan and the permit is incomplete.

3. Because TransCanada’s plans are incomplete the US government must reject the permit. If they were to approve the incomplete permit application they would set themselves up for easily winnable legal challenges by climate activists and pipeline opponents.

4. TransCanada will re-apply, and they will likely also win and get their pipeline permit a few months after the big presidential election. And considering Obama’s Keystone statement it probably won’t matter if there will be a Republican or a Democratic president in office by then.

#greenblog

Embedded Link

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along
Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:

Google+: View post on Google+

The Boston Globe has an interesting article about “the man who crushed the Keystone XL pipeline”. If you’ve been paying attention to energy and environmental issues lately you probably already know which person they are talking about. +Bill McKibben is a man whom many people consider to be a “superstar" of the global environmental movement – or at least one of the top environmental leaders in the US today. McKibben is the man behind the successful +350.org movement and global events such as the “Moving Planet Day of Action” last year. And more recently McKibben has played a key role in the Keystone XL pipeline protests.

“Speaking at Occupy Boston in October, standing with one hand plunged into a pants pocket, he seemed like a man still getting used to his activist rhetoric. Attacking the usual environmental villains – the Koch brothers, The US Chamber of Commerce, ExxonMobil – he appeared somewhat surprised to hear such unkind words coming out of his mouth. It’s not that he doesn’t believe in his cause – he does, passionately – or feel compelled to pursue it with all the energy he can muster. It’s just that “he has no lust for battle,” says Small. McKibben sometimes seems as if he’d rather be home with his wife and dog than out rallying the troops. “He is the Jimmy Stewart type of American hero who only stirs when provoked,” the minister says. “And he has been provoked.””

#greenblog

Embedded Link

The man who crushed the Keystone XL pipeline – The Boston Globe
Bill McKibben is a mild-mannered Vermont journalist who engineered history’s largest green protest and derailed a $7 billion oil pipeline.

Google+: View post on Google+

Here's the top 10 articles on Green Blog from 2011. The blog posts are ranked in terms of the total amount of traffic received during all of 2011.

1. The nuclear crisis in Japan

2011 started with a massive earthquake that struck Japan with devastating effects. In the aftermaths of the earthquake and tsunami, Japan officials declared a state of emergency at two nuclear power plants in the Fukushima Prefecture. The state of emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi (No 1) plant and at the Fukushima Daini (No 2) plant was issued after problems with the cooling systems. While rescue workers tried their best to find and save people in the debris left by the tsunami we saw a nuclear crisis unfold in Japan. A crisis that will be felt for decades to come. So there is no wonder that our number one post on Green Blog was about the Fukushima nuclear accident.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/03/12/nuclear-crisis-in-japan
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/03/11/nuclear-emergency-declared-in-japan-after-massive-earthquake

2. The Dangers of E-Waste

Our second most-read article had a more educational approach and instead tried to explained the term "e-waste" – something the author seems to have succeeded with quite well considering it's position here.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/02/15/the-dangers-of-e-waste

3. Greenpeace shows the Dark Side of Volkswagen

The third most-read article on Green Blog highlighted a new Greenpeace campaign against Europe’s biggest car company Volkswagen (VW). Greenpeace claimed that the car maker is “spending millions” trying to stop stricter climate laws in Europe.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/06/28/greenpeace-shows-the-dark-side-of-volkswagen

4. US media censor out BBC TV “Frozen Planet” series climate change episode

In our fourth most-read article, +Gideon Polya reported that the US will not air the “On Thin Ice” episode of David Attenborough’s “Frozen Planet” BBC TV series about wildlife in the Arctic and Antarctica. The censored out and final episode deals with the impact of man-made climate change, a matter controversial to a substantial body of anti-science, climate change denialist Americans.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/11/25/us-media-censor-out-bbc-tv-frozen-planet-series-climate-change-episode

5. The lightbulb conspiracy

The fifth most popular article discussed the Norwegian TV documentary, “The lightbulb conspiracy”. A documentary that details a process that few people outside of manufacturing industry’s are even aware exists. The so-called “planned obsolescence” scam. Ever had a digital camera suddenly stop working after several thousand shots for no obvious reason? That's planned obsolescence.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/06/13/the-lightbulb-conspiracy

6. The Nuclear Meltdown of George Monbiot

The blog post on sixth place also had a connection to the Fukushima nuclear accident. In this post David Carson discussed how George Monbiot, Britain’s leading environmental journalists, changed his stance on nuclear energy.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/04/18/the-nuclear-meltdown-of-george-monbiot

7. Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer

During 2011 +Benno Hansen did a review/summary about Gwynne Dyer's book "Climate Wars". The book discusses the threats of future conflicts and wars thought over dwindling resources and changing climates.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/01/17/climate-wars-by-gwynne-dyer

8. Nuclear energy might see increased opposition after Japan crisis

And yet again we have a blog post related to the awful nuclear accident in Japan in 2011. The Fukushima nuclear crisis sparked new life in the nuclear energy debate in many countries around the world. And the fear for possible nuclear accidents in other countries forced politicians to reconsider and review their current energy policy stance.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/03/14/nuclear-energy-might-see-increased-opposition-after-japan-crisis

9. How to Make Bodycare Products

In a popular how-to post, Leah Karpus showed how you can make your own bodycare products. "Unlike typical commercially produced cosmetics that boast a list of ingredients a mile long (if they even list their ingredients), you can be 100% sure that your homemade products are natural, non-toxic and safe."

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/01/09/how-to-make-bodycare-products

10. The environmental record of Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry

And finally, on tenth place, we have a blog post discussing the awful environmental record of +Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. All three who are, and was, leading Republican presidential hopefuls in the 2012 Republican primary.
http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/17/mitt-romney-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry/

#greenblog

Google+: View post on Google+

We distort reality when we omit the health and environmental costs associated with burning fossil fuels from their prices. When governments actually subsidize their use, they take the distortion even further. Worldwide, direct fossil fuel subsidies added up to roughly $500 billion in 2010. Of this, supports on the production side totaled some $100 billion. Supports for consumption exceeded $400 billion, with $193 billion for oil, $91 billion for natural gas, $3 billion for coal, and $122 billion spent subsidizing the use of fossil fuel-generated electricity. All together, governments are shelling out nearly $1.4 billion per day to further destabilize the earth’s climate.

The government of Iran spent the most on promoting fossil fuel consumption in 2010, doling out $81 billion in subsidies. This equaled more than 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Saudi Arabia was a distant second at $44 billion. Rounding out the top five were Russia ($39 billion), India ($22 billion), and China ($21 billion).

Kuwait’s fossil fuel subsidies were highest on a per capita basis, with $2,800 spent per person. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar followed, each spending close to $2,500 per person.

Carbon emissions could be cut in scores of countries by simply eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Some countries are already doing this. Belgium, France, and Japan have phased out all subsidies for coal, for example. As oil prices have climbed, a number of countries that held fuel prices well below world market prices have greatly reduced or eliminated their motor fuel subsidies because of the heavy fiscal cost. Among those reducing subsidies are China and Indonesia. Even Iran, which was pricing gasoline at one fifth its market price, dramatically reduced its gasoline subsidies in December 2010 as part of broader energy subsidy reforms.

In contrast to the $500 billion in fossil fuel supports in 2010, renewable energy received just $66 billion in subsidies — two thirds for electricity generation from wind, biomass, and other sources, and one third for biofuels. Not only do fossil fuel subsidies dwarf those for renewables today, but a long legacy of governments propping up oil, coal, and natural gas has resulted in a very uneven energy playing field.

A world facing economically disruptive climate change can no longer justify subsidies to expand the burning of coal and oil. The International Energy Agency projects that a phaseout of oil consumption subsidies by 2020 would cut oil use by 3.7 million barrels per day in that year. Eliminating all fossil fuel consumption subsidies by 2020 would cut global carbon emissions by nearly 5 percent while reducing government debt. Shifting subsidies to the development of climate-benign energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power will help stabilize the earth’s climate.

This data highlight is adapted from World on the Edge by Lester R. Brown. For more data and discussion, see the full book at www.earth-policy.org.

If President Obama’s thoroughly embarrassing stumbling-block posture at Durban left any doubt about the softness of his conviction on climate change, the Keystone decision has just nailed the notion.

Yes, it’s great that the pipeline is dead, and everyone from Bill McKibben and 350.org to every single demonstrator who got this done by leading the charge against the project against all odds, deserves our sincerest and most heartfelt congratulations and gratitude. It really would have been game over for the climate had the pipeline gone through.

But as we get past the celebration and refocus on the hard work ahead to ensure that the game is won in the end, it’s crucial to note what the president’s Keystone statement says about our chances for victory. And it’s not one bit encouraging.

Two things stand out. First, there’s not a single mention of the climate threat as one of the motivations behind the decision, when in fact it should have been the MAIN motivation. He blames it on the administration’s inability to meet the arbitrary Republican deadline.

What??!! Are you kidding me? You mean to say he would have gone along if Republicans had been more lenient and agreed to more time? This alone raises a huge red flag, the same he raised with his stance at Durban, where the U.S. shocked everyone with its inexplicable foot dragging and outright opposition to any significant progress.

Second, Obama once again boasts about his perplexing all-of-the-above energy policy, which includes the support of domestic oil, gas and coal in addition to renewables. Congratulate me, he seems to say, because oil and gas are up in America, alongside increases in solar and wind.

This is simply mind blowing. The planet risks an end-of-the-world scenario in a few decades with today’s runaway climate change and record increases in carbon and methane emissions. The latest science is the scariest yet, saying we’re this close to passing the dreaded 2 degree C temperature rise, and dreaded indeed it is. Avoiding that threshold already requires a herculean task, which leaves zero room for NEW fossil-fuel generation that locks in tipping-point emissions for decades more.

So why is the president of the United States, the same one who once promised with inspiring passion to halt the rise of the oceans, feeling great about today’s increase in oil and gas production? That’s the alarming part of his statement, the fact that this is something he is PROUD of, not something he apologetically laments being cornered into by politics.

No, he’s not sorry at all. Not one iota. He is concerned solely, it seems, with enhancing our security by ending the country’s reliance on foreign oil and replacing it with an all-of-the-above American menu. His often stated concern over climate change, we are then led to think, must be blurred by the 1990s assumption that we have a long time to solve this mother-of-all problems.

Mr. President, we do not have that luxury. You have to stand for the end of fossil fuels TODAY. Stopping Keystone helps, but you can’t stop there. When you signed up for the job, you told us you knew damn well that you would be the final president with any chance at preventing irreversible climate change. If you lose this year, we all know your Republican successor will lose the game in regulation, so we’re still cheering for you, because you may still be able to pull it off, even if it takes double-overtime. But not like this, Mr. President.

Not like this.

The US state department has denied a permit for the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, that once constructed would transport dirty and climate killing tar sands from Canada to the US and other world markets. One of the world’s most prominent climate scientists, James Hansen has said that if the Canadian tar sands would be exploited as projected it would be “game over for the climate”.

But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite “no” to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didn’t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline”:

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” Obama said.

TransCanada has announced that they are “disappointed” by the outcome but that they are still “fully committed” to the Keystone XL pipeline project:

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a “lack of seriousness” when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs,” a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But it’s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline “is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment” levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around “5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs” would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs “would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline”.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesn’t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

US is visibly upset. According to a news report, US Trade Representative Ronald Kirk has postponed his visit to India presumably to 'convey US displeasure on India going slow in giving market access to the American companies, in areas like retail, banking and insurance'. Another US Senator and co-chair of the Senate India Caucus Mark K Warner has also expressed his displeasure. "I am seriously concerned about delay in implementation of FDI in multi-brand retail," he told the CII Partnership Summit 2012 [US Senator upset over delay in FDI in Indian retail http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/us-senator-upset-over-delayfdiindian-retail_650019.html]

Notice the tone of displeasure that Mar R Warner conveys. He seems to be talking like a school Headmaster complaining about some students who fail to live up to the prescribed discipline.  

But you shouldn't be surprised. That is what the US treats Indian government as.

A few days later, P K Chaudhary, Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) reportedly told a group of farmer representatives that he was not seeking a plebiscite on the issue whether India should allow FDI in retail but trying to find out safeguards that needed to thrown in. In other words, the decision to allow FDI in retail has already been taken. This is quite evident from the press release that some of the farmers' organisation issued after meeting the DIPP Secretary. While they opposed the entry of Retail FDI, the DIPP Secretary gave an impression as if there was general support for the opening of the retail market. Well, didn't I say earlier: how can the DIPP (on behalf of Govt of India) dare to annoy the Headmaster?

This comes in the wake of another interesting report that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his colleague, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, would not like to read. Nor would the mainline media, which is more or less sold to the idea since a lot of business interests are involved. Coming to the media, it is interesting that the same arguments that are being floated for opening up for Retail FDI are debunked when it comes to bringing in 100 per cent FDI in print media. Let me give you just one example. FDI in retail is expected to create jobs within the country. But when it comes to FDI in print media, the Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni told Parliament on Dec 20, 2011: "With the liberalisation process, 26% FDI has been allowed in foreign news and that category of newspapers. But it has been our considered policy and there is no unanimity in the country on increasing the FD quotient. It is also an endeavour on the part of the government to encourage the newspaper industry which is indigenous, which is Indian, so that our people do not lose their source of employment."

Well, you must have observed the double-talk. FDI in retail is being allowed for the same reason that you do not want FDI in print media to be allowed. The DIPP analysis therefore is nothing but bunkum, and should be discarded. It is an utterly flawed and faulty analysis, and needs to be questioned.

Returning back to the new emerging global trend in supermarket expansion, the Financial Times in an editorial End of space race [Jan 13, 2012] -- a paper that PM Manmohan Singh treats as Bible -- says: "Twenty years ago, hypermarkets drew shoppers like monuments draw tourists. People travelled for miles to browse these vast cathedrals of consumerism, which sold everything from fresh fish to televisions at everyday low prices. In 20 years’ time, the decision by Britain’s biggest food retailer, Tesco, to halt hypermarket expansion and shift its non-food sales increasingly online may come to be seen as a turning point for the industry. Consumers no longer want everything under one vaulting roof. They want to shop locally, take less time about it and avoid the temptation of buying what they do not need".

Considering that supermarkets are now stopping expansion, and going for 'small is beautiful' approach, I don't understand the logic why should India be opening huge malls for multi-brand retail? Wal-Mart has also shifted to smaller stores, called Wal-Mart Express. Why should we be made to go through the grind, and learn our lessons 20 years later? By the time, the damage would have been done. 
But will our PM like to read the writing on the wall? Your guess is as good as mine. He awaits instructions from his Headmaster !
Here is the FT editorial: 
End of space race
Twenty years ago, hypermarkets drew shoppers like monuments draw tourists. People travelled for miles to browse these vast cathedrals of consumerism, which sold everything from fresh fish to televisions at everyday low prices. 
In 20 years’ time, the decision by Britain’s biggest food retailer, Tesco, to halt hypermarket expansion and shift its non-food sales increasingly online may come to be seen as a turning point for the industry. Consumers no longer want everything under one vaulting roof. They want to shop locally, take less time about it and avoid the temptation of buying what they do not need.

This trend is apparent well beyond the UK. In France, the birthplace of the European hypermarket, consumers are shunning the big boxes out of town in favour of discounters and convenience stores. Even in the US, the mighty Walmart is beginning to open smaller stores to tap the convenience boom. People are busier, the population is ageing and they have less to spend on big weekly shops as well as on the petrol to get them to out of town outlets. 

Tesco was bold in being the first of Britain’s big four to openly declare the end of a hyper-expansion drive that will see 26m new square feet added in the next few years. Though it has been apparent for some time that the hypermarket model of combining high margin non-food items with the weekly grocery shop was becoming less attractive, each retailer was afraid to change tack for fear of calling the trend wrong and losing market share. Tesco’s decision should help to mitigate what had become a damaging and costly race for space in a market where volumes have fallen for the first time in 30 years.

It is less obvious that Tesco’s move signals a revolution in online retailing, however. Consumers are still reluctant to buy their food on the web, as the woes of Ocado, Britain’s only true online food retailer, show. Overall, online food sales account for just 4 per cent of the industry after 15 years. 

The real revolution will be to accelerate the shift in bringing sophisticated food retailing back to the high street. This is good news for Britain’s many dying town centres. A more vibrant high street is good for community building and for the environment. Shoppers will be less inclined to take their cars to out of town centres if what they need is within easy reach. But this poses a challenge for local councils. Retailers complain that they struggle to find good sites. Property developers are reluctant to take on town-centre projects because of rules that require additional investments, such as new roads or libraries, to secure planning permission. Such constraints must be lifted. Otherwise, the high street risks becoming a monument to a missed opportunity.

We ushered in the new year with an energised start that saw a gathering of 14 veteran natural farmers up at Patanjali Yog Peeth in Haridwar to discuss the potential of agriculture with a new dimension. Agriculture that is safe, sustainable, user friendly and affordable by marginal farmers. 

I am truly delighted to share the highlights of this 4 day meet (1st - 5th Jan) with you. 
The 'One small step towards chemical free agriculture' as Devinder coins it, is his brain child.( article below).  For a long time now, it has been Devinder's mission to equip marginal farmers and release them from their debts by linking like-minded green guardians on a common platform, help provide alternative safe farming practices. Hence, revolutionize the safe food movement, a dream now slowly manifesting not just for him but for all of us. 
By educating and winning the trust of most spiritual leaders on food and trade issues, Devinder's concerns finds a voice to awaken and alert a vast devotee following. His perseverance is bound to bear fruition. His consistent proactive advice and interactions with Swami Ramdev, the yoga guru whose unceasing zeal since 2002 has been to educate the masses daily on apackage of seven simple breathing exercises whose message to all, more so to young India, is to take charge of the mind, body and soul. In fact while at the deliberations, we were invited by Swami Ramdevji to partake in his yog session amidst 40,000 devotees. Most admirable, especially when you get to witness first hand a 100 Surya Namaskaars in record time of 4 mins! Whilst each one of were dazed, overwhelmed at his energy levels, it also unraveled how unfit we all were! Swamiji does not just advocate good health through yog but to indulge in safe foods and avail the benefits of Ayurveda to make it an integral part of one's life rather than to be at the mercy of hospitals. 
To this effect, Swami Ramdevji wished to explore how safe sustainable agricultural practices could be brought into the forefront of National food security that starts at the grass roots. Hence, 14 best practitioners in this field were identified from across the country and then invited for a 4 day deliberation at Haridwar. We had the privilege of Swami Ramdevji's energised presence throughout these 4 days from 9am- 8.30pm! 
I have yet to know of any spiritual leader who takes such deep interest and quality time out to understand the best practices presented by each one of our veteran farmers. My joy knew no bounds as i had the privilege and opportunity to present and share my farm learnings with Swami Ramdevji, Devinder and our humble agriculture gurus. This was aired live on Aastha channel. The genuine interest, the probing dilemmas, the crisis faced by our farmers, the solutions were dissected and tackled in earnest by Swami Ramdevji. Most inspiring to see his intensity during our presentations, the grave questions asked, jotting relevant points in his small black note pad, then summed it all up with much ease. 
It did not just stop there. The most important issue that arose was how this would translate on the ground. Then came an action plan to execute three safe sustainable farm models in Hardiwar to start with, as seeing is believing! Prompt decisions were instantly taken by Swami Ramdevji and Acharya Balkrishanji to allocate land in Hardiwar for the 3 farm models.  Suresh Desai a founding member of an Organic Farmers' Club with over 400 members in Belgaum District of Karnataka will design a model, Subhash Sharma- whose 32 acre  farm in Yavatmal is flourishing, and has become a model for hundreds of other farmers will design the second one. And me and team Annadana the third one...on the traditional vegetable and cereal for the purpose of seed production, multiplication and conservation. Concurrently Team Annadana will also  design a seed bank, one that is replicable. 
Further, to strengthen our models, the back up ammunition of time tested knowledge and expertise arising from our team of Krishi Vigyaans or Krishi Rishi as Swami Ramdevji fondly calls us are Natbar Sarangiji who maintains 365 indigenous rice germplasm collection, Raghuvanjiji on 100's of varieties of indigenous wheat, Dr Surendar Dalal expertise has no bounds on insect and pest management, Dr Narayan Reddy on his wisdom of integrated farm practices, Rajbir Singh from All India Pingalwara Amritsar sharing his successful experience, Amarjit Singh Sharma from Faridkot who continues with vigor  in producing and marketing safe crops in the most infested toxic bowl of Punjab, Shoor vir Singh from Uttar Pradesh whose knowledge on 95 varieties of weeds and their uses is just incredible, Ahir Mayan Hamir from Kutch with his expertise on groundnuts and castor and the young new age farmer Poorvi Vyas, with her research and development background so handy to document and aid each one us willingly and cheerfully. 
Work has already commenced in the selected fields with best practices in soil fertility management being implemented. A team of reliable, enterprising points of contact co-ordinated by Vinod Kumar Birkhani, Uttarakhand Open University, school of agriculture  and Sanjay Khare, a dedicated sevak from Patanjali Peet Yog are monitoring this whilst we have come back to our respective destinations carrying forward the energy to our teams. 
There is a buzz, an excitement, a challenge to plan and showcase low cost sustainable farm models and we hope to see this through in 2012.
An overwhelming response of interest and support continues to flow when Devinder Sharma's wrote about this on his facebook. Those interested to lend support may connect him on hunger55@gmail.com
(From My right to Safe Food campaign newsletter) Jan 14, 2012

Ten years back, in April 2001, the then Prime Minister AtalBihari Vajpayee, said in his inaugural address at a national consultation on“Towards a Hunger Free India” in New Delhi: “Democracy and hunger cannot go together. Ahungry stomach questions and censures the system’s failure to meet what is abasic biological need of every human being. There can be no place for hungerand poverty in a modern world in which science and technology have createdconditions for abundance and equitable development.” And yet, all hisgovernment did was merely rename and ‘strengthen’ the public distributionsystem and to “use food stocks in an imaginative and purposeful way” tostabilise prices and boost exports.
Hunger proliferated, and malnutrition grew.
When I see Prime Minister Manmohan Singh express shock anddisgust, terming malnutrition a ‘national shame’ I am not the bit surprised.Seeing the timing of the report before the coming State Assembly elections infive States, the entire exercise seems to be aimed at the electoral prospects.Releasing a report on Hunger and Malnutrition (HUNGaMA) in New Delhi recently, he said:  "the problem of malnutrition is a matter ofnational shame. Despite impressive growth in our GDP, the level ofunder-nutrition in the country is unacceptably high." The bigger shame ofcourse is that it took the Prime Minister 7 years in office to feel concernedat the extent of ‘malnutrition’ that prevails among children below 6-years age.
A year back, the international child rights organisation Savethe Children had come up with a damming report, which probably missed the PrimeMinister’s attention. After all, we can’t blame his office for keeping thePrime Minister in the dark about the failure of the high-growth trajectory inmaking any significant reduction in poverty, hunger and malnutrition. Nor didhe find anything unusual when the Planning Commission raised the percentage of‘below poverty line’ population on the recommendation of Suresh Tendulkarcommittee report. This happen despite India’s GDP continuously remainingon a high. This is because the entire policy planning, as we know, continues torevolve around opening up for more foreign direct investment, acquiringagricultural land for the industry and providing all kinds of sops andtax-concessions to the industry in the name of ‘policy paralysis’.
The Prime Minister probably had also missed reading thereport of National Family Health Survey III 2005-06 which showed that half of all children in India wereunder-nourished.
Shocking indictment
Another damming report “A fair Chance of Life” released inSeptember 2010 did not hit the front pages of prominent newspapers simplybecause it wasn’t backed by any group of parliamentarians. Nevertheless, it wasa shocking indictment of the economic paradigm that actually perpetuates hungerand malnutrition by widening economic disparities. The report said: “Of the 26million children born every year, approximately 1.83 million died before theirfifth birthday”. Half of these children actually die within a month of beingborn.
Half of the 1.83 million children, who die before their fifthbirthday in India,actually die within a month of being born. This is a clear pointer the dismalstate of health of the mothers. After all, a newly born malnourished child owesmuch to the impoverished mother’s health, which in turn points to the inabilityand inefficiency of the public distribution system to reach food to the poorand the needy. Hunger and malnutrition are closely correlated. Feeding thepopulation is the first requisite to building up a healthy population.  Supplementary nutrition programme like theIntegrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) can only be effective if firstpeople are adequately fed.  
The Prime Minister is right when he said: “We have believedthat a mother’s education level, economic status of the family, provisions ofsanitation, status of women and breast-feeding affect children’s nutrition”.Each survey validates these linkages but where is the nationwide programme tofight malnutrition on a war footing? The ICDS programme, aided by a falteringanganwadi system, is crying for attention. For 37-years now, ICDS has failedmiserably to reach anywhere near its objective of ensuring child health andnutrition. It failure can be gauged from the fact that the ICDS programmeoperates in the 100 districts in which the HUNGaMA survey was done. Thedeteriorating health of the ICDS programme has to be first addressed before it canbe expected to take care of expecting mothers and the children.
Still more importantly isto first understand the crucial ink between growing hunger and malnutrition andthe economic policies being perpetuated. Hunger is the result of faultyeconomic policies which widens the gulf between the haves and have-nots; is theoutcome of policies that take away community control over natural resourceslike water, forests and farmlands; and is also the fallout of neoliberal policies that removes socialsecurity nets and allows corporate takeover of agriculture. The more thegovernment destroys the very foundations of agriculture forcing farmers toabandon farming and migrate into the urban cities in search of menial jobs, themore is likely to the growth in hunger and malnutrition. Instead of extendingwhat is visibly a mere lip-sympathy to the poor and malnourished, the PrimeMinister needs to recast his economic policies making it pro-people andpro-environment. 


Source: Deccan Herald, Jan 14, 2012. 
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/219133/shame-shammer.html


You may also like to read Dinesh Sharma's report in Mail Today
'National shame' on PM Manmohan Singh as kids go hungry  
http://bit.ly/yuWxOc

There are a range of green products in the market nowadays; if you think of a product, chances are, there is an eco-friendly version of it. Now the same can be said for San Francisco-based Good Vibrations, an adult store that has adopted “ecorotic” ratings, which inform consumers about how environmentally friendly an adult-themed product is.

Good Vibes uses leaves to represent how green an item is, and their products can receive up to six leaves. Each leaf represents a specific ratings factor: body safe, free of animal products, rechargeable, natural ingredients, recyclable materials, and U.S. made.

Good Vibrations spokeswoman Camilla Lombard explained that the company wanted to provide transparency for consumers, so that they know precisely what they are buying. According to Lombard, “Our top five products are consistently Ecorotic items, generating over 25 percent of overall monthly sales on average, and revealing that the market supports customer awareness around quality, materials, and ingredients for sensual products. . . . So green is good for business, at least in our case!”

Good Vibes is also a unique adult company because they have gone above and beyond the status quo by making groundbreaking research on phtalates, which were found to disrupt hormones. Consequently, Good Vibes ceased the sale of all items that contained the product in 2007, and the company notes, “Being made of materials that have been tested for safety can also warrant a product’s inclusion on our ecorotic® list. None of our toys contain phthalates, a plastic softener which have been linked to cancer and damaging sperm. As we learn information about other materials, we adapt our selection to incorporate new findings.”

Sex toys may not be the most politically friendly subject, but many people use them (even if they are hidden behind the garage door), and it’s certainly good to know that there are green adult products currently available on the market. So if you were thinking of getting that special someone a super sexy gift for the holidays, birthday, or a special occasion, Good Vibes certainly seems like a responsible and fun selection.

What are your thoughts on this edgy, risqué company? Please let us know in the comments!

Loggers in Brazil have reportedly burned a young tribe girl alive in an effort to scare the local indigenous population from its land. The girl, who the Telegraph report was around the age of eight, came from one of Amazon’s last uncontacted tribes. The gruesome murder is said to have happened in October or November last year.

Apparently the girl had wandered away from her Awá tribe village, which consists of around 60 members who all live in complete isolation with the modern world, when she was captured by illegal loggers. Luis Carlos Guajajaras, a local leader from a separate tribe, said to Brazilian news sources that the loggers had tied the girl to a tree and then burned her alive. According to Guajajaras this was meant to be a warning to other indigenous tribes who live in a protected reserve in the north-eastern state of Maranhão.

“She was from another tribe, they live deep in the jungle, and have no contact with the outside world. It would have been the first time she had ever seen white men. We heard that they laughed as they burned her to death,” Guajajaras said.

News and evidence of this story are unfortunately few and limited. But this is understandable considering where the murder took place. But a third party, the Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI) which is a Catholic group, have said that they have seen footage of the girl’s charred remains.

Survival International, an organization which works for indigenous people’s rights around the world, reports that large areas of the Awá tribe’s territories have been destroyed by illegal logging. Members from the Awá tribe have been attacked by loggers before.

“The Awá rely on their forest to survive, but vast numbers of loggers are illegally invading their land, which now suffers one of the highest deforestation rates in the Amazon. More than 30% of one of the Awá’s territories has already been destroyed. […]The Awá have recently suffered a series of brutal attacks, and loggers have warned that the Indians will be killed if they go into their forest.”

FUNAI, a Brazilian government agency that is responsible for mapping out and protecting lands traditionally inhabited by indigenous people, have said that they are seeking more information about the reported murder. But I would expect it’ll be hard to find any substantial evidence in the Amazon forest two or even three months later.

But this is not an isolated case. CIMI reports that around 450 indigenous people have been killed by loggers between 2003 and 2010, and these are numbers that are acknowledged by FIMI. For example, last year the famous Amazon rainforest activist José Cláudio Ribeiro da Silva was killed in an ambush near his home in Brazil. But it’s not just in Brazil that loggers are attacking people. In 2008, peaceful activists who were protecting an old-growth forest in Tasmania, Australia, was violently attacked by timber workers.