Natural Environment Blog

Environmentalists have concerns over Brazil’s recently announced plan to save the Amazon rainforest. 

The plan, unveiled by the government on Monday, would result in a 72 percent decrease in deforestation by 2017. 

But environmental groups, while commending the government for finally taking action, believe the plan doesn’t go far enough.

Greenpeace Brazil’s View

Greenpeace doesn’t appear to be impressed with Brazil’s deforestation plan. Greenpeace maintains that deforestation of the Amazon needs to be completely eliminated - not just reduced.

Sergio Leitao, Greenpeace director of public politics in Brazil says “In adopting timid targets the government is showing that it is going in the right direction, but at the wrong speed, because the problem requires urgent solutions”

Leitao also suggests that Brazil is using its reliance on funding from rich nations as a convenient escape clause.

“By connecting the reduction of deforestation to obtaining international resources, in a moment of economic crisis, the government has an argument ready for not achieving targets in the future,” he said.  

Greepeace UK’s View

And Greepeace UK has said on its blog:

On the surface, this might sound ambitious and visionary but of course even if these targets are met, they’ll reduce deforestation but they won’t stop it.

Greenpeace UK highlights the fact that Brazil’s government seems happy to lose rainforest:

As environment minister Carlos Minc noted, if all goes to plan then in 2017 we’ll still be losing 5,000 sq km of rainforest every year (although I think he saw that as a good thing)

And, importantly, Greepeace points out that the deforestation plan only appears to be applicable to illegal deforestation.

Therefore, legal clearance of the rainforest will be unaffected. This means that a new bill soon to be voted on in Brazil’s parlaiment would effectively undermine the new plan. The bill, if passed, would allow land owners to clear as much as 50% of their forests (currently, they’re allowed to clear 20%).

On this point, Greenpeace comments:

So right there you can see that, even if illegal deforestation is cut or even eliminated, state sanctioned destruction could balloon in its place and so completely undermine any efforts to bring the rate of deforestation down.

WWF Brazil’s View 

In the meantime, WWF-Brazil has labeled the plan as “commendable but short on ambition and detail“.

However, Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza, Conservation Director at WWF-Brazil still agrees that it is “reasonably” ambitious:

“This goal is reasonably ambitious,” he says. “To achieve it, next year deforestation will have to drop 23% in relation to this year.”

But he wants to see a plan that’s more than “reasonably ambitous”.

Instead, WWF-Brazil wants to see a goal of zero deforestation by 2015.

“This goal is achievable if key actors—ranging from indigenous peoples to ranchers—are compensated for conserving the forest and thereby avoiding deforestation” Scaramuzza says.

And WWF-Brazil’s CEO Denise Hamú agrees.

“This fund appears to be geared primarily to supporting government command-and-control programmes,” she says

“To achieve more ambitious reductions in deforestation, it will be effective mechanisms to compensate the key actors on the ground who determine the fate of the forest.”

Delegates attend the opening of the Conference of the Parties (COP) at this year's UN Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland. Photo: UNFCCC.

The 12 day United Nations Climate Change Conference began in Poznań, Poland yesterday.

Delegates from 190 countries have gathered to try to agree on a treaty to be signed next December in Copenhagen.

“The protection of the climate requires global solidarity,” said Donald Tusk, Poland’s Prime Minister, as he addressed the delegates.

“All of us must show maximum understanding with each other, and must show patience with each other,” he continued ”but this patience must be have its own horizon - a common goal.”

Shared Vision

Although the full text of a treaty won’t be agreed on at the conference, it is important that the member nations agree on a shared vision.

“What is the shared vision? It’s two 2 things,” says Brice Lalonde head of the French delegation.

“One is having a goal of reduction of emissions and agreeing on that goal, and the other is how do we have a cooperation of all the nations of the world?”

…Or Not

But the United States has a different view.

Regarding the possibility of agreeing on a fixed 2020 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the US was noncommittal.

“I don’t think many parties are ready to sign onto any range at this time,” says Harlan Watson, head of the United States delegation.

“My own opinion is that that’s going to occur in the end game” in Copenhagen.

“We’ve seen in past discussions of this that a number of parties aren’t prepared to agree to a long-term goal until other parties are coming forward with a 2020 or a near-term goal, and a number of parties, including the United states, are not willing to come forward with that yet.”

Message From Environmentalists

Environmental groups are urging the UN member nations to reduce their dependency on coal. Coal is the single greatest threat to our climate  - coal burning contributes more to climate change than any other fossil fuel.

With coal-fired power stations producing 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, environmental groups are pushing for the widespread adoption of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind.

Furthermore, green groups are pleading with governments to stop the approval of new coal plants. A coal plant built today will emit CO2 pollution for at least the next 40 years.

As the Climate Change Conference gets underway, Greenpeace has set up a Climate Rescue Station on the edge of a coal mine in Poland to highlight the true cost of coal.

Greenpeace wants to see the following outcome from this year’s climate change conference:

• A “climate vision” that will address what the science requires: global emissions peaking by 2015
• A draft negotiating text on the table and a detailed workplan to get this completed by Copenhagen in December 2009
• Developed countries to agree greenhouse gas emission reduction targets at the upper end of 25-40%, as identified by the IPCC

How You Can Help

This year the world is watching the UN negotiations and demanding that governments make good on their promise to come up with an action plan in Copenhagen next year.

You can help by uploading your photo to show that you are watching the UN carefully this year. Uploaded photos will be projected at this year’s UN meeting. 

About the United Nations Framework on Climate Change 

The United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a treaty by most of the world’s nations to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable.

Initiated in 1992,  the treaty set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual nations and contained no enforcement provisions; it is therefore considered legally non-binding. Instead, the UNFCCC treaty includes provisions for updates - called “protocols” - that would set mandatory emission limits.

The principal update (or protocol) is the Kyoto Protocol, which has become much better known than the UNFCCC itself. The Kyoto Protocol has more powerful (and more legally binding) measures than the UNFCCC.

As environmentalists push for “green” energy, the coal industry continues to emphasize the fact that coal is cheaper than its greener alternatives. 

But is coal really as cheap as we think it is?

Greenpeace has released a report that reveals the true cost that coal is having on the world at large.

Entitled The True Cost Of Coal: How people and the planet are paying the price for the world’s dirtiest fuel, the report shows that coal is costing the world around €360 billion per year.

Over the next ten years this would translate into €3.6 trillion - roughly $US4.6 trillion. 

The Hidden Costs

In calculating the figure, Greenpeace looked at the external costs of coal, such as costs arising from mining accidents, acid rain, and more.

The report says:

Traditionally considered the cheapest fuel around, the market price for coal ignores its most significant impacts. These so-called “external costs” manifests themselves as damages such as respiratory diseases, mining accidents, acid rain, smog pollution, reduced agricultural yields and climate change.

Greenpeace explains that the the harm caused by mining and burning coal is not reflected in its price per tonne or its costs for a kWh of electricity, but the world at large is nevertheless paying for it.

Coal’s Impact On Climate Change

The report also explains that coal burning contributes more to climate change than any other fossil fuel, and that coal-fired power stations produce 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. 

Greenpeace emphasizes that our decisions regarding coal is not something we should take lightly:

As the single largest source of CO2 emissions, the manner in which we deal with coal in the coming years will determine whether we can respond adequately to the climate crisis.

And, our decisions of today, will have an ongoing impact for years to come:

A coal plant built today will emit CO2 pollution for at least the next 40 years.

Dirty Coal vs Clean Coal?

And Greenpeace is not impressed by so called “clean coal”, where carbon from the burning coal is captured and stored underground.

Greenpeace says that, even if it were a feasible option, there isn’t enough time to deploy Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) plants.

The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at a useful scale is not expected until at least 2030, while global greenhouse gas emissions must start falling after 2015 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change 

Greenpeace believes that CCS is providing an unwelcome distraction in the discussion on reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

Those peddling technological fixes – such as carbon capture and storage which claims to make coal clean and safe for the climate – create a dangerous distraction as the world seeks truly sustainable solutions that will reduce emissions and protect our climate. It is only by quitting coal and increasing energy efficiency and production of renewable energy that we will prevent catastrophic climate change. 

Coal Must Be Phased Out

The strong message in the report is that coal must be phased out, and proposed coal-fired power stations must not go ahead.

Instead, Greenpeace emphasizes that renewable energy and energy efficiency must be the way forward:

Given the availability of alternatives such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, which can meet our energy needs in a safe and climate-friendly way, there is no need to continue relying on coal. We must reduce our dependence on this dirty fuel and abandon plans to build new coal-fired power stations. 

So, given the true cost of coal, the report makes the argument for renewable energy even more compelling.

Full Report [PDF document]

Tuna is at risk of extinction following ICCAT's decision to ignore advice from its own scientists, say conservation groups.

A decision by an international organization charged with protecting tuna has been slammed by conservation groups for doing the exact opposite.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), a fishery organization responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species, recently implemented a catch quota as much as 60% higher than its own scientists had recommended.

ICCAT’s own scientists had recommended a total allowable catch (TAC) of 8,500 to 15,000 tonnes per year. ICCAT ignored this advice and opted for a TAC of 22,000 for 2009.

The catch quota essentially places a restriction on how much the tuna industry is allowed to catch. Without a strict quota, tuna, known for fetching high prices, would almost certainly become extinct.

Obviously, the extinction of tuna would lead to the collapse of the tuna industry so, any ICCAT decision has a direct impact on the future of tuna fisheries, as well as the survival of the species itself.

Greenpeace’s Response

Greenpeace says ICCAT has lived up to it’s reputation as an “international disgrace” and has labelled the decision as “Shameless. Disastrous.” 

It says that this year’s annual meeting in Marrakech “looked more like a bazaar, in which buyers haggled over the last remaining tuna, than an international meeting”.

Greenpeace blames the decision on the European Union.

The European Union, representing the majority of Mediterranean countries with interests in the bluefin tuna fishery,  bullied other parties in the meeting into agreeing to management proposals which completely fail to follow the advice of ICCAT’s own scientific body to substantially reduce fishing and protect the species’ spawning grounds.

“The game is over – ICCAT has missed its last chance to save the bluefin tuna from stock collapse,” said Sebastian Losada, Greenpeace Spain Oceans Campaigner, who attended the Marrakech meeting. “Bluefin tuna has become an endangered species because of ICCAT mismanagement. It’s time to take the fishery out of their hands and look to Conventions like CITES to impose trade restrictions on the species.”

“These past seven days have demonstrated that ICCAT is a farce,” Losada concluded.

Further, Greenpeace has demanded a closure of the fishery until a proper recovery plan is in place. In particular, Greenpeace wants to see:

• a Total Allowed Catch (TAC) in line with the scientific advice
• a seasonal closure covering the months of May, June and July
• the establishment of marine reserves to protect the bluefin tuna spawning grounds

WWF’s Response

WWF has labelled the decision “a disgrace”.

“This is not a decision, it is a disgrace which leaves WWF little choice but to look elsewhere to save this fishery from itself,” said Dr Sergi Tudela, head of WWF Mediterranean’s fisheries programme.

“Any alternative is preferable to an organization which boasts of its respect for science but where in a decade catches have gone from twice to four times the scientific recommendations, with massive legal and illegal overfishing. It is clear that the only thing to slow the fishery with ICCAT at the helm is running out of fish.”

As with Greenpeace, WWF has been pushing for a suspension in the tuna fishery. This option has also been endorsed by the recent World Conservation Congress and recommended by ICCAT’s own internal high-level review. 

WWF has also been pushing for more protection of bluefin tuna.

“WWF will also actively push for a listing under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in the hope that stringent trade controls tied explicitly to the survival of the species will turn around the half-hearted attempt at fisheries management shown here by ICCAT and especially its European contingent.” says Dr Tudela.

An Ongoing Problem

This is not the first time ICCAT has ignored advice from its own scientists.

In 2006, ICCAT set a TAC of 29,500 tonnes, despite its own scientists recommending a sustainable limit of 15,000 tonnes. Since then, ICCAT’s scientists estimate that actual tuna catches in 2007 were 61,000 tonnes.

Following the concerns of the international community, ICCAT appointed a panel to conduct an independent review of ICCAT [PDF document].

The panel had the following to say about ICCAT’s performance:

• Fundamentally ICCAT’s performance to date does not meet its objectives for several of the species under its purview.
• ICCAT’s failure to meet its objectives is due in large part to the lack of compliance by many of its CPCs.
• CPCs have consistently failed to provide timely and accurate data and to implement monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) arrangements on nationals and national companies.
• The judgement of the international community will be based largely on how ICCAT manages fisheries on bluefin tuna (BFT). ICCAT CPCs’ performance in managing fisheries on bluefin tuna particularly in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea is widely regarded as an international disgrace and the international community which has entrusted the management of this iconic species to ICCAT deserve better performance from ICCAT than it has received to date.
• There are concerns about transparency within ICCAT both in decision making and in resource allocation. 
• Most of the problems and challenges ICCAT faces would be simple to fix if CPCs developed the political will to fully implement and adhere to the letter and spirit of the rules and recommendations of ICCAT.

The review found that ICCAT has failed to meet its objectives, but blames this on its members (CPCs).

A simple reading of the state of the stocks under ICCAT’s purview would suggest that ICCAT has failed in its mandate as a number of these key fish stocks are well below MSY. However, the Panel is of the view that rather than ICCAT failing in its mandate it is ICCAT that has been failed by its members (CPCs).

The review concluded that the members’ attitudes need to change.

…the problems of ICCAT would be readily fixed or considerably improved if CPCs changed their attitude towards implementation of and adherence to the rules and recommendations of ICCAT and the adoption of robust Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) processes.

Greenpeace has published the second edition of their Energy [R]evolution report, which has been updated with the latest economic, technical and population data. 

The report provides a blueprint that the world can use to cut emissions, phase out nuclear power, save money and maintain global economic development - all without fuelling catastrophic climate change.

The report shows how the planet can get from where we are now, to where we need to be.

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Currently, developed countries use much more energy per capita than developing countries. 

The report explains that by 2020 developed countries such as USA, Europe and Australia are projected to use two to  three times more energy per capita than China or India. And because of this, those developed countries need to reduce their carbon emissions much earlier than developing countries. 

Greenpeace say,

In the global fight against catastrophic climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector must have peaked by 2015 and have returned to current levels by 2020.

The report says that industrialized economies such as the USA, the European Community and Australia, have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30% below 1990 levels.

It also says that developing countries need to stabilize their carbon emissions by 2020, then start reducing emissions. 

3 Step Approach

The blueprint provides a 3 step approach:

Step 1: Electrical efficiency

• Exploit all technical potential for electrical efficiency via technical standards

Step 2: Structural changes

• Change the way we produce energy in large centralised power stations towards a decentralised energy system, using large-scale renewable resources that use locally available energy sources such as wind, sun or geothermal.
• Cogeneration – end the huge amounts of waste energy via cooling towers

Step 3: Energy-efficient transport

• Build up efficient public transport systems

Implement efficient cars, trucks, etc.

5 key Principles

Greenpeace say that the report is based on proven technologies the following key principles:

1. Equity and fairness
2. Respect natural limits
3. Phase out dirty, unsustainable energy
4. Implement renewable solutions and decentralise energy systems
5. Decouple growth from fossil fuel use

Greenpeace’s Message to the World Governments

In the report, Greenpeace makes a plea to governments around the world to:

1. Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy
2. Internalise the external (social and environmental) costs of energy production through “cap and trade” emissions trading
3. Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy-consuming appliances, buildings and vehicles
4. Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy and combined heat and power generation
5. Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access to the grid for renewable power generators
6. Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for example by feed-in tariff programmes
7. Increase research and development budgets for renewable energy and energy efficiency

The Report

The Energy [R]evolution was developed in conjunction with specialists from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry around the world.

View a Summary (PDF, 16 pages) | View the  Full report (PDF, 212 pages.

Two men have been sentenced to prison for dumping toxic waste two years ago that killed seventeen people in Abidjan, Western Africa.

Salomon Ugborugbo, 39, director of a local company was sentenced to 20 years in prison.  Ivorian shipping agent Desire Kouao was sentenced to 5 years in jail for his involvement as an accomplice.

But Greenpeace only partially happy with the verdict. They wanted to see Trafigura, the company who originally wanted the toxic waste disposed of, part of the criminal prosecution.

Trafigura chartered a boat containing 500 cubic meters of toxic waste to Abidjan, then hired a local company to dispose of the waste.

As a result, seventeen people died and more than 100,000 people sought medical attention. 

Marietta Harjono from Greenpeace said about the case ”This is nothing more than a showcase,” she said. “And we are very disappointed that Trafigura, the big fish that actually decided to dump the toxic waste, is not part of the criminal prosecution.”

Trafigura had originally tried disposing of the waste in the Netherlands before sending it to Africa. As a result, the company faces criminal charges in the Netherlands.