Friday, January 28, 2011

Green Economy.. what does it mean?

Green economics is the economics of the real world—the world of work, human needs, the Earth’s materials, and how they mesh together most harmoniously. It is primarily about “use-value”, not “exchange-value” or money. It is about quality, not quantity for the sake of it. It is about regeneration---of individuals, communities and ecosystems---not about accumulation, of either money or material.

Green economics is not just about the environment. Certainly we must move to harmonize with natural systems, to make our economies flow benignly like sailboats in the wind of ecosystem processes. But doing this requires great human creativity, tremendous knowledge, and the widespread participation of everyone. Human beings and human workers can no longer serve as cogs in the machine of accumulation, be it capitalistic or socialistic. Ecological development requires an unleashing of human development and an extension of democracy. Social and ecological transformations go hand-in-hand.

Green economics and green politics both emphasize the creation of positive alternatives in all areas of life and every sector of the economy.

This definition of the Green Economy is one that is sadly, rarely accepted in today’s world, but is also one that may pave the way to a sustainable and brighter future. This topic will be discussed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (the Rio + 20 Conference), and hopefully, nations and representatives from all over the world will form a fixed, yet flexible definition to this topic, and action is taken.

If you have any information to share with us regarding this topic, or even anything regarding the environment, mail us at glyplatform@gmail.com, and it will be considered when future blog posts are made.

Thanks,

Darren.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Environmental Governance for aspiring leaders

As you know environmental governance is a major topic around the globe.
If I define it in a simple manner, its all about mechanisms and rules that conserve and protect the environment. Due to the rapid industrial growth and its unfavorable consequences all around the world, the concept of Global Environmental Governance has gained prominence in the recent years, as the effective handling of environmental issues and management of natural resources are important for the very survival of humanity.

This aspect has not been given a warm reception by many as it speaks of strict measures against ones who harm the environment.

We at the Green Lanka Youth Platform (GLYP) strive to synergise and promote the concept of Environmental Governance in a manner that will ensure the participation of Sri Lankan youth. For a long time the youth have aspired to lead and to make major decision concerning our lan, but were not given a proper platform.
GLYP strives to fill this void and encourage active participation that will include brain-storming sessions to make a policy paper to be presented at the EcoSingapore World Leadership Conference 2011.

As Margaret Mead said “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

So if you haven't signed up, hurry up! Its time for YOU to make a change.

Anoka

Friday, January 21, 2011

THE GREAT FOOD CRISIS OF 2011 By Lester Brown

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/10/the_great_food_crisis_of_2011

The Great Food Crisis Of 2011
By Lester Brown

As the new year begins, the price of wheat is setting an all-time high in the United Kingdom. Food riots are spreading across Algeria. Russia is importing grain to sustain its cattle herds until spring grazing begins. India is wrestling with an 18-percent annual food inflation rate, sparking protests. China is looking abroad for potentially massive quantities of wheat and corn. The Mexican government is buying corn futures to avoid unmanageable tortilla price rises. And on January 5, the U.N. Food and Agricultural organization announced that its food price index for December hit an all-time high.

But whereas in years past, it’s been weather that has caused a spike in commodities prices, now it’s trends on both sides of the food supply/demand equation that are driving up prices. On the demand side, the culprits are population growth, rising affluence, and the use of grain to fuel cars. On the supply side: soil erosion, aquifer depletion, the loss of cropland to nonfarm uses, the diversion of irrigation water to cities, the plateauing of crop yields in agriculturally advanced countries, and — due to climate change — crop-withering heat waves and melting mountain glaciers and ice sheets. These climate-related trends seem destined to take a far greater toll in the future.

There’s at least a glimmer of good news on the demand side: World population growth, which peaked at 2 percent per year around 1970, dropped below 1.2 percent per year in 2010. But because the world population has nearly doubled since 1970, we are still adding 80 million people each year. Tonight, there will be 219,000 additional mouths to feed at the dinner table, and many of them will be greeted with empty plates. Another 219,000 will join us tomorrow night. At some point, this relentless growth begins to tax both the skills of farmers and the limits of the earth’s land and water resources.

Beyond population growth, there are now some 3 billion people moving up the food chain, eating greater quantities of grain-intensive livestock and poultry products. The rise in meat, milk, and egg consumption in fast-growing developing countries has no precedent. Total meat consumption in China today is already nearly double that in the United States.

The third major source of demand growth is the use of crops to produce fuel for cars. In the United States, which harvested 416 million tons of grain in 2009, 119 million tons went to ethanol distilleries to produce fuel for cars. That’s enough to feed 350 million people for a year. The massive U.S. investment in ethanol distilleries sets the stage for direct competition between cars and people for the world grain harvest. In Europe, where much of the auto fleet runs on diesel fuel, there is growing demand for plant-based diesel oil, principally from rapeseed and palm oil. This demand for oil-bearing crops is not only reducing the land available to produce food crops in Europe, it is also driving the clearing of rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia for palm oil plantations.

The combined effect of these three growing demands is stunning: a doubling in the annual growth in world grain consumption from an average of 21 million tons per year in 1990-2005 to 41 million tons per year in 2005-2010. Most of this huge jump is attributable to the orgy of investment in ethanol distilleries in the United States in 2006-2008.

While the annual demand growth for grain was doubling, new constraints were emerging on the supply side, even as longstanding ones such as soil erosion intensified. An estimated one third of the world’s cropland is losing topsoil faster than new soil is forming through natural processes — and thus is losing its inherent productivity. Two huge dust bowls are forming, one across northwest China, western Mongolia, and central Asia; the other in central Africa. Each of these dwarfs the U.S. dust bowl of the 1930s.

Satellite images show a steady flow of dust storms leaving these regions, each one typically carrying millions of tons of precious topsoil. In North China, some 24,000 rural villages have been abandoned or partly depopulated as grasslands have been destroyed by overgrazing and as croplands have been inundated by migrating sand dunes.

In countries with severe soil erosion, such as Mongolia and Lesotho, grain harvests are shrinking as erosion lowers yields and eventually leads to cropland abandonment. The result is spreading hunger and growing dependence on imports. Haiti and North Korea, two countries with severely eroded soils, are chronically dependent on food aid from abroad.

Meanwhile aquifer depletion is fast shrinking the amount of irrigated area in many parts of the world; this relatively recent phenomenon is driven by the large-scale use of mechanical pumps to exploit underground water. Today, half the world’s people live in countries where water tables are falling as overpumping depletes aquifers. Once an aquifer is depleted, pumping is necessarily reduced to the rate of recharge unless it is a fossil (nonreplenishable) aquifer, in which case pumping ends altogether. But sooner or later, falling water tables translate into rising food prices.

Irrigated area is shrinking in the Middle East, notably in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Yemen. In Saudi Arabia, which was totally dependent on a now-depleted fossil aquifer for its wheat self-sufficiency, production is in a freefall. From 2007 to 2010, Saudi wheat production fell by more than two thirds. By 2012, wheat production will likely end entirely, leaving the country totally dependent on imported grain.

The Arab Middle East is the first geographic region where spreading water shortages are shrinking the grain harvest. But the really big water deficits are in India, where the World Bank numbers indicate that 175 million people are being fed with grain that is produced by overpumping. In China, overpumping provides food for some 130 million people. In the United States, the world’s other leading grain producer, irrigated area is shrinking in key agricultural states such as California and Texas.

The last decade has witnessed the emergence of yet another constraint on growth in global agricultural productivity: the shrinking backlog of untapped technologies. In some agriculturally advanced countries, farmers are using all available technologies to raise yields. In Japan, the first country to see a sustained rise in grain yield per acre, rice yields have been flat now for 14 years. Rice yields in South Korea and China are now approaching those in Japan. Assuming that farmers in these two countries will face the same constraints as those in Japan, more than a third of the world rice harvest will soon be produced in countries with little potential for further raising rice yields.

A similar situation is emerging with wheat yields in Europe. In France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, wheat yields are no longer rising at all. These three countries together account for roughly one-eighth of the world wheat harvest. Another trend slowing the growth in the world grain harvest is the conversion of cropland to nonfarm uses. Suburban sprawl, industrial construction, and the paving of land for roads, highways, and parking lots are claiming cropland in the Central Valley of California, the Nile River basin in Egypt, and in densely populated countries that are rapidly industrializing, such as China and India. In 2011, new car sales in China are projected to reach 20 million — a record for any country. The U.S. rule of thumb is that for every 5 million cars added to a country’s fleet, roughly 1 million acres must be paved to accommodate them. And cropland is often the loser.

Fast-growing cities are also competing with farmers for irrigation water. In areas where all water is being spoken for, such as most countries in the Middle East, northern China, the southwestern United States, and most of India, diverting water to cities means less irrigation water available for food production. California has lost perhaps a million acres of irrigated land in recent years as farmers have sold huge amounts of water to the thirsty millions in Los Angeles and San Diego.

The rising temperature is also making it more difficult to expand the world grain harvest fast enough to keep up with the record pace of demand. Crop ecologists have their own rule of thumb: For each 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature above the optimum during the growing season, we can expect a 10 percent decline in grain yields. This temperature effect on yields was all too visible in western Russia during the summer of 2010 as the harvest was decimated when temperatures soared far above the norm.

Another emerging trend that threatens food security is the melting of mountain glaciers. This is of particular concern in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau, where the ice melt from glaciers helps sustain not only the major rivers of Asia during the dry season, such as the Indus, Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers, but also the irrigation systems dependent on these rivers. Without this ice melt, the grain harvest would drop precipitously and prices would rise accordingly.

And finally, over the longer term, melting ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica, combined with thermal expansion of the oceans, threaten to raise the sea level by up to six feet during this century. Even a three-foot rise would inundate half of the riceland in Bangladesh. It would also put under water much of the Mekong Delta that produces half the rice in Vietnam, the world’s number two rice exporter. Altogether there are some 19 other rice-growing river deltas in Asia where harvests would be substantially reduced by a rising sea level.

The current surge in world grain and soybean prices, and in food prices more broadly, is not a temporary phenomenon. We can no longer expect that things will soon return to normal, because in a world with a rapidly changing climate system there is no norm to return to.

The unrest of these past few weeks is just the beginning. It is no longer conflict between heavily armed superpowers, but rather spreading food shortages and rising food prices — and the political turmoil this would lead to — that threatens our global future. Unless governments quickly redefine security and shift expenditures from military uses to investing in climate change mitigation, water efficiency, soil conservation, and population stabilization, the world will in all likelihood be facing a future with both more climate instability and food price volatility. If business as usual continues, food prices will only trend upward.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Report blames BP oil spill on 'systemic failures'


Washington - Last year's BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was "rooted in systemic failures" by the companies involved in the disaster, according to an advance portion of a report by a presidential commission.

The commission blamed BP plc, the oil company that owned and operated the well, in addition to Transocean Ltd, the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which exploded and sank. Halliburton Co, an oilfield services company which also worked on the project, also shares responsibility, the report said.

Managers from all three companies failed to take actions that could have prevented the April 20 blowout, the commission found.

The Deepwater Horizon burned and sank with 11 men on board in April. The well spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico for months before it could be capped and permanently sealed in mid-September.

"The blowout was not the product of a series of aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or government officials that could not have been anticipated or expected to occur again," the report says.

"Rather, the root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur."

Scientists see climate change link to Australian floods

Dan Proud Photography/Getty Images

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Climate change has likely intensified the monsoon rains that have triggered record floods in Australia's Queensland state, scientists said on Wednesday, with several months of heavy rain and storms still to come.

But while scientists say a warmer world is predicted to lead to more intense droughts and floods, it wasn't yet possible to say if climate change would trigger stronger La Nina and El Nino weather patterns that can cause weather chaos across the globe.

"I think people will end up concluding that at least some of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change," said Matthew England of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

"The waters off Australia are the warmest ever measured and those waters provide moisture to the atmosphere for the Queensland and northern Australia monsoon," he told Reuters.

The Queensland floods have killed 16 people since the downpour started last month, inundating towns, crippling coal mining and are now swamping the state's main city of Brisbane.

The rains have been blamed on one of the strongest La Nina patterns ever recorded. La Nina is a cooling of ocean temperatures in the east and central Pacific, which usually leads to more rain over much of Australia, Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia.

This is because the phenomena leads to stronger easterly winds in the tropics that pile up warm water in the western Pacific and around Australia. Indonesia said on Wednesday it expected prolonged rains until June.

WEATHER SWITCH

The Pacific has historically switched between La Nina phases and El Ninos, which have the opposite impact by triggering droughts in Australia and Southeast Asia.

"We've always had El Ninos and we've had natural variability but the background which is now operating is different," said David Jones, head of climate monitoring and prediction at the Australia Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne.

"The first thing we can say with La Nina and El Nino is it is now happening in a hotter world," he told Reuters, adding that meant more evaporation from land and oceans, more moisture in the atmosphere and stronger weather patterns.

"So the El Nino droughts would be expected to be exacerbated and also La Nina floods because rainfall would be exacerbated," he said, though adding it would be some years before any climate change impact on both phenomena might become clear.

He said the current La Nina was different because of the warmest ocean temperatures on record around Australia and record humidity in eastern Australia over the past 12 months.

Prominent U.S. climate scientist Kevin Trenberth said the floods and the intense La Nina were a combination of factors.

He pointed to high ocean temperatures in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia early last year as well as the rapid onset of La Nina after the last El Nino ended in May.

"The rapid onset of La Nina meant the Asian monsoon was enhanced and the over 1 degree Celsius anomalies in sea surface temperatures led to the flooding in India and China in July and Pakistan in August," he told Reuters in an email.

He said a portion, about 0.5C, of the ocean temperatures around northern Australia, which are more than 1.5C above pre-1970 levels, could be attributed to global warming.

"The extra water vapor fuels the monsoon and thus alters the winds and the monsoon itself and so this likely increases the rainfall further," said Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

"So it is easy to argue that 1 degree Celsius sea surface temperature anomalies gives 10 to 15 percent increase in rainfall," he added.

Some scientists said it was still too soon to draw a definite climate change link to the floods.

"It's a natural phenomena. We have no strong reason at the moment for saying this La Nina is any stronger than it would be even without humans," said Neville Nicholls of Monash University in Melbourne and president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.

But he said global atmospheric warming of about 0.75C over the past half century had to be having some impact.

"It has to be affecting the climate, regionally and globally. It has to be affecting things like La Nina. But can you find a credible argument which says it's made it worse? I can't at the moment."

(Editing by Robert Birsel)

Sufficiency and Sustainability

Being based in a former manufacturing and engineering region of the UK where the automotive industry was once one of the largest, if not the largest, employer the industrial restructuring over the previous twenty years and the more recent economic downturn has given sustainability a greater urgency than ever before.

The ecological threats we are all facing such as climate change, resource depletion, biodiversity loss and so on are directly and indirectly our responsibility. These threats are worsening by the day but the very real economic difficulties seem more immediate, more pressing, more real. Infact, both are equally pressing and equally real and it is time for all of us, especially those working or directing big and small businesses, to do things differently. Clearly, it is important that a decent standard and quality of life is important and it doesn’t matter whether you are in Bangladesh, China, the UK, the US or anywhere else these things are important. However, we need to recognise that sustainability, living within the ecological carrying capacity of our planet, is linked to sufficiency. Surely, there is such a thing as enough. We should not just want new and more things because we can see them advertised on bill boards, on TV or on the internet. More does not necessarily mean a better life although for those who do live in poverty more does indeed mean that. We need to address sufficiency and sustainability, quality of life rather than standard of life, well being rather than growth and consumption.

For me, being socially and environmentally responsible is understanding that we are part of nature, that we are all on the planet together – for better or for worse. The important thing is that we need to make things better and Business and Higher Education can contribute immensely to make this happen. The problem is that for too long Business and Higher Education have not been as involved in promoting environmental sustainability and ethical business practices as they should have been. In many ways they have been part of the problem and a cause of our present ecological and economic crises. Hopefully, things are changing. They need to. And, fast.


http://www.greenconduct.com/blog/2010/11/30/sufficency-and-sustainability/

Will poor countries get enough money to adapt to climate change?

The only way developing world can adapt to climate change is if rich world carries the financial burden needed to help developing nations adapt to droughts, floods and rising sea levels.

Last year's Copenhagen summit was generally one big failure but nevertheless the rich countries have still pledged to raise $100bn a year in climate aid from 2020 in order to help developing world. Can this really be achieved and will poor countries really get enough money to adapt to climate change?

According to the latest UN report obtaining this money will be challenging but still feasible, because UN believes that the public sector could extract more than $100bn and the private sector five times more, up to $500bn a year.

The UN report has also specified possible sources by claiming that between $2bn and $27bn could be raised from financial transaction taxes on foreign exchange, $4bn to $9bn from shipping, $2bn to $3bn from aviation, $3bn to $8bn from removal of fossil fuel subsidies and $8bn to $38bn from auctioning carbon allowances.

Putting prices on carbon emissions is still the key to success, and it has been calculated that carbon price needs to be in the range of $20 to $25 a tonne of carbon dioxide if the world wants to reach the desired $100bn mark.

Global politics is yet to achieve the desired level of political acceptability for this plan because there are still many issues between developed and developing world that need to be sorted out prior to reaching the final agreement.

Climate talks in Cancun are fast approaching, and it will be very interesting to see how far did countries progressed since Copenhagen, and whether world is finally ready to act as one in order to tackle climate change.

To read more about this blog log onto:http://climatechangearticles.blogspot.com/search/label/climate%20change

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Bring back the Rio 92 Spirit - Mr. Uchita de Soyza

Bring back the Rio92 Spirit

UCHITA DE ZOYSA (CONVENER – CLIMATE SUSTAINABILITY PLATFORM)

In 1991, I was part of a small group of civil society members that came to Geneva to attend the second preparatory committee meeting of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). We all quickly found common ground in sustainability to work together, and when we went to the Earth Summit in 1992 we were in one global forum.

rio_conferenceAs an International NGO Forum we were united to draft the Alternative NGO Treaties, as we all knew that we had to act together to save the earth. Despite our enormous diversity we came together in the true spirit of an Earth Summit. Sadly, the Rio+20 process appears to lack the Rio92 spirit and civil society particularly appears to have forgotten the simple concept of “united we thrive and divided we perish”.

A Low Key Earth Summit

Twenty Years later, another Earth Summit is being organized without many governments, civil society members, stakeholders or the populations of nations knowing much or anything about it. As the self appointed and UN appointed NGO representatives continue to enjoy the perks of conferencing, the rest of the world waits to hear what decisions are being made on their behalf.

People’s representatives from the South are marginalized in this process and have no ways and means to contribute to a decisive global event that may have a determining impact on the future of mankind on earth. Even smaller and poorer governments are in the dark, while another intercessional meeting for Rio+20 is convened.

The success of the earth summit will depend on the ability of the UN secretariat to ensure true global participation and dialogue, and not by adding to the hundreds of already existing international agreements for non-action by nations. If this can not be achieved another ‘last chance to save the earth’, as mentioned in 1992, will be wasted.

Greening the Trade War

The central theme emerging for Rio+20 is the Green Economy. While greening the economy is a process intended to regulate the world’s unsustainable consumption, production and trading, the objective of creating a green economy appears to be focused more on creating new market opportunities. Greening the existing industrial production system will not help green the economy; it will not take us towards a carbon neutral society, nor drive us away from wasteful lifestyles.

The questions that should be asked here include; are we entering into a new phase of a global trading regime that favours the rich and powerful? And are we using the concepts of environmentalism to green wash the black industrial economies?

Poverty Eradication

While discussing sustainability for the past four decades, the world has failed in the eradication of hunger and poverty on earth. Currently, half of the world’s peoples are under the poverty line and are desperately struggling to survive on a daily basis.

Poverty is a result of a hypocritical global governance system. This is a system that has promoted unsustainable production regimes and over-consuming societies to grow further; a system that rewards exploitation by a few and obstructs access to resources by the majority; a system where the unconcerned and non-compassionate continue to decide the destinies of humanity.

If any hope for sustainability is to be drawn in the development processes in the developing countries where the poor reside, poverty needs to be eradicated.

Sustainable Consumption and Production

The prevailing unsustainable consumption and production system is the largest contributing factor to both climate change and poverty on earth and thus requires greater emphasis and focus at the levels of international regulation. If anthropogenic climate change is to be controlled, then developing a regulatory framework for sustainable consumption and production must be a priority as well.

In very simple terms, unsustainable consumption and production needs to be regulated on earth, parallel to emission cuts as a solution to both problems of climate change and poverty.

Climate Sustainability

Climate change is no longer a possibility but a larger reality that has already commenced and is ascending. While the Kyoto Protocol is said to be expiring in 2012, and the world is looking for a new binding agreement in 2012, the Rio+20 UNCSD Summit once again fails to include it in its agenda. Sadly, the Climate Change Convention that was signed at the first Earth Summit in 1992 has become out of reach of the sustainable development programme and has become another separate programme in the UN system.

International Sustainable Development Governance

The current International Environmental Governance (IEG) initiative may be two decades too old. Obviously the UN needs to clean up the big mess of managing the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA). However, trying to segregate environmental governance would only create another distraction to the sustainability processes and isolate that crucial pillar from economic and social considerations of a way forward on earth.

What we require at this stage is to create more central coordination on sustainable development as a holistic approach towards facing climate change, poverty eradication and global peace on earth. This would be a better strategy to achieve wellbeing and happiness for all on earth.

Monday, January 10, 2011

A Low Carbon Future: Renewable Energy

The whole idea of having a 'low carbon future' and maintaining it, is built around the effectiveness of Renewable Energy sources. Renewable Energy, or energy that is replenished by natural phenomenon, is one that is now of major importance to nations all over the world.

Over the last decade, new technology that can effectively, yet sustainably tap into renewable resources are being developed, with the most focus being put on hydro, wind and solar power. Lets have a look at how each different type of renewable energy is being touched:

1. Solar energy: This energy is generated by heat and light from the sun. A growing of wide variety of solar photo voltaic plants are also called utility scale is greater which now account for one quarter of total grid attached solar PV capacity. The greater part of renewable energy sources come straight or indirectly from the sun. The purposes are hot water plants in buildings, solar cooling, for electricity and lighting of houses and complexes.

2. Wind power: The preservation of wind energy into electrical energy utilizing wind turbines. These types of wind times as a collective term called as wind farms. Firms continue to improve common turbine sizes and improves technologies, such as with gearless designs which creates additional power.

3. Biomass power: These biomass power plants can be found in over 50 nations throughout the globe and offer an improving nature of electricity. Biogas for power development is also a developing craze in many countries.

4. Geothermal power: Exists in 20 nations which use heat beneath the earth’s surface to generate energy.

5.Bio fuels: The primary bio fuels consists of corn ethanol, sugar ethanol and bio diesel. The United States and Brazil accounted for just about 90 percent of global ethanol production.

6. Hydropower: This is the most widely applied kind of renewable energy. Energy produced from water turbines relies on the volume and difference in height in between the source and the water’s outflow.

Energy is critical to the entire infrastructure of the world. Energy, in particular clean energy technology, is also becoming a strong driver of the world’s economy. According to research on the Clean Energy Trends for 2010, biofuels provided $44.9 billion to the economy in 2009 and is projected to grow to $112.5 billion by 2019. Wind power is expected to expand from $63.5 billion in 2009 to $114.5 billion in 2019. Solar photovoltaics, including modules, system components, and installation, will grow from $36.1 billion in 2009 to $116.5 billion in 2019.In addition, analysis shows that solar photovoltaics and wind power industries currently account for 8.3 million jobs. The projections for 2019 are more than 3.3 million jobs in those two sectors.

With the natural gas supply running out within the next 35 years, and given the fact that if the current rate of consumption continues for oil, the supply is predicted to run out within the next 14 years, RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY ARE A MUST for mankind.

If you have any suggestions or information to share with regards to Renewable Sources of Energy, please do share it with us :)


Monday, January 3, 2011

The ever losing battle

By sahan Hattotuwa

As a member of the Core Committee of the Green Lanka Youth Platform, I have thought about environmental sustainability, with regards to the many countries of the World and also thought what our country (Sri Lanka). This will be a part of many documents that I will be publishing.

Today the population of the World is almost around 7 billion, and we have seen that technology has developed greatly and that technology will go on developing in the future and will reach new heights. We can also see that the Consumer trend has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. With this in mind we can conclude that Consumer Demand will increase at an over-whelming pace because of the fast growing population of the world and the constant change of consumer trends. Due to the ever increasing demand of consumers, the environment of the world is deteriorating, as the need for the supply for this demand is increasing. Today people are free to spend their money on whatever they want, and people do change quickly and adjust to different trends in the world.

Today if a person has money or a huge wealth, he is considered a powerful man in the society and will be respected more than the others. This situation escalates to a huge scale when it comes to the World Political Arena, and as of now the new modern warfare is Economics. With this statement in mind , I can conclude that governments in the world, who are greedy for power and respect , will fulfill this wish of theirs’ by doing anything just to have a powerful economy, yet have no concern for the environment.

What do governments substitute in order for development? They Substitute basic human rights and destroy our lovely environment. Today the world is facing Climate Change, because of this problem. We have polluted rivers, air and the whole environment in general, because Governments of the world want to grow, develop and supposedly thrive.

Governments of the world have a duty to protect their environment as it has a direct link to the health of their country’s people. We see that businesses in the world conduct wrongfully to increase their profits; they do incur huge social costs and externalities to the society. One such example is when businesses release toxic chemicals from factories to water bodies which many people use for their basic needs, and when people consume this, they get sick and end up with cancers. Thus people do suffer from these ill practices, yet governments all over the world show little, or no concern about these kinds of issues, simply because they don’t want to upset the so called ‘Corporate Giants’, as they contribute largely to the national income of the Country. We can see that governments are selfish and only think in the short term, without thinking the long term effects that apply to the whole country.

Although we see that some countries have taken a keen interest in the environment by conducting and organizing many Environmental Sustainability Conferences, the final outcome is still very disappointing. These issues are brought out by the small and less powerful states, and what eventually happens is that the powerful states do not cooperate as they fear they might lose their share of the global market.

As I have stated earlier in this document, the main problem for, and the major barrier to achieving environmental sustainability is the very large population and their huge demand for goods and services.

We shall take a small case for consideration. For example as everyone knows there is a huge demand for jeans as it is very popular among the youth. Thus there many jeans manufacturers based in China. Due to extensive production of Jeans, many water bodies in China are polluted and it has caused many problems to the Ecology and Humanity. Why has this happened? Because the sole reason that businesses don’t care about the environment, is that they only care whether they make good profits and supply for the Demand. The Chinese authorities also should be blamed for their negligence. As of fact China do face a water shortage. Then shouldn’t the Chinese government look after it previous water.

So we can see that Governments or relevant authorities don’t care about the environment getting polluted because they think it is has a very a minute problem, but everyone will only wake up when the problem escalates out of control. Shouldn’t everyone take action now, rather than later?