Obama will give a speech at the conference on December 9th on his way to Norway to pick up his Nobel Peace Price on the 10th.

Obama had not committed to making an appearance at COP15, saying he would attend only if his presence would help lead to a successful outcome.

Read more of this story »

Call it the Obama effect or a last minute face saving tactic but the Obama Administration made it clear that it is willing to include national mitigation measures announced by the advanced developing countries in the international climate treaty to be discussed at Copenhagen next month.

In a joint statement the US and Chinese officials announced that the new climate treaty should be based on ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. This is the first time that the United States has agreed for different climate goals for developed and developing countries.

[B]oth sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.

Read more of this story »

Less than a month before leaders from about 190 countries meet at Copenhagen to finalize the new international climate treaty there is no clarity on even principles and foundations of the proposed treaty. In an effort to push for greater cooperation between developed and developing countries President Obama would strive to convince the leaders of the two most populous countries, China and India, to commit to mandatory emission reduction targets when he meets them, in separate meetings, this month.

Time is running out fast for the US Climate Change bill as it is struggles to make it through the Congress. Apart from the domestic political hurdles blocking its approval, lack of commitment from the developing countries is another issue for the delay in its approval. A pledge to reduce emissions from the developing countries in the form of increased use of renewable energy or improving energy intensity would put immense pressure on the Senate to approve the bill in time for the Copenhagen meet.

Read more of this story »

• Trading could start as early as April 2010.
• Would save 10,000 MW per year.
• Aimed at reducing energy use by 7 to 8 percent.

In a bid to clarify its official stance and pressurize the developed countries ahead of the next month’s Copenhagen climate talks the Indian Prime Minister announced ambitious domestic mitigation measures while meeting with EU representatives in New Delhi. The measures include new and tougher efficiency standards for industries and incentives to encourage clean industrial practices.

The move is widely seen as a pressure tactic as India will oppose all demands for accepting mandatory emission reduction targets at the Copenhagen talks. With developed countries still struggling to come up with substantial measures, India’s announcement has added fire power to the developing countries stance.

Read more of this story »

The world has been talking about the proactive measures announced by China in order to reduce its carbon emissions, increase renewable energy use and improve energy efficiency. But its neighbor, India, too is now is in a remarkable transition from an environmental underdog one who projected itself as a weak and helpless sufferer of the natural calamities that the changing climate threatens to bring in the future.

With changing international scenarios the domestic policies of India changed as well. With the change in Washington, many developing countries changed their stance and announced slew of proactive measures which they had fiercely opposed in the past. Even though they all are still opposed to mandatory emission reduction targets they have announced forest conservation plans as well as massive renewable energy projects.

Read more of this story »

In the see saw of that the international climate negotiations is the balance has now shifted towards the developing countries. The developed and developing countries argued vigorously over the one last year and both the parties have moved back and forth several times on their negotiation positions.

The United States under the leadership of President Barack Obama pursued a highly aggressive diplomatic effort which resulted in China agreeing to various mitigation measures including improvement in energy intensity. Taking cue from China various other developing countries too announced ambitious mitigation and clean energy initiatives.

The United States successfully planted seeds of division in the developing countries’ camp by singling out China for concentrated talks but what happened transpired throughout the developing world after that was completely unexpected. India, in addition to other developing countries announced several short and long term initiatives as an answer to the increasing international pressure to act on the rising carbon emissions.

Read more of this story »

Agriculture, transportation and small businesses exempt from Boxer-Kerry

Only 2% of companies are covered by the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, but that 2% represents 70% of US emissions, says Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), the bill’s co-sponsor.

Read more of this story »

In the recent few days the Indian government has struggled to clearly state its official stand on the issue of reducing carbon emissions. While the traditional stance has been to oppose any mandatory emission targets, their has been a drastic change in this policy with indications of a domestic emissions reduction law and other proactive mitigation measures. The situation worsened after the environment minister, in an informal letter to the Prime Minister, said that India needs to move away from its traditional stance accept a far more responsible role at the international arena.

Mr. Jairam Ramesh, while expressing his personal views, advised Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh that India needs to be more proactive in reducing its carbon emissions. He said that India needs to work beyond the issue of differential responsibility, which incidentally has been central to India’s opposition to mandatory emission cuts. The minister wrote that India should play the role of a deal maker and not a deal breaker. He added that by accepting greater responsibility India would gain strategic leverage at the international forums possibly paving way for India’s successful bid for an place in the UN Security Council.

Read more of this story »

With hope of the US Climate Bill being cleared before the Copenhagen Summit in December there are substantial doubts over the successful negotiation of an international climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. However, the pressure on developing countries to do their bit has resulted in announcements of many national climate goals and regional cooperation deals. It would be interesting to see if these regional agreements infuse momentum into the negotiations for a global climate treaty.

The Indian and Chinese officials recently signed a memorandum of understanding which aims at increased cooperation in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The two countries also agreed to jointly study the impacts of global warming and climate change in the Himalayan region. The deal is crucial since it is the first major deal between the two countries after China broke ranks from other developing countries and expressed intentions to take up voluntary sectoral emission cuts.

Pressure Tactics: In the recent months there has been virtually no significant activity on the part of the developed countries with regard to emission reduction goals being set up or announcement of financial aid to poor and developing countries. There is still no consensus on the technology transfer and intellectual property rights issue. These issues are central to the goal of reducing carbon emissions worldwide. The developing countries demand adequate funds and technology as they see mandatory emission cuts to be financially non-feasible for there growing economies.

With these regional deals the developing countries seek to increase pressure on the developed countries not only to agree to bold mitigation measures but also provide for adequate resources to the developing countries to reduce their own emissions.

Read more of this story »

It is good to see that there are still some surprises in the world, and - in particular - in politics. Still, truly shocking political events - and reactions to them - are rare. Careful observers can see most Hill happenings coming from miles down the road and months ahead of schedule. We know some things will happen already, still our political and media culture waits out the inevitable before allowing events to capture headlines, ride roughshod over public opinion and exert themselves on political discourse.

Borrowing a page from Maureen Dowd’s “imaginings” playbook, this trip to 2010 explains how Washington’s worst-kept secrets will effect the climate change bill by collaring the President and Congressional Dems, and threatening our collective energy future.

FEBRUARY 10, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC

REACTION MIXED AS SENATE CLIMATE BILL GOES TO FLOOR
Critics Assail Compromises While Some Laud Any Action in Time of Political Turmoil

The Senate will likely take up floor debate of its climate bill this week after the proposed legislation was released from committee with considerable compromise put in place to help win votes from reluctant Senators who are facing election-year political pressure and mounting disappointing news about the economy and the war in Afghanistan.

The White House and Congressional Democratic leaders had hoped to have a climate change bill in place before the global climate change conference held in Copenhagen last December. Instead, American negotiators went to the United Nations conference with only the promise of continued domestic effort on greenhouse gas reduction, and observers felt that the Copenhagen conference’s result was all too similar to the Kyoto agreement it was supposed to build upon. While the world left Denmark with a resolution that features very strong aspirational emissions targets, there remains no enforcement mechanism in place, and it is unlikely that the world’s leading emitters will ratify any of the agreement’s most restrictive standards.

The Copenhagen failure took much of the momentum away from domestic climate change legislation, and action on energy and environmental reform has been further hampered as time gets closer to 2010’s mid-term elections and bad news on the economy mounts. Consistent with moribund projections, holiday sales figures were down for a second consecutive year, and the markets took a tumble as cautious investors reacted to retailers’ figures.

The tumble followed earlier market reaction to early January’s fourth quarter earnings announcements, which showed that in spite of stirring signs of economic strength, real recovery is still far from solidified.

The combination of slow sales and low earnings had brought markets back to a point where many observers felt valuation had leveled off from last fall’s slight recovery bubble. But, as final confirmation of double-digit unemployment became reality with last week’s announcement of jobless figures, the market dropped further.

All of the disappointing economic news made it impossible to get a climate change bill to the floor of the Senate without strong trade protections put in place for the domestic industries that are the most energy-intensive.

The protections spurred objections from global trading partners and concerns from observers worldwide that embedding carbon leakage tariff adjustments into the legislation amounts to protectionism and may further stunt economic recovery. Still, Senate negotiators had to include the provisions to win support from Midwestern Democrats who want both to claim progressive credentials by voting for a climate bill, but also needed any such bill to deliver not only protections - but also dollars - for heavy-emitting industries that employ their constituents.

The bill is expected to be debated next week after hearings on the President’s dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal are complete. In late 2009, Obama dismissed McChrystal from his post as commanding general in Afghanistan amid a very public disagreement about troop levels and strategy. The President has faced immense criticism from all sides after dismissing McChrystal. Republicans have criticized him for putting his own “yes man” in charge of executing the plan that McChrystal concocted because he subsequently adopted the recommendation to elevate troop levels. From his left, Obama has faced accusations that escalation is the wrong course and is a repudiation of the “call to action” that he received with his Nobel Peace Prize award last October.

Pundits had expected the Senate climb to be more difficult even than the House’s trials in passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill in early summer last year. Senate rules, election-year pressures and the fact that the House bill relied on heavy support from very populous blue states to win passage all spelled trouble for the Senate bill. Also, Obama’s own clout on the Hill was heavily damaged after last year’s failure to pass a strong health care bill.

Trade protections, heavy dilution of greenhouse has emissions targets, watered-down fuel and building energy efficiency standards, and huge cash handouts to utilities and the oil, gas and coal industries are just some of the elements of the final Senate bill that are drawing fire. As they did for the much-stronger Waxman-Markey bill, leading green groups like Greenpeace are opposing the Senate bill. Others insist that while the bill is imperfect, an incremental approach to energy and environmental legislation may be the best way to proceed.

Whatever the result, it now seems highly unlikely that the House and Senate could possibly agree on a bill in conference committee during this session, and any climate change legislation will likely have to wait until after mid-term elections. Of course, by that time, President Obama will be ramping up his own re-election bid and with hurt feelings among many of the constituencies that supported him in 2008 (gay rights groups and anti-war activists chief among them), Obama may choose to take on some more mainstream initiatives and leave climate change to the side for a while

Take it for what it is: my imagination. Except that we already know that most of this WILL certainly happen. What we don’t know yet, is how we’ll react.

Read more of this story »

Yesterday, Obama hopped a plane to Denmark for a whirlwind Scandinavian tour where it was thought that his presence and pitch might push Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics across the goal line. Instead, ChiTown did not make it out of the first round of balloting. Safe to say that if the White House knew that, Obama would not have made the trip. The failure marked the first - and probably last - time that a sitting US President schilled in front of an IOC selection committee.

The miscalculation is a familiar one. Just after Labor Day, POTUS addressed a joint session of Congress to drive home his point on the urgency of health care reform happening this year. Now barely into October, the only Senate health care bill thought to have a chance on the floor emerged from committee with no bipartisan support. And, as October begins it is clear that if any health care reform bill is signed in 2009, it will not include the now notorious “public option.”

In both cases, the White House made the decision to put their guy out there, but - evidently - no one counted the votes beforehand. The situation is eerily similar to the early administration flubs in the appointments process (i.e., the Daschle false start and the Judd Gregg quagmire). Any good party whip knows that you do not bring a bill to the floor until you know how the roll is going to be called.

As a result of Denmark, Obama winds up wearing a piece of a defeat that was inevitable and it was not even his fight. The Chicago Olympics story is clearly being played up for everything - and more - than its worth by the Right, but it is worth considering why - given that the Chicago bid was circling the drain - Obama let himself get dragged down with it?

When the call came asking for his support, White House staffers should have told the Chicago team to spend 48 hours having coffee with everyone who held a vote, and bring back their tally. If it looked close, then Obama has a tough call to make. But, if they cannot bring back a straw poll or if they bring back numbers that show the Windy City being blown away, then the White House has an easy answer: “love to help, but…”

As the world closes in on December’s big UN climate change conference — back in Copenhagen — it begs the question: is the White House strategy informed by good ground-level information on where other parties sit? Clearly, that strategy includes putting pressure on reluctant Senators with the prospect (read: threat) of EPA regulation of emissions in the absence of comprehensive legislation, even something as watered-down as Waxman-Markey. The upside to handing things off to Lisa Jackson is that it may force the hands of some of the upper Midwest Dems Obama needs to get to 60. And, even if it is not enough of a prod to move a bill through the Senate, it allows Obama to fly his flag in Copenhagen.

But, what if they are not close to 60? What if the lever is not the right one to swing the votes they need. Based on their recent due diligence, it is difficult to say whether the White House even knows where their votes are, who can be swung, and how. That said, should they roll the dice with an EPA plan? How will the inevitable backlash inside the US look on the global stage?

Strong political interests are already lining up against the idea of an executive power move on carbon, and with a lot of Dems looking more vulnerable for the mid-terms in 2010, you have to wonder if the move does not just paint Obama back into a corner and have allies running in the other direction on climate change.

On the campaign trail - in spite of Reverend Wright - Obama earned the gloss “No Drama Obama.” A little less than a year into his tenure as President, the shine is wearing off.

Flickr photo by RobBeer.

Just as it seemed that differences over contentious issues regarding the next climate treaty were ironing out and all parties moving ahead with a common agenda, the developed countries, US in particular, threatened to stall negotiations until developing countries pledge equal emission reduction measures.

According to new reports, American negotiators demanded that there should be similar mitigation obligations for developed as well developing countries. The demand was strictly against the unanimous decision to draw distinction between capacities of developed and developing nations to reduce carbon emissions taken at the Bali Climate Conference in 2007.

Developing countries, led by India, opposed the demand in one voice and forced the American negotiators to back down.

United States’ stance came as a surprise given that officials from the Obama administration have been in constant talks with various developing countries and that these talks have resulted in many developing countries agreeing to voluntary emission reduction plans. It was that since the carbon output of most developing countries is much less than that of developed countries and that they are not technically and financially equipped to take up bold mitigation measures a clear differentiation between mitigation measures taken up by the two parties.

Read more of this story »

About ten weeks from now leaders from nearly 200 countries will meet in Copenhagen to discuss the next climate treaty. During the last two to three years governments around the world moved to and fro over contentious issues like funding, technology transfer, intellectual property rights and emission reduction targets. As the world started to look for a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol, the start was slow with no sign of urgency even as the UNFCCC recommended a 25 to 40 percent reduction in global carbon emissions by 2020.

But the change at Washington brought a colossal change in the pace of global climate negotiations. The United States had played a vital role in formalization of the Kyoto Protocol but never ratified the same which created a gapping hole in global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. With the failure of Kyoto Protocol acknowledged by almost all it is clear that the we cannot afford to repeat the mistake committed in the past. United States’ commitment to act boldly and swiftly has become the make or break issue for the next climate treaty.

Read more of this story »

Protests from the tiny and good-tempered to the large and tragic this week, starting with the small and apparently ineffectual.

Ineffective Canadian protest

On Wednesday Royal Dutch Shell claimed that the oilsands mine that it operates at Muskeg River in northern Vancouver, Canada, was still running at full speed, despite the second day of environmental protest by Greenpeace activists who had arrived at the mine on Tuesday and prevented the operation of a super-sized dumper truck and a hydraulic mining shovel.  The protest is intended to show that the utilisation of Canada’s oilsands desposits is a contributor to worsening climate change.

Fatal Peruvian protest

In Peru, the government has acted on the financially troubled and environmentally challenged Doe Run Peru smelter. Their response to the closure of the site has been to give the operators a 30-month extension on their previous environmental clean-up deadline.  Production was halted in June, when banks cut off finance to the operating company: U.S.-based Renco Group. Now Renco says that it expects to obtain new loans and restart production now that 30 months have been added to the October deadline. If the plant reopens, around 20,000 jobs could be saved, but La Oroya will remain one of the most polluted towns on the planet for some time to come as spokesman has said Renco requires three years to undertake the clean-up. In unrest at the plant this week, one policeman died and at least three others were injured as protesters demanded the government reopen the smelter.

Polite Scottish Highlands protest

In the Scottish Highlands, a village of 270 persons has managed to obtain a 283 signature petition against proposed quarrying at Muir of Ord. Ord is famous for its distillery which produces whisky and several local businesses have lodged protests on environmental grounds. The entire 140-member Conon Fishings Syndicate has demanded safeguards for salmon fishing, and the Glen Orrin fish farm fears it could be at risk from flooding and reduced water quality. A local fruit farm has said the quarrying will have a detrimental effect on its business and adversely impact local wildlife. These protestors say this adverse effect on local business would counteract potential economic gains from the quarry which will extract sand and gravel from a 22-acre site over a 15 year licence period. Local wildlife like otters, ospreys and red kites may also be affected as their habitats are damaged, especially round local rivers.

Highlands photograph author’s own

The UK is undergoing a small crisis of parenting at present. The reason is that there has been an outbreak of E.coli, in one of its most virulent forms: 0157, which causes kidney damage in a small proportion of people contracting it, and the outbreaks have been linked to two city farms visited by children with their parents or as part of school groups.

City Zoos linked to disease outbreak

Forty-nine cases of E.coli have been linked to Godstone Farm in Surrey which has been closed, and its fellow site Horton Park Children’s Farm in Epsom, Surrey has closed voluntarily.  Other sites have closed in Nottingham and Devon. In Exmouth, Devon, a petting farm has closed after three children became ill, although there hasn’t been a direct link from their illness to a visit to the site.

However, in responding to the concerns, there appears to be a division of opinion in the governmental ranks. Professor Hugh Pennington who was chair of the Pennington Group enquiry into the Scottish Escherichia coli outbreak of 1996 and Chairman of the Public Inquiry into the 2005 Outbreak of E.coli O157 in South Wales, says parents should not allow under-fives to touch animals on farms. But the Department of Health (DoH) is maintaining that its current advice still stands: contact with animals is okay if good hand hygiene is undertaken.

Youngsters most at risk of harm

The concern is partly that very young children haven’t learned good hand hygiene and so are not good at washing their hands, and also that they are more prone to complications from E.coli than adults.  But there is a counter-argument being made by some health professionals that a child’s immune system is only built if it is given enough exposure to the wider world and depriving children of this kind of contact actually harms their ability to battle a range of viruses and infections.

One solution could be to provide better systems of hygiene, such as nail brushes that would allow people to ensure that they removed every lurking trace of the bacterium from their hands.  It is impossible to remove E.coli risk entirely from animals or their environment, even though most strains of the disease are very short lived outside the gut which is their natural habitat. So parents must decide whether to give their children the chance to get to meet animals, to improve their knowledge and development and to boost their immune systems through contact with the wider environment, or to reduce the risk of exposure to E.coli by avoiding such experiences as city zoos and agricultural or wild animals, altogether.

City Farm photograph author’s own

In his first UN appearance since taking the Oval Office, Obama staked a lofty position for the US, promised that the US is “determined to act,” and that the US “will meet our responsibility to future generations.” Chinese President Hu Jintao matched Obama’s rhetoric, pledging that the Chinese would commit to a host of progressive steps around renewable energy and emissions reductions, but also cautioning that developing economies like China’s “should not … be asked to take on obligations that go beyond their development stage.”

The summer saw a lot of pre-positioning in advance of Copenhagen, and with today’s UN General Assembly marking the beginning of a series of mini-summits in the lead-up to December’s big climate change conference, the volume on those announcements will only increase along with their frequency and grandeur.

Still, with Obama facing an uphill battle on domestic climate change legislation and China hiding behind their “developing” status, Copenhagen is threatening to become little more than a public relations event with little real concerted action. The US will have to avoid making the push for global leadership on climate change into a new breed of arms race that would find Obama and US policymakers at a significant disadvantage against the Chinese in the following ways:

Paying Lip Service is Costly – China, India and other developing countries want the US-led West to subsidize their carbon reduction efforts. If the West balks and no comprehensive global agreement emerges, the US could still find itself saddled with costly commitments made in going toe-to-toe with China as a demonstration of leadership and willingness to cooperate. For example, at the UN, President Jintao made the headline-grabbing promise to plant enough new trees in China to cover the area of Norway. Jintao also promised to get China to 15% renewable energy within 10 years, a much more ambitious timeline than any US plan. While it may not represent the kind of economy-crippling commitment that China fears will result from a global agreement, these programs will be costly, and Obama has his hands full just trying to pay for health care.

Democracy’s Dilemma - Not only is Obama hamstrung by health care, an increasingly troublesome war in Afghanistan, and an economy that is still teetering; but, he also has the mettlesome matters of bipartisanship, political pressure and budget restraints. While a strongly Democratic House could barely pass a weakened climate bill, Jintao and the Chinese have a one-party system overseeing a command economy that gives the Chinese a lot more adaptability as circumstances dictate in Copenhagen, in the world press, and on the geopolitical landscape.

The World Won’t Grade on a Curve - The Chinese are already crying foul over efforts to stifle their economy for the sake of climate change action and the world community is not expecting much from the world’s fastest growing economy and most voluminous emitter. Commitments like those above are enough to make a splash and convince the world that China really is trying. By contrast, Senators from Obama’s own party are refusing to discuss the prospect of domestic climate change legislation unless it includes trade protections. That kind of opposition in his own party makes a lot of his words ring hollow while the Chinese will certainly be able to deliver on whatever proposals they float. There are no handicaps in this game, so even if they overshoot on a much lower standard, the Chinese promise to steal Obama’s thunder.

Conventional wisdom says you should never enter a land war in Asia. The same might be said for wars of words.

Flickr photo.

Recently the Food and Agriculture organisation (FAO) of the UN reported that millions more people may find themselves facing long term hunger and even starvation, in east Africa.

Climate change affects Africa

El Nino is blamed for changing rainfall patterns, and that, combined with inadequate harvests and increasing conflict has led to a drop in cereal production already affecting Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. This could lead to an increase in the number of people relying on food aid.

Already more than 20 million people are receiving food assistance in the Horn of Africa region and their numbers are only likely to increase further towards the end of the year as El Nino drives heavy rains across the region, leading to mudslides on tree-denuded hillsides and the destruction of crops close to harvest time. The same rains often destroy roads and other infrastructure required to bring food aid and medicine into the region and can kill livestock or cause epidemic diseases in animals or human populations, all of which add to the complexity of managing food security in a region where conflict is endemic and border raids and ‘tribal’ disagreements are a standard response to poverty.

Horn of Africa countries badly hit

The worst hit country at present is Somalia, where the FAO claims that around half the population already need some form of aid; either food or medical supplies or both. Ethiopia is also expected to tip into reliance on emergency aid, as the second harvest of the year has failed and that means that food aid reliance could rise from 1.3 million to over six million people.

Kenya and Uganda are both expecting poor harvests, and Uganda has an even more disastrous prognosis as the ongoing unrest between government forces and rebels has forced people off their land or led them to stay barricaded in their compounds, resulting in less cultivation and a probably halving of the harvest of staple food crops. The current violence has left more than a million people in Uganda struggling with food security and the number is expected to rise steadily throughout the next twelve months, according to FAO experts.

Somali roadside wreckage courtesy of Carl Montgomery at Flickr under a creative commons licence

Thursday this week seems to have been a key day for environmental protest.

Chinese pollution protest

In Fujian Province, eastern China, villagers blockaded a road to protest against high levels of lead in the blood of their children. Local residents are convinced that the children’s excessive lead levels are the result of pollution from the  Huaqiang Battery Factory. Authorities have ordered China’s environmental protection bureau to increase oversight of the plant. The protest comes in the wake of several similar protests against industrial plants that have succeeded in getting polluting factories closed down.

Manure message

And in the UK, journalist and television presenter Jeremy Clarkson found his own bit of global warming, on his doorstep! Seven members of group Climate Rush visited his home and left steaming piles of horse manure on his drive, along with a message reading ‘This is what you’re landing us in’. The protestors, all women, chose Clarkson because he has a sceptical attitude to climate change. Clarkson is the presenter of Top Gear, a car programme, and has recently driven to the Arctic. In the past he has made inflammatory remarks about the effects of climate change, describing walkers who demand access to land as ‘urban communists’ and cyclists as ‘Lycra Nazis’.

New Zealand animal foods protest

And finally on the same day, 17 September, a New Zealand protest against palm kernel imports ended inconclusively.  The company, Fonterra, is a dairy supplies specialist and also a cooperative with over 11,000 dairy farming members in New Zealand.  Greenpeace claims there is both local and international concern about the nature of the palm oil industry globally and protestors chained themselves to the cranes of the ship delivering the imports.  Feed imports for livestock are an increasing contentious issue – Greenpeace says that corn and grain farmers in New Zealand have supported their action because their own products have been outpriced by cheap imported livestock foods and that endangered species are being further threatened by land clearance fuelled by the palm oil export industry. 14 protesters, charged with unlawful boarding of a ship, will be appearing in court next week.
New Zealand sheep courtesy of PhillipC at Flickr under a creative commons licence

After months of staunch resistance to mandatory emission reduction targets the Indian government has hinted that it is willing to consider a national legislation on voluntary emission reduction targets.

India’s environment minister Mr. Jairam Ramesh acknowledged for the first time that his country needs to take up bold responsibilities in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change. The proposed legislation could include emission reduction targets for the year 2030 for the most polluting and carbon intensive industrial sectors.

India has been against mandatory emission reduction targets putting forward two main arguments - one, its per capita emissions are among the lowest in the world and two, taking bold measures to reduce its carbon emissions would adversely impact its endeavor to eradicate poverty. The proposed bill would address both these issues and could serve as a path breaking legislation striking a balance between the economic and social costs and the mitigation measures.

Read more of this story »