domo arigato kyoto

According to reports released yesterday, the world, with no help from the United States, is on track to meet targets set by the Kyoto Protocol.

Interestingly, though, it is not because countries have made an effort in reducing their emissions, but as a result of the economic downturn. The data also shows that countries that have had an economic benefit due to industrialization have increased their emissions. All in all, it has been a net positive for the world, but each country still needs to make the effort to follow what has been outlined in the protocol.

The US is the only developed nation that has not ratified the Kyoto protocol. Its emissions rose by 14% between 1990 and 2006. Japan’s emissions, meanwhile, rose to a record high in the year to March. The world’s fifth-largest carbon dioxide producer now faces the embarrassing prospect of missing its Kyoto target over the next four years.

In the upcoming summit meeting in Poland, representatives from each country are expected to renegotiate terms to the Kyoto protocol and ratify it in early 2009. We shall see what happens.

it’s a crime against nature

even years ago the United Nations declared Nov 6th as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.

I just read a great article about the topic and wanted to share an excerpt or two:

Environmental degradation and exploitation can thus be both a cause and a consequence of armed conflict. Internal disputes over scarce resources can give rise to social upheaval and tensions within a country, which may motivate combatants in a conflict to consider ”targeting” the environment.

Many States now view their environmental concerns, including resource conservation and sustainable development, in ”strategic” terms. This thinking will only increase as the world quite rightly becomes concerned with the broader state of the global environment, including the disastrous effects of climate change.

Despite all of this evidence, however, environmental damage and exploitation is still largely regarded, as rape once was, as an ”unfortunate but inevitable” consequence of war. It is, of course, true that war and armed conflict are inherently destructive of the environment, but that is no reason to allow leaders to deliberately or recklessly target the environment in order to achieve their military goals. Just as international law has made great strides forward by classifying rape during armed conflict as a war crime (or even genocide in certain circumstances), a body of standards is developing in relation to the environmental effects of proposed military actions.

There is an ongoing need to ”upgrade”’ these standards to the level of an international war crime, in the light of the destructive capability of weapons technology. It is increasingly clear that ”crimes against the environment” need to be enshrined as a part of the mechanisms of international criminal justice, in order to better protect our most cherished assets for future generations.

Printed in The Canberra Times and can be found HERE.

aw crap….

I do not like the sound of this, at all.

Click HERE.

Even the worst-case scenarios described by climate scientists are proving, in many cases, too timid.

Global warming is happening faster than anticipated.

are we there yet?

By 2050, some 200 million people will be displaced by environmental problems, including climate change, experts warned at this week’s Environment, Forced Migration, and Social Vulnerability conference in Germany. “All indicators show that we are dealing with a major emerging global problem,” said Janos Bogardi of the Institute on the Environment and Human Security. “The issue of migration represents the most profound expression of the inter-linkage between the environment and human security.” Demographers predict that most environmental migrants will differ from typical economic migrants who are usually young men able to work and send money home; instead, environmental migrants are likely to be much poorer people and whole families, including women, children, and elderly folks. Tracking the movements of environmental refugees can also be more difficult since they won’t always be forced to cross international borders. “Environmental problems may not force anyone to cross an international border, but no one can deny the terrible similarities between those running from the threat of guns and those fleeing creeping desertification, water shortages, floods, or hurricanes,” said Konrad Osterwalder of the United Nations

from GRIST

Dear Mr. President:

I have frequently written about Bill McKibben, because gosh darnit, I like him and his writing and what he stands for. He started the website www.350.org, and I want to direct you all to a fantastic campaign. Click HERE.

They are asking all of us to sign a petition to our future employee, asking him to attend the UN Climate Meetings.

In last nights debate, for the first time, both candidates spoke about what they would do about climate change if put in the office. This asks them to walk what they talk.

Please take the 10 seconds to sign it and get our voice heard!

sea you later

There is one treaty we have all agreed on… presumably not under the Bush Administration… la dee da, la dee da…. anyway.

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the world’s most widely endorsed environmental treaty. In it many countries have agreed, that by 2010, we will conserve 10% of the worlds ecological regions.

Relatively speaking, it seems we are doing well when it comes to land. Not so well when it comes to the sea. While 12.2% of the planet’s land area is under legal protection only 5.9% of the world’s territorial seas and less than 1% of the high seas are protected.

HERE is the article. This may be a good opportunity to support Heal the Bay or Oceana