Thursday, March 12, 2009

It's called carpe... er.. moment

Act now before packs go from BAD to worse

See an opportunity...grab it:)

Not sure it is what was intended. Hey, what's the worse that can happen:)

NEWS/GO3 PR - Slashing energy use: Carbon reduction commitment to save businesses £1 billion by 2020

I have some issues with public money blown on high-£ comms efforts vs. doing.

However, this one is out there and looks to have value (even at a hefty 5MB), so I'll share. PR as received, E&EO:

Slashing energy use: Carbon reduction commitment to save businesses £1 billion by 2020

A new guide is published today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change to provide a helping hand to business to prepare for the introduction of the Carbon Reduction Commitment, which will begin in April 2010. The guide establishes who is covered by the scheme and guides the reader step-by-step through what they need to do to take part in the scheme.

The revenue raised from the scheme will be recycled back to participants on the basis of a league table -- so that those who are making most improvements in energy efficiency will be financially rewarded, and will receive recognition for their achievements.

The Government will further the roll out of the Carbon Reduction Commitment by launching a consultation today on the regulations which will form the basis of the initiative. Participating organisations will have to register with the Environment Agency who will administer the scheme.

The big IF...

New renewables to power 40 per cent of global electricity demand by 2050

Then they just had to spoil it...

'With adequate financial and political support...'

Plus of course, sensible enviROI checks and balances, I'm sure.

Ah well, it was exciting while it lasted.

ps: Love the disclaimer.

ET, call green

For now just in a few West Coast USA cities, but I like where it's going..

3rd Whale

(We have plans for mobile apps here)

I hope to stay in touch with them.

The Law of Unintended Consequences, Redux

Or... why I am still dubious on some geo-engineering 'solutions' given a tad to much uncritical time.

Via Greenbang - Earth-cooling fix could cut solar power production

What does cranking an eyebrow make me?

The climate change conference for deniers

'Whether you call them climate change deniers or skeptics'

Might I suggest one step might be for 'you' not to call 'them' either? I tend to view anything in the reportage field that starts on these bases to be about as much use as stuff that kicks of with 'Treehuggers' or "Hair shirts'. It all gets a bit tribal otherwise.

Perhaps great for those who like pointless spats and endless arguments, but usually not so helpful to sensible discussion on improving my kids' futures on the planet.

It is also my experience that very few who have those labels appended as a pejorative actually deny or are sceptical that the climate is changing. Most seem to be more interested in why and what might be done about it in a practical as opposed to idealistic sense, which means reserving the right to question certain dogmatically-held, and uncritically supported views.

Which is, IMHO, a tad different.


Another category creation as this is another becoming quite an issue worthy of its own slot.

Check the labels below for other, previous posts until I get time to bring 'em over.


Guardian - The great green land grab

Indy - Million acres of Guyanese rainforest to be saved in groundbreaking deal

Indy - I give up, says Brazilian minister who fought to save the rainforest - Hmmn, non optimal. When guys who care give up, things are really getting bad.

BBC - Charles urges forest logging halt

Shame that this coincides with the Brazilian Enviro Minister resigning.

But at least some are still worrying, and talking, and talking about it.

The BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, says that Prince Charles' observation that saving the forests is the cheapest and most effective way of cutting CO2 emissions is "widely acknowledged".

With insights like that, I can see why he is one of the heavy hitters in reporting.

Odd there's no mention of such as Johan Eliasch's Cool Earth and others by way of actual doing stuff.

Guardian - Fears for Brazil rainforest after environment minister quits

Guardian - Seeing the wood for the trees

Times - (actually very old, but I have just been advised of it) - How you can save the rainforest - Describes the genesis of Cool Earth, which I now need to bring over from the archives to here, below)

Guardian - The rainforest's last chance

Guardian - Not cool - I wish I could comment, but am currently not able to on the site. This does seem damned odd. To quote the first poster (and look at that title): 'I'm slightly bewildered by this article - it starts out as if its going to be an expose of a dodgy 'charity', then pulls back, accusing them of just bad marketing.'

Guardian - Can money save the Congo basin rainforest? - But just think of the numbers of folk who can be employed to acquire, collate, publish and obsess about these numbers. I feel a conference is needed.

Observer - Should I preserve a chunk of wilderness?
- the key is in the URL header

BBC - Brazil launches rainforest fund -

FT - Prince believes City can save rainforests - Hope he's right

Indy - The City and keeping the rainforests alive

Gaurdian - Battle for the Amazon - I very much admire the interactivity of the author with posters. Not alwasy practical, but by heck informative!

Observer - Chainsaw massacre: They clean our air, reduce carbon and will save the planet ... So why are trees public enemy No1? -

Eliasch Review on International deforestation published

The international community should enable rainforest countries to halve deforestation by 2020 and make the global forest sector 'carbon neutral' by 2030. This is the recommendation of an independent report to the Prime Minister published today.

The Eliasch Review, 'Climate Change: Financing Global Forests', is an independent report commissioned by the Prime Minister and led by Johan Eliasch, Special Representative on Deforestation. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the financing and mechanisms needed to support sustainable management of forests and reduce emissions associated with deforestation.

The full report can be seen online at

The full PR is pretty long, so I just popped in the first segment. If you want it all I am sure it is linked somewhere.

Mind you, I couldn't actually find much from the link provided either.

Mr. Eliasch was once involved with the Conservatives but moved, I believe, because of this issue (those in power can do stuff- fair enough) rather than any political ideology.

He also founded Cool Earth, a mitigation scheme. Hopefully altruistic as any moves to put money in such schemes' pockets via such as the above might cause a problem, when the review finds that...

- The international community should aim to support forest nations to halve deforestation by 2020 and make the global forest sector 'carbon neutral' by 2030 - i.e. with emissions from forest loss balanced by new forest growth.

- Reducing emissions from deforestation should be fully included in any post-2012 global climate deal at Copenhagen.

- National Governments should develop their own strategies to combat deforestation in forest countries, including establishing baselines, targets and effective governance and distribution of finances.

- In the long term, the forest sector should be included in global carbon markets.

- Public and private sector funding will be needed in the short to medium term as carbon markets grow.

- The international community should provide support for capacity building where necessary. Total capacity building costs are estimated at up to $4 billion over 5 years for 40 forest nations.

Newsnight championed his efforts a few years ago for one night, and then dropped it when the next thing came along, as do most BBC news or science programmes. If they actually stuck with things, good or bad, up or down, and continued a sensible narrative throughout, I'd respect their commitment to the cause of better environmental practices more.

Guardian - Money doesn't grow on trees

Gaurdian - Seeing the wood

Times - Rich nations 'should pay poor ones billions a year to save rainforests'

Indy - Marina Silva: We must slash emissions to prevent destruction of the rainforest - Need to get my head around how reducing emissions stops a tree being cut down, mind.

Gaurdian - Schwarzenegger's bid to save the rainforest

Gaurdian - Poor Brazilians rejoice as loggers return to pillage the rainforest - Shows the dilemmas faced

Telegraph - WWF proposes economically savvy ways to rescue the Amazon - Don't get good news too often!

Indy - Revenge of the rainforest - Doesn't do to test karma, I guess.

Indy - NEW - Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible' - are 'quote marks' the new 'could'?

Ah... '...could be much worse than previously predicted, new research suggests'.'... the Amazon may become "committed" to substantial change'. 'Asked if this meant Amazon dieback had already started, Dr Jones responded that it probably had..' '...these changes could be reversible only over very long time scales'.

Now I see the quoted author has used a definitive 'should' himself in the penultimate para, but I clicked this link because of 'Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible''. Is 'is' the same as 'could', 'suggests', 'may' and 'probably'?

Not to detract from the seriousness of this research, or what it 'suggests' that may inform future actions, but I would like better context to get my head around it all, and what may then be proposed.

What was... is interesting to me (because I did not know so there is value here) is that this not so much about the effects caused by deforestation, but deforestation-causing effects.

However, with my limited experience, faced with finite resources (human, willpower, financial, etc), with what we've got I'd err on devoting much more to preventing further forest loss through cutting the things down in swathes now through direct human economic activity, especially we have only 100 months to avoid a tipping point.

Guardian - NEW - Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say - Notice something? We've gained a 'could', but also some extra scientist(s). And the climate ones are wheeled in too. Thing is, I remain unsure what much of this may mean, or what is proposed.

Telegraph - NEW - Amazon rainforest at risk of ecological 'catastrophe' -

Times - NEW - 85 per cent of Amazonian rainforest at risk of destruction, researchers warn



Cool Earth - also via posts here and here -