A penny for your cyber-thoughts.
A scramble to buy African land is threatening the continent’s sustainable development, according to reports launched today at the Royal Society in London.
Of the 203 million hectares of land deals reported worldwide between 2000 and 2010, two-thirds were in Africa. The acquisitions are dispossessing millions of Africans of their land, to make way for expansive forestry and mineral projects and plantations, say a series of briefs and a report published by the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI)….
“The global report shows the scale of the issue as never before: three-quarters of Africa’s population and two-thirds of the landscape are at risk,” says Andy White, who coordinates the RRI.
NOTE: How about crowd-sourcing some real pennies for cartoonist, Stephanie McMillan, who has given me permission to reprint her cartoons. Here’s the link to Paypal where you can donate to her if you like her cartoons. CLICK HERE (then click where it says DONATE).
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
There is definitely a that’s not funny concerning the way energy costs were figured as such a % of revenue for businesses during setup stages and then after downturn the energy costs could do a disappearing act on the moneys.
Such as a upper scale big box having to jeep the AC at 72 for the possible customer.
moving away from the system of using the profits of the business to set up another example of the business at another location could help the business to make the profitable business better in the first place. Downside is.that people might get common knowledge that the business was profitable.
Heard of a hotel in Hawaii that put huge solar power up on the hotel that was making the profit. Spent the money right there on the hotel that made the money.
What an unusual concept.
Regarding the land-grab cartoon, it highlights several reasons to support enforcement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Preventing environmental degradation is one of them.
In 2007 the UN Declaration was voted into effect by many countries that now ignore the requirement to obtain “free, prior, and informed consent” of an indigenous people “particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”
Full text: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
The non-binding Declaration on Indigenous Rights was meant to be a binding Treaty, but after years of effort, that was aborted because of the opposition of the Anglosphere colonial states, the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In Australia the situation of the indigenous is as bad as it ever has been, with both Rightwing parties determined to achieve cultural genocide by forced assimilation, reverse land rights gains and drive Aboriginal people off their ancestral land, which is intended for exploitation by mining, pastoral and tourist industries. Aboriginal imprisonment rates are the highest anywhere, mortality and morbidity catastrophic and life expectancy twenty years less. The bi-partison policy, the notorious ‘emergency intervention’ imposed on Commonwealth territory in 2007, is humiliating, demeaning, disempowering and openly racist and discriminatory (anti-racist laws had to be suspended for its introduction). The opposition of the victims and most Aboriginal leaders (these are ignored and a handful of collaborationist Uncle and Aunty Toms preferred, particularly-where else?-in the Murdoch sewer)has been treated with exemplary contempt, and these deliberately harmful measures have just been instituted for a further ten years. So, if you think things are bad for the indigenous in the USA or Canada, be assured-there is one country where matters are even worse.
Among natives here in the US, the acronym C.A.NZ.US refers to the four nations, all former British colonies, that voted against the UN Declaration in 2007. Although each has modified its stance to appear less hostile, all four have huge vested economic interests in not implementing the UN Declaration either internally or globally. I’m more familiar with the Canada and US elements, and have a nodding acquaintance with the issues in New Zealand around the Treaty of Waitangi. You draw quite a picture of Australia.
The irony of this in Australia is that we have already shown how to do it. Have a look at Paton & Emery 1996, copyright 1997, in the Journal for Quality and Participation or contact nhamson@cincirr.com.
We just give back what we have taken away, their right as purposeful systems to assume responsibility for their own coordination and control and determine their own future.
With representative democracy which assumes that those elected know better than you how to determine your future, you hand your future over to others. It might work for some but for the struggling of the world, and those who have already proved that they are adaptive (over about 60,000 years), it has proven a disaster – and well, here we are – on the edge of disaster if not extinction, and guess what? ME
Democracy is a con, and ‘representative democracy’ the worst of all. Believe me, the rabble of ‘representatives’ present in Australian parliaments, represent humanity at its most loathsome (with a few exceptions-very few). Even in Athens the suffrage was hugely restricted and the Athenians spent much time ostracising one another and throwing their weight around amongst their neighbours. The current incarnation, ‘capitalist democracy’ is the most completely self-contradicting usage imaginable. In capitalist states the money power rules, which is what you have in the USA. Voting is not compulsory but obedience to the state, no matter how criminal, deranged and malignant its functionaries, is imposed with salutary rigour-just ask the millions jammed in prison or on parole. Politicians lie routinely, then deny it, and the public is relentlessly brainwashed into ignorance and zealotry,( the low point [only so far] being the Mad Hatters of the Tea Party), by a MSM who make the Gadarene swine resemble demi-gods. In fact, I’m absolutely certain that the corrupt, deracinated and manipulated so-called ‘democracy’ that the West proclaims as the most perfect system possible and the ‘End of History’ is precisely the worst system with which to address global systems collapse.
While the cartoon focused on the problems with big ag in Africa, we also have similar poroblems in the US. The Center for Rural Affairs (Lyons, NE based organization) joined Dr. Hansen this week in labeling climate change a moral issue:
Raising this issue with family farmers just might make Republican Denier strategy look bad when the political right needs all of those states to win an election. Full text of statement is here: http://www.cfra.org/node/3961
Divert substantial taxpayer-supported bailout funds from JPMorgan & other banks to invest in windturbine-generated hydrogen/methane/Natural-Gas storage, pipelines & filling stations.
Increase substantially tax rates on all biofuels.
“his intensifying personal push for aggressive cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases has come with a framing of climate science that is being criticized by some respected researchers for stepping beyond what peer-reviewed studies have concluded.” Revkin.
Then the example who he gives quotes from is jaw dropping:
Martin Hoerling
Contrarian NOAA Meteorologist Martin Hoerling: Freak Heat Wave ‘A Darn Good Outcome’ ( http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/04/456927/contrarian-noaa-meteorologist-martin-hoerling-freak-heat-wave-a-darn-good-outcome/ )
As well as the “verification” triangulated mush Kerry piece.
Id point out how likely were either of those events in a climate that was undergoing verifiable cooling ? Or no change? And in that case would using them as “normal variation” ever be justified without a more complex and very observable mechanism being noted as being present?? E.g. arctic dipole, etc…
I dont know why Revkin feels the need to do this from time to time. I personally think he wants to frame himself as a “moderate” for other reasons.
Sorry, glitch – that was for
7. Gail Zawacki says:
May 12, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Thoughts on Revkin’s piece.
If it ever gets out of moderation.
Not sure how to word this questions… but here goes. If the wild weather we’re seeing now is because of less than 1C warming, will 2C be twice as bad? Or will it be exponential?
Probably exponential- which will be bad- adding injury to insult the positive feedback’s kicking in fast. C02 now at 397ppm- we still have no human observations of this over time. This warming in the pipeline will be bad enough.
The 1C change in global mean surface temperature is an *initial* consequence of the net increase in energy, and not its cause. A surface temperature shift is not the best proxy or index for increased wild weather, as so much of the increase in energy *to date* has been stored in the oceans, and the oceans are the drivers of large scale climate dynamics. As such, it’s not a simple doubling, nor is it likely to be a clean exponential, either. Just an opinion.
This land buying is 21st century colonialism, replacing the national flags with corporate logos and FAR less responsiveness to popular interests in either the affected nations or the West. By enforcing legalistic, contract-based, abstract “ownership” doctrines over centuries of community-use practice, the leaders are acting against the long-term interests of their own people and should be thrown out of office. The Nature article has a comment referring to the “tragedy of the commons,” but the writer is misidentifying it — that was misuse of community resources by enclosure and takeover for the benefit of large, wealthy, often foreign interests, NOT the failure of ancient, sustainable systems (although explosive population HAS been a major problem in those regions).
You’re quite correct. The tragedy of the commons is yet another example of how the Right, utilising their total propaganda dominance, have perverted the meaning of words and concepts to imply the opposite of their intended meaning. The tragedy of the commons was originally about enclosure, Highland clearances, colonial expropriation etc where commonly held land was stolen by the rich and powerful. It has been perverted to mean that land held in common was destroyed because there were no ‘private property rights’, the implicit brainwashing lie being that individual greed is better at conserving resources and protecting the biosphere than collective responsibility. It is a Big, Big Lie-the Right’s stock-in-trade- as most of these collectively held areas were conserved for generations, whereas, after privatization, they were almost uniformly exploited to ruin in short order. The ‘private good, public bad’ lie remains, however, with the Rightwing genocidaires eyeing public lands, even National Parks, for expropriation and destructive exploitation.
Thoughts on Revkin’s shameful hatchet job on Jim Hansen: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/05/climate-cannibals.html
Waiting for Joe to do a post-mortem on that column!
Since April 3 at least a gas well in Nigeria has been also leaking uncontrollably. It was not publicized until mid April.
It also belongs to French oil firm Total SA.
Total hopes to stop Nigeria gas leak in “few days” ( http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E8GBA8I20120511 )
Total coverup job.
The Original Release:
12 April, 2012
STATUS ON OML58/IBEWA
On April 3rd, Total E&P Nigeria Limited (TEPNG) was alerted about some water and gas resurgence points, observed in an uninhabited area close to its onshore Obite gas production facilities, on the OML 58 license. OML 58 is a concession operated by TEPNG on behalf of the NNPC/Total joint venture in Ogba/Ndoni/Egbema Local Government Area (ONELGA), Rivers State. This event is the likely consequence of a technical incident that occurred during drilling operations on the same site, on March 20th. There have been no injuries. Production from the Obite gas plant has been stopped and wells shut down. ( http://www.ng.total.com/media/tepng_news/12Apr2012_tepng_news/12Apr2012_status-on-OML58-Ibewa.pdf )
Alberta had a provincial election a week or two ago, and the ruling Conservatives, led by Premier Allison Redford, were returned to power with a big majority. The government there has always been a real tub-thumper on behalf of the tar sands, and that’s not about to change. The government’s ties to the tar sands industry were illustrated in Redford’s choice for energy minister in her new cabinet. He’s Ken Hughes and at the time he was sworn in he was still on the board of directors of Alberta Oilsands Inc., and CEO of an oilfield services company called Wenzel Downhole Tools. He has since resigned both positions,but said he hadn’t mention his ties to the industry earlier because he didn’t think it was necessary. So the government will continue to be firmly in the oil industry’s pocket.
And, of course, there are very few in the province who are concerned.
In the meantime, the federal government has launched a campaign of vilification against opponents of the proposed pipeline to take bitumen from the tar sands over the mountains to the west coast where it will be shipped to market in China. In fact, measures in the recent federal budget will make dissent even more difficult by shortening the environmental assessment process, and limiting its scope.
We live in interesting times.
For more details on the roll back of years of environmental progress in Canada read Elizabeth May Green Party member of Parliament:
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/05/10/Bill-C38/
From the news release:
“In the past, the biggest pressures on locally held natural ecosystems have been agriculture and logging, but large mineral-extraction deals are now catching up. “The footprint of a mine might be small, but the road to the mine will slice and dice rural ecosystems,” says White”
Well, this could be both true or false, depending on the location.
For example, in Peruvian Andes (the mountains) there are a lot of mines. In the past they left for decades catastrophic environmental impacts. However, since the 1990s, when environmental regulation was introduced, these impacts are greatly reduced. Now the mining projects main trouble is that the projects cannot be done if all the communities agree with it. It’s not in the law, but it is the de facto situation.
In the Andes, the impacts can be mitigated by advanced engineering. And the roads to it are not disruptive, but instead are a greatly beneficial for the local communities, because they can trade their goods(mainly agricultural ones) at much lower costs, so they are a powerful tool against poverty (they should be built by the state, but if a mine do it for free, it’s a win-win for everyone).
In constrast, the situation in the Peruvian Amazon is quite the opposite: any road in the rainforest is a portal to illegal logging and farming that destroy the forest. In the early 2000s a road called the “Inter-Oceanic Road” was built linking South Peruvian cost with the Brazilian Atlantic, passing across the south-east region of Madre de Dios.
There there is currently an invasion of andine illegal miners that extract gold from the rainforest soil.To do this, they remove the vegetation, and suck with million-$ machines the alluvial soil, leaving enormous holes where onde there was a dense rainforest. The soil is then mixed with mercury to dissolve the gold and then the mix Au-Hg is heated to evaporate the mercury. The gold remains in melting pots while the mercury goes to the atmosphere and then condense and fall with the rain. The mercury pollution goes downstream the Madre de Dios river right to the brazilian Amazon River.
This is done not by foreign corporations, but from regional mafias. They have enormous profits, pay zero taxes and are linked to prostitution and cocaine traders. These criminals get richer while thousands of people work in miserable conditions,the entire region is polluted and envirnonmentally-friendly activities like tourism and fishing go broke because of pollution.
The government has twice tried to stop this ecocide, but then the workers (despite being the main victims of this situation) do mass protests because they don’t know any other job. I frankly cannot understand how an exploited worker can defend his exploiter so actively, but unemployment and extortion are the most likely culprits.
May be the bible does have some accuracy in it….
‘Even Our Path To Self-Destruction Is Going To Run Out Of Fuel’
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca
Jeff Rubin has a message for all the economists and central bankers out there, waiting with baited breath for rock-bottom interest rates to kick the world economy into high-gear: it’s not going to happen, and the sooner you realize that, the better. As the straight-shooting former chief economist of…
as Rubin sees it, that’s not all bad news. Though he predicts permanently tepid growth will push Greece and Portugal into default, he also says it will reverse globalization, stop climate change in its tracks — and put a limit on oil sands expansion.
Paul – Jeff Rubin seems very well informed on the reality of unaffordable oil, but less so on its implications for climate. Suggesting that it will “stop climate change in its tracks” is deeply misleading, as he’d know if he spent a few hours studying the issue.
It may well greatly diminish fossil fuel usage, though techs like ‘coal-seam gasification’ that are inherently cheaper than mining and also far better reserved will get massive boosting.
But it won’t change the pipeline warming we’re committed to. With time-lagged warming off the ~1975 anthro-CO2 level now in force, we’ll see what more than doubling anthro-CO2 since then does by around 2050. (Pro rata it would get us to about 1.5C).
PO will affect residual CO2 outputs alongside the intentional constraints of the climate treaty, and we’ll see those outputs’ warming between say 2050 and 2090. (A peak of anthro-CO2 output in 2015 followed by linear decline to zero in 2050 would give, pro rata, a warming of around 2.0C by about 2090).
Yet we’re also committed to the ongoing decline of the natural carbon sinks that cleanse around 40% of our annual CO2 outputs. (This capacity’s linear decline to zero by 2090 this would add to warming giving, pro rata, around 2.3C by 2090).
Yet we’re also committed to the loss of the cooling ‘Sulphate Parasol’ as we end the fossil fuel burning that maintains it. Hansen formally reported his team’s finding that this will raise received warming by 80% to 140%. If we’re lucky that’s only 100% in practice, giving around 4.6C by 2090.
Yet we’re also committed to the ongoing acceleration of the interactive mega-feedback systems on warming, several of which have the potential to dwarf our emissions, and of which seven out of eight are already active at just 0.7C of warming. At no point between now and 2090 is there any prospect (under emissions constraint alone) of a massive cooling to put them back to sleep. On the contrary, we face a warming on pro rata evaluation of around 4.6C, which would predictably push the interactive feedbacks’ CO2e outputs way beyond the threshold of swamping the carbon sinks, after which every additional tonne of CO2e emitted just stays in the atmosphere making them effectively mutually self-fuelling. Whether that results in more than another doubling of warming to 9.6C, or not, is an open question.
All of which you may be well aware of.
For me, this modest assessment of the warming to which we’re committed warrants two conclusions. First, that economists like Rubin can do a lot of harm to public concern over climate by their ill-informed, misleading and irresponsible claims that PO “will stop climate change in its tracks”.
Second, it is clear that even stopping emissions overnight will not significantly change the outcome – (anybody is welcome to try the maths under the pro rata format of 0.7C from the 55ppm anthro-CO2 by 1975) – We are headed for runaway feedbacks regardless of emissions constraints.
Which means that, in addition to stringent emission constraints, supremely well-supervised commensurate intervention via the Carbon Recovery and Albedo Restoration options is now essential and urgent if we’re to avoid existential catastrophe.
Not a fashionable view I know, but none the less essential.
Regards,
Lewis
Less growth isn’t necessarily better. Europe circa 1930′s springs to mind.
There are also sufficient lignite and gas deposits probably waiting for a lapse into desperation.
Most of our financial transactions are built on optional purchases now. Europe produces an abundance of luxury items and value added “responsibility” products.
Things could get ugly fast and populist movements have a tendency to go horribly wrong once reasonable dissent is overridden.
Typo correction – the last sentence of para 7 above should read:
“Whether that results in more than another doubling of warming to 9.2C, or not, is an open question.”
Sorry about that -
Lew
Yes. Totally agree with you Lewis. I am expecting we will get 2.5C+ warming now whatever action we take.
Unfortunately, I dont think that global civilization will survive 1C+ increase. Its already unraveling due to extreme weather events and climate changes.
After that, our emissions should fall rapidly due to the disruption. Hopefully, we will survive as a species when this all peaks and levels out. Hopefully.
Azores storm could become Subtropical Storm Alberto
An interesting and surprising hybrid low pressure system with both tropical and extratropical characteristics has formed over the far Eastern Atlantic, about 400 miles southwest of the southern Azores Islands. This low, designated Invest 92L by NHC today, has developed an impressive amount of heavy thunderstorm activity near its center, despite the fact that it is over cold ocean waters with temperatures of 66°F (19°C.) This is well below the 26°C usually needed for a tropical storm to form. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2091
The ‘unknown unknowns’. May you live in (meteorologically) interesting times’
Fukushima Daiichi： The Truth and the Future http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rBnxJ1E6i24#!
Always a bit odd when i read a headline with “The Truth” but this is some valid talking here… also at the moment no nuclear plant is operating in japan.
Pro – come on “fairwinds” ?? Seriously. A “expert” anti nuke litigation firm? And I use the term “expert” here loosely.
There is no single argument encompassing all of nuclear power. Its a technology, not a political philosophy.
If you are arguing that a Fukushima type situation prior to 3/11 shouldnt be – well thats been verified and pretty much decided. It really doesn’t exist any longer.
Here BTW is a nice nuclear power sales video from the UAE that has some value in instruction. ( http://youtu.be/CQ55vYgbB1I ).
One of my favorite talking points on NP is that submarines are confined, closed systems powered safely with nuclear power. And indeed comparatively speaking, its true.
Gosh I even watched part of that just for you – It was like video Valium.
The pool 4 stuff is bunk. A Internet rumor with little basis in narrative or reported conditions. The TMI stuff is not in line with scientific study. Chernobyl was much much worse.
I had to stop – Its a mess of incorrect interpretation and pure speculation.
Its nice of you all to be concerned for Japan. And yes it is a mess. But that “accident” as compared to the guarantied health and environmental insults of carbon fossil fuels – doesn’t even rate. Its distracting too. I cant even find the fossil fuel spill, fire and petrochemical impact of the EQ and Tsunami.
Its irresponsible to go full tilt on a anti nuclear pogrom now knowing what we know now and what our needs and capabilities are.
Japan was over 4 percent higher in emissions last year after huge sacrifices in the amount of electricity used. This year unless at least the newer safe nuclear is restarted they will likely be up around 10 percent or more higher.
They are also making massive commitments to LNG that is not only wasteful and polluting but is also historically much more dangerous in a earthquake regions than nuclear.
It is irresponsible to use nuclear energy, because of the higher seismic activities or more flooding which is part of climate change and because nuclear energy threatens the habitability and food chain in large parts of the world.
Beside this your arguments in debunking Fairbanks, are not scientifically valid. Given the recent emergency handling, the lack of information and accountability in so many instances from the operator, Fairbanks offers a sound and serious analyze of the current and future situation.
Fairbanks = Fairwinds
France has voted to start shutting down nukes. They are probably going to aim for 50% cut to start with…
TEPCO had dreadful record for misinformation and deception even before this disaster, yet the nuclear apologists expect us to swallow the Pollyanna version of events, and simply ignore the whistleblowers. It’s straight out of the fossil fuel denial industry’s (and the tobacco harm denial industry, and all the other denial industries’)playbook. Trust me-I’m a (fully paid for) expert.
scary stuff even if 1/2 true….
They fixed the leak in Nigeria.
France’s Total SA says it has stopped a major gas leak at a field in Nigeria after 54 days
French oil company Total SA said Sunday it stopped a natural gas leak at one of its plants in Nigeria’s crude-rich southern delta after 54 days, an emergency that forced the firm to shut down the field and evacuate the area.
environmental and industry regulations lag behind spills and violence in its oil-rich Niger Delta, a region of mangroves and swamps about the size of Portugal. Some environmentalists say much as 2.1 billion liters (550 million gallons) of oil have spilled during more than 50 years of production. That would be at a rate roughly comparable to one Exxon Valdez disaster per year in a region where oil still stains beaches and waterways. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/frances-total-sa-says-it-has-stopped-a-major-gas-leak-at-a-field-in-nigeria-after-54-days/2012/05/13/gIQAlJXlMU_story.html )
Backup generators ready to cover for San Onofre
The units at the Huntington Beach generating station will provide 440 megawatts of generation capacity, said Stephanie McCorkle, a spokeswoman for the California Independent System Operator.
That’s far less than the capacity of either 1,100-megawatt reactor at San Onofre ( http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/may/11/backup-generators-ready-cover-san-onofre/ )
If there was very little or no risk of an accident the reactor should have remained open while they studied it. Gas in not “safe” and the additional power will likely come from even dirtier sources.
Add that to the cost of nuclear power production too…
Do they also add the cost of all the on going accident clean up of nukes in the overall pricing of a unit of nuke power?
Apparently the cost of Fukushima alone is going to cost in the region of 1/2 trillion dollars…..
Turning natural gas into diesel fuel
Shell is currently considering building such a plant along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Gas-to-liquids plants, as they are known in the industry, cost billions to build. And they need access to cheap natural gas, not only for the 4 or 5 years it takes to construct the facility, but over the 20 or 30 year timeframe the plants would operate. ( http://money.cnn.com//2012/05/09/news/economy/natural-gas-diesel/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular )
Its not quick and easy – but worth a read:
Whatever happened to carbon capture? ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18019710 )