2013 will start out an uncertain year for wind power producers in the United States. The expiry of a federal tax credit on the 31st of December 2012 saw energy companies scrambling to get their turbines online. An unclear prospect of further extension to the subsidy, coupled with uncertainties in negotiations to sell the power generated, will see a slower expansion of wind energy production in from this year. Read more

By Matt McGrath for BBC News (29 December 2012):

Wind power deadline sees US firms rush to build turbines

US energy companies are racing to install wind turbines before a federal tax credit expires at the end of this year.

Experts say that wind power has exceeded the construction of natural gas plants in recent months.

However the financial incentive for wind could be lost as congress struggles to avoid financial deadlock.

Even if the credit is extended it is expected that new installations will decline in 2013.

According to industry analysts, the federal government’s production tax credit has played an important role in the expansion of wind energy across the US since it was first introduced in 1992.

Wind passes gas

At that point there was less than 1.5 gigawatts of power generating capacity provided by wind across the country. That figure has grown dramatically. This year has seen around 12 gigawatts of wind power capacity installed, outpacing even natural gas projects which have boomed on the back of cheap shale.

The government subsidy works out at 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour of power produced over ten years. This amounts to around $1m (£620,000) for every large turbine. However the deadline is absolute – to get the money the blades on new installations must be turning and generating power before the 31st of December.

“There’s a lot of rushing right now to get projects completed by the end of the year,” says Rob Gramlich, senior vice president at the American Wind Energy Association.

“It is not a great way to run a business with this policy-induced uncertainty.”

The tax credit has proved contentious with some lawmakers criticising it as too generous. It lapsed previously in 1999, 2001 and 2003. Each time it lead to a collapse in new construction.

The American Wind Energy Association are hoping the tax credit will be passed as part of a compromise package of legislation to help the US avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. The say the most likely outcome is a short term extension of the subsidy.

“There’s a good chance we could get this extension, it is very hard to predict, but the industry is not making bets on the Congress getting it done,” says Mr Gramlich,

Even if there is an extension there is likely to be a significant curtailment of wind installations in 2013. Wind energy companies say they need longer time frames to negotiate deals to sell the power they generate.

Iberdrola Renewables is the second largest developer of wind power projects in the United States. The company is racing to finalise new wind installations in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

However the prospects for new turbines in 2013 are slim according to Paul Copleman, communications manager for Iberdrola.

“Even if the tax credit is extended, our new construction plans likely will be ramped back substantially in 2013 compared with the last few years. So much time has passed without certainty that a normal one-year extension would not be a game-changer for our 2013 build plans.”

Some analysts argue that all subsidies to wind should end and the industry should stand on its own two feet. They say that the current arrangements mean that energy companies continue to make money even when there is a surplus of wind and the market price is negative.

Dan Kish is with the Institute for Energy Research, a body long critical of subsidies for renewables. He told BBC News the extension of the tax credit was expensive, unnecessary and destabilising to the electricity grid.

“Wind produces power at a fraction of its stated capacity, and is increasingly adding unnecessary costs to consumers, just as it is in the UK,” he said

“They are creations of government and serve only to make their builders and owners wealthy at the expense of the public.”

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk

The threat of climate change is not restricted to just more erratic weather patterns and less comfortable lives, but also to the very existence of a community. An Alaskan native village is seeing its homeland slowly eroding into the sea and having to relocate to a government specified site, severely impacting the daily lives and practices of the community. In the meantime, attempts to bring to justice those responsible for their plight have been thrown out due to technical reasons. Read more

Engulfed by Arctic Waters: Residents on the Frontline of Climate Change

31 December 2012:

Truthout contributing author and academic researcher Christine Shearer authored Kivalina: A Climate Change Story a little over a year ago. Her book recounts the story of how the inhabitants of an Alaskan Native village, whose island home is being steadily eroded and engulfed by the surrounding waters, have tried to respond to climate change and its corporate deniers. Shearer and Kivalina resident Colleen Swan “spoke” with Truthout’s Leslie Thatcher in a recent email interview:

Leslie Thatcher for Truthout: Colleen Swan, please tell Truthout’s readers about life in Kivalina and its history.

Colleen Swan: Kivalina is situated on a barrier reef island that is about 8 miles long and a quarter-mile wide. It was not the ideal place that the people of Kivalina wanted to live on. The Bureau of Indian Affairs put us there. Before that fateful decision by the federal government, our people lived in their own settlements in the geographic area of the island. The island was used only as a summer seasonal camping ground for ocean subsistence hunting.

Kivalina is the only bowhead whaling community in the Northwest Arctic Borough. We should have been a part of the North Slope Borough because we’re always treated as outcasts within our own regional organizations because some residents of Kivalina are not afraid to speak out and demand the protections that are due all United States citizens. And further, we are not afraid to fight back or to push back; neither are we afraid to share our stories of struggles and triumphs alike.

Our own belief systems are the “unwritten laws” that we live by. It is not a matter of spelling out what rules we are to follow about every part of our lives; it’s what we are born into. This is our life and our processes are a given. They are not enforced by government, neither are they written to be taught to our children. These are just part of our societal norms that are lived every day and “enforced” by family patriarchs or matriarchs.

Right now, life in Kivalina is not just physically threatened by Mother Nature’s wrath, but along with that comes the threats against our very identity as a people. Our battles throughout this relocation planning process [due to climate change] has caused our own village leadership to violate their own laws, all in the name of protecting our rights to freedom, to live and be free in the United States, a constitutional right.

LT: How is oil drilling affecting that life?

CS: Oil drilling is not physically affecting our lives. But the threat of oil spills and the threat to the migrating sea mammals is a threat to our livelihood. We live largely on the tribal resources that come from our natural environment from the land, waters and the air. Anything that threatens that is a threat to us spiritually, physically, culturally, mentally, emotionally and economically. These are not just words; this is the hard truth.

LT: What impact has climate change had on the population of Kivalina?

CS: Climate change has had a major impact on Kivalina in many ways. Even though our people are adaptable to changes, a rapid change in the climate has made adaptation difficult. Not only are we impacted in our daily lives, but our current location has become increasingly precarious having a major impact on us physically to a point where we are now required to move to higher ground and more inland, a very cost-prohibitive impact.

Ever since 2004, we have lost our peace of mind. It was then when we realized the true nature of our predicament because the shore ice that once protected us from the natural ocean surges was no longer there.

And now with the sea level rising, a University of Alaska-Fairbanks professor (Dr. Vladimir E. Romanovsky) who has conducted a study that made predictions of flooding in low-lying areas, shows Kivalina going under water within 50 years time. It was this very prediction that interrupted the process of relocation of the village that was supposed to have commenced in 2006. It was then that the relocation of our village became no longer an option, but a matter of survival.

LT: So it’s caused the need for relocation: How has climate change further affected the mechanics and time table of relocation?

CS: When we first started the Kivalina Relocation Project, it was to meet basic human needs such as having water/sewer services, more space for residential homes to alleviate over-crowding, more economic development opportunities and [to face] naturally occurring gradual erosion.

By 2004, much of the studies that were needed as required by government regulation were done on a site and other alternatives chosen by the people in a voting process. Because the government has realized the potential impacts of climate disruption, the preferred site chosen by the people appears to no longer be viable because of a flood prediction study done by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

So, not only do we need the government and the courts to be making decisions for our short-term needs for the safety of our people, but we also need our government to be making sound long-term decisions regarding climate change. It is for people like us who are in the frontlines living with the realities of climate disruption and many others all over the world who need government leaders to take action now. Because of the rapid changes to the environment, we can only get out of Mother Nature’s way. We can’t push back on a rapidly advancing train, no one can.

On the other hand, we can’t realistically expect government to be making sound decisions for us. They have too much economic interest in this issue even at the United Nations level. For instance, the United States would not be making decisions keeping places like Bolivia or the Maldives, least of all Kivalina, in mind and neither would China.

Our only hope is in the courts where politics cannot be allowed to come into play. If people don’t see that, there is no hope for anyone, not even for the rich. Everyone’s going to have to come back down to earth and create their own survivability or eat rubber and drink crude oil. And that’s not even mentioning ocean acidification, “climate change’s evil twin” as some have called it.

LT: Christine Shearer, can you describe the specifics of the lawsuit the inhabitants of Kivalina brought?

Christine Shearer: Kivalina is eroding is because of warming Arctic temperatures – sea ice now forms later and later in the year, leaving the shoreline unfrozen and vulnerable to erosion from fall storms. In 1992, Kivalina residents voted to move, and in 2003 and 2006, US government reports said Kivalina had to be relocated within the next 10 to 15 years, due to erosion from warming temperatures.

In 2008, Kivalina filed a public nuisance claim of unreasonable harm against ExxonMobil and 23 other large fossil fuel companies for their relocation costs. They also charged a smaller subset with conspiracy and concert of action for creating a false debate around climate change – Kivalina’s representation includes some lawyers that had been involved in both sides of the tobacco lawsuits.

Under public nuisance law, you can hold people or companies accountable that make a “meaningful” or “substantial” contribution to a harm. The 24 fossil fuel companies were chosen for being among the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters, while a smaller subset face claims of conspiracy and concert of action for going – in lawyer Luke Cole’s words – “above and beyond” in their efforts to try and mislead people about the science on climate change.

So, following the logic of the lawsuit: The companies are substantial contributors to the harm now facing Kivalina, and many of the companies knew of the harm they were creating and tried to deal with it not by cutting back on emissions, but by misleading people to maintain their business. Kivalina is therefore seeking damages – the cost of their needed relocation.

LT: Your book focuses heavily on the fossil fuel industry’s promotion of misinformation on climate change. What makes that particularly relevant to Kivalina’s situation?

Christine Shearer: With Kivalina, multiple US government reports stated that the community’s shoreline was destabilizing due to warming Arctic temperatures. And yet at the same time, the George W. Bush Administration was questioning global warming and doing things like trading out government research on climate change reports for privatized research funded by fossil fuel companies and supporters. And documents have been unearthed suggesting that research was designed not to advance the science, but to sow doubt and confusion.

So there is evidence pointing to a deliberate attempt to mislead people about climate change, even as climate change grew worse and put people in danger, like the residents of Kivalina. The disinformation efforts arguably helped delay a much-needed policy response toward mitigation (lessening greenhouse gas emissions), as well as the response toward adaptation, which is absolutely critical for Kivalina’s safety.

Today we are paying the price for that delay, and coastal Arctic communities are particularly vulnerable, in part because they have few options for evacuation from large storms. Just last year a “superstorm” hit the Arctic and nearly flooded Kivalina, and all they could do was make evacuation in a school a few feet above sea level and wait and hope.

LT: What does the recent dismissal of Kivalina’s lawsuit mean for the future of climate change lawsuits?

Christine Shearer: The Kivalina lawsuit argued that fossil fuel companies could be held responsible for damages from climate change under federal public nuisance law. Kivalina’s claim was dismissed in 2009 and appealed.

The appeals court ruled this year that Kivalina’s federal claim was “displaced” by the Clean Air Act – in other words, since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is beginning to move forward with implementing greenhouse gas regulations, any plaintiffs claiming harm from climate change must look to federal regulations like the Clean Air Act and not to the federal common law of public nuisance, for a remedy.

The decision largely relied upon a 2011 Supreme Court case, American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, in which states filed a federal public nuisance claim against utilities to lessen greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; the states went to the courts because the EPA under Bush/Cheney would not issue GHG regulations. By the time the court case reached the Supreme Court, however, the EPA was moving toward regulating emissions, so the Supreme Court ruled that the states’ claim was displaced by federal regulations. But Kivalina is seeking damages, not abatement, and there is no mechanism within the Clean Air Act to recoup the sort of damages Kivalina is facing.

Kivalina’s lawyers have therefore filed for a rehearing, pointing to a 2008 Supreme Court case, Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, in which a federal common law damages claim was not displaced by the federal Clean Water Act.

This could have large implications for any future cases seeking federal damages from climate change, as it may cut off one of the few routes available – federal public nuisance – for holding fossil fuels companies accountable for deliberately misleading people about climate change. Claims could still be filed under state law.

LT: Are there any federal relocation/adaptation policies that assist Kivalina residents now facing complete disaster? If so, how do they work?

Christine Shearer: Currently, there is no official relocation policy in the US and no national adaptation strategy. After storms began seriously eroding Kivalina, an emergency declaration was made that helped lead to funding for a sea wall to protect the residents.

The people of Kivalina still need to relocate, and right now they are trying to piece together their relocation within existing disaster management and coastal armament policies that have not been updated to reflect the reality of climate change and its effects, particularly its radical effects on the Arctic.

But we are starting to see more and more movement in this area – more communities and political representatives acknowledging climate change and the need to prepare for it. After another year of increasing droughts, superstorms, record-high temperatures and raging fires, it is becoming harder to deny climate change, and that is one thing that gives me hope – that it shakes more of us into action, finally. But we cannot forget that people in the Arctic have been facing the effects of climate change for a long time and need to be central as we start really dealing with this problem.

http://truth-out.org/

The organisers of the inaugural World Engineers Summit 2013 with the theme “Innovative and sustainable solutions to climate change” are calling for papers but not just from engineers. They want people with passion and expertise to “Play your part, share your ideas and promote your work”. The event at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore from 9-15 September will also be managed sustainably in keeping with its theme. Ken Hickson of Sustain Ability Showcase Asia (SASA) has this to say about making events sustainable, in line with the new Olympic gold standard ISO 20121, in the latest issue of CEI Asia. Read More

Promote your work.

If you believe that climate change is one of the most critical challenges facing humanity today and recognize the urgency to identify, develop and implement innovative and sustainable solutions to mitigate a spreading carbon footprint and ensuring the efficient consumption of Earth’s fast depleting resources, WES 2013 is your ideal activation platform!

The WES 2013 Organising Committee is inviting the submission of technical papers in the following areas:

• Corporate Social Responsibility on Climate Change

• Climate Change Opportunities for SMEs

• Environmental Engineering Education

• Environmental Policies

• Food and Water Security

• Financing Climate Change Adaptation

• Innovative and Sustainable Technology

• Integrated Environmental Management Systems

• Natural Disaster Mitigation and Management

• Professional Ethics and Conduct:

Key Prerequisites for Sustainability

• Sustainable Development

• Sustainable Energy

• Sustainable and Innovative Urban Planning

• Women in Engineering on Climate Change

Engage engineers across multi-disciplines, as well as:

• Business leaders of corporations

• Research funding organisations

• G• Scientists

• Researchers

• Technology investors

and developers government officials

Among other international audience to collaborate for further research and potential funding opportunities.

All submissions will be evaluated by the Abstract Review Committee comprising of experts from various fields, who will evaluate and screen the abstracts, and make recommendations for inclusion in the Summit programme.

The authors of the accepted abstracts will then be invited to submit full papers for presentation at the Summit. The deadline for abstract submission is 31 January 2013.

More information on the sessions and the submission process can be found at http://globalsignin.com.sg/registration/wes2013_abstract/

Source: www.wes2013.org

Let’s take sustainability seriously for events in Asia:

The time for 20121 is now

By Ken Hickson

Sustain Ability Showcase Asia – SASA

It’s not rocket science to create and manage events in a sustainable fashion, but now there is a scientifically devised and certifiable standard to help the events industry do things better, cleaner and greener.

“Twenty Twelve One” – or alpha-numerically  ISO 20121 – is the new standard which is taking the event world by storm. It first saw the light of day with the London Olympics – the first major event to introduce and earn the certification. The process itself evolved out of BS8901 and now a number of venues and events have gained the Olympic gold standard.

Less is not more in Asia. So far only Thailand has officially submitted itself to the certification standard. Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau announced in July it is collaborating with SGS to introduce ISO 20121 to the MICE players. The new standards aim to elevate Thailand’s MICE industry to meet world standards.

Australia has embarked on the ISO 20121 process with a practiced hand. There is the experience offered through the Sustainable Events Alliance – www.sustainable-event-alliance.org/australia/ – and one of its founding members, Green Shoots Pacific has worked on the implementation of ISO 20121 for its client, Sydney Festival.

In Europe there are plenty of examples of venues and events which quickly latched onto the scheme, understandably maybe as this evolved from the accepted British standard, BS8901.

The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff – venue for Rugby World Cup matches – was one of the early adopters, as was Dublin’s Croke Park, achieving ISO 20121 certification after an audit by SGS Ireland in May 2012, describing the award as “the Event Sustainability Management System International Standard”.

In June 2012 Coca-Cola Great Britain achieved ISO 20121 with SGS United Kingdom Ltd, ready for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The company’s certification covered all its London 2012 operations, including the Olympic Torch Relay, Venue Operations,  Showcasing, Hospitality and Licensed  Merchandising activities.

Closer to home, Singapore is having a serious look into the best way to introduce and manage standards for sustainability in the event industry. There are some big events in Singapore – conferences, exhibitions, festivals – as well as major venues like Marina Bay Sands, which should embark on the sustainability journey and subject themselves to the verifiable event standard.

It might be a sensitive issue, but there is no reason why the Formula One motor racing event, which Singapore has committed to for another five years, should not go through the ISO 20121 process.

No event is perfect, as the event industry has to acknowledge. In fact, staging an event of any sort in “inherently un-sustainable”, as pointed out by Phil Cumming and Fiona Pelham, authors of “Making Events More Sustainable: A Guide to BS 8901”.

We can see where some of the global events Singapore has scheduled in the year ahead are “ripe for sustainability”. We have already suggested this for the big first time World Engineers Summit, which takes place at Marina Bay Sands in September 2013, and not just because its theme is, “Innovative and Sustainable Solutions to Climate Change”!

By adopting a sustainability programme or approach means the organisers can reduce an event’s impact on the environment, for example, if they take into account the factors and opportunities (see the ten tips highlighted by the London Olympic sustainability team).

It can work just as well for a major conference or exhibition as it can for a smaller MICE event or event.

Getting the right advice and support, means any member of the MICE industry can seriously take sustainability on board. It is the future and it is the way the world of events is moving.

While there might be a cost to embark on this process, it is one that will pay off as showing leadership in sustainability is as important as showing you are professional and creative in the way you approach events.

And an important point to remember – as many major international companies have recently discovered – sustainability can produce some direct benefits to the bottom line. Reduced energy use, cutting back on paper and waste, introducing recycling programmes, can all directly give you cost savings for your events and your business.

So making events sustainable makes sense – very good business sense – and in the process it’s good for the planet, people, as well profit!

Just what does the new event standard really require? The London Olympics sustainability committee put it simply as a 10 point process of questioning and application, which in turn become ten tips for any event organiser, venue, country or company to apply:

Top ten tips for events

1.         Access: Ensure communication methods and physical access facilities mean everyone is welcome.

2.         Local area: Look after your local community. Try to reduce congestion, litter and noise.

3.         Energy and water: Think of inventive ways to reduce your energy and water usage.

4.         Transport: Walking, cycling and public transport are healthy and more environmentally friendly ways to travel to an event.

5.         Reduce and reuse: Think about what you really need – buy only what is needed and hire/reuse everything else.

6.         Responsible sourcing: Try to support local businesses and socially responsible organisations.

7.         Food and beverage: Try to showcase local, seasonal and Fairtrade produce and provide free drinking water.

8.         Keepsakes: Ensure giveaways add to the customer experience, are useful, reusable and/or recyclable.

9.         Make it easy to recycle: Try to provide recyclable packaging and provide recycling and general waste bins.

10.        Health, safety and security: A safe environment is a happy environment. Assessing the risks in advance can help ensure everyone can enjoy the event.

Source: www.sustain-ability-showcase.com and www.cei.asia

Energy efficiency can come from the most unexpected sources. The Titan Supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the world’s most powerful supercomputer – and one of the most energy-efficient ones too – owing to its array of GPU processors found in video game consoles. Chinese builders are also urged to break from the conventional by increasing the energy efficiency of buildings. The Chinese government has set a target for 95% of new buildings to meet energy savings of 65% over 2005 figures. Read more

Energy efficient video game technology in Titan supercomputer

2 January 2013:

Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Titan Supercomputer – the world’s most powerful supercomputer – is operating with improved energy efficiency due in part to the same upgraded technology in your child’s video games.

“They do a lot of the same physics and on processors that are much more energy efficient than the ones we were using for scientific computation,” said Jeff Nichols, ORNL’s associate laboratory director for computing and computational sciences. “We took advantage of the gaming industry to give us 10 times more powerful processors and we only increased energy costs by half of what we were spending on specific systems today.”

Titan is able to perform more than 17 quadrillion calculations per second.

UT-Battelle manages ORNL for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit science.energy.gov <science.energy.gov/>.

Provided by Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Source: www.phys.org/

New Construction in China Must Be More Energy Efficient

By Energy Manager Today Staff (4 January 2013):

Chinese builders are becoming more interested in energy efficiency, and that will have two benefits: energy savings for buildings and a boon for thermal envelope manufacturers.

Based on market demand from both new buildings and retrofit projects, the demand for building thermal envelope materials from 2012 to 2015 will be 5.6 billion, according to Lux Research’s report “Go North: The Path to Performance-Driven Profits in China’s Construction Materials Market.”

Through modeling existing building stock, new construction rates, energy efficiency targets, temperature profiles, energy costs, green building momentum, regulatory enforcement and retrofit targets, Lux Research analysts derived the opportunities for different building thermal envelope solutions.

A key driver for more energy efficient buildings is Chinese government policy. According to the 12th Five Year Plan, China will require 95 percent of new buildings to meet a mandatory energy savings target of 65 percent over the 2005 figure. The requirement is issued by the central government and provincial and municipal governments and varies depending on the specific functions of buildings. The Chinese government also plans energy saving retrofit projects for at least 60 million square meters of commercial and municipal buildings.

Manufacturers of building thermal envelope products should focus on the climate of different regions, says Lux. Low-cost, low-performance materials will dominate the temperate south, but developers of high-performance materials need to focus on China’s cooler north, where these solutions save money on high heating/cooling needs.

Developers of phase-change materials, vacuum insulation panels, and low-emissivity insulating glass are poised for growth. Lux’s research finds the largest markets aren’t the obvious one. The big cities of Shanghai, Beijing, Chongqing and Tianjin aren’t at the top of the list, as they have less floor area of buildings.

http://www.energymanagertoday.com

The role of forestry and agriculture has consistently been overlooked in the current approach to mitigate climate change, largely due to the lack of awareness of the impacts and importance of these sectors amongst the international community. To effectively incorporate them into the global climate change mitigation effort, local stakeholders with direct management of the resources have to be engaged due to their intimate connection to these resources. Read more

Agriculture and Forestry Key to Mitigating Climate Change

Deforestation and land use change account for 20-25 percent of emissions that cause global warming

By Kim Lewis for Voice of America (7 January 2013):

Forestry experts say it is time for a new approach in mitigating the causes of climate change.  And while the 2012 climate change conference in Doha, Qatar, brought no decisions regarding the important role agriculture and forestry play in reducing carbon emissions, some awareness was brought to the table regarding forests, and how forest conservation should be integrated into future climate talks.

While historically both agriculture and forestry have kept a low profile at climate change talks, the 2012 climate convention in Doha saw some attention being paid to the important role forests play in landscaping, biodiversity and food security.

Peter Holmgren, CIFOR director general, is already looking ahead to the planned 2015 climate agreement. In his view of the Doha talks, he said it is time to rethink approaches in agriculture and forestry so that the two green sectors play a more prominent role in future climate talks.

“When it comes to forestry, the attention has been high for the last five years.  I think this was the first time we saw a little bit of a decline in the agreement on forestry.  Agriculture was absent from the talks all together, as it appears,” stated Holmgren.

He said he observed that while no decisive action was taken regarding conservation of forestry and agriculture at the talks, he is optimistic that the two sectors will play a bigger role in climate change talks in the future, “I think it reflects mainly that the focus of the negotiations was to keep the negotiations alive, and that to some extent was successful.  But as a result of that, the focus on the substance of agriculture and forestry was not there.”

Holmgren acknowledges that in order to put forest conservation in the forefront, the international community must recognize the vital role forests play in combating climate change.

“Everybody recognizes that forests and forestry provides many benefits to rural populations all over the world.  The livelihoods are supported by many different products and services from the forests.  And if we can include also climate change actions into those livelihoods benefits, then we are doing well.”

Deforestation, the turning of forests into non-forest land use, continues to severely impact the livelihoods of those who depend on forests for survival. While deforestation uses the converted land for urban growth, wastelands, logging, and agriculture, it contributes to a significant reduction of biodiversity, as well as climate change. Holmgren noted,

“Deforestation is effectively the expansion of agriculture.  So what needs to happen is to work together between the agriculture and forestry sectors to find solutions at the landscape level.”

Scientists say this means that both agriculture and forests must be examined together in terms of the vital role both play in providing sustainable development and food security for billions of people.

“It’s important to include all aspects of forestry into the research, because there are so many different benefits that we have from forests.  Biodiversity represents a lot of these benefits because it serves local people in products from the forests.  It also makes sure that we conserve biodiversity for future generations,” explained Holmgren.

Scientists agree that the research should also include biodiversity and socio-economic research, not just the monitoring of forests.  In doing this, Holmgren said it is important to make sure the research is done at the local level.

“Some forestry issues need to be addressed at the national or even global level, such as the climate change action.  But most of the action needs to happen at the local level, because that’s where the stakeholders are.”

The stakeholders are the small-holder farmers and rural population that depend on services and products from forests.  Holmgren explained that these stakeholders must be included in future climate talks.

“I would like to see a concerted effort to join forces between the forestry and agriculture sectors, because I can see that moving towards the climate agreement in 2015, this could be a way to put those issues on the table for the negotiations.”

Holmgren emphasized that action must also be taken in order to bring the point home, at the negotiating table, of the importance of including agriculture and forestry in the climate talks. One such example is Forest Day.

“We already have a platform in the negotiation complex that’s called Forest Day.  We are now planning to join forces with the Agriculture Day and create what we call a Landscape Day, and that will be an extremely important forum to discuss these issues.”

Holmgren explained these types of activities are important because they involve the stakeholders, “the key for me is that the local stakeholders are aware of their options and, their opportunities for the future.  So we need more research to provide those options-–management opportunities so that the local stakeholders can manage the natural resources.  At the end of the day it is the billions of farmers and local stakeholders that will determine if we go in the right direction when it comes to forestry and agriculture.”

Holmgren added that the key to green growth in Africa and other areas of the world is to focus on agriculture and forestry because they are a very large portion of the economy.

Source: www.voanews.com

True, the issue of climate change may be a rather complex one, and the specific mechanisms behind it may seem esoteric to all but the dedicated specialists. It is certainly newsworthy, when it suits. But reporting climate change has become an art form in itself, with all the necessary elements of creativity and free expression. And some media have adopted a less than responsible approach, verging more towards science fiction, than science fact. Away from true journalism to distorted truths. When Media Matters looked at reporting of climate change in 2012, it found the biggest culprit of misrepresentation and falsification was Fox News. Here is the news! Read more

10 Dumbest Things Fox Said About Climate Change In 2012

By Shauna Theel for Media Matters for America (31 December 2012):

In contrast to official temperature records showing a consistent warming trend, Fox Business reporters have claimed that the “temperature basically hasn’t changed much since the ice age” and that it’s actually “getting colder.” Fox News figures have also denied the scientific consensus that human activity is driving climate change, claiming that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming” and suggesting that “Mars wobbles” or “wind farms” may be causing it instead. Those are just some of the 10 dumbest things Fox News, Fox Business and their websites said about climate change in 2012:

1. Fox Reporter: “The Temperature Basically Hasn’t Changed Much Since The Ice Age.” During the Ice Age, much of North America, northern Europe and southern South America were covered with ice sheets. Natural climate cycles led to the end of the Ice Age tens of thousands of years ago. In the last century, temperatures have increased dramatically as a result of our massive emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet Fox Business reporter Tracy Byrnes claimed in March that “the temperature basically hasn’t changed much since the Ice Age,” before confusing global warming with the depletion of the ozone layer:

2. During Record-Breaking Heat, Fox Anchor Claims “It’s Getting Colder.” During the third warmest summer on record in the U.S., David Asman, who hosts shows on both Fox News and Fox Business, claimed “it’s getting colder”:

3. Fox “Expert”: Carbon Dioxide “Literally Cannot Cause Global Warming.” Joe Bastardi is a meteorologist that is often presented as a climate change expert on Fox News, even though he has no climate science training. Bill O’Reilly has cited Bastardi as the reason that he is “skeptical” about global warming, but scientists have called Bastardi’s statements “completely wrong,” “simply ignorant,” and “utter nonsense.” In March, Bastardi attempted to “throw out 150 years of physics” by dismissing the greenhouse effect — the reason there is life on Earth — as impossible. Bastardi stated on Fox Business that carbon dioxide (CO2) “literally” — yes, literally — “cannot cause global warming” because it doesn’t “mix well in the atmosphere.” But physicist Richard Muller told Media Matters that CO2 is actually “completely mixed.”

4. Fox Reporter: “Mars Wobbles” May Be Causing Climate Change. Elizabeth MacDonald, a Fox Business reporter who often appears on Fox News, incorrectly said in November that “there’s no consensus on what’s causing climate change, and asked “is it solar flares? Is it the Mars wobbles? Is it the earth’s axis tilting in a different way? I mean, that’s the issue.” After being subject to mockery, she tried to walk back her comments saying she doesn’t “think Mars wobbles cause hurricanes,” but did not explain her previous comments.

5. Fox Website: “Wind Farms Cause Global Warming.” In April, a study found that nighttime temperatures in areas around Texas wind farms were higher than in areas without wind turbines. Fox Nation, a section of FoxNews.com, linked to a story about the study with a headline declaring that wind farms “cause global warming.” But the study’s authors called this coverage “misleading,” explaining that it is “[v]ery likely” that “wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air’s heat near the surface, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

6. Instead Of Scientists, Fox Turns To Mark Levin And A Coal Miner To Say “CO’s What Make Plants Grow.” During an hour-long special on the “green agenda” hosted by anchor Bret Baier, Fox News did not interview a single scientist. Instead they turned to right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who denied that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated, saying: “Carbon dioxide is what we exhale. Carbon dioxide is necessary for plants.” Fox later aired video of coal miner Robert “Buz” Hilberry echoing this, saying: “I’m no scientist but CO’s what make plants grow and what make you breathe, so they’re trying to choke us all out by stopping the burning of coal.” At no point did Fox clarify that it’s the unusually high amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide that has scientists concerned, or acknowledge the scientific consensus:

7. Fox Contributor: There Are “Hundreds Of Thousands” Of Scientists “On Both Sides Debating” Global Warming. National Review Online’s Deroy Murdock, a Fox News contributor, argued that NASA shouldn’t explain the facts about global warming because the science is still up for debate, claiming “there are scientists on both sides — there are hundreds of thousands on both sides debating” the causes of global warming. But even climate change contrarians don’t claim to have that many scientists on their side. They often promote the Oregon Petition, which has been signed by less than 32,000 “scientists” who don’t believe there will be “catastrophic” global warming. The petition includes only 39 climatologists and defines as a “scientist” anyone who claims to have a bachelor’s degree in fields ranging from math to engineering. Credible surveys have found that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving global warming and less than one percent of peer-reviewed climate articles over the last two decades have rejected manmade causes.

8. Fox Reporter: Global Warming Advocates “Never” Cite A “Consensus Of Scientists.” On Fox News, Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith said that the problem with global warming activists is that they always cite “one scientist, it’s never a collection of scientists, it’s never a consensus of scientists.” After Fox News contributor Adam Lashinksy corrected her, Smith responded, “Adam, just so you know, the consensus has not been met among scientists on this issue. Or that CO2 actually plays a part in this global warming phenomenon as they’ve come up with somehow.” In fact, survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change, while those trying to downplay global warming often resort to citing a single scientist if any. But Smith thought that she had hit on a good point during that December 1 appearance, and repeated it on a later Fox News show, saying “still to this day, there is not a consensus among scientists. If you ever hear the President or his administration, they typically cite a scientist when they’re making a point, rather than a consensus of scientists.”

9. Fox Website: “Global Warming Means More Arctic Ice.” In October, the Associated Press reported that, contrary to conservative media misinformation, slight Antarctic sea ice growth is consistent with climate scientists’ projections for a warming planet. Fox Nation posted the story with the headline “AP: Global Warming Means More Arctic Ice.” In fact, Arctic sea ice had just experienced the lowest minimum extent ever observed, a key indicator of rapid climate change.

10. Fox Declares “Global Warming Over” Based On A Tabloid Report. In October, Fox & Friends featured on-screen text declaring “Global Warming Over” based on a report by the UK tabloid The Daily Mail. But the UK’s official Meteorological Office said that the article was “misleading” because it focused on a short period, obscuring that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record.

Source: www.mediamatters.org