ECOCIDE: A RUM MIXTURE

Corporations and the military, consumers and environmentalists, ecocide and ENMOD. A rum mixture indeed

Why will the corporate champagne corks be flying?

In the ultimate analysis, the expedient necessary to effectively address our multi-facetted ecological crisis is nothing less than a paradigm shift in the relationship between mass society at every level on the one hand, and the natural environment on the other. This is what the criminalisation of ecocide is intended to bring about, and it is primarily designed to do so by impacting directly on corporations.

The requisite response calls for a complete revision of corporate values, and we can see from the extract from the book that is fully understood. Corporations would be required to act responsibly in an ecological sense in any circumstance where this legal measure might impact on them. In essence they must cease to cause 'widespread long-term and severe damage to the natural environment' or face the power of the law.

Yet if we are truly honest, we must admit that corporations only do these things because they are profitable; and that they are only profitable because consumers avidly buy up more or less everything they produce quite regardless of the impacts on the environment, tragic though this unpalatable truth may be.

Impacts which they are by now fully aware of but actively choose to ignore. Or discount. Or deny.

You can argue about who is leading who, but ultimately ecocide and almost all other ecological destruction and degradation occurs as a result of the direct and indirect actions of consumers, who are the ultimate villains of the piece and, as the argument for criminalising ecocide goes, villains of the peace also.

This explains why environmentalists have achieved so very little. Unwilling to make significant changes in their own catastrophically unsustainable lifestyles, in essence they are asking governments and other authorities to save them from themselves. Their principal strategy, employed more or less ubiquitously, it to call on governments to legislate to compel everyone else to do what they as individuals are not prepared to do of their own volition.

Clearly this is politically bankrupt, and they cannot expect politicians or anyone else to take them seriously. Or at least ought not; though in practice they do, and take themselves very seriously indeed, while expecting everyone else to also. It is strikingly curious manifestation of the uniquely human, uniquely civilised capacity for self-denial.

A part of the reason the environmental movement is failing so comprehensively in its central aim - assuming that be to protect the environment - is because its leadership will not articulate this essential truth to its membership for fear of alienating them, instead prioritising the flow of funds needed to persist in being ineffectual over the risks inherent in attempting to catalyse the unavoidable, but challenging and often unpalatable, changes necessary before they become impossible to deliver, as very shortly they will. By so demurring, the vicious cycle continues entirely uninterrupted.

One thing we know for certain that corporations are exceptionally good at is divesting themselves of activities which cease to be profitable in very short order - as countless victims of redundancy, retrenchment and outsourcing can personally testify.

All that is necessary is for people to stop buying the stuff...

Hence the ultimate purpose of criminalising ecocide is to engineer that sea change in behaviour, and in the societal attitudes from which it results. In short, it is to wean society off of its dependency on consumption, which means breaking the psychological addiction to consumerism which is ubiquitous in mass culture.

It has to be, as this is the only expedient which will - or can possibly - deliver us from our fate, a fate which is currently inexorable.

This change in societal values is expected to trickle down as a consequence of a change in corporate values and consequent behaviour. Clearly once corporations have to cease carrying out the activities giving rise to ecocide, the flow of the products derived from them has to stop. So society at all levels will have to go through a fairly radical transition and must learn to be content with what can be produced without causing ecocide as defined as a crime against peace - which it is hoped will approximate to what can be produced sustainably - and no more than that. In practice people would be left with no other choice. Arguably they have no other choice anyway - if it doesn't happen voluntarily, it will inevitably happen fairly soon as a result of ecological collapse and resource depletion.

So far so good. What, then, is the problem?

It is that what is currently proposed does not call on corporations to behave responsibly - tragically it does exactly the opposite. In trying to examine this, things start to get a little Neptunian, as one runs into something of an information vacuum. Unfortunately this has to be negotiated nevertheless, which will be done as briefly as possible.

The primary source of information on what has been proposed is the Eradicating Ecocide website. This has been well designed to set out the case zippily for lay people, concentrating quite rightly on the practicalities and snappy expositions. Unfortunately what it lacks is the actual proposal submitted to the UN, which comes as something of an impediment for anyone who doesn't happen to do politics of the facebook variety and prefers to read what they are being asked to support before signing up to it. Presumably this is merely an oversight which can be swiftly corrected.

Trying it from the other end, the Guardian tells us that the proposal was submitted to something called ‘the UN Law commission’, a body which unfortunately does not appear to exist either on the UN website or anywhere else searched by the google engines. One presumes the Guardian must be referring to the International Law Commission, but one draws a blank at that body's impenetrable website too.

Hence for the detail of what has been proposed we are left to rely on the extract from Chapter 5 of the book on the Eradicating Ecocide website, which by design or serendipity happens to quote the key definitions. Here ecocide is defined thus:

'the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.'

and the crime of ecocide in the following terms:

‘widespread long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall community advantage anticipated’

We also learn that the wording used in these definitions was adopted from the 1977 United Nations ENMOD Convention (or Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques to give its full title, also known as the Environmental Modification Convention for short).

The book then states that:

‘ENMOD 'specifies the terms “widespread”, “long-lasting” and “severe” as

'“widespread”: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers; “long-lasting”: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; “severe”: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.'

Unfortunately it does not. The ENMOD Convention is a very simple document contained in just a few pages. What it does not do is define any of those terms.

We can be reasonably certain of this as when the good people from Turkey came to sign the Convention in 1977 they had the prescience to formally reserve their position thus:

"In the opinion of the Turkish Government the terms ‘wide-spread’, ‘long lasting’ and ‘severe effects’ contained in the Convention need to be clearly defined. So long as this clarification is not made the Government of Turkey will be compelled to interpret itself the terms in question and consequently it reserves the right to do so as and when required.

"Furthermore, the Government of Turkey believes that the difference between `military or any other hostile purposes' and `peaceful purposes' should be more clearly defined so as to prevent subjective evaluations."

One does not want to make a big thing of this. The proposal to the UN and the book were put together more or less single-handedly by Polly and, rising to the urgency of our predicament, in a remarkably short period of time. In that sense it represents a magnificent achievement. If, in the course of it, a small error crept in somewhere between drafting and editing, quite possibly in an effort to make a complex (and to many, arcane and potentially terminally tedious) legal matter both comprehensible and interesting to lay readers, it matters little provided it is not material.

So for the sake of argument let us proceed on the assumption that at some time during the three decades that have passed since ENMOD was drawn up in 1976, somewhere amongst all the meetings, resolutions, decisions, cases, precedents or whatever, these definitions have acquired force of law as stated, and that the means by which this has happened will be clarified in due course.

The fatal mistake is the one which follows on consequentially:

'These expanded definitions, which are already embedded in international laws of war, offer an existing basis upon which the international crime of ecocide can be seated at the table of the ICC. The word ‘ecocide’ bestows the missing name and fuller comprehension of the crime of unlawful damage to a given environment. As a crime that is not restricted to the confines of war alone, the categorisation of ecocide as a crime against peace is appropriate. Thus, for the purpose of defining ecocide ‘damage’, determination as to whether the extent of damage to the environment is ‘widespread, long-term and severe’ can be applied to ecocide in times of peace as well as in times of war….'

In lifting the definition of the crime of ecocide straight from the ENMOD Convention, instead of giving an absolutely unequivocal signal that corporate actions which cause significant damage to the environment are absolutely unacceptable, instead exactly the opposite signal is given.

What is being proposing is that corporations can quite lawfully cause equally as much ecological damage and destruction as the absolute maximum permitted to a nation in the most dire straits imaginable in wartime.

Equally as much as military forces on the very brink of annihilation, surrounded by carnage and destruction on every side, fighting to defend the very existence of the state, possibly to save its peoples from all manner of atrocity, for very survival, and on the point of loosing all of that and life itself.

By corporations. In peace time. Merely to provide a better return for their shareholders. Entirely lawfully.

Once that is recognised, does it make sense to anybody?

Is that what we wish to see? Is that the message we wish to send to governments globally? To society? To corporations? Is that the change which is going to make the decisive difference between an ecological renaissance and auto-destruction?

It is best to put this in context. As a concept, criminalising ecocide is brilliant. Properly executed, it is an expedient which is critically necessary if we are to traverse the immediate future and emerge with at least some hope for what comes after. Just as important is that it is one of the very few which can be delivered under the system of governance which currently prevails, and quickly enough to stand a chance of making a meaningful difference. Other deliverable alternatives are vanishingly few.

The tragedy is that the delivery that has been proposed is fatally flawed as it currently stands. It is understandable why this has happened, and it has occurred for the best of motives.

For the reasons that have gone before it must be obvious that the proposal to criminalise ecocide represents a radical change in society and a radical challenge to corporate power. In proposing such a measure, it is natural to try to nuance it in such a way as to give it the best hope of reaching fruition. Under such circumstances it is a infinitely safer strategy to argue for the extension of an existing measure to new areas, than to propose an entirely new one that would undoubtedly run into serious controversy likely to jeopardise progress, if not the entire project.

A second reason is that by employing law that has already been established, one avoids the risk inherent in entirely new measures of succeeding in securing their passage through the political process, but failing in the objective because the terms employed somehow do not hold up when tested in court.

Nevertheless it is unavoidable to conclude that in this case, the mistake made over the definitions employed will lead to inevitable failure, because instead of giving the required signal to society and to the market, it will have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.

One does not have to be around environmental lawyers for very long for the projections to evaporate, just as they do with the medical profession. Whatever the nobility of the motives for entering this field of law may have been and may even remain, it quickly becomes apparent that in practice most environmental lawyers devote their lives to advising their corporate clients on how to maximise their negative ecological impacts whilst remaining within the letter of the law. In other words, how to maximise the ecological damage that they cause without getting prosecuted for it. It is inevitable and entirely rational that corporations should behave thus, and should employ environmental lawyers to those ends. And as they are by far and away the main clients, it is also somewhat inevitable that environmental lawyers should end up serving such a master, short of dedicating themselves to something higher than purely material affluence.

It is an a more or less inescapable consequence of passing environmental regulation that corporations will expand their environmentally destructive activities to the maximum permitted within the law. This happens for two reasons, both of which are entirely rational responses to the system as it exists.

The first is that the primary legal obligation upon directors is to maximise profits on behalf of shareholders. In most circumstances this places them under a duty to avail themselves of any lawful opportunity to cut costs and so maximise profits. Obviously it is always less costly to commit environmentally damaging actions than to mitigate them, provided it can be done lawfully so the business responsible is not going to end up in court facing fines and clean up costs. Note, though, that even when it does it may still be the rational choice provided those costs amount to less than the saving made in operating costs, or if the risks of a successful legal action against the corporation are small enough to objectively justify the risk.

The second is that to maximise profits, corporations must out-compete their rivals. So two things can happen. A business may seek a competitive advantage by reducing the costs of mitigating its environmental impacts: as a consequence of becoming dirtier than its competitors it is able to undercut their prices in the market and increase market share; also by becoming a better proposition to investors as a result of its improved competitiveness and profitability it can improve its capital position, which can then be employed to relative advantage. Alternatively if a business does not take the lead in this way, it will normally be compelled to follow down the same route anyway in order to remain competitive with rivals who are not so environmentally scrupulous.

Thus it is almost inevitable that when regulations are set corporations will take up any slack they are allowed. With very few exceptions it is an entirely predictable and perfectly rational response that they do.

For those reasons, exactly the same response can be anticipated to the criminalisation of ecocide under the terms currently proposed. To the extent that they can control their impacts, corporations will expand the scale of their operations to the maximum allowed under the terms lifted from ENMOD, after allowing what they will evaluate as an adequate margin for error, carefully calculated using risk assessment techniques. Where an activity would exceed the astonishingly generous spatial limit proposed, the response will simply be to carve it up into a number of discrete projects, judiciously separated in time and space, so that each one remains lawful under the ecocide measure.

Clearly this is the very opposite of what is required, and what is demanded in response to our plight. It will not curb corporate excess, or to the extent that it does so, it will only do so marginally. The flow of environmentally destructive products and services will continue more or less unabated, so consumer behaviour will continue just as self-destructively as before.

As a concept, the criminalisation of ecocide is essential. In the form it has been proposed, it is a dream come true for the corporate world. To grant corporations exactly the same rights to 'modify' the environment as military forces at war is an astonishingly misplaced idea, and the very opposite of what is called for.

Perhaps it is easy to overlook that the defining purpose of the military is to kill and maim in large numbers and to destroy physical matter of all descriptions - including ecologies - on a vast scale when considered necessary, and often quite indiscriminately.

In most cases it does so entirely lawfully - at least under the dominant legal system which prevails, Iraq 2 being an exception. It should not be forgotten that the law in this respect is so powerful that members of armed services may find themselves legally compelled to carry out the most horrendous acts absolutely against their conscience and may possibly face death - lawfully executed - for failing to do so.

Why, then, are environmentalists campaigning to hand corporations the implied right to cause equally as much environmental damage, in peacetime, just to make a profit?

The scale on which it is proposed that this be allowed is also stupefying. Allowing corporations the right to destroy the environment on an equivalent scale to military forces appears particularly misconceived (unless you are a shareholder and care for nothing other than your own wealth and comfort, in which case it may seem a splendid idea). The effect will be to legitimise ecocide on a scale that is anything less than 'hundreds of square kilometres', whatever that may mean. The term was almost certainly deliberately ill-defined in relation to ENMOD (assuming that to be its source) for reasons of diplomacy, to allow enough wiggle room so that perpetrators could be allowed to evade sanctions where that is thought to be politically or strategically expedient. Just as with existing crimes against peace – Augusto Pinochet walked free; Saddam Hussein didn’t.

Acts as outrageous as the bombing of Dresden and the battlefields of the Somme would probably be entirely legal under the terms ascribed to ENMOD. To propose the same, entirely unbidden, for corporate acts seems to be an own goal of gigantic proportions. Spatial limits are really not difficult things to define more precisely.

The ultimate tragedy is that had corporations been invited to name their own terms, they would never have dared to have demanded nearly so much.

Certainly not equivalence with the military, not out of fear, but certain knowledge of the public opprobrium they would draw down upon themselves. Or at least they would not have done openly - what happens behind closed doors is a secret known to very few.

Yet this being handed to them on a plate: that corporations can cause equally as much environmental damage as the military. Voluntarily and entirely spontaneously. As a gift from the blue by its opponents, in a well-intentioned effort to curb the very thing it will encourage.

That is why the champagne will be flowing royally in corporate boardrooms up and down the globe. In some circumstances it seems you just can't loose.

Thankfully, though, the situation is not irretrievable. It merely calls for better conceived terms to be substituted. A discussion of that must wait for another occasion.

More generally it calls for some serious work to be done on the translation into policy before this campaign is taken further forward. Properly framed, the criminalisation of ecocide can make a critical difference in reshaping society, and that is what must now be delivered.

Wild Law: EPA v ESA

This is just to post up a story from the New York Times mainly of interest to wild lawyers, climate activists, and those concerned over the fate of species threatened by climate change, as well as those interested in politics and current affairs more generally. And of vital interest to polar bears.

The issue is the sparring currently going on to determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the right to act over climate change under the Endangered Species Act to protect such animals. In the lead for ursus maritimus are The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups represented by Earthjustice.

'For now, the decision rests with Obama's Interior secretary, Ken Salazar. Congress has given him authority to strike the greenhouse gas exemption and other Bush-era changes to the Endangered Species Act. He must act by May 10.'

So a pretty hot topic - read on if it grabs.

Earthly Rights

In case James Lovelock's views proved disquieting, here's something refreshing and positive which all should find inspiring.

It's a short and very readable introduction to the concept of Wild Law by author, ecologist and academic Stephan Harding which appeared in The Guardian on 03 April.

Wild lawyers will obviously be heartened to see the subject starting to get some serious coverage.

While those yet to get a handle on this as yet little recognised but critical issue will find it a very easy way in. One only has to reflect on why we are in this predicament to recognise its central importance in everything that is transpiring.

Happily, by the same token it also offers one of the few positive ways forward that remain open. These things are not fixed in stone and can be changed - if there is sufficient will.

It is one of the very few options remaining that has the potential to bring about the necessary changes in attitude - and crucially behaviour - on a global scale fast enough to give us the possibility to head off the worst of James Lovelock's predictions, and contain whatever damage we have already caused to the least that is now possible.

And it can be done on a global scale and very quickly - through a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights at the United Nations. This is a very new and radical idea and time is very short, but the head of steam is already beginning to build, and at a very high level.

To be part of it, join the trees have rights too campaign now, and give the future a chance.

This is such a critical issue it will be covered in more depth as soon as time allows.

For those inspired by these themes, there is a chance to meet Stephan Harding, Polly Higgins, the prime mover behind the Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights, and many of the leading thinkers in the field of Wild Law at the Wild Law Weekend which will take place in Dorset, England at the end of September, which can probably be described as the premiere event globally in the field.

As some of the terms may prove to be somewhat esoteric, here are some definitions with links for greater depth:

Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law.

Earth Jurisprudence is the branch of jurisprudence which is based on the idea that humans are only one part of a wider community of beings and that the welfare of each member of that community is dependent on the welfare of the Earth as a whole.

Earth Jurisprudence means looking at the actual philosophy and value systems that underpin legal and governance systems, and making sure that they support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth.

Implicit in Earth Jurisprudence is the idea that rights of other components of the biosphere such as plants and animals need to be acknowledged and recognised (in contrast to dominant legal systems in which they are currently not).

Here is the Earth Jurisprudence website for more.

Wild Law is the manifestation of Earth Jurisprudence in practice, meaning where it exists in draft or actual laws and governance.

Pig Business - More 4 tonight 2200

The flurry of important environmental events at short notice continues apace.

The latest is Pig Business, a film by Tracy Worcester, which is being shown tonight on More 4 at 2200.

Tracy did a brilliant job chairing the launch of the groundbreaking and quite possibly historic Wild Law research paper last Tuesday, by all accounts. More on that later.

While if all of us had her commitment to building a better world, just imagine how much better things would be. Here's what she does according to Wikipedia - amongst other things.

In 1989, Tracy Worcester began working with Friends of the Earth. Since then, she has been active in green politics as Patron of the International Society for Ecology and Culture, a Trustee of the Gaia Foundation, the Schumacher Society and the Bath Environment Centre, Patron of the UK's Soil Association, and as a member of the advisory board of The Ecologist magazine and a member of the International Forum on Globalisation.

And still has time for making movies!

Pig Business exposes the unconscionable costs of bringing home the bacon on four fronts:

- animal rights

- destroying small farmers - at an astonishing rate as the market is globalised by multi-national farming conglomerates

- polluting the environment - in a big way...

- jeopardising our lives


For example on the environment (my bolding throughout, other than titles)

'One-third of the world’s total cultivable land is dedicated to growing cereal and soya to feed livestock, while a further 7% is used for grazing animals. Eighty per cent of the world's soya beans and 60% of its maize and barley are grown for livestock feed.

'Much of this land is acquired by destroying forests, a major cause of CO2 emissions and loss of biodiversity. Between 2004 and 2005 around 1.2 million hectares of rainforest were cut down as a result of soya expansion, almost entirely for animal feed and livestock pastures.

'How livestock production contributes to 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions

Source: McMichael et al. (2007) Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet, 370(9594), 1253-1263

'In Latin America the land devoted to soya crops doubled between 1994 and 2004, and deforestation, particularly of the Amazon rainforest, now accounts for around 75% of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions. Soya cultivation in Brazil to date occupies an area of land the size of Great Britain.'

On the threat to our lives:

'Because of the crowded and unnatural conditions in which factory farmed animals live, they are frequently given antibiotics to prevent disease or bolster their weakened immune systems. Across the world half of all the antibiotics used are administered to livestock. Around 80-90% of all antibiotics used for humans and animals are not fully digested or broken down, leaving them to pass through the body and enter the environment intact through waste.

'Evidence suggests that this over-use of antibiotics is helping to spread drug-resistant strains of diseases such as MRSA and E. coli, which can cause humans serious illness and death. The transfer of MRSA from pigs to humans is already recognised in the Netherlands, and it is feared this new strain of MRSA affecting pigs in some countries will spread to the UK, exacerbating the existing problem.

'Workers at risk
'... at least a quarter of factory farm workers consistently suffer from respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, mucous membrane irritation, asthma-like syndrome, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

'A deadly environment
'Studies repeatedly show that air and water quality are threatened in and around factory farms. Noxious gases in the atmosphere from manure containing hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, and dangerous pathogens cause ill health not only to those working with the animals but those living nearby. Many local residents report unusually frequent headaches, eye irritation, excessive coughing, nausea and asthma. Hydrogen sulphide may cause nausea, blackout periods, headaches and vomiting, and breathing in too much ammonia can cause severe respiratory damage.

'Excessive spraying of faecal material onto fields results in run-off into nearby lakes and rivers, poisoning the water table, eco system and drinking water. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has discovered that 1 in 10 drinking-water wells near factory pig farms contains unsafe levels of nitrates, which has been linked to risk of blue-baby syndrome. Six-month-old infants, pregnant women and adults with immunity deficiencies are especially vulnerable.

'President George W. Bush, in one of his last acts before he leaves office, has proposed to free industrial-scale pig and cattle farms from the Clean Water Act if they declare they are not dumping animal waste in lakes and rivers.

'Exploiting the poor
'In the US, intensive pig farms are clustered typically in non-white areas near low-income communities where people are extra vulnerable to the hazards of factory farms because of existing problems of poor health, poor housing, low income, and lack of access to medical care.

After all that, one may ask why not go the whole hog, keep the poor old hog whole, and just go vegan? George Monbiot came to that conclusion, at least intellectually, in this article last April:

Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger. And if you care, eat less meat A food recession is under way. Biofuels are a crime against humanity, but - take it from a flesh eater - flesh eating is worse

While there are some telling environmental arguments put forward by the Vegan Society here and in the side links dealing with land, water and energy.

Perhaps most telling, particularly for those inclined to blame climate change on the growing human population is this:

'World meat production has quadrupled in the past 50 years and livestock now outnumber people by more than 3 to 1. [2] In other words, the livestock population is expanding at a faster rate than the human population.'

And consuming a substantial proportion of the available resources, particularly land, food and water.

More than enough said.

The Arctic becomes an island as ice melts

Hi again

It has been a while since an update on the meltdown of the Arctic (due to uncertainty about what was happening allied to a lack of connectivity), but having finally concluded the Climate Wars email just sent, I have just had time to turn up this.

Don't have much time to pontificate, but the Daily Telegraph of all papers seems to have had an exclusive on this story published on 31 August.

The Arctic becomes an island as ice melts

It reports the 'historic development' that

'The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.'

as the North-West and North-East Passages are now both open, detaching the Arctic from Europe, Asia and the Americas.


As well-informed as ever on climate change, The Telegraph states

'shipping companies are already planning to exploit the first simultaneous opening of the routes since the beginning of the last Ice Age 125,000 years ago.'

Most scientists are of the opinion that the last ice age was considerably more recent, peaking around 11,000 years ago, but no doubt they have got it wrong.

It reports

'Prof Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in the US said the images suggested the Arctic may have entered a "death spiral" caused by global warming.'

As, heartbreakingly, it would seem have our original friends, the polar bears we all began aspiring to save, who

'have been spotted off Alaska trying to swim hundreds of miles to the retreating ice cap.'

It has been more widely reported that this year's melt is now the second biggest ever, and we are waiting to see if the remaining melt, which usually ceases mid-September, will top the record, leaving the smallest extent of Arctic ice ever.

It may well do so, and as this was not a particularly favourable summer in terms of the factors influencing melting, the writing seems to be ever larger on the wall.

Well done The Telegraph for leading on this. On the bright side, if this report also marks the beginning of the paper's historic conversion at least the tide of public opinion is starting to turn in a positive direction.

Try your hardest, folks, whilst the possibility remains...

Be happy

Wild Law - holy grail sighted

Greetings

Poor connectivity has delayed getting this out, so if it turns out to be old hat, forgive me. Otherwise, this seems truly something to celebrate.

After all the years of questing rewarded only by fleeting but encouraging sightings of 'laws already in place that had some of the essential characteristics of Wild Law', miraculously the elusive grail has appeared in all its pristine glory.

The event occurred in the State of California on 22 July and has been widely witnessed. Thanks to Governor Arni Schwarzenegger (Republican) and a State Senator by the name of Joe Simitian (Democrat), we now have some real Wild Law in the form of Senate Bill 1399, albeit rather modest in scope.

Its purpose is to liberate trees and shrubs from previously existing controls over their existence and growth should they happen to cast shade on solar collectors installed after they were planted.

While this may not seem to be much, it would seem to be Wild Law pure and unadulterated as it effectively gives rights to plants, and does so over a whole raft of anthropocentric concerns which normally be expected to take precedence in consumerland.

Those wishing to make a pilgrimage to the site of where the miracle was revealed can visit The New York Times at

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23solar.html

However be aware that the yokels filing the report were entirely oblivious to the magnitude of the event they are covering, and completely overlook its significance in favour of rustic humour and grunge reporting of the unseemly dispute which happened to presage the incarnation of this measure.

A better account can be found at

http://origin.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9961578?nclick_check=1


Braver souls undeterred by the experience of Sir Galahad may wish to try for a full revelation themselves, for whom a highlighted PDF of the legislation is attached (please email if you would like a copy). From the Wild Law perspective, the operative parts are:

Section 2 - which places restrictions on the amount of shade a tree or shrub may cast upon a solar collector; and

Section 6 – which exempts pre-existing trees and shrubs from the entire chapter.

Clean copies can be had from this link, where the evolution of the bill can also be found:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1399&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen


As in the Grail mystery, let us hope that this may be followed with more and increasingly generalised sightings, and that it will herald in a age of renewed peace and harmony on Earth.


In passing there are a couple of other reasons to take heart from this story. The first is the phenomenal pace and scale at which California is setting about greening itself under Arni's leadership. That this can be done at all, let alone in the face of a federal administration hostile to the entire concept, speaks volumes of how much can be achieved given inspired and enlightened leadership and a reasonable level of popular support. Whilst this puts almost all other politicians currently in power to utter shame for their inertia, shortsightedness and most of all their inability or unwillingness to recognise that if economic interests are not subordinated to responding to environmental catastrophe the game is up for all of us, it also proves how fast things can change in a big way once the will is there. There are yet grounds for hope.

Following on from that is the inspiration to be drawn from Arni's miraculous conversion at the personal level. Quite leaving aside the Terminator and other movies, here is a man who has gone from thinking he was green whilst driving around in a gas (petrol) fueled Hummer when he first took up office, to being one of the most outstanding environmental leaders on the planet. Testimony to that is the extraordinary fact that he is apparently being cited for an environmental post in the next administration under either presidential candidate

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14schwarz.html

Whilst he still began with a good nose in front of most politicians, if Arni can do it, the possibility of epiphanies remains for all.


As to The Terminator, it would seem fairest to judge the man by his own standards. To quote the last article:

'Mr. Schwarzenegger also offered some praise for Mr. Obama, saying he disagreed with people who have criticized the senator as a flip-flopper.

'Someone has, for 20 or 30 years, been in the wrong place with his idea and with his ideology and says: “You know something? I changed my mind. I am now for this.” As long as he is honest or she ís honest, I think that is a wonderful thing.'

The Republican candidate for 2012? From recent experience, things can only get better!

Smile and be happy
steve

Major Wild Law Breakthrough

Greetings

After yesterday's good news, here is something wild for everyone to celebrate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare?gusrc=rss&feed=environment

Change can be that fast when the Tao is with it.

Let us hope the same for climate change - more on that soon.

Be happy
steve

Wither Environmental Law? Wither Thy Timbers?

This article was very kindly published in the June 2008 edition of e-law, the electronic bulletin of the UK Environmental Law Association.

To summarise our predicament it runs through the most salient scientific developments to the end of May, before going on to raise issues of the profession as to how to respond.

Given what is happening, each and every one of us should be asking those same questions with the utmost urgency - of ourselves as much as of society as a whole.




These are singular times we live in.

Shortly we will be the privileged witnesses of an event never before seen, possibly never before experienced in Earth's history. Within the next few summers it is now highly probable the Arctic will cease to exist as a physical presence, becoming ice free and navigable to the North Pole itself. This will be quite unprecedented in the history of humanity, quite possibly in the history of the planet also.

Most will already know that the Arctic lost 23% of its ice coverage in the last two summers. In addition, on 23 May startling new evidence emerged of large scale and wholly unexpected breakup of the ice. The BBC reported

'Dramatic evidence of the break-up of the Arctic ice-cap has emerged from research during an expedition by the Canadian military.

'One of the expedition's scientists, Derek Mueller of Trent University, Ontario, told me: "I was astonished to see these new cracks. It means the ice shelf is disintegrating”'


While in a report of a petition by the Centre for Biological Diversity for three seal species to join the polar bear on the endangered list because of habitat loss due to the speed of the Arctic meltdown, the Guardian stated

'The petition from the centre warns that surface temperatures in the Arctic are warming much faster than expected. The extent of sea ice in winter in 2007 was reduced to an area that most climate forecasts had suggested would be reached by 2070.

'Arctic sea ice is melting so rapidly that every ice-dependent marine mammal needs protection," said Shaye Wolf, a biologist who lead the petition.'


His call has been widely taken up. The New Scientist website carried 'Should all Arctic species be red-listed?'

'Habitats are changing so rapidly in the face of global warming that some conservationists argue many thousands more species should be listed as "endangered"'


Meanwhile...

At the other end of the planet something very similar is happening, at least locally - if you can call the sudden break up of 160 square miles local. Scientists were taken utterly by surprise by the sudden disintegration of a large chunk of the Wilkins Ice Shelf, confounding all scientific predictions, which was reported at the end of March.

In addition research released in January demonstrated that far from being stable or growing as is widely believed, the net loss of ice from Antarctica increased by around 75% in the ten years to 2006. The cause is considered to be accelerating glacial movement as a result of climate change.

This is particularly unfortunately as existing models - most critically including those used by the IPCC - have presumed the Antarctic ice sheets to be stable so have failed to take these losses into account. As a result it is now widely accepted that the predictions of sea level rise contained in the fourth IPCC report are seriously understated.

Getting more into the detail, the New Scientist reported

'Until recently, conflicting results have meant estimates of ice loss at the poles vary widely. Now an international team has used satellite data and climate modelling to show that, in the decade ending in 2006, annual ice loss from West Antarctica increased by 59 per cent while losses from the Antarctic Peninsula leapt by 140 per cent (Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo102). These results tie in nicely with recent results obtained by other methods, bringing consensus over ice loss a bit closer.'

While in a report on how this meltdown is releasing a soup of highly toxic chemicals which is ending up in the food chain, the same journal stated:

'average winter temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed 6 °C the past 30 years, and glaciers now melt faster than they grow. '

Singular times for the polar regions and all they hold, then.



Singular times for the rest of the planet's biodiversity, too. The latest Living Planet Index was published on 16 May revealing that biodiversity has plummeted nearly a third in the 35 years to 2005. Perhaps it would be more accurate to rename it the Dying Planet Index. The Independent headlined 'an epidemic of extinctions' and quoted a spokesman for the LPI who said the decline was

' "completely unprecedented in terms of human history". "You'd have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," he added.

'And "rapid" is putting it mildly. Scientists say the current extinction rate is now up to 10,000 times faster than what has historically been recorded as normal.'


Clearly the fate of the rainforests are absolutely critical in global biodiversity. And the critical news here comes from none other than Brazil where May saw the resignation of Marina Silva, the environment minister, regarded as the guardian angel of the Brazilian environment in general and the rainforest in particular. This news was greeted with massive dismay internationally. She walked because environmental protection was routinely subordinated to economic interests, effectively as a matter of policy.

'The Latin American giant's supposed progress on environmental protection has unravelled in the past year as revelations of record levels of deforestation, violent land disputes and runaway forest fires have followed in quick succession. The worldwide boom in agricultural commodities has created an unparalleled thirst for land and energy in Brazil, and the result has been a potentially catastrophic land grab into the world's largest remaining rainforest. The Amazon basin is home to one in 10 of the world's mammals and 15 per cent of its land-based plant species. It holds more than half of the world's fresh water and its vast forests act as the largest carbon sink on the planet, providing a vital check on the greenhouse effect.

'Since President Lula won a second term Ms Silva found herself a lone voice in a government acutely aware that its own political future depended on the vast agribusiness interests she was trying to rein in. The final breakdown in her relationship with the President came after he gave the green light to massive road and dam-building projects in the Amazon basin, and a plan she drafted for the sustainable management of the region was taken from her and handed to a business-friendly fellow minister.'

Reuters added

'About 80 percent of the world's biodiversity is found in tropical forests, yet every minute 20 hectares (50 acres) of forest disappear, say experts.'

While in the Environmental Network News story 'Brazilian Companies Announce Global Warming Game Plan' it stated

'In a report released last month, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that, “by mid-century, increases in temperature and associated decreases in soil water are projected to lead to gradual replacement of tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia.” The IPCC also warning that crop productivity in Brazil “is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases” in tropical areas, “which would increase risk of hunger.”'

Thus fare the 'lungs of the planet'.


A different sort of lung is faring badly too. The New Scientist reported on 01 May that "dead zones" in the oceans containing too little oxygen for fish to breathe are growing as global temperatures increase.

'Warmer water dissolves less oxygen, so as temperatures rise, oxygen vanishes from oceans. Marine biologists are warning that if dead zones continue expanding, oceanic "deserts" could massively deplete marine life and fish stocks.

'Over the past 50 years, large volumes of ocean previously rich in oxygen have become "oxygen minimum zones" (OMZs) containing less than 120 micromoles of oxygen per kilogram of water. These are the concentrations at which fish, squid, crustaceans and other marine creatures begin to suffocate and die.'


On 23 May it was reported that acidification of the naturally alkaline oceans along the entire west coast of North America threatens the collapse of marine ecosystems. The reason is the process of marine calcification by which countless marine creatures critical in the food chain or as habitat (eg coral) build their skeletal body parts fails in an acidic environment.

Ocean acidification is, of course, a global, not a localised problem. The seas everywhere are becoming acidic because of the absorption of CO2, it being calculated that they have by now absorbed a third of all CO2 emitted since the start of industrialisation. Just to bear this out, the same problem was reported in Antarctica affecting the pteropods

'known as the "potato chip" of the oceans because they are eaten by so many species. Fish that feed on pteropods are eaten by bigger fish, seals and penguins, which are eaten by killer whales.'



Quite apart from the dead zones (which they have learned to effectively 'hold their breathe' to enter briefly) fish are on the edge too. A highly recommended report titled 'How the world's oceans are running out of fish', which demonstrates along the way how The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has backfired in this respect at least, appeared in The Observer of 11 May.

'Is anyone not aware that wild fish are in deep trouble? That three-quarters of commercially caught species are over-exploited or exploited to their maximum? Do they not know that industrial fishing is so inefficient that a third of the catch, some 32 million tonnes a year, is thrown away? For every ocean prawn you eat, fish weighing 10-20 times as much have been thrown overboard. These figures all come from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which also claims that, of all the world's natural resources, fish are being depleted the fastest. With even the most abundant commercial species, we eat smaller and smaller fish every year - we eat the babies before they can breed.

'Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at York University, predicts that by 2050 we will only be able to meet the fish protein needs of half the world population: all that will be left for the unlucky half may be, as he puts it, 'jellyfish and slime'. Ninety years of industrial-scale exploitation of fish has, he and most scientists agree, led to 'ecological meltdown'. Whole biological food chains have been destroyed.'



Perhaps the birds, being so highly adaptable, are fairing better? In the latest revision of the Red List by Birdlife International

'1,226 species of bird are now threatened with global extinction - around one-in-eight of the world's bird species.'



The very obvious fact is that biodiversity across the board is in a very parlous state, and we are failing dramatically and wilfully to protect it:

'BERLIN (Reuters) 16 may- Nearly 200 governments will say next week they are unlikely to meet a target of slowing the rate of extinctions of living species by 2010, a failure which could threaten future food supplies.

'U.N. experts say the planet is facing the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago and some say three species vanish every hour as a result largely of human activity causing pollution and loss of habitat.'

'"We hope to give a wake-up call to humanity. We need an unprecedented effort to meet the challenge of biodiversity loss," convention Executive Secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf told Reuters in a telephone interview. He said consumption had reached unsustainable levels and humans were destroying the foundation of life. Without a change in behavior, feeding up to 9 billion people would be difficult.'


As if that was not enough, the largest ever study of the impact of climate change has concluded biology is already being influenced and that only life in the Antarctica has been spared – thus far. 90% of species and 95% of natural features have already been affected, and its destabilising influence - for instance as a result of the early arrival of spring - has been scientifically confirmed. The authors consider these effects to be human induced.



Of course the immediate cause of most of these disasters is greenhouse gas emissions (the ultimate one being human values). How are we faring there?

Very bad news on that front too, regrettably. The general presumption has been that given time, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would be absorbed by natural processes in the environment. The catch was no-one knew how long that would take. We knew it is longer than a decade, most had resumed a couple of decades or so; but given long enough it would all go away again into the oceans (to acidify them further), and by way of photosynthesis.

Unfortunately modelling by Matthews and Caldeira has now found this happy picture to be highly questionable, and probably entirely false. The model introduced a single pulse of C02 at the start of the simulation period.

'Pulse sizes of 50, 200, 500 and 2000 billion tonnes of carbon were used. The model was set to calculate global temperatures and atmospheric and ocean carbon dioxide levels over a simulated 500 years.

'At the end of that period, Matthews and Caldeira found that between 20% and 35% of the initial emission pulse remained in the atmosphere – even for the smallest emission pulse – with the remainder having been absorbed by land and ocean carbon sinks.

'The lingering carbon dioxide means that global warming persisted for the entire simulation. For the four different emission scenarios, global temperatures stabilised at 0.09, 0.34, 0.88 and 3.6 ºC above pre-industrial levels respectively.

'So far industrial emissions total around 450 billion tonnes. “Even if we eliminated carbon dioxide today we are still committed to a global temperature rise of around 0.8 ºC lasting at least 500 years,” says Caldeira.

'One of the reasons for the persistence is the slow response of oceans. “It takes a lot of energy to heat them up and then a long time for them to cool back down,” he explains.'

Unsurprisingly, given that rather rude awakening, there have been a spate of calls for much more radical action to cut greenhouse emissions with the utmost urgency before it is all too late. Perhaps most notable is a study by some of the most respected climate-policy researchers which takes on the prevalent economic advice to governments that it is more economically efficient to delay the introduction of remedial measures. It quantified the impact of every year of delay

'We should not wait to cut back on burning fossil fuels until we have developed greener technology to supply our energy needs, despite what many economists are advising their respective governments. Such a waiting game may have deadly consequences.

'The US administration often objects to emissions cuts on the grounds that it is cheaper to delay until low-carbon technologies are available. Now a study by some of the most respected climate-policy researchers has quantified the impact of every year of delay. It concludes that reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in subsequent decades will be far harder than we thought - not that anyone thought it was going to be easy in the first place. What's more, the team says that current delays mean the world is virtually certain to overshoot the limits of greenhouse gas concentration advocated by the European Union and many environmental groups. "It's a sobering assessment.'



Two studies reported in the New Scientist on 03 April predicted major increase in volcanic eruptions as a result of climate change. One study dealt with local activity resulting from an unloading of the crust as ice melts; the other predicted massive increase in seismic activity as a result of loading caused by rising sea levels. The latter is borne out by what happened in previous warm periods of the Earth's history.

Increased volcanism is not normally something to look forward to with relish, unless you happen to be a volcanologist. But could it just be the Hollywood style salvation at the last possible moment? Could a long, and admittedly difficult, volcanic night compensate for global warming, and save the day in an unlikely denouement?

Sadly not, it would seem from what was billed as a pioneering meeting about the Earth's 'long-neglected' "deep" carbon cycle.

'Carbon is locked away down in the Earth's crust: in magma and old carbonate rocks buried by plate tectonics, in fossil fuels like coal and oil, and in ice lattices beneath the ocean bed. It has long been assumed that this carbon was largely cut off from the surface, and could safely be ignored when analysing the effect of greenhouse gases on climate.

'Now it seems there may be much more "deep carbon" ready to spew out than we thought. This realisation could have profound implications for our climate, argues Robert Hazen of the Carnegie Institution, who organised the meeting at the institution's Geophysical Laboratory in Washington DC. "We may be on the verge of a transformational moment...'


Clearly a massive increase in volcanic activity will equate with a massive release of this deep carbon. Perhaps tellingly, the report was entitled 'Earth may hide a lethal carbon cache'. Enough said.



And so it goes on, almost unceasingly, it seems. Key signs of ecological collapse or critical alterations in earth processes – climate, global circulation and so on - arrive daily. With each it is becoming harder to escape the conclusion that catastrophic change is about to come crashing down upon us, and much more imminently than our complacency would want us to believe.

A key sign is that events are consistently running in front of the science. In the light of better knowledge, the science is constantly having to be revised upwards in terms of the severity of its predictions, critically over the scale and immediacy of what is coming down the tubes at us. In other words the magnitude of what is happening has been generally underestimated by a large margin.

This is partly a natural consequence of scientific caution and the need for hard data, but is deeply regrettable in that it has encouraged – or provided the necessary excuse for - society at large to remain in denial about what is happening, maintaining various unrealistic attitudes which justify, in their own minds at least, persisting in transparently anti-social behaviours. And anti-social to the point of being self-destructive. The endemic fatuous use of profligate vehicles is but one very obvious example.

But what is most disquieting is that despite these revisions, actual events on the ground are still continuously confounding the experts by coming in massively ahead of forecast, often on a scale of several decades. When this happens as consistently as it is, it points strongly to the conclusion that we have seriously underestimated the speed, the scale and the severity of what is happening at a fundamental level. In other words, we are carrying on in a fools paradise.

The very ideas that we have any leeway at all in which to act, that the catastrophe will not start to unroll until 2050 or after, are completely untenable when we have already seen the predictions for an ice-free Arctic advanced from a possible 2070 to a probable now in four years that UKELA has been running its Wild Law events.

Indeed, that an air of unreality is currently abroad would seem indisputable. As recently as 02 May the Independent reported that

'more than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change'

'most Britons believe "green" taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour'

and

'two-thirds ...think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.'

Astonishingly, and most disquietingly, 34 per cent

'believe that extreme weather is becoming more common but has nothing to do with global warming, while one in ten still believe that climate change is totally natural.'



What conclusion can environmental lawyers draw from this unfolding scenario, even as it stands?

A central tenet of Wild Law is that existing systems of legal protection for the environment are fatally floored so lead inevitably to its destruction. In the light of even this small sample of reports, drawn mainly from the last month, that would seem indisputable. Across the board biodiversity is collapsing, ecosystems appear to be poised on the point of permanent breakdown, natural resources of all types are being over-exploited to the point of absolute unsustainability. Worse still, all of this seems to be irreversible.

What we are seeing is a massive failure of environmental law in practice affecting most areas of its competence. In such exacting circumstances, one has to ask if the profession, on perceiving this and the danger that it poses, does not have an overriding ethical duty to speak out boldly and publicly to bring this literally catastrophic failure to the attention of society at large so it is fully aware of the peril and can begin to address it? To register the failing unequivocally with those who ultimately must formulate policy and law, including politicians, with the media, and through them with the public at large to whom it ultimately has a duty.

The other response that is demanded of the profession is to take a leading role in formulating a remedy. There is already the alternative put forward by the advocates of Wild Law. Its explicit purpose is to address this very problem, having embarked on a deep analysis of the root causes of the environmental disasters that stares us in the face, and having cast around as widely as it is possible to do in the search for alternative models that have worked. It has discovered these mainly amongst the traditional societies which, in many cases have endured - and endured sustainably - for far longer than industrial society. Frequently for longer than Western civilisation itself.

It therefore offers a possible way forward. It is not without downsides, but these are not necessarily insuperable. Wild Law is challenging because many of the ideas are, at first acquaintance at least, at odds with the prevalent values of consumer society, and because, by correctly identifying the root cause in a failure of governance, it would seem to require a shake up of the system so profound that many would be inclined to dismiss it as utopian - at least until the balloon really goes up and the panic sets in accordingly. At that point, when reality finally bites, necessity may open the minds and hearts to greater flexibility and more imaginative solutions than are currently admitted.

What it does offer is a coherent alternative, if not yet a fully formulated alternative. The problem at present is that it is moving forward far too slowly to keep pace with events, and urgently needs to make up ground by firming up on concrete and achievable options. It also needs to make ground in promoting itself as a viable, preferable, and indeed essential alternative, particularly in the world outside the profession.

For the remainder, who have yet to be convinced by Wild Law or consider it too romantic and hypothetical a proposition to ever be deliverable, an even more difficult challenge lies before them. For they are honour bound to put forward a better and more workable alternative instead. Again, this would be difficult under any circumstance, but it is all the harder given that the fundamental failure of our systems of governance is transparently at the heart of the problem that must be addressed. That may go to explain why alternative solutions seem, on superficial acquaintance at least, to be largely conspicuous by their absence. But to fail to do so is to abdicate responsibility.

Either way, what is imperative is to act. For there will be few fates in a post-ecological world more filled with pathos than to be a member of the profession that was charged with piloting the vessel who, when they knew the ship was heading for the rocks, neither spoke out nor acted.



Sources


Polar regions

North Pole could be ice free in 2008
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn13779-north-pole-could-be-ice-free-in-2008.html?feedId=climate-change_rss20

Vast cracks appear in Arctic ice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7417123.stm

Call for three seal species to join endangered list
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/30/wildlife.arctic?gusrc=rss&feed=environment

Giant Antarctic ice shelf breaks into the sea
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/26/poles.antarctica?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Cracking up: the ice shelf as big as Northern Ireland
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cracking-up-the-ice-shelf-as-big-as-northern-ireland-800585.html?r=RSS

Loss of Antarctic ice has soared by 75 per cent in just 10 years
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/loss-of-antarctic-ice-has-soared-by-75-per-cent-in-just-10-years-769894.html

Ice loss is severe at both poles
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19726393.700-ice-loss-is-severe-at-both-poles.html

Toxic release
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn13848-melting-glaciers-release-toxic-chemical-cocktail.html


Living Planet Index
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/an-epidemic-of-extinctions-decimation-of-life-on-earth-829325.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn13915-global-biodiversity-slumps-27-in-35-years.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/16/wildlife.biodiversity


Brazil
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/i-give-up-says-brazilian-minister-who-fought-to-save-the-rainforest-828310.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN1342081320080514?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Brazilian companies announce global warming game plan
http://www.enn.com/business/article/36420


Oceans
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn13818-growing-ocean-dead-zones-leave-fish-gasping.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-worlds-oceans-at-risk-from-rising-acidity-832846.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/tiny-snail-crucial-to-antarctic-life-may-be-wiped-out-784030.html

How the world's oceans are running out of fish The Observer, 11 May 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/11/fishing.food


Effects of climate change
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19826564.400-life-feels-the-effects-of-a-changing-climate.html?feedId=climate-change_rss20


Red list for birds
http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.asp?id=tcm:9-189758


'U.N. experts to say 2010 biodiversity target elusive'
http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/36415


Increasing volcanic activity
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn13583-melting-ice-caps-may-trigger-more-volcanic-eruptions.html


Hidden carbon
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19826575.000-earth-may-hide-a-lethal-carbon-cache.html?feedId=climate-change_rss20


Public in denial
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/green-tax-revolt-britons-will-not-foot-bill-to-save-planet-819703.html


.

Orangutans Revisited

As Simon Boyle is on leave, out of the country and probably not reading today's Guardian, am taking it upon myself to draw the notice of those who took an interest in the mock trial exercise at the last Wild Law weekend to the very issue surfacing for real in political debate.

Peter Ainsworth, shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, uses it as his final thrust in damning government policy in a for and against debate with Ruth Kelly, secretary of state for transport, over the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation which comes into force tomorrow.

It remains to congratulate all those concerned for being so far-sighted in their contribution to the exercise, despite the sad fact that real developments appear to be bearing out its worst predictions including, tragically, the extinction of the orang-utan as a species.

Ruth Kelly reminds us that the use of cars and other forms of transport are the UK's third largest source of CO2 emissions and the only one forecast have grown by 2020. Yet reprehensibly the debate on all sides seems to be predicated on the idea that this level of use is both inevitable and unavoidably necessary for reasons unstated, be they economic, social or otherwise.

I would simply like to remind everyone that this presumption is utterly and completely unfounded. Most car use at present is entirely vain and frivolous, could be eliminated absolutely without any effect on economic performance, and arguably with a positive social return were the population only prepared to reject the 'life in the fast lane' as the only mode of living. It is one that has rarely brought happiness and is at the very heart of these devastating problems. It is utterly reprehensible, as well as indicative of the depth of the challenge before us, that both main parties remain utterly supine over this question.

Ironically the same edition headlined the fact that developing nations are unwilling to sign up for the urgently needed replacement to Kyoto Treaty because they are appalled by the lack of progress the developed world has made in cutting its emissions and are 'dismayed' by the lack of leadership shown. This comes from the top: the vehicle of this news is none other than Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC and Nobel laureate.

Who can blame them on this evidence?

And what chance avoiding total meltdown if they do not?

According to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

'if the carbon emissions of China and India continue to grow at the same pace as their economies, mankind would be unable to prevent a critical level of warming.'

That means no chance.

Time to get out of your cars, folks. Right now.

And to persuade everyone else you know to do so too.

For your own preservation, as well as the orang-utan…




The background is well set out in both contributions, which can be found on p26 under 'Biofuels: blueprint for the future?' or at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/14/biofuels.energy



'Rich states failing to lead on emissions, says UN climate chief' can be viewed at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/14/climatechange.carbonemissions



PS

Letter to the Guardian


Having now seen your lead article (“Rich states failing to lead on emissions, says UN climate chief”) would either Ruth Kelly or Peter Ainsworth ("Biofuels: a blueprint for the future?") wish to change their position over their ultimately shabby, supine failure to get us to face up to the obvious – that the days of 'life in the fast lane' are well and truly over. It would seem that it is not only the survival of the urangatan that is at stake, but everyone else's too.

It didn't get printed, inevitably enough. Instead, a few days later they published an editorial to the opposite effect, more or less.