The United Nations has proclaimed 2010 as an International Year Of Biodiversity but there is not much being heard about actions that ordinary citizens are taking to promote the IYB's agenda. It is not creating the buzz it should. We are nearing the third month of the year but most information you get on the subject are from press releases from the UNEP. Ordinary citizens just do not seen to give a damn about International Year proclamations. I don't as I see it as UN's way of simply paying lip service to developmental issues of global concern that really needs concerted global action to have them addressed. Anyway if you are up to it, here are things you could do to participate.
Learn
About biodiversity in your city, region and country
How your consumption patterns and everyday actions may impact on biodiversity, sometimes in distant ecosystems
Speak
Make your views known to the government and the private sector
Share your knowledge with people around you
Get your stories to the press so you can share them with the rest of the world
Act
Make responsible consumption choices
Support activities and organizations that conserve biodiversity
Join a local environmental NGO or organize your own activities that will help biodiversity
Be creative and find solutions to biodiversity loss
Send your pictures, artwork, videos and other creations to the press and share them with the world
It takes only small steps to make a big difference.
Creating a new, climate-friendly energy future is a daunting task. But in reality, small steps by many people will change the world and protect the planet.
Here is a short list of the things you can do today to make a difference. Many of the items listed below will save you money too. That’s right—you might even make a little green by being green.
Seal the deal. We waste a lot of energy inadvertently heating and cooling the outdoors. Fully close windows, weather strip, caulk gaps and holes and upgrade your insulation and windows when you renovate—you can save up to 20 percent on your annual heating and cooling costs.
Recruit the best. Upgrade to high efficiency (ENERGY STAR) water heaters, AC units, lighting and appliances when it is time to replace old units—many of these upgrades even are available with substantial tax breaks!
Surf. Many states, cities and utilities have programs that make up the cost difference between high-efficiency appliances and the average. Do a quick Internet search on your local utility Web site to see if there are such programs in your area. Energy saved is money saved.
Set and forget it. A programmable thermostat reduces energy use by adjusting temperatures while you sleep or when you’re not home. Keep your home at 68 in the winter and 72 in the summer—just a few degrees can save you more than 10 percent on your heating bill.
Put the bottle down. Bottled water and other highly packaged items contribute to landfills and emissions. Filter systems are cleaner and cheaper. Ninety percent of the cost of bottled water goes to the cap and bottle, making it 240 to 10,000 times more expensive than that of tap water!
Designate a driverWhere possible, use public transportation or carpool. Better yet, walk or bike instead and enjoy the fresh air—studies show that getting out of your car makes you healthier and happier.
Talk it up. Share what you do with your friends and coworkers. Let your public officials know that you care about climate issues and remember them in the voting booth.
More you can do to reduce your carbon footprint and do your part to address our global climate challenge.
Plant trees, which absorb carbon dioxide
Use rechargeable batteries
Wash your clothes in cold or warm water
Turn off the heated dry function on your dishwasher
Change your light bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)
Scientists from 28 countries have called on Quebec Premier Jean Charest, currently in India on a trade mission, to ban asbestos exports. India is Canada's largest importer of asbestos. (Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)
The controversy surrounding Quebec’s asbestos industry has moved up a notch with Premier Jean Charest’s trade mission to India, one of the biggest importers of Canadian asbestos.
In a letter to Charest, over 100 scientists from 28 countries called for a ban on Quebec's export of asbestos to the developing world. Charest arrived in India on Sunday.
The scientists say Quebec uses virtually none of the asbestos it mines, spends millions of dollars removing asbestos from its schools and buildings, and that its own health experts have shown that it is impossible to use any form of asbestos safely.
Yet the province continues to promote and export the product to developing countries “where protections are few and awareness of the hazards of asbestos almost non-existent.”
“This seems to represent a high level of hypocrisy,” the letter states. The scientists note that the asbestos industry in India has notified a number of scientists that legal action will be taken against them if they do not retract their published articles concerning the threat to health posed by chrysotile asbestos.
The campaign is being promoted by the Pennsylvania-based Environmental Health Trust and the Cancer Association of South Africa.
“South Africa used to export asbestos, but has now banned it. If a country facing enormous economic hardships like South Africa can ban asbestos, then why can't Quebec?” said Dr. Devra Davis of the Environmental Health Trust, in a statement.
Asbestos was widely used around the world between the 1950s and the 1970s. Because of its status as a deadly carcinogen, the European Union banned the mineral over a decade ago. Thetford Mines in Quebec, a town of 26,000, is home to Canada’s only remaining asbestos mining operation.
Despite its links to cancer and other health problems, several countries, mostly in the developing world, still import asbestos from Canada. The less dusty chrysotile, or white, asbestos is said to be a safer form of the product.
The position taken by the governments of Canada and Québec is that chrysotile asbestos can be used safely as long as strict precautions are followed. The Indian asbestos industry also claims that the country’s factories have safety protocols in place to protect workers.
The Chrysotile Institute, an asbestos lobby group, dismissed the concerns raised in the scientists’ letter.
“Instead of giving new scientific research or data, they are just launching accusations,” the institute’s president, Clément Godbout, told the Canadian Press.
“If they have new data and studies showing that the way chrysotile is used today in Canada and Quebec is an unacceptable risk for people, please send them to us because I've never seen such a study.”
The scientists also want Quebec to stop funding the pro-asbestos lobby. New Democrat MP Pat Martin, who has long opposed Canada’s asbestos policy, said no other commodity enjoys the protection of the Canadian government the way the $100-million-a-year asbestos industry does.
“More than 160 trade junkets in 60 different countries is what the asbestos industry brags it has done through our Canadian embassies, our trade commissioners, etc. Not even Canadian wheat is so aggressively promoted as much as the asbestos industry,” he told India Abroad newspaper.
He explained that “there’s an “emotional affinity for asbestos in Quebec” that stems from the great asbestos strike of 1949, traditionally portrayed as a turning point in Quebec history that eventually led to the so-called Quiet Revolution. It also helped launch the political career of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
After Rene Levesque was elected premier in the 1976, one of the first things he did was to nationalize the asbestos industry—the first national act of the new nation of Quebec, as Levesque put it.
“Now, the people of Quebec talk of asbestos with pride because of its history. It is too emotional a question for Quebecers. It is almost anti-Quebec to be anti-asbestos,” Martin said.
Martin, who once worked in an asbestos mine in the Yukon Territory, has been lobbying to have asbestos put on the international list of hazardous substances. He told India Abroad that both Canada and India should “join hands” in seeking a ban on asbestos in all its forms.
“Asbestos and tobacco are the two industries where the industry knows well it is killing people, but it survives by junk science and aggressive lobbying of politicians,” he said.
As the worlds population increases so does the amount of waste generated and it all has a drastic effect on the planet. The waste is thrown into a landfill, recycled, reused, or melted down and made into new objects.
Rising consciousness of the impact humans are having on the earth means green issues are becoming higher on peoples list of priorities. In an attempt to try and save it from further damage environmental researchers are constantly exploring new techniques and methods that will hopefully shape the future of waste management.
The amount of electronic products used in each country is astounding, every year alone there are thousands upon thousands of disused computers thrown into landfills - when you realize that a computer is made up from over 1,000 materials and the average lifespan is just 2 years, then it becomes clear they contribute significantly to the e-waste stream. E-waste is also highly toxic as it can cause serious health and pollution problems as it contains harmful contaminants including lead, mercury, cadmium, beryllium and brominated flame retardants.
If left to sit in a landfill these toxic chemicals filter into the soil and atmosphere, which in turn have a negative effect on the local community. In some countries the dumping of electronic waste in landfills is now illegal. E-waste also gets incinerated which releases heavy metals, including lead and mercury, into the environment which ultimately end up in the food chain.
A good way to increase a product's lifespan is to reuse it. Mobile phones and computers are sent to developing countries for their use; however, in practice it doesn’t always work out to be the best option as once they are no longer required, the country has no hazardous waste facilities. It then ends up in scrap yards where workers, often children, are employed to sort it by hand where they are exposed to the toxic chemicals and poisons, along with the local community and surrounding environment. In developed countries, electronics recycling occurs in purpose-built recycling plants under strictly controlled conditions, in developing countries they have no controls in place.
Computer recycling produces a large amount of reusable parts. The CRT glass is sent to a lead smelter to recover the lead or to a CRT glass manufacturer where the glass is used to turn out new CRT glass. The electronic components in the CPU, such as the main board, memory, hard drives, battery, power supply, and sound cards, are removed and sold on to different manufacturers or recyclers around the country. Plastics are separated and generally shredded for recycling, whilst metal components are also separated before being sent to scrap metal recyclers.
The figures associated with e-waste are massive and it’s time leading electronic companies take more control of the situation and deal with the waste from their products. It is the fastest growing sector of the solid waste stream due to frequent upgrades of computers, TV’s, stereo systems and, particularly, mobile phones - in western countries people generally buy a new phone every 2 years.
Manufacturers of electronic goods need to take responsibility for the products they make and avert an e-waste disaster. Their aim should be to design electronics that contain harmful materials and have an extended lifespan. They should also be in a position to take their products back once they have passed their sell by date and re-use and recycle them safely, and as appropriate. Some manufacturers now offer a ‘take back’ scheme whereby you can return your unwanted electronics to the company for recycling.
Responsible disposal of electronic waste is not only the responsibility of leading electronics companies, it is everyone’s concern. Reuse is a resourceful way to recycle your appliances; you could give any unwanted items to friends, family, charity, or other community group that would make use of it. If the appliance doesn’t work then find your nearest e-waste recycling point.
There are waste management services online that can assist with all facets of waste management and resource recovery, organizations with years of experience in putting into action effective, innovative and sustainable waste management and industrial services solutions.
About the Author: Michiel Van Kets writes articles for Veolia Environmental Services, Australia’s environmental services leader in all facets of resource recovery and waste management services. The company has over 30 years industry experience in implementing effective, innovative and sustainable waste management and industrial services solutions. Visit the website for information on e waste recycling and facilities management Sydney services.
The Pacific islands of Kiribati were among the last places to be colonized by humans. But now, because of rising sea levels, they may be among the first to be abandoned.
Should Kiribati President Anote Tong surrender to climate change and evacuate? Can anything be done to help him buy more time?
Duration: 25:59
Location: Kiribati
Producer: James Heer
Language: English
Hello, I'm Severn Suzuki speaking for E.C.O. - The Environmental Children's Organisation.
We are a group of twelve and thirteen-year-olds from Canada trying to make a difference: Vanessa Suttie, Morgan Geisler, Michelle Quigg and me. We raised all the money ourselves to come six thousand miles to tell you adults you must change your ways. Coming here today, I have no hidden agenda. I am fighting for my future.
Losing my future is not like losing an election or a few points on the stock market. I am here to speak for all generations to come.
I am here to speak on behalf of the starving children around the world whose cries go unheard.
I am here to speak for the countless animals dying across this planet because they have nowhere left to go. We cannot afford to be not heard.
I am afraid to go out in the sun now because of the holes in the ozone. I am afraid to breathe the air because I don't know what chemicals are in it.
I used to go fishing in Vancouver with my dad until just a few years ago we found the fish full of cancers. And now we hear about animals and plants going extinct every day -- vanishing forever.
In my life, I have dreamt of seeing the great herds of wild animals, jungles and rainforests full of birds and butterflies, but now I wonder if they will even exist for my children to see.
Did you have to worry about these little things when you were my age?
All this is happening before our eyes and yet we act as if we have all the time we want and all the solutions. I'm only a child and I don't have all the solutions, but I want you to realise, neither do you!
* You don't know how to fix the holes in our ozone layer.
* You don't know how to bring salmon back up a dead stream.
* You don't know how to bring back an animal now extinct.
* And you can't bring back forests that once grew where there is now desert.
If you don't know how to fix it, please stop breaking it!
Here, you may be delegates of your governments, business people, organizers, reporters or politicians - but really you are mothers and fathers, brothers and sister, aunts and uncles - and all of you are somebody's child.
I'm only a child yet I know we are all part of a family, five billion strong, in fact, 30 million species strong and we all share the same air, water and soil -- borders and governments will never change that.
I'm only a child yet I know we are all in this together and should act as one single world towards one single goal.
In my anger, I am not blind, and in my fear, I am not afraid to tell the world how I feel.
In my country, we make so much waste, we buy and throw away, buy and throw away, and yet northern countries will not share with the needy. Even when we have more than enough, we are afraid to lose some of our wealth, afraid to share.
In Canada, we live the privileged life, with plenty of food, water and shelter -- we have watches, bicycles, computers and television sets.
Two days ago here in Brazil, we were shocked when we spent some time with some children living on the streets. And this is what one child told us: "I wish I was rich and if I were, I would give all the street children food, clothes, medicine, shelter and love and affection."
If a child on the street who has nothing, is willing to share, why are we who have everything still so greedy?
I can't stop thinking that these children are my age, that it makes a tremendous difference where you are born, that I could be one of those children living in the Favellas of Rio; I could be a child starving in Somalia; a victim of war in the Middle East or a beggar in India.
I'm only a child yet I know if all the money spent on war was spent on ending poverty and finding environmental answers, what a wonderful place this earth would be!
At school, even in kindergarten, you teach us to behave in the world. You teach us:
* not to fight with others,
* to work things out,
* to respect others,
* to clean up our mess,
* not to hurt other creatures
* to share - not be greedy.
Then why do you go out and do the things you tell us not to do?
Do not forget why you're attending these conferences, who you're doing this for -- we are your own children. You are deciding what kind of world we will grow up in. Parents should be able to comfort their children by saying "everyting's going to be alright" , "we're doing the best we can" and "it's not the end of the world".
But I don't think you can say that to us anymore. Are we even on your list of priorities? My father always says "You are what you do, not what you say."
Well, what you do makes me cry at night. You grown ups say you love us. I challenge you, please make your actions reflect your words. Thank you for listening.
This editorial calling for action from world leaders on climate change was published December 7, 2009 by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."
At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.
Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.
Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.
This editorial has been published Monday, 07 December by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.
