The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The French president François Hollande, one of the only major western leaders scheduled to attend the Rio+20 Earth summit this week, will argue that sustainable development and the fight against poverty must be united in one agenda.In an interview with the Guardian, Pascal Canfin, the new French development minister who will prepare the French negotiations in Rio, said: "We want one single agenda, to integrate sustainable development within the millennium development goals of poverty reduction. It's not about saying we'll replace the millennium goals with sustainable development goals."I know there are fears about that. It's about saying that in today's world, where the planet is at the limit of its ecosystem's capacity, the fight against poverty has to take into account environmental issues such as water, energy, urban development. "While David Cameron and Angela Merkel are sending deputies and Barack Obama has yet to confirm, Hollande will fly to Rio on Wednesday, joining two French cabinet ministers. Asked whether France is seeking to take the lead while other western powers step back, Canfin said: "France is not there to take anyone else's place or speak in their name; we simply want it to be a success. We'll be in Rio because we want it to work."Hollande, who has already warned against the risk of failure in Rio and "words that aren't met by actions", is under pressure to prove his environmental credentials in France and show the economic crisis has not knocked the environment and development off the agenda.
The French president François Hollande, one of the only major western leaders scheduled to attend the Rio+20 Earth summit this week, will argue that sustainable development and the fight against poverty must be united in one agenda.
In an interview with the Guardian, Pascal Canfin, the new French development minister who will prepare the French negotiations in Rio, said: "We want one single agenda, to integrate sustainable development within the millennium development goals of poverty reduction. It's not about saying we'll replace the millennium goals with sustainable development goals.
"I know there are fears about that. It's about saying that in today's world, where the planet is at the limit of its ecosystem's capacity, the fight against poverty has to take into account environmental issues such as water, energy, urban development. "
While David Cameron and Angela Merkel are sending deputies and Barack Obama has yet to confirm, Hollande will fly to Rio on Wednesday, joining two French cabinet ministers. Asked whether France is seeking to take the lead while other western powers step back, Canfin said: "France is not there to take anyone else's place or speak in their name; we simply want it to be a success. We'll be in Rio because we want it to work."
Hollande, who has already warned against the risk of failure in Rio and "words that aren't met by actions", is under pressure to prove his environmental credentials in France and show the economic crisis has not knocked the environment and development off the agenda.
So what happens if you hold a UN conference on sustainable development, and world leaders make speeches, and sign treaties, and then nothing happens? This, of course, would be absurd. The problem, says Bill Easterly, a development expert at New York University, is that nothing has happened in the 20 years since the first Rio Earth Summit, in which all the world's nations gathered and promised to address major environmental problems and then held more environmental summits, and then a few more. As Mr. Easterly tweeted, "Delegates gather in Rio to commemorate 20 years of nothing happening since a UN Summit where nothing happened." The most charitable way to look at the past 20 years of environmental conferences is to see them as the beginning of a global conversation on the common threats of carbon emissions (also known as air pollution) and greater awareness of the dire consequences we all face if nations don't get serious about developing in a cleaner and environmentally sustainable way.
This, of course, would be absurd. The problem, says Bill Easterly, a development expert at New York University, is that nothing has happened in the 20 years since the first Rio Earth Summit, in which all the world's nations gathered and promised to address major environmental problems and then held more environmental summits, and then a few more.
As Mr. Easterly tweeted, "Delegates gather in Rio to commemorate 20 years of nothing happening since a UN Summit where nothing happened."
The most charitable way to look at the past 20 years of environmental conferences is to see them as the beginning of a global conversation on the common threats of carbon emissions (also known as air pollution) and greater awareness of the dire consequences we all face if nations don't get serious about developing in a cleaner and environmentally sustainable way.
In any case, no matter where you are, we're all connected in this disaster together.
And only a change in consciousness can mitigate the rolling waves. Erowid. The political changes will follow.
Speaking of which, Happy Belated Birthday, Sasha Shulgin
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
When world leaders from over 100 countries wind up their three-day Rio+20 summit in Brazil next week, they will leave behind the shattered remains of a slew of proposals that never got off the ground. A 30-billion-dollar Global Fund for Sustainable Development? A Financial Transactions Tax? A Sustainable Development Index? A Sustainable Development Council? A Global Fund for Education? A World Environment Organisation? An Inter-governmental Body on Tax Matters? The proposals originated from environmental activists, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), human rights groups, the U.N.'s NGO Committee on Financing for Development and a High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability. After continued stalemate - over issues relating mostly to financing and technology transfers - the 193-member Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) failed to reach agreement Friday on a blueprint for a green economy and sustainable development worldwide. A consolidated document produced by Brazil, in its capacity as president of the summit (also known as the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development), is likely to be the final action plan titled "The Future We Want" to be endorsed by world leaders when they arrive in Rio Jun. 20.
When world leaders from over 100 countries wind up their three-day Rio+20 summit in Brazil next week, they will leave behind the shattered remains of a slew of proposals that never got off the ground.
A 30-billion-dollar Global Fund for Sustainable Development? A Financial Transactions Tax? A Sustainable Development Index? A Sustainable Development Council? A Global Fund for Education? A World Environment Organisation? An Inter-governmental Body on Tax Matters?
The proposals originated from environmental activists, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), human rights groups, the U.N.'s NGO Committee on Financing for Development and a High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability.
After continued stalemate - over issues relating mostly to financing and technology transfers - the 193-member Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) failed to reach agreement Friday on a blueprint for a green economy and sustainable development worldwide.
A consolidated document produced by Brazil, in its capacity as president of the summit (also known as the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development), is likely to be the final action plan titled "The Future We Want" to be endorsed by world leaders when they arrive in Rio Jun. 20.
How can world leaders at the Rio+20 Earth Summit next week show that they are serious about sustainable development and environmental protection? The answer is simple: end fossil fuel subsidies. Every year, governments around the world give nearly $1 trillion dollars of public money to the fossil fuel industry. Three years ago, the G20 committed to phase-out these handouts to coal, oil and gas companies, but they haven't taken any action since. Now is the perfect time. This June 18, finance ministers and heads of state from G20 countries will come together in Los Cabos, Mexico. Three days later, more than 100 presidents and prime ministers will join over 50,000 people at the Rio+20 Earth Summit, the largest environmental conference in world history. Both meetings offer a clear opportunity for world leaders to step up to the plate and stop these outrageous handouts. After all, how can you have a serious discussion about funding sustainable development without taking on the hundreds of billions of dollars handed over to the fossil fuel sector each year? A mere fraction of these subsidies could jumpstart thousands of clean energy projects around the world. Large scale transfers of money from dirty to clean investments could catalyze the type of worldwide energy transformation that is desperately needed.
How can world leaders at the Rio+20 Earth Summit next week show that they are serious about sustainable development and environmental protection? The answer is simple: end fossil fuel subsidies.
Every year, governments around the world give nearly $1 trillion dollars of public money to the fossil fuel industry. Three years ago, the G20 committed to phase-out these handouts to coal, oil and gas companies, but they haven't taken any action since.
Now is the perfect time. This June 18, finance ministers and heads of state from G20 countries will come together in Los Cabos, Mexico. Three days later, more than 100 presidents and prime ministers will join over 50,000 people at the Rio+20 Earth Summit, the largest environmental conference in world history. Both meetings offer a clear opportunity for world leaders to step up to the plate and stop these outrageous handouts.
After all, how can you have a serious discussion about funding sustainable development without taking on the hundreds of billions of dollars handed over to the fossil fuel sector each year? A mere fraction of these subsidies could jumpstart thousands of clean energy projects around the world. Large scale transfers of money from dirty to clean investments could catalyze the type of worldwide energy transformation that is desperately needed.
And pony's too.
This week's earth summit in Rio de Janeiro is a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago. By now, the leaders who gathered in the same city in 1992 told us, the world's environmental problems were to have been solved. But all they have generated is more meetings, which will continue until the delegates, surrounded by rising waters, have eaten the last rare dove, exquisitely presented with an olive leaf roulade. The biosphere that world leaders promised to protect is in a far worse state than it was 20 years ago. Is it not time to recognise that they have failed?These summits have failed for the same reason that the banks have failed. Political systems that were supposed to represent everyone now return governments of millionaires, financed by and acting on behalf of billionaires. The past 20 years have been a billionaires' banquet. At the behest of corporations and the ultra-rich, governments have removed the constraining decencies - the laws and regulations - which prevent one person from destroying another. To expect governments funded and appointed by this class to protect the biosphere and defend the poor is like expecting a lion to live on gazpacho.You have only to see the way the United States has savaged the Earth summit's draft declaration to grasp the scale of this problem. The word "equitable", the US insists, must be cleansed from the text. So must any mention of the right to food, water, health, the rule of law, gender equality and women's empowerment. So must a clear target of preventing two degrees of global warming. So must a commitment to change "unsustainable consumption and production patterns", and to decouple economic growth from the use of natural resources. Most significantly, the US delegation demands the removal of many of the foundations agreed by a Republican president in Rio in 1992. In particular, it has set out to purge all mention of the core principle of that Earth summit: common but differentiated responsibilities. This means that while all countries should strive to protect the world's resources, those with the most money and who have done the most damage should play a greater part. This is the government, remember, not of George W Bush but of Barack Obama.
This week's earth summit in Rio de Janeiro is a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago. By now, the leaders who gathered in the same city in 1992 told us, the world's environmental problems were to have been solved. But all they have generated is more meetings, which will continue until the delegates, surrounded by rising waters, have eaten the last rare dove, exquisitely presented with an olive leaf roulade. The biosphere that world leaders promised to protect is in a far worse state than it was 20 years ago. Is it not time to recognise that they have failed?
These summits have failed for the same reason that the banks have failed. Political systems that were supposed to represent everyone now return governments of millionaires, financed by and acting on behalf of billionaires. The past 20 years have been a billionaires' banquet. At the behest of corporations and the ultra-rich, governments have removed the constraining decencies - the laws and regulations - which prevent one person from destroying another. To expect governments funded and appointed by this class to protect the biosphere and defend the poor is like expecting a lion to live on gazpacho.
You have only to see the way the United States has savaged the Earth summit's draft declaration to grasp the scale of this problem. The word "equitable", the US insists, must be cleansed from the text. So must any mention of the right to food, water, health, the rule of law, gender equality and women's empowerment. So must a clear target of preventing two degrees of global warming. So must a commitment to change "unsustainable consumption and production patterns", and to decouple economic growth from the use of natural resources. Most significantly, the US delegation demands the removal of many of the foundations agreed by a Republican president in Rio in 1992. In particular, it has set out to purge all mention of the core principle of that Earth summit: common but differentiated responsibilities. This means that while all countries should strive to protect the world's resources, those with the most money and who have done the most damage should play a greater part.
This is the government, remember, not of George W Bush but of Barack Obama.
So this is the great question of our age: where is everyone? The monster social movements of the 19th century and first 80 years of the 20th have gone, and nothing has replaced them. Those of us who still contest unwarranted power find our footsteps echoing through cavernous halls once thronged by multitudes. When a few hundred people do make a stand - as the Occupy campers have done - the rest of the nation just waits for them to achieve the kind of change that requires the sustained work of millions.
A European Union court has annulled a Commission decision rejecting two environmental groups' request for an internal review of a pesticide regulation. The General Court's decision on 14 June called into question the narrow wording of the regulation that obliges the EU's institutions to protect the rights of civil society to participate in environmental decision-making. The plaintiffs in the case - Stichting Natuur en Milieu, a Dutch environmental foundation, and Pesticide Action Network Europe, a group that campaigns against the use of chemical pesticides - welcomed the outcome. François Veillerette, who heads the Pesticide Action Network, urged the commission to accept the decision and not appeal it to the European Court of Justice. Jeremy Wates of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a Brussels campaign group, said the ruling "vindicates longstanding concerns in the NGO community that the EU has failed to provide sufficient opportunities for NGOs to hold EU institutions to account." The pesticide regulation at the centre of the case specifies maximum residue levels of pesticides for certain food and feed products. When the two environmental groups asked the Commission to review the pesticide regulation, they based that request on the Aarhus Regulation. The latter applies to EU institutions the protections provided by the United Nations' Aarhus Convention on access to information. That convention was introduced to supplement substantive environmental protections with procedural rights to enforce violations of those standards. It was approved on behalf of the European Union by a Council decision in February of 2005.
A European Union court has annulled a Commission decision rejecting two environmental groups' request for an internal review of a pesticide regulation.
The General Court's decision on 14 June called into question the narrow wording of the regulation that obliges the EU's institutions to protect the rights of civil society to participate in environmental decision-making.
The plaintiffs in the case - Stichting Natuur en Milieu, a Dutch environmental foundation, and Pesticide Action Network Europe, a group that campaigns against the use of chemical pesticides - welcomed the outcome. François Veillerette, who heads the Pesticide Action Network, urged the commission to accept the decision and not appeal it to the European Court of Justice.
Jeremy Wates of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a Brussels campaign group, said the ruling "vindicates longstanding concerns in the NGO community that the EU has failed to provide sufficient opportunities for NGOs to hold EU institutions to account."
The pesticide regulation at the centre of the case specifies maximum residue levels of pesticides for certain food and feed products.
When the two environmental groups asked the Commission to review the pesticide regulation, they based that request on the Aarhus Regulation. The latter applies to EU institutions the protections provided by the United Nations' Aarhus Convention on access to information.
That convention was introduced to supplement substantive environmental protections with procedural rights to enforce violations of those standards. It was approved on behalf of the European Union by a Council decision in February of 2005.
First came the coffee growers. Then the charcoal makers. And finally, when the last trees had been cleared, there came the cattlemen, who grazed their cows on the denuded hillsides. Several centuries of human activity have left a deep scar in the Atlantic rainforest north of Rio. Between patches of primary forest which are a haven to rare birds and mammals, hill after hill has nothing but thin grass and eroded soil. Reversing this loss would seem like a lost cause, yet another defeat in the long battle to preserve the environment. But nothing appears to deter Mauricio Ruiz, whose encounter at the age of 15 with a Brazilian poet made him resolved to bring the phantom forest back to life. He invested every cent in his pocket -- 20 reals, around $10 -- to start a tree-planting initiative. Fourteen years later, his organisation, the Instituto Terra de Preservacao Ambiental, is beginning to see the rewards of struggle. Spades and seedlings in hand, its 130 employees and army of seasonal workers are marching across the hills. In their wake, they have left 670,000 young trees, drawn from 55 native species. "We hope to reach the million mark by the end of 2012. Our goal is to plant 18 million trees covering 18,000 hectares (69.5 square miles)," Ruiz said.
Several centuries of human activity have left a deep scar in the Atlantic rainforest north of Rio.
Between patches of primary forest which are a haven to rare birds and mammals, hill after hill has nothing but thin grass and eroded soil. Reversing this loss would seem like a lost cause, yet another defeat in the long battle to preserve the environment.
But nothing appears to deter Mauricio Ruiz, whose encounter at the age of 15 with a Brazilian poet made him resolved to bring the phantom forest back to life. He invested every cent in his pocket -- 20 reals, around $10 -- to start a tree-planting initiative.
Fourteen years later, his organisation, the Instituto Terra de Preservacao Ambiental, is beginning to see the rewards of struggle. Spades and seedlings in hand, its 130 employees and army of seasonal workers are marching across the hills. In their wake, they have left 670,000 young trees, drawn from 55 native species. "We hope to reach the million mark by the end of 2012. Our goal is to plant 18 million trees covering 18,000 hectares (69.5 square miles)," Ruiz said.
Norwegian authorities wants Brazil to improve the country's spending of the NOK 2,5 billion Norway has awarded to the rainforest since 2009. At least NOK 2 billion of this funding is still sitting in the bank. At the climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, Brazil committed to reduce the cutting of the rainforest by 80 percent before 2020. Norway's investment helped fund the Amazons Fund, and up until now the money has mainly been spent on implementing a deforestation program. Minister of Environment Bård Vegard Solhjell and Minister of Development Heikki Holmås both traveled to the Amazons on the weekend. Solhjell will meet with the Minister of Enviroment in Brazil to discuss how the money will be spent in the years ahead. "We are very concerned with only giving out money to projects we know work, and that will help preserve the rainforest. But we want to Brazilian government to become even better at investing these funds, and that's what I would like to discuss with the Minister of Enviroment," Solhjell explains.
Africa may be about to get a whole lot more power. For years, nonprofits have worked to make lighting available and affordable to Africans who aren't connected to a power grid. But they've managed to help only a tiny percentage of that population, mainly by selling them inexpensive kerosene lamps. Now, some of the world's biggest energy companies are thinking on a much grander scale. They're conducting projects to test the viability--and marketability--of solar-powered systems to provide electricity for lighting and other purposes in villages all over Africa. The companies are aiming to sell the systems to governments and nonprofits, which could use them to provide power to villages at a discount or for no charge. The systems cost less than it would to expand traditional power grids--offering a relatively swift, economical way to boost living standards. The pilot programs have improved people's lives. And the market potential is enticing to the energy companies: Some 600 million people in Africa live without reliable access to electricity, according to the International Finance Corp., a division of the World Bank. The big question is how willing governments and nonprofits will be to invest in solar systems.
Africa may be about to get a whole lot more power.
For years, nonprofits have worked to make lighting available and affordable to Africans who aren't connected to a power grid. But they've managed to help only a tiny percentage of that population, mainly by selling them inexpensive kerosene lamps.
Now, some of the world's biggest energy companies are thinking on a much grander scale. They're conducting projects to test the viability--and marketability--of solar-powered systems to provide electricity for lighting and other purposes in villages all over Africa.
The companies are aiming to sell the systems to governments and nonprofits, which could use them to provide power to villages at a discount or for no charge. The systems cost less than it would to expand traditional power grids--offering a relatively swift, economical way to boost living standards.
The pilot programs have improved people's lives. And the market potential is enticing to the energy companies: Some 600 million people in Africa live without reliable access to electricity, according to the International Finance Corp., a division of the World Bank. The big question is how willing governments and nonprofits will be to invest in solar systems.
Japan ordered a pair of reactors back online for the first time since last year's nuclear accident, but the chaos and confusion surrounding the decision highlight how unready the country may still be to restart its atomic-energy engine. A group of cabinet ministers led by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda decided Saturday to restart the reactors, in a bid to wrench the economy back on track, 15 months after an earthquake and tsunami caused devastating meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The government has estimated that if Japan doesn't turn any reactors back on, its economy could shrink as much as 5% by 2030. Yet the restart decision comes a month ahead of deliberations over a new energy plan, which could call for phasing out nuclear power for good. And the restarts would come a few months before the setup of a new Japanese nuclear regulator, which will craft new safety guidelines and is expected to take a harder line on vetting reactors. Opinion polls consistently show more than half of Japanese are opposed to nuclear power, though they fret over energy shortages expected as soon as this summer and higher electric bills if the reactors stay off. Even some of those who favor atomic energy worry the government hasn't done enough to ensure nuclear plants will be safe from a Fukushima-type accident. Many businesses have strongly backed restarts, stating the need for stable power supplies.
Japan ordered a pair of reactors back online for the first time since last year's nuclear accident, but the chaos and confusion surrounding the decision highlight how unready the country may still be to restart its atomic-energy engine.
A group of cabinet ministers led by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda decided Saturday to restart the reactors, in a bid to wrench the economy back on track, 15 months after an earthquake and tsunami caused devastating meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The government has estimated that if Japan doesn't turn any reactors back on, its economy could shrink as much as 5% by 2030.
Yet the restart decision comes a month ahead of deliberations over a new energy plan, which could call for phasing out nuclear power for good. And the restarts would come a few months before the setup of a new Japanese nuclear regulator, which will craft new safety guidelines and is expected to take a harder line on vetting reactors.
Opinion polls consistently show more than half of Japanese are opposed to nuclear power, though they fret over energy shortages expected as soon as this summer and higher electric bills if the reactors stay off. Even some of those who favor atomic energy worry the government hasn't done enough to ensure nuclear plants will be safe from a Fukushima-type accident.
Many businesses have strongly backed restarts, stating the need for stable power supplies.
A Chinese spacecraft carrying three astronauts has docked with an orbiting module where they will live and work for several days as part of preparations for crewing a permanent space station.The Shenzhou 9 capsule completed the manoeuvre as scheduled shortly after 7am UK time on Monday as the Tiangong 1 module orbited 213 miles above Earth.The capsule's crew includes 33-year-old Liu Yang, an air force pilot and China's first female astronaut.Monday's docking was completed by remote control from a ground base in China. A manual docking carried out by one of the crew members is scheduled for later.
A Chinese spacecraft carrying three astronauts has docked with an orbiting module where they will live and work for several days as part of preparations for crewing a permanent space station.
The Shenzhou 9 capsule completed the manoeuvre as scheduled shortly after 7am UK time on Monday as the Tiangong 1 module orbited 213 miles above Earth.
The capsule's crew includes 33-year-old Liu Yang, an air force pilot and China's first female astronaut.
Monday's docking was completed by remote control from a ground base in China. A manual docking carried out by one of the crew members is scheduled for later.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- They live on your skin, up your nose, in your gut - enough bacteria, fungi and other microbes that collected together could weigh, amazingly, a few pounds. Now scientists have mapped just which critters normally live in or on us and where, calculating that healthy people can share their bodies with more than 10,000 species of microbes.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- They live on your skin, up your nose, in your gut - enough bacteria, fungi and other microbes that collected together could weigh, amazingly, a few pounds.
Now scientists have mapped just which critters normally live in or on us and where, calculating that healthy people can share their bodies with more than 10,000 species of microbes.
by DoDo - May 20 19 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2019 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments