High Levels Of BPA Found In Cash Register Receipts, What You Can Do To Protect Yourself

Ecologikal Notes: OMG! I'll need to wear my gloves wherever I go now!

Image Source:  red5standingby

Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC, has discovered that many cash register receipts contain levels of Bisphenol-A (BPA) hundreds of times higher than those found in hard plastic water bottles, baby bottles, and canned foods. While EWG cautions that "people ingest 100 percent of any BPA that contaminates the food and beverages they consume" and that "the amount of BPA that enters the body after a person handles a receipt is unknown but likely a fraction of the total BPA on the paper," the results are still shocking.

What Is BPA?
BPA, or Bisphenol-A, is an endocrine disruptor, or a substance that acts like the hormones of the endocrine system and disrupts their normal function. Other endocrine disruptors include DDT, PCB, and pthalates. In 2004, the manufacturers of BPA, which include DOW Chemical Company, produced over one million tons. Seventy-two percent went towards making polycarbonate plastics while less than 5% was used in food-contact applications.

Why Is There BPA In My Receipts?
BPA is a color developer in carbon-less copy paper and thermal paper. This paper is found not only in cash register receipts but also packing slips and parking tickets. By swabbing samples with wet wipes, EWG found that a large amount of BPA can transfer to your hands. From here it may get absorbed by your skin, as reported by a Swiss study, or you may transfer it to your mouth while eating.

Where Did EWG Find BPA-Laden Receipts?
EWG collected 36 receipts from retailers in seven states and the District of Columbia. Retailers with notably high levels of BPA in their receipts included KFC (0-48.6 µg/cm²), The United States Postal Service (16.4-19.1 µg/cm²), and (surprisingly?) Whole Foods (0-25.7 µg/cm²). Locations with low or no BPA in their receipts included Target and Bank of America. Perhaps most interesting was the finding that the receipts at the U.S. House of Representatives Cafeteria were virtually soaked in BPA (32.8 µg/cm²), while receipts at the U.S. Senate Cafeteria had none. Sounds like a conspiracy theory in the making, or at least a call to action for Representatives to take dangerous chemicals seriously.

Graphic Courtesy of EWG

How Can You Protect Yourself From BPA?
Biomonitoring studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that retail workers are exposed to more BPA than other adults. Blood concentrations of retail workers were measured at 3.2 µg/l while non-retail employees averaged 2.4 µg/l. To avoid potential ingestion or skin absorption, EWG makes the following recommendations:

• Minimize receipt collection by declining receipts at gas pumps, ATMs and other machines when possible.
• Store receipts separately in an envelope in a wallet or purse.
• Never give a child a receipt to hold or play with.
• After handling a receipt, wash hands before preparing and eating food (a universally recommended practice even for those who have not handled receipts).
• Do not use alcohol-based hand cleaners after handling receipts. A recent study showed that these products can increase the skin's BPA absorption (Biedermann 2010).
• Take advantage of store services that email or archive paperless purchase records.
• Do not recycle receipts and other thermal paper. BPA residues from receipts will contaminate recycled paper.
• If you are unsure, check whether paper is thermally treated by rubbing it with a coin. Thermal paper discolors with the friction; conventional paper does not.

Read the entire report on the EWG website.

Pablo Päster is a weekly columnist for TreeHugger.com, an experienced greenhouse gas engineer and the Senior Environmental Program Manager at Hara Software. Send your questions to Pablo(at)TreeHugger.com or submit the via this form and connect to his RSS feed.

Article Source

3 more Redang dive sites shut

KUALA TERENGGANU: Three more diving spots on Pulau Redang have been closed due to coral bleaching.

Redang Terengganu Operators’ Association president Lee Yat Loong said divers had been advised to stay clear of Pulau Ekor Tebu, Pulau Che Isa and Pulau Tanjung Lebah until early next year.

He said the closure was the initiative of the association although all three spots were not on the Marine Park Department’s list of closed dive sites.

“Only Teluk Bakau was on the list but our checks revealed that the other three areas were also affected by coral bleaching and we recommended them to be closed as well.

“We have always been self-regulatory and through a collaboration with Reef Check Malaysia Berhad, we had highlighted the problems with the coral reefs in our area long before the announcement by the Marine Park Department,” he said.

The bleaching was caused by the rise in water temperature and not much could be done about it except for implementing a monitoring system on the condition of the coral reefs.

“It is us against Mother Nature and it looks like we are winning as the average water temperature is currently holding at between 29ºC and 30ºC compared with the 30-31ºC earlier in the year. “We are confident of another one-degree drop in the water temperature soon and chances are the coral reefs will be back to normal in the next few months,” said Lee, adding that the dive site closures would reduce the stress on the reefs. He said human impact on the reefs should be minimum. The closure was necessary for the authorities to conduct their studies, in addition to allowing the reefs to rest.

“But diving enthusiasts and prospective visitors to the island have nothing to worry as we have more than 20 other known diving spots in and around the island.

“Recent news coverage on the closure of dive spots has led people to assume the whole marine park was closed but that is just not true as it is still business as usual with plenty of diving and snorkelling here on
the island,” Lee said.

On July 21, the Marine Park Department had announced the temporary closure of nine diving and snorkelling areas in Pahang, Terengganu and Kedah, in addition to three islands in Pahang, due to coral bleaching.

The affected areas in Kedah are Pulau Payar, Teluk Wangi, Pantai Damai and Coral Garden while the areas in Pahang include Pulau Rengis, Pulau Tumok, Pulau Soyak, Pulau Chebeh and Batu Matang. In Terengganu, Teluk Dalam, Tanjung Tukas Darat and Tanjung Tukas Laut in Pulau Perhentian, Teluk Air Tawar in Pulau Tenggol, and Teluk Bakau in Pulau Redang will remain closed until the end of October.

Article Source

10 Consequences of the Oil Spill (Infographic)

Via: Travel Insurance

Gore cheated wife with Laurie David?

Mighty Web: Gulf Oil Spill Special

Haven't done one of these for quite a while, so in keeping with this weeks theme, here are links to some of the best BP/Gulf Oil Spill articles from the Mighty World Wide Web of sites:

The Onion: Massive Flow Of Bullshit Continues To Gush From BP Headquarters
'Though no one knows exactly how much of the dangerous bullshit is currently gushing from BP headquarters, estimates put the number at somewhere between 25,000 and 70,000 words a day.'

Telegraph: BP buys top Google Search for 'oil spill'  
'BP has bought the top Google and Yahoo! search result for terms like "oil spill" in a bid to recover its public image following the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.'

www.stuff.co.nz: Photographer dives into Gulf - sees only oil
'I think to myself: No fish, no bird, no turtle would ever be able to clean this off itself. If any animal were to end up in this same puddle, there is almost no way it could escape.'

BPGlobalPR on Twitter 
Piss take tweeter, whose t-shirt sales have made $10,000 for conservation charity Gulf Restoration Network.

Pretty handy animated news sequence explaining what happened to the rig, where the leaks are and what can be done to stop it. Yes, overly simple, but a good way to show any kids curious what's going on :

Article Source

Going Green, For Real (Yeah...rite.....)

By Sakina Mohamed and Soraya Jamal

(Ecologikal Notes: YTL is one of the biggest carbon emitter in Malaysia, with its cement production, coal fire power plants & property developments, Ruth, it's quite a task to green your dad's money machine, but all the best!)

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 26 (Bernama) -- Of late, going green seems to be more of a fad than a crucial effort in finding solutions for environmental issues.

The corporate world embarks on what they call "green initiatives" but one sometime wonders if this effort is more than just a tax-exemption exercise.

Enter Ruth Yeoh, the eldest daughter of the managing director of YTL Group Tan Sri Francis Yeoh.

For those unaware, the group is one of Malaysia's biggest infrastructure conglomerates with businesses across the globe. Ruth is the Director of Investments and the one who leads the environmental division at YTL.

Ruth looks at environmental issues with an open mind and objectively. Her attitude is quite typical of someone in a senior position at a world-renowned conglomerate. She dismisses labels like "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) and says environmental issues like climate change is something that needs to be taken seriously, on both the corporate and personal level.

"My corporate mission here is to help the company go clean and green. My job is to 'clean up' all of our businesses.

"This is beyond CSR. It's corporate governance as well, because we not only give out annual report to stakeholders but it is online so people can review the reports at anytime and write to me if they have any concern or questions," Ruth said in an exclusive with Bernama.

PERSONAL MISSION

Having a background in architecture with a focus on organic and sustainable design has undeniably helped Ruth in adopting measures for sustainability of the planet through the work she does.

"I like what I do so much and I also make it my personal mission. I am a believer that every individual counts. You can be your very own agent of change," said Ruth, who is also a Director at YTL-SV Carbon, YTL's in-house carbon credit and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) consultancy.

Elaborating the power of individual will, Ruth related her experience going into the remote villages of Yunan in China to help with conservation and sustainability efforts.

"China is balancing conservation and development. I can say this personally because I have visited remote villages in Yunan, where they don't even have electricity and basic necessities.

"So the dilemma in talking to them about climate change is a context that doesn't muddle them," she said.

She helped them with a pilot green project, where in her individual capacity she donated USD2,000 to help them build houses that lasts without sacrificing many trees.

"Did you know Tibetan villages cut down a lot of trees just to build a single home that is dark, not insulated and has to be rebuilt again after two years because of the contraction and expansion of the wood?

"That is not sustainable, so we try to use more environmentally-friendly material, bring that to them on a template with plans and scale drawings and suggest to them to build it that way."

She said the plan was to cut down deforestation rate by 20 per cent, something achievable if the right message gets across.

Through the environmental division at YTL, she reports on the organisation's environmental activities through writing Sustainability Reports, published yearly. She also pioneered YTL's annual effort called "Climate Change Week" which she regards as "a gift to the public".

"For the Climate Change Week, we have free screenings of eco-documentaries and movies, we hold talks, seminars, meetings and conferences. We also have youth workshops so the younger generation can participate and have their voices heard," she said.

She explained that her division also organises Earth Hour activities and the response have been so good that participants wanted the event to be held again.

"When you demand for a campaign of this sort, I'm sure that a lot of positive developments will follow," she said.

GLOBAL ISSUE, BUT INDIVIDUAL EFFORT COUNTS

When asked why world leaders had difficulty reaching a consensus at the Copenhagen Climate Summit late last year, she opined:

"The problem with climate change is that it is a global problem that requires global action, that it takes time to come up with an overall precise solution.

"Not only do we have to worry about developed countries but the developing countries too," she said.

Yeoh said the last thing that countries like China, that is growing at an exponential rate, needs is a climate change policy than could hamper its development goals.

"That is the dilemma at the moment. But having said that, I'm actually quite positive because US President Barack Obama, the Chinese president and our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak attended the summit, and that demonstrates participation on policy-making level," she said.

However, she pointed out that addressing climate change is not solely the responsibility of governments and corporate entities and one should never forget that the individual effort to counts.

"But it has to be collective individual will. We've got to be in this together."

OTHER CONSERVATION EFFORTS

Although it seems that Ruth is neck deep in environmental work, she somehow still finds time to do more.

In 2007, she co-edited the book "Cut Carbon, Grow Profits: Business Strategies for Managing Climate Change and Sustainability" with Kenny Tang who is the head of the Environmental Advisory board for the IPWG, a renewable energy and waste-to-energy group.

The book illustrates what every corporation needs to know in order to manage the carbon and sustainability challenges facing society, cities, individuals and businesses today.

She is also a board member at Reef Check Malaysia, dedicated to protecting reefs and coral life in Malaysia and the Southeast Asian region.

Founded in 1996, Reef Check is the world's largest international coral reef monitoring organisation.

The non-profit organisation recruits volunteer marine scientists and divers to survey the reefs and collect data to help assess reef health. Reef Check is now active in over 82 countries and territories.

Last month, Ruth added another feather to her cap when she was selected as one of Asia Society's Asia 21 Fellow.

A total of 21 next generation leaders from 16 countries in the Asia Pacific region has been granted the fellowship, which is a preeminent leadership development programme in the Asia-Pacific region for emerging leaders under the age of 40.

Representing a broad range of sectors, the Fellows will come together three times during their Fellowship year in different cities in the Asia-Pacific region to address topics relating to environmental degradation, economic development, poverty eradication, universal education, conflict resolution, HIV/AIDS and public health crises, human rights, and other issues.

Her active participation in environmental conservation efforts demonstrates her tenacity in walking the talk, as an individual and a corporate citizen.

One wonders what keeps her green drive going, but Ruth sums it up succinctly:

"I'm only doing my part to protect our earth and the environment. You can do the same. It's the least we can do for ourselves, and the future generations."

-- BERNAMA

Palm oil: environmental curse or a blessing?

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (AFP) – It is blamed for everything from deforestation to threatening the extinction of the orangutan, but palm oil is a vital source of income for many developing countries, the crop's producers say.

In Indonesia, the world's largest palm oil producer, where the plant provides work for three million people, the government is keen to promote the benefits of the crop.

Gatot Irianto, research director at Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture, pleaded with producers, scientists and NGOs meeting on the holiday island of Bali last week to reconsider the plant's reputation.

"Stop demonising palm oil," he urged. Irianto says palm oil should be considered a "gift from nature" that provides a significant economic boon for the country, where it is "helping to eradicate poverty".

But in many parts of the Western world, and in Europe in particular, palm oil is a byword for ecological disaster; a crop that requires the slashing and burning of vast areas of forest and is a major contributor to global warming.

Nazir Foead, head of WWF Indonesia, said the crop's reputation is deserved because of the way the industry has behaved in recent years.

He says millions of hectares (acres) of tropical rainforest have been razed in Indonesia and neighbouring Malaysia to make way for the palm plantations that make up 80 percent of the world's total.

"But things are changing," he accepts. "Some players have understood that their activity could be linked to deforestation."

Financial pressure has forced at least one big producer to review its business practices after a key partner walked away.

Smart, a leading Indonesian palm-based company, involved in marketing and exporting products such as cooking oil, was dropped by Anglo-Dutch giant Unilever after a Greenpeace report accused it of tropical deforestation.

Daud Dharsono, the company's president, disputes the accuracy of the Greenpeace report, but said the firm had since reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable production to limit the environmental impact of its plantations.

"There will be no conversion on land with high carbon stock as well as land with high biodiversity value, no development on peat soil and primary forests."

For its part, Greenpeace said it was pleased with the commitments, but was now waiting to see action on the ground.

The pressure also comes from big European retailers like Marks and Spencer, which recently launched an anti-palm oil campaign, saying it would use alternatives such as rapeseed oil wherever possible.

The retailer is one of the 400 members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, formed in 2004 to promote sustainable palm oil production.

One of the group's founders, WWF, says dedicated plantations have so far produced over 1.4 million tonnes of certified sustainable palm oil.

Most experts agree that demand for palm products such as cooking oil, margarine, soaps, cosmetics and resins, will continue to increase and better management is the only way to reduce its environmental impact.

"Rapid growth in global demand, notably from China and India, is likely to drive land use change. We cannot change that," said Moray McLeish of the World Resources Institute.

"The solution is an increased utilisation of degraded land," which usually results from deforestation or overgrazing, he said.

Jean-Charles Jacquemard, an engineer at CIRAD, the French Centre for Agricultural Research said palm oil was too profitable for producers in Asia and Africa to abandon, regardless of pressure from the West.

"It is a plant which has many benefits for them. It produces a large amount of oil per hectare, three to six times more than rapeseed or sunflower," he said.

"Its cultivation uses relatively little fertilizer -- around eight kilogrammes (18 pounds) per tree per year."

In Indonesia, 40 percent of production comes from small producers who, by farming between 10 and 20 hectares, "are able to live decently and send their children to university", he said.

Article Source

Polystyrene use no threat to climate - MNS replies

Here is my response, which I will send out in the morning. I trust it is okay with the Selangor Branch that I sign off as a Branch Comm member?

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
POLYSTYRENE PRODUCTS STILL HARMFUL, WASTEFUL AND POLLUTING

I refer to the letter “Polystyrene Use No Threat To Climate” (http://www. nst.com.my/ Current_News/ NST /articles/ 19psfo/Article/ index_html, 18 Feb 2010) and wish to point out the sophistry of the arguments put forward in the said letter.

The only reason polystyrene food packaging was widely used during the Thaipusam celebration is not because it is a well-loved and health-giving form of packaging, but because consumers were not offered any alternatives. There were no regulations or incentives in place to discourage the use of plastic and polystyrene products at the said event. 20 years ago, banana leaves and metal ‘thali’ plates would have been the order of the day, but polystyrene packaging has since become the cheapest, though by no means the best, option.

It is also a myth that polystyrene products are environmentally safe simply because they are declared ‘recyclable’. Putting a container with a mobius loop embossed on it in a recycling bin is no guarantee that it will be recycled. Not only are there no facilities in Malaysia that will collect or accept polystyrene for recycling, it is common knowledge that polystyrene is not recycled once contaminated with food.

It is unfortunate that recycling is often promoted as an end in itself without regard as to whether it is worth the time, expense, energy and resources. A product that is ‘recyclable’ does not necessarily have post-consumer recycled content, nor does it mean it will be recycled upon disposal.

In many instances, recycling would not even make environmental or economic sense. Products such as polystyrene and plastic bags have notoriously low scrap value and it would cost more to recycle the said products than to manufacture new ones. In many cases, recycling such products would require more energy and generate more pollution. Clearly, reducing the use of disposable products is still the most important and effective way of preventing and managing waste in the first place.

The argument that styrofoam is harmless because it is ‘90% air’ is misleading and untruthful. Industrial and vehicle emissions can be categorized as ‘air’ too but remains harmful to health and environmental safety. When styrofoam is fatally ingested by wildlife and marine animals, can we continue to argue that no harm is done to the animal because all they have consumed is ‘mostly air’?

It is precisely because of its lightness that polystyrene foam products end up becoming litter. Carried by wind and water, even the most scrupulously disposed of polystyrene foam product may end up in oceans, waterways and the digestive tracts of animals.

The writer’s argument that polystyrene products are safe is corroborated almost entirely by reports from the plastics and styrene products industry, which of course raises questions as to the neutrality and impartiality of the said reports. The US Environmental Protection Agency, on the other hand, has found short and long-term health effects related to styrene exposure.

Polystyrene products today contain no chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) not due to any magnanimous initiative on the part of the plastics industry, but because of a worldwide ban on the ozone-depleting substance. However, polystyrene and plastics are still made from petroleum, a non-renewable, fast-disappearing and heavily polluting resource. Also, benzene, a material used in the production of polystyrene, is a known human carcinogen.

If, as the writer argued, the problem of pollution and littering lies not with the product but with cultural attitudes, then by banning or restricting the sale and use of polystyrene products, we can greatly reduce the opportunity for the creation of litter. When there are effective deterrents against the use of disposable packaging, then consumers would be more likely to switch to non-disposable tableware and food and beverage containers, or at the very least, to biodegradable packaging.

It is for good reason that institutions, cities and countries around the world have banned or severely curtailed the use of polystyrene products. We can take a step in the right direction by instituting public education measures and implementing and enforcing laws to reduce waste at its source and curb the sale and use of disposable packaging.


WONG EE LYNN
Committee Member
Malaysian Nature Society
Selangor Branch

Polystyrene use no threat to climate

LIM KOK BOON, Chairman Malaysian Plastics Forum

(Ecologikal Notes: bonehead.... Let's serve this Mr Lim with Hot Soup everyday in polystyrene bowl)


WE wish to correct some misinformation about polystyrene foam products. Polystyrene products are 100 per cent recyclable and the claims that they pose a human health risk are factually and scientifically unsubstantiated.





The fact that every year, stalls at the Thaipusam festival continue using poly-styrene containers (be it cups or plates) clearly shows that there are reasons why people choose this product in the first place.

Polystyrene products are inexpensive and light-weight with high insulation qualities and more environmentally-friendly than most people realise.

The safety of polystyrene is fully supported by substantiated reports from organisations such as the United States Styrene Information and Research Centre, the Japan Hygienic Olefin and Styrene Plastics Association and the European Food Safety Authority.

The view of the Health Ministry is that polystyrene is safe. Moreover, the safety of polystyrene foam box has been certified under the Malaysian Food Act 1983 (Act 281) and Regulations by Sirim Qas International Sdn Bhd.

The claim that polystyrene contains hazardous materials that harm the environment is not the current view, as polystyrene foam products are not manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or any other ozone-depleting chemicals.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, only two to three per cent of CFCs used in the United States in the 1980s went towards production of polystyrene packaging products.

It is, therefore, an irony that many so-called environmentalists are harping on the issue of leaching of styrene when in fact, polystyrene foam products are about 90 per cent air and only 10 per cent polystyrene.

We reiterate that bans are overly simplistic and do not get to the real cause of the problem. In determining which materials to use as alternatives for food packaging use, it is important to objectively weigh the integrated pros and cons of costs (i.e. adverse inflationary effects) and the Life Cycle Assessment impact on the environment.

A study by research firm Franklin Associates released a new analysis in March 2006 which showed that poly-styrene foam products were environmentally superior in terms of air and water pollution, energy consumption, emissions of greenhouse gases and solid waste (by volume and weight).

Once again, we wish to stress that the problem lies not with the individual product but with a cultural litter problem that is not being effectively addressed.

Consumers can be assured that the use of polystyrene in food packaging is both environmentally sound and medically safe.

Article Source

After Copenhagen, the Way Forward By Martin Khor

The global negotiating framework for climate change is in a state of flux because of the confusing manner in which the Copenghagen Conference ended last December.· The way forward is to quickly resume the negotiations in the multilateral arena of the UNFCCC and its two working groups. 

-----------------------------------------------  
The UNFCCC Copenhagen Conference in December 2009 ended in some disarray and confusion because of a clash between two processes taking place. 

On one hand there was the open, transparent and multilateral process of the  UNFCCC and its two working groups on long-term cooperative action (LCA) and  further action in the Kyoto Protocol (KP).  They worked for the past two  years to follow up on the mandate of the Bali Conference of December 2007,  continued their work (including through late nights) for two weeks in  Copenhagen and produced two reports with draft texts for further negotiations  that were adopted by the Copenhagen Conference.

This was the real work formally taking place and built the foundation for  another year of work after Copenhagen.  The reports give a fair view of  the state of play of the extremely complex negotiations.  Everyone knew  that Copenhagen could not produce a final detailed outcome, and the two  reports should have been (and still could be) the stepping stone to the 2010  process.
 
On the other hand there was the two-day meeting, on the sideline, and held  in secrecy, of 26 or 29 (no public information is available) political leaders  convened by the Danish Presidency of the Conference without the knowledge of  the other member states or the other almost hundred political leaders who were  present but not invited.
 
According to various reports, it was a messy and often stormy meeting, and  headed for total failure until a last-minute understanding was reached by the  leaders of the US and four developing countries (China, India, Brazil, South  Africa).   This process produced a Copenhagen Accord which was  presented to the plenary which “took note” of it but did not adopt or endorse  it.

The inclusive and well-ordered multilateral process and the exclusive and  messy “group of 29” process (each going on without reference to each other)  eventually had to meet.  It did, in the final plenary, and the results  were tumultuous.  The consequences are messy and confusing.
 
Two months after, the reverberations of this confusing clash in Copenhagen  are still being felt.  Climate change is too serious an issue to get lost  in the confusion.  Thus, the process for 2010 should get sorted out so  that the negotiations can resume.

But on what basis?  The existence of the Accord and how this may or  may not fit into the multilateral process is being hotly debated. Some Western  countries even proposed that the UN process be sidelined and a new process  involving only the 29 leaders be created to make decisions more  quickly.   Or else to get an exclusive body like the G20 or the  Major Economies Forum to take over the climate negotiations.
 
A press report (Guardian 14 January) said the US had doubts about yielding  primary control of climate negotiations to the UN and quoted its top climate  negotiator Todd Stern as wanting to design a regime different from the present  one where it is “frustrating” to “debate whether a particular idea is  consistent  or not consistent with such-and-such an article of a previous  agreement.”  He proposed setting up a “structure and a regime” that can  solve this problem.

This sounds like the US does not want to negotiate within the UNFCCC with  due respect for the legal tenets and provisions of this treaty, and would like  to set up a new legal regime with different principles and provisions.

In this scenario, the basis for the negotiations would be the Copenhagen  Accord, which would thus overthrow the two UNFCCC working group reports.   The UNFCCC process itself would be slowed down or stopped.  The  Convention and its Kyoto Protocol themselves seem to be under threat.
 
The Danish Prime Minister and the UN Secretary-General seemed to opt for  expanding the legally and substantially thin Accord into a full blown  regime.  In a 30 December joint letter to the 28 or 29 leaders who  attended the exclusive Copenhagen meeting, they stated:  “The Copenhagen  Accord represents the essential first step in a process leading to a robust  international climate change treaty….We must now work very quickly and  diligently to get all the other Parties to sign onto the Accord.”

According to media reports from Delhi, the Indian Prime Minister took  exception to this letter and replied that it was India’s understanding that  the Accord was not a legal document and was not intended to lead to a  treaty.

When the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC sent out a notice to member  states requesting them to write to him about their intentions whether to  associate with the Accord, there were replies from some developing countries  questioning his role in the Accord and his use of the phrase “In the light of  the legal character of the Accord.”
 
On 25 January, Mr. Yvo de Boer clarified on the UNFCCC website that the  Accord does not have any legal standing within the UNFCCC process.  He  stated:  “Since the Conference of Parties neither adopted nor endorsed  the Accord, but merely took note of it, its provisions do not have any legal  standing within the UNFCCC process even if some Parties decide to associate  with the Accord.”

Meanwhile, many developing countries indicated that for them the UNFCCC  remains the only legitimate venue for the climate negotiations and called for  the two working groups to resume their work, with an initial meeting to be  held as soon as possible.


The Ministers of BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) at  their Delhi meeting on 24 January underscored the centrality of the UNFCCC  process and the decision of the Parties to carry forward the negotiations on  the two tracks of the LCA and KP working groups.

They wanted all negotiations to be “conducted in an inclusive and  transparent manner”, an indication for their preference for the multilateral  UNFCCC process instead of an exclusive 29-country process or the G20 or MEF.
 
And they called for meetings of the two working groups to be convened in  March 2010 and ensure they meet at least 5 times before the Mexico Conference  in December.  They said these meetings are essential and funding,  logistics and other procedural issues should not be a constraint to convene  these meetings.

It is also significant that when China and India sent in letters to the  UNFCCC secretariat providing information on their mitigation actions, they  referred to several Convention provisions under which they were giving the  information, and did not refer to the Accord at all.
 
The Association of Small Island States in a Press Statement on 3 February  also reiterated its commitment to the UNFCCC as the primary forum for  negotiations, and called for the two working groups to resume their work “as a  matter of urgency”  as well as negotiations to be conducted in a  transparent and inclusive manner.

It is clear that the developing countries (including those whose leaders  took part in the small-group meeting) do not want to abandon the UNFCCC  process nor the Kyoto Protocol, in favour of a new process centered on the  Accord.   On the contrary, they  want the UNFCCC and its  working groups to be the basis for this year’s climate talks which should  start as soon as possible.

UNFCCC and the Way Forward

This is the right approach for the Way Forward.  It would be a mistake  to abandon or sideline the UNFCCC multilateral process because the needed  climate action requires all countries to take part.

The LCA group has already made significant progress in clarifying the  issues, placing them into structures, delineating the areas of agreement and  providing options in text form in areas where there are disagreements.   The foundation has been laid for progress this year and hopefully a  conclusion.
 
It is not true that there has been no or little progress in the UNFCCC and  that it would be impossible to reach an outcome in this venue.  Those who  argue for a more exclusive venue want to have an advantage in another format  in which they have a better chance to get their views accepted, instead of  having to go through the democratic multilateral route that has been so well  charted out already.
 
The experience in WTO also shows that having an exclusive ‘Green Room’  process that is de-linked from the whole membership does not work and in the  end wastes rather that saves time.

The Way Forward thus requires a quick resumption of the UNFCCC process,  with the two working groups meeting again as soon as possible, and planning  for a series of meetings leading to COP16 in December. Proponents of the Accord can make use of its points to input into the  UNFCCC process.

The reports of the two working groups adopted in Copenhagen  can be  used as reference documents for the resumed negotiations. Parties can be  allowed to still advocate their submitted proposals.

The areas already agreed to can be consolidated and the options in areas  where there is not yet consensus can be seriously negotiated.

For developing countries, the key issues of finance and technology as well  as adaptation can be expected to remain key priorities.  The  institutional aspects (a Fund under the authority of the COP, a technology  policy and implementation mechanism under the COP) should be agreed on  quickly, and the substantive issues as identified in the LCA Chair’s Report  should be further negotiated (such as the quantum, sources, channels and uses  of funding; and the assessment, financing, access to affordable technology,  the approach to  innovation and IPR issues).

On mitigation, the Kyoto Protocol track should be pursued for ambitious  targets for Annex I parties of the KP.  The aggregate target should be in  line with what science requires.  The individual national targets should  be comparable, so as to have fair effort sharing.

For the US, which is not a KP member, the solution envisaged in Bali should  be pursued, i.e. a Decision of the COP that contains the country’s agreed  reduction figure that is comparable with the commitments of the other  developed countries.

The mitigation negotiations will also address developing countries’  mitigation actions and the MRV (measurement, reporting and verification)  treatment of actions that are supported by finance and technology (which  themselves require a MRV system).  Land and forest issues would also be  treated specially in their present tracks.
 
On adaptation, there are issues of structure, financing and priorities that  have also been identified, that can be further negotiated.
 
On shared vision, major questions include the integrated nature of all the  issues, the long-term global mitigation goal and the equitable framework  within which these goals are to be reached.
 
The main lesson of Copenhagen is that hiving off some countries into a  separate track with a separate document is not the right way to conduct global  climate negotiations.  The way forward is to return to the multilateral  forum, where the complex issues have to be sorted out into a final conclusion.
   
Martin Khor is the Executive Director of the South  Centre.

The article above was published in the South Bulletin Issue No. 43 dated 8  Feb. 2010.

You can also access at: http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1233&Itemid=289 index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1233&Itemid=287>   

Cheaponomics

A top ten list of things that aren't as cheap as you think.

#10 Bottled Water - Bottled water sounds like it should be cheaper - it's 200 to 10,000 times more expensive than tap water. But in the US, the annual energy wasted on bottled water adds the equivalent to 100,000 cars on roads and 1 billion pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. And the price we pay for water doesn’t begin to address the longer term issues of global shortage for something that everyone needs to survive. Make a start: stop your local government from wasting your money on bottled water, as we did in San Francisco

#9 Cellphones - We've all got them. The trouble is that one of the minerals inside our high tech toys - coltan - is bought very dear indeed. With around three quarters of the world's reserves of coltan in the Democratic Republic of Congo, our demand for gadgets fuels bloody conflict and vast human suffering. The No Blood on My Cellphone campaign shows how we can stop it.

#8 Double cheeseburger – A value meal is a great way to eat if you've neither time nor money but this cheap food turns out to be 'cheat food'. What if we had to pay the full environmental, labour and health costs of a burger? Some researchers think we'd end up paying over $200, and that doesn't include the modern day slavery in our North American sandwiches.

#7 Fish fingers - The world's oceans are being emptied. When I was a kid, our fish fingers were made of cod. Now the species is commercially extinct, and we're within a generation of killing everything in the seas. Yet the price of fish is still just a few dollars a kilo.

#6 A Free Lunch - Rudyard Kipling came across the free lunch in the nineteenth century in San Francisco, where he "paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt." But the freebie ends up being a way to reel you in to consume more. And, yes, my own book is being sold this way too, with a free chapter and video . There’s no moral high-ground for me – I’m a moral low-ground sort of person. But that doesn’t stop me from encouraging folk to get the book from a library.

#5 Googling - Would it shock you to know that two Google searches produces the equivalent greenhouse gases of making a cup of tea. The London Telegraph reported this last year , and while Google denies it, it's certainly true that global information technology is responsible for 2% of all greenhouse gases.

#4 Toxic waste - Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, was once a senior economist at the World Bank. When he was there, he wrote in a confidential but since widely cited memo that "Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]?" He argued that poor people valued a clean environment less than the rich, and so pollution should flow to them. And it has, with rich countries dumping their pollution on poor ones, undervaluing their lives and the damage it causes.

#3 Low income jobs. Part of the reason that food and energy are cheap is so that working peoples' wage demands are kept in check. In Canada, average real wages have increased by just 1% in two decades - and in the US similar long term trends for working class people (and severe declines in the value of minimum wages.) But around the world, minimum wages fall far below what families need to survive.

#2 Gas - The way we live to day depends on our not paying the full costs of fossil fuel - with thousands already dying and many billions being lost right now. While figures of $65 trillion a year for the real cost of fossil fuel are almost certainly wrong, with 300 million people affected, it's already a disaster. We need to bring our governments to heel if we’re to leave a world worth living in to our children.

#1 Women's work - The world wouldn't turn without the work of raising children, and caring for family and community. But it's the work that is most often and quite literally taken for granted. If the work that women did were to be paid, how much would it cost? Researchers put it at $11 trillion in 1995, or half the world's total output. Movements demanding a basic income grant are laying the foundations for this new way of working and living. Valuing women's work would, more than any other single thing, transform the way we think about our economy and society.

Update
Here are some other links from groups involved in coltan, toxic waste, and food. Feel free to suggest others in comments.

Article Source

President Nasheed: "Our country will not exist."

Google climate change tools for COP15

9/22/2009 08:01:00 AM

In December of this year, representatives from nations around the globe will gather in Copenhagen to discuss a global agreement on climate change. The objective is to reduce global warming emissions sufficiently in order to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change and to support the global community in adapting to the unavoidable changes ahead. Denmark will act as host for this fifteenth Conference of the Parties under the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention, known as COP15.

In collaboration with the Danish government and others, we are launching a series of Google Earth layers and tours to allow you to explore the potential impacts of climate change on our planet and the solutions for managing it. Working with data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we show on Google Earth the range of expected temperature and precipitation changes under different global emissions scenarios that could occur throughout the century. Today we are unveiling our first climate tour on Google Earth: "Confronting Climate Change," with narration by Al Gore. Stay tuned for more tours in the coming weeks!

Together with the Danish government, we're also launching our YouTube COP15 channel. On the channel, you can submit your thoughts and questions on climate change to decision-makers and the world through an initiative called "Raise Your Voice." These videos will be broadcast on screens around the conference in December and rated by viewers of the channel. The top-rated contributions will be aired globally during the COP15 CNN/YouTube debate on December 15th, and the top two submissions will win a trip to Copenhagen. We look forward to seeing your videos!

Posted by Benjamin Kott, Green Business Operations and Jonas Vang, Industry Analyst

Article Source

Power, profit, and pollution: dams and the uncertain future of Sarawak Kara Moses, special to mongabay.com September 03, 2009

Sarawak, land of mystery, legend, and remote upriver tribes. Paradise of lush rainforest and colossal bat-filled caves. Home to unique and bizarre wildlife including flying lemurs, bearcats, orang-utans and rat-eating plants. Center of heavy industry and powerhouse of Southeast Asia.

Come again? This jarring image could be the future of Sarawak, a Malaysian state on the island of Borneo, should government plans for a complex of massive hydroelectric dams comes to fruition.

The plan, which calls for a network of 12 hydroelectric dams to be built across Sarawak’s rainforests by 2020, is proceeding despite strong opposition from Sarawak’s citizens, environmental groups, and indigenous human rights organizations. By 2037, as many as 51 dams could be constructed.

Proposed dams in Sarawak. For details see David Tryse'sFlooding Borneo's rainforest: Sarawak's confidential dam plans 2008-2020 [Google Earth KMZ file]

The plans came to public attention in 2008 when a confidential document was accidentally published on a Chinese website. The project will create one of the largest hydropower complexes outside China and will be developed by the China Three Gorges Project Corporation, the state-owned company responsible for the dam of the same name.

The 12 initial dams will have the capacity to produce 7,000MW—a 600% increase in Sarawak’s electricity production. The state already produces 20 percent more power than it uses.

The plans have attracted fierce criticism because of the catastrophic destruction they are expected to cause. One dam has already displaced 10,000 native people and will flood an area the size of Singapore. Several more communities could be engulfed, displacing at least 1,000 more people. Parts of Mulu National Park, home to the world’s largest cave, could be submerged, potentially threatening its UNESCO World Heritage Site status.

---

The main reason for the dams’ construction cited by the Malaysian government is the development of industry in Sarawak. The Sarawak Corridor Of Renewable Energy (SCORE), a potential 320km economic development region, promises to bring employment opportunities and infrastructure development for the state, which suffers from below-average levels of employment and income. The dams will provide cheap renewable electricity to the power-intensive industries it is hoped the corridor will attract.

Bakun dam in Sarawak.

But such high-energy industries will bring more than potential profit. Environmental groups warn the influx of smelters and refiners will generate mountains of waste and pollution. Local NGOs further question how many of the promised jobs will go to displaced indigenous people.

The dams will also apparently supply electricity to peninsular Malaysia via a 700km undersea cable. The cable project was finally approved by the Malaysian government in April this year after being repeatedly dropped and reinstated.

Dr Kua Kia Soong, director of the Malaysian human rights organization SUARAM, claimed in a statement last year that power stations on the peninsula were not working at full capacity, that the state electricity provider, TNB, was selling off property, and that the electricity industry was deep in debt, calling into question whether such a huge, expensive and disruptive project is justified.

But Energy Minister Peter Chin Fah Kui maintains that, “in the long term, it will be more economical and viable to transmit power from Bakun [dam] to peninsular Malaysia even though the undersea cable project will be very costly.”

Environmentalists have voiced concerns over the safety of the submarine cable, as it will pass through a region prone to earthquakes.

Less well known are the state’s intentions to export vast amounts of electricity. Sarawak aims to play a major role in meeting the increasing power supply demands of countries across Southeast Asia including Brunei, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Sarawak is effectively set to become the powerhouse of Southeast Asia.

This is part of the ASEAN Interconnection Master Plan, which proposes to connect the power systems of a number of Southeast Asian nations for “mutual benefits.”

But these ambitious plans are not explained to indigenous people when they are uprooted from lands they have inhabited for generations. They are told of the industry that will come to Sarawak, bringing with it jobs and development for the people; not that they must give up their homes to supply power to Malaysia's neighbors. But they have little say in the matter.

Power grid in ASEAN region. Image courtesy of the Energy Commission of Malaysia.

---

Environmentalists have been fighting against Bakun dam—the first and largest of the dams—since its conception in the 1980s. So when the government’s plans for a further 12 dams were leaked, environmental and indigenous peoples’ organizations were up in arms. Shortly after the revelation, a coalition of Malaysian NGOs demanded the government “formulate a comprehensive energy policy.” The plans, said Gurmit Singh, spokesperson and chairman of the Centre for Environment, Technology, and Development, Malaysia (CETDEM), “illustrate an energy planning strategy that is supply driven and inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development.”

While the project’s supporters say that dams are a source of “clean” energy, a spate of scientific studies has shown that large dams produce large-scale carbon dioxide and methane emissions from the rotting of vegetation in flooded forests. Furthermore, dams severely affect river hydrology, bringing unpredictable implications for entire river catchments.

Critics argue that the impact on Sarawak’s environment and indigenous communities will be devastating, involving massive flooding of pristine forested areas, displacement of thousands of indigenous people, fragmentation of forests affecting endangered and endemic plants and wildlife, and extensive damage to rich biodiversity in river headwaters.

Photos of the Penan by Bruno Manser. Courtesy of Bruno Manser Fonds.

Since the plans became public, there has been a continual outcry in the Malaysian and International press, but protestors appear to be powerless. Some are beginning to feel there may be no hope.

“Everything that needs to be said has been said, and by the very people affected by these decisions, to no avail,” said a council member of the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS), who wished to remain anonymous.

But there are glimmers of hope. A recent community forum held by SUHAKAM, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, saw some apparent changes in attitude from government representatives, a hopeful sign that they have started to listen.

The official outcomes of the forum are yet to be released, but SUHAKAM Commissioner Dr. Mohammad Hirman Ritom Abdullah told Mongabay that the government does now seem to be responding to the concerns. “I personally felt there was a change in the attitude of the state government,” Dr. Hirman said. “In the past they have been quite protective over what they are going to do, not engaging.” He added that there are some positive things happening in the state in terms of planning.

But actions speak louder than words, and with so many broken promises littering the history of Sarawak’s hydroelectric plans, people’s trust is fragile.

The forum was held to discuss the “concerns and aspirations of affected/concerned parties for the Government to consider before implementing future dams,” following a Murum dam site visit by SUHAKAM commissioners and officers to observe the impact on the environment.

Murum is one of the “big four” dams in the projects development. The others are Bakun, Baram, and Balleh. These four will be the first to be constructed.

With an expected output of 2,400MW, the Bakun dam is the largest and first dam of the project, acting as a flagship—for all the wrong reasons, its opponents feel. Since its proposal in 1980, it has been plagued with cost overruns and delays: plans for its construction have twice been shelved for financial reasons. The numerous failures of Bakun have been widely publicized, and are often cited as a prime example of the Malaysian government’s poor planning and general disregard for its people and environment.

Area to be flooded by Bakun. Image courtesy of the Energy Commission of Malaysia.

The constant abandonment and reinstatement of projects such as Bakun and the undersea cable suggest poor planning and raises questions over the Malaysian government's ability to finance such a huge project, the critics say.

Bakun dam will flood 700 square kilometres of rainforest. Environmental groups recently revealed this area is being cleared using fire, violating Malaysian legislation against open burning. Smoke from the burning forest remnants is thickening the blanket of polluting haze that already hangs over the region.

The amount of power produced by Bakun alone is double the amount currently used by the whole of Sarawak. In order to use up the extra energy, Sarawak-based infrastructure firm Cahaya Mata Sarawak (CMS) and Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto plan to build a “world class” aluminum smelter nearby. Aluminum smelting is a voracious consumer of power and the plant is expected to use half of the electricity produced by Bakun.

But CMS has been accused of taking advantage of political power as well as hydroelectric power from Bakun.

The company is already a major beneficiary of the dams project. As well as the enormous aluminum smelter, the firm is producing construction materials for Bakun dam on a large scale. Perhaps it is coincidence that the company is owned by the family of Sarawak’s long-standing chief minister, but opponents of the plans point to corruption and “crony capitalism.”

Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud also acts as Sarawak’s Planning Minister and Finance Minister, and has interests in many of the state's largest companies. He has been behind much of the development of Sarawak over the last 30 years, but his family’s extensive commercial interests in many of the projects he approves has raised questions about conflicts of interest. It has even been claimed that he owns Sarawak Forestry.

According to Al Jazeera, the contract for the smelter was awarded without open bidding, in direct violation of Malaysian law. In an interview broadcast on the news channel in March this year, Sarawak’s Land Minister James Masing strongly denied the claim, maintaining that the process was transparent.

“This [aluminum smelting] project . . . has the potential to generate significant social and economic benefits for Malaysia and local communities in Sarawak,” said Oscar Groeneveld, Rio Tinto Aluminum’s chief executive, adding that CMS and Rio Tinto Aluminum are “committed to developing the project to world class environmental and community standards.”

In March 2006, Interhill, a Malaysian logging company, cleared land around Ba Abang, a Penan village in the Middle Baram region. Photo by the Bruno Manser Fund

These “world class environmental standards” have been brought into doubt recently. “Recommendations we have made for the Rio Tinto aluminum smelter were not adhered to,” reported a MNS council member, going on to describe how land had been cleared to within 10m of the Similajau River. The advised limit was 50m. The boundaries of Similajau National Park, home to five species of dolphin including the critically endangered Irrawaddy dolphin, begin on the opposite river bank.

Dr. Hirman says that at the SUHAKAM community forum, the government’s environmental adviser and state planning unit secretary were “talking in terms of complying with environmental principles.”

But was that talk backed by steps toward compliance? What about the Rio Tinto case? Dr. Hirman said, “The Environmental Board themselves are not happy with the contractors. It is important how people implement their policies; it is the monitoring that needs to be strengthened”

There have been other reports of environmental recommendations being ignored in the area. “They have already cleared the land although the DEIA [Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment] for Tokuyama Polypropylene Plant is not even finished—they are more interested in removing the logs than anything else,” said another MNS council member.

Such disregard for environmental guidelines raises the question of the purpose of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). Are they merely an empty gesture to pacify environmentalists with promises of environmental protection until it is too late and the damage is done? The problem lies in Sarawak’s legislation. “According to the law that we have here, even if the EIA is bad they can proceed with the dam” said Raymond Abin of Borneo Resources Institute Sarawak (BRIMAS).

Belaga dam site Murum dam site Metajawah dam site. Images courtesy of the Sarawak Energy Berhad with credit to the Bruno Manser Fund.

In response to environmentalists' concerns about the legislation surrounding EIAs, former Environment and Public Health Minister Datuk Michael Manyin said that EIAs are mandatory and have to be submitted to the Natural Resources and Environment Board (NREB) for review and approval. “The NREB imposes stringent conditions which the project proponent has to comply with to ensure that the environment is properly managed and protected during the project implementation and operation,” he said, adding that public participation had always been incorporated into the EIA process.

Manyin added that any decision made by the state to develop the dams would be done “with much due consideration for the best interests of the people of Sarawak.”

Bakun alone has already displaced 10,000 indigenous people of Sarawak, at a cost of over $248 million. Some people were told they must pay for their new houses in the resettlement area, even though many have still not received the compensation they were promised over ten years ago.

Native community rights were violated, and the social atrophy the communities have suffered continues unaddressed by the government.

Members of the Penan community in particular have struggled with the new way of life. As a semi-nomadic tribe of hunter-gatherers, a settled lifestyle of farming and monetary trade was difficult to adapt to. “People are still having problems,’ says Dr Hirman of SUHAKAM. “[Problems such as] access to land, and some of the land that was given not being arable. There have been cases where electricity and water was cut off because they did not pay the bills; they’re just not ready for a cash-oriented lifestyle.”

“These are the kind of people you need to provide infrastructure for while at the same time [you] provide access to their original environment where they can still go the jungle and supplement whatever they need. This is something that is not done.”

A further 1,000 people are due to be displaced by Murum dam, a 920MW dam due for completion in 2013. Work began in May this year.

Among those to be displaced are the Penan community of Long Jaik. The people here are defiant, saying that they will stay despite the government’s plans to relocate them.

Power and energy demand outlook for Sabah. Image courtesy of the Energy Commission of Malaysia.

According to Matu, a member of the Long Jaik community, his people have been told that they are not developed because they are dispersed, that they must be gathered into one place to be developed. “The government told us they want to build the Murum dam to enable the Penan to develop in terms of education. They said, ‘We’ll give you a school and a clinic.’ I told them: ‘If you want to develop the Penan like me, develop me here in Long Jaik. Bring a school and a clinic here to me in Long Jaik.”’

The people of this community are concerned they will not be sufficiently compensated after seeing the plight of those relocated to make way for the Bakun dam. “When I look at the people who have moved to Sungai Asap—especially the Penan—they live a very difficult life,” Matu said in an interview with Survival International, an organization that works to support tribal people worldwide. “If we move, they will give us only one hectare per family. Here, we easily have ten.”

“My ancestors... have struggled to protect this area for us. It has been used by Penan for 12 generations,” Matu continued. “I feel it’s my responsibility to stay and protect this land for generations to come. If we move from here and forget our ancestors, who will own, use and take care of this land? The Chinese will use it. They’re not the owners, but they will keep it for themselves and we won’t be able to hunt or fish here anymore. We are the rightful owners, but we won’t be able to access the land.”

Dr. Hirman noted, “Until this whole land issue [Native Customary Rights] is cleared up, it is going to impact on whatever mitigation factors the authorities are going to carry out.”

The EIA for the third dam, Baram, has now begun. But according to Raymond Abin of BRIMAS, the local community has not been consulted; the first they knew of the proposed dam was when consultants arrived to conduct the study.

Baram dam site Baleh (Balleh) dam site. Images courtesy of the Sarawak Energy Berhad with credit to the Bruno Manser Fund.

And they are apparently being told selective truths about how the generated power will be used. Abin observes, “They are saying that we need to have more industry coming to Sarawak; that’s why we need all these dams. They are talking about employment opportunities for people.” But they are not telling people about their plans to export power to other countries.

“The study is not transparent without the involvement of the people,” Abin notes. ‘It is always the Chief Minister having the upper hand.”

The people affected by the Baram dam are concerned for their future. “We foresee there will be a determined opposition to Baram in the near future,” Abin says. ‘Looking at how they dealt with Bakun, I think they learnt from that. Despite the public opposition to it they just continued. But we will see; every case is different.”

A proposed national park, and an internationally recognized “Important Bird Area” of highland bird species with restricted ranges, is the site of the fourth dam in line, Balleh. According to the Malaysian Nature Society, the site is geologically unique with spectacular volcanic cliffs. “With its rich geological heritage, the Balleh site is invaluable to mankind,” the society said in a statement voicing concern about the dam. Work has not yet begun at Balleh, but it is due for completion in 2017.

---

The Malaysian government sees economic value in Sarawak’s rivers, from their capacity for power generation. But there is a different kind of value in the state’s natural riches, besides their inherent biological value. Treatments for HIV and cancer lie in Sarawak’s forests, some of which are already in the final stage of development as pharmaceutical drugs. It is unknown how many more potential cures are waiting to be discovered; many may be lost before they are found if the forest continues to be destroyed.

Emerging initiatives such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) offer alternatives to clearing of forests for “economic development” projects such as plantations and hydroelectric dams.

Such schemes are increasingly seen as a viable method of protecting forests from destruction. Under the REDD program, economic incentives are offered to countries for preserving forest cover, and in doing so climate change from forest clearance is mitigated, local communities are supported, and biodiversity is protected.

The Sarawak dams will cause more than just loss of forests, but the point is that there are ways of generating financial rewards from keeping ecosystems intact. Scientists and politicians are increasingly looking to such models of financial reward for protection of ecosystems, which include ecosystem service payments, bio-banking, and carbon payments, as an intelligent answer to the complex problems of deforestation and climate change.

Images courtesy of Google Earth.

In addressing such complex problems, the schemes face many challenges. Carefully constructed financial structures, clear definitions, and effective regulation and monitoring are needed to ensure their success. Assessments by independent think tanks such as CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) have shown that if such considerations are incorporated, schemes such as REDD could be a success.

Ecotourism has huge potential as a revenue generator and, if properly managed, protects biodiversity rather than destroys it. Madagascar is a leading example of how profitable ecotourism can be for a country; the industry represents a significant proportion of the country’s GDP. Conservation in Madagascar is largely funded by ecotourism, thanks to a series of initiatives established by recently ousted president Marc Ravalomanana.

But, for now at least, it seems that the Malaysian government will plow on with its dams, regardless of the increasingly desperate pleas of its people and the loss of its greatest natural assets.

Will Sarawak retain at least part of its storied past and its paradisal rainforests with their abundance of plant and animal life? Or will those all vanish in the march of industry? That’s the balancing act ahead for this once remote and exotic land.


See David Tryse's Flooding Borneo's rainforest: Sarawak's confidential dam plans 2008-2020 [Google Earth KMZ file] for a graphical/spatial representation of the dams.

The author would like to thank Raymond Abin (BRIMAS), Daniel Austin, William Bridges, Rhett Butler, Dr. Mohammad Hirman Ritom Abdullah (SUHAKAM) and Miriam Ross (Survival International) for their assistance with this article.

Article Source

Dear friends,

For once, this email isn't asking you to do anything at all. It's merely sharing the news--the amazing news--that arrived about 45 minutes ago at 350 headquarters.
Rajendra Pachauri is the U.N.'s top climate scientist. He leads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which every five years produces the authoritative assessment of climate science. Their last report, in 2007, helped set the target of 450 ppm (parts per million of CO2) that many environmental groups and national governments have adopted as their goal for Copenhagen.

As you all know, that number is out of date. When Jim Hansen and other scientists looked at phenomenon like the Arctic ice melt of the last two summers, they produced new data demonstrating that 350 is the bottom line for the planet.

But it's been hard to get that news out to the powers that be.

So today it comes as enormous and welcome news that Dr. Pachauri, from his New Delhi office, said that 350 was the number.

"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).

"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he told Agence France Presse in an interview.

It's your work that has made this breakthrough possible. In fact, Pachauri specifically cited the last big piece of news for 350: the decision of 80+ small island nations and less developed countries to endorse the 350 target.

"I think this is a good development," said Pachauri. "Now people -- including some scientists -- see the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, and the fact that things are going to get substantially worse than what we had anticipated."

This news makes it much easier for all of us to push hard leading up to the International Day of Climate Action on the 24th of October (signup to start or attend an event at www.350.org) , and the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December.

It's clear now that science is powerfully on the side of the 350 target. Now we need the political world to follow suit. You will make that happen in the next two months. Oct. 24 is officially 60 days away, and we're building just the momentum we need to make it count.

Thanks for all you do,

Bill McKibben

Read more about Dr Pachauri here. http://www.rkpachauri.org/bio.php

350.org needs your help! To support our work, go to http://350asia.wordpress.com/

Eco-towns – No walk in the park by Goh Ban Lee

TWO words are certain crowd pullers: free and new. As it is not possible for businessmen to use "free" too many times, they often use "new" to attract customers.

Lately, they have found two new words: green or eco. For instance, the following terms have been appearing in newspapers lately: "green homes", "green hotels", "eco-refrigerators" and even "ecofun parks". Then there are "eco-towns" and "eco-cities".

The businessmen and their consultants are aware that many Malaysians want to do their part for the environment, thanks to the many documentaries on global warming and the melting of ice caps. If the predictions materialise, not only will those living in the Arctic region lose their habitats, inhabitants on the islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans will lose their countries altogether.

Of course, if that were to happen, a large part of the many coastal settlements in Malaysia would also be submerged.

Unfortunately, there is no restriction on the use of green or eco as a prefix in Malaysia. As such, one is not certain whether the advertised "green homes" are really ecologically friendly and have smaller carbon footprints than comparable "normal" houses.

Equally important, even if the houses have smaller carbon footprints, the housing project might be designed in such a way that every trip to the nearest convenience store or school needs the use of private cars.

It is, therefore, time for Malaysians to pay serious attention to building eco-towns or eco-cities. But what makes an eco-town or eco-city? According to an article by British based BioRegional Development Group and Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2008), "Eco-towns must demonstrate real and measurable sustainable living. They should encourage and allow people to live within ecological limits whilst enjoying a high quality of life in an attractive environment."

While the above definition is useful, there is a need to draw up standards for various components of a town or city suitable for each country.

It is, therefore, timely that a stakeholders’ roundtable consultation on the "Development of Eco-town Policy Framework" was held in George Town yesterday. It was organised by the Socio-economic and Environmental Research Institute and Invest Penang on behalf of Penang Island Municipal Council, Penang State Government, United Nations Environmental Programme and Global Environmental Centre Foundation, both based in Osaka.

Apart from discussing eco-city standards and guidelines, examples of eco-cities in Japan and China were also presented. There was also a proposal to build an eco-town in Batu Kawan, Seberang Perai.


However, while any effort to undertake sustainable development should be encouraged and supported, building eco-towns or eco-cities is no walk in the park.

For example, a project was initiated in 2003 to turn Huangbaiyu in Northeastern China into a model eco-village comprising "eco-dwellings" – solar-powered houses built from hay and pressed-earth bricks. The 370 households scattered over several kilometres would all be moved into the green houses so that their land could be consolidated for bigger farms or other development. Six years down the line, despite the involvement of "experts" from the United States, the model eco-village is "a complete failure".

Then there is Dongtan, the much touted "first eco-city of the world". The project called for transforming a marshy backwater island near Shanghai into a gleaming community of energy-efficient buildings. Waste was to have been recycled as fuel and the waterfronts were to be lined with sleek micro-windmills.

Planned to be the showcase of China’s commitment to sustainable development during the Shanghai Trade Exposition in 2010, the project has been abandoned. Even the visitor centre is now shut.

On the home front, what has happened to the Green Manufacturing Hub in Penang? Besides justifying the tax ringgit spent on study tours, Penang, needs to demonstrate that it is still the leader in development planning and implementation.

There are, of course, success stories. A good example is Kawasaki City in Japan. Long known as a polluted city it is today a shinning example of sustainable development. It even has a Zero Emission Industrial Park.

There is no choice but to push for more ecologically sensitive lifestyle in eco-towns and eco-cities. After all, despite all the money spent, earthlings have not found another planet suitable for humans.

Dr Goh Ban Lee is interested in urban governance, housing and urban planning. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com.

Article Source