CATEGORY - DEFORESTATION

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.

ARTICLE

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? -

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
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 http://www.occ.gov.uk.

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


INFORMATION


MITIGATION?

Cool Earth - also via posts here and here
worldlandtrust.org -

Beautiful Creatures

I tend to steer clear of overt ecological stuff as it really doesn't fall under the Junkk.com remit, but here's a link from a film director chum of mine's promo of a feature with a famous Chinese actress.

Zhang Ziyi 'A Conservation Story'

He assures me that this lady is very sincere in her advocacy (and not likely to be off by Lear next week to a fur Expo), so the key is how this is impacting on local audience... not usually noted for being too worried about nature when 'to be rich is glorious' kinda comes first.

I guess celeb endorsement can be a good thing, but needs managing very carefully.

I promised I'd pop it up.. and so here you are!

Where's the real damage being done?

Map shows toll on world's oceans

NEW addenda at end.

The other day, at my boy's parent/teacher day, we ended up sitting with their IT tutor. Far from being just about bits and bytes, it seems the course delves much deeper than I imagined in how they use their computers to increase their knowledge base.

So we got onto resources. Several were mentioned, from Google to Wikipedia, and I was reassured to find that nothing was to be taken at face value, and multiple sources from a broad span surveyed to try and arrive at a fair view, even in matters of 'fact'.

But I was suprised when the the BBC site was mentioned, and this was laughed off with the most derision of all.

I came to the link above via a site that, it is fair to say, is 'climate optimistic' and not very pro-BBC.

So in no way was the thrust of this concerned with the rather sobering notion of what mankind is doing to the planet it inhabits.

But it did highlight how our national broadcaster, by 'doing science' in this way, just adds to the waffle and fudge on this subject, that ends up meaning so little.

I have to say I immediately stumbled on the 4% stat. Not 3% or 5%; somehow it is known that '...only about 4% of the world's oceans remain undamaged by human activity'. I think as they refer to 'sqkm' it is by area and not volume, but am not to sure. It would surely make a difference. Especially after the recent piece on the plastic vortex we noted here.

'The authors say the data is a "wake-up call" to policymakers.' I'll say, and to all of us. But at 96% down I'd say our work is cut out. This just seems so...vast... so... total... what on earth can credibly be done?

Apparently, '...the two biggest drivers in destroying marine habitats were climate change and over-fishing.' Surprising. I would have thought pollution would have rated higher than over-fishing. I also now have another niggle when it comes to 'CC'. Hence I am thinking of extending my personal acronym to PMWNICC. Climate changes all the time. To be meaningful in this context surely they mean 'Probably Man-Worsened Negative Impact CC'?

And to counter 'climate change' of this nature, the notion seems to be more conservation efforts. Hmmn.

To quote this critic, 'they [the BBC] thunder, but with characteristic vagueness don't say what this action, management or rolling up of sleeves actually entails.'

I tend to agree. Yes, we need to be aware of this stuff. But not get fed it in a way that either makes us tune out, feel helpless, ignore it or, worse, treat it as immediately suspect and irrationally, but perhaps inevitably, rebound more to a cosier counterview.

I continue to think with such sloppy reporting and agenda-driven editorial the BBC are simply making things worse.

Addenda -

Huge study gives wake-up call on state of world's oceans
And this... 'Human activity damages more than 40% of seas'

BBBC - NEW - I include the full comment with the link. No question that this sea-borne rubbish is nothing short of littering or even vandalism. I simply have a problem equating what washes up in a Pacific island with what I as a consumer put in my bin. Which seems to be the link trying to be made. Whilst all efforts at reductions in unnecessary plastics are sensible, in the shorter term I'd have thought it more worthwhile to look much more at disposal systems, from collection to reprocessing. Someone lobbing something over the side of a Panama-registered ship is harder to identify with as we grapple with PMWNICC.

Hippo-crats

I'm guessing that after several sustained, and apologised for, complaints about mangled on air journalistic/editorial efforts by Breakfast TV, I suspect I am less likely to be featured on air, at least via the BBC, any more. Especially when it is to 'Defensive Declan'.

However, on a morning when our public broadcaster sees fit to publicise a hen and stag night promoter exclusively, in the guise of 'worrying whether we are spending too much money on more and more grandiose wadding-related events', I popped a mild effort in as a result of a piece on water conservation:

'Instead of an additional manufactured item such as a branded product like a Hippo, one alternative to displacing the volume of water in the WC cistern is to locate a second use item of packaging such as bottle or container selected to fit the space.'

Now the Hippo is OK. But it is frankly just a heavy duty plastic bag, and I have a small problem with new things being manufactured in the name of green that are really not helping the overall global enviROI.