21
January
2010
CLIENTS and business associates of international ship supplies company HMS Far East will not be getting Christmas cards in the mail from the firm this year.
HMS has decided – for the first time since 1993 when it started operations in Singapore – to send out electronic greeting cards instead.
Managing director Peter Schellenberger said the switch to e-cards was a move towards being more environmentally friendly. ‘Protecting the environment means more than just recycling our used paper or packaging materials,’ he said.
The company, part of a bigger HMS group with eight offices worldwide, used to send out about 1,500 cards each year. With the switch, it sent out e-greeting cards to 500 more people this year, and enjoyed 75 per cent savings on its Christmas greetings budget.
More businesses are realising that going the e-card way is kinder on their pockets, and also helps to save the environment.
The Christmas period used to be the peak period for the postman because of Christmas cards. Nine years ago, Singapore Post delivered about 8.3 million Christmas cards alone in the month of December. Now it handles only about 5.3 million.
The Internet and e-mail have changed everything. And it means plenty of trees saved, based on the estimate that one tree can make 680kg of paper, or the equivalent of 34,000 cards.
While card-printing companies may have suffered a drop in business, the increased demand for e-cards has led to more of others offering designing services.
Those in the industry estimate that there were only 80 such companies seven years ago. Now, that number has grown to more than 250.
When Forest Concepts started out seven years ago, the main bulk of its business was in doing Web development work such as designing software and creating websites for companies.
Three years ago, it expanded its business to include designing e-cards, after many customers started asking for them.
The service quickly became a profit-churner. Said its marketing manager John Chong: ‘Companies are beginning to see e-cards as an opportunity for them to keep in touch with their clients all year round, not just for the festive season but also for birthday greetings and thank-you notes.’
Online portal www.ecards.sg, owned by Communique IDEAS, was started with a mission to go green, and it designs only e-cards.
Manager Dennis Teo said companies are expected by society to be environmentally conscious. ‘More and more big companies that are socially responsible in a more eco-friendly way will definitely go the green way of cutting down on their carbon footprint,’ he said.
Communique, with hundreds of major corporations as clients, has also seen its business grow by about 20 per cent each year.
Mr Simon Woon, sales manager of online solutions company Above1, said more organisations will go green and paperless as it is good for the budget as well as image.
The design and printing of corporate Christmas cards usually cost more than $1,000, compared with $500 to $1,000 for an e-card, which could be static or flash-animated and sent to as many people as the company wishes.
While it is boom time for e-card designers, it is a different story for another industry.
Ms Terrenz Luu, of local printing firm AN-V Printing, said: ‘This year, we have zero card orders.’
The last few years have been a downward spiral, she added.
Ms Mary Huang, of Axxa Design & Print, said her festive card business has plunged by 90 per cent, from hundreds of orders a few years back to barely 10 this year.
Even so, the carbon footprint of Christmas cards sent by Singaporeans last year, calculated based on figures from a British study, was estimated to be 228 tonnes of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of the emissions from 14,500 households turning on a 100-watt light bulb for an hour.
The study by Best Foot Forward, a carbon-accounting firm, estimated that a mailed Christmas card has a carbon footprint of 43g of carbon dioxide, compared with an e-card’s emission of 4g.
It is even greener to send an SMS greeting. A study by British telco Vodafone estimated that an SMS produces about 0.000003g of carbon. This means the emission from an e-card is equivalent to sending 1.3 million SMSes.
Mr Dan Lai, director of the Climate Change Organisation based here, agreed that switching to e-cards is better than recycling paper cards, as recycling also generates carbon. ‘It is a vicious circle,’ he said. ‘To really recycle plastic and paper is quite taxing in terms of energy usage.’
Most multinational companies and government bodies have been using e-cards for some years now.
But there are still a fair few that feel e-cards lack a personal touch.
The Singapore Indoor Stadium, for instance, printed 3,000 Christmas cards locally this year. Its spokesman Camie Chua said: ‘E-cards are often placed under spam folders and have the tendency to go unread. Sending out hard copies also gives us the opportunity to update our records of our clients and suppliers.’
To overcome the ‘impersonality’ of e-cards, some firms have them hand-drawn.
HMS’ Mr Schellenberger engaged an illustrator to draw a picture of himself and his team for the company’s e-card. It had some recipients trying to figure out who was who in the drawing, he said.
But while more firms are going paperless, individuals appear to have kept to the tradition of sending real cards.
A local gift shop chain, which declined to be named, said its business has been constant, with about 20,000 cards sold every December since 2005.
Prints International, a popular stationery shop, said it sold more than 10,000 cards last year, and is expecting better sales this year.
Its general manager Jeff Lam said that even in a recession, people send Christmas cards due to their long tradition and affordability. ‘Consumers still prefer the human touch and warm feeling of buying, sending and receiving the real thing.’
Ms Adeline Sim, a senior executive from Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, is one sender who loves paper cards. ‘They are more personal as I can keep them and I like to display them,’ she said.
‘It’s my hobby and I think I’ll be using paper cards forever. If I can’t buy them any more, I’ll just make them.’
To be eco-friendly, she usually makes her own greeting cards from recycled materials to send to her friends and family. ‘Recycled cards are very creative and they are very personalised. You can’t find the same design elsewhere.’
This article was first published in The Straits Times.
By Lester Kok
cco-blogger 
Uncategorized 
No Comments »
4
January
2010
Copenhagen Summit
Copenhagen, Denmark
December 18, 2009
Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.
So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.
As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.
These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.
So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.
After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.
First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.
Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.
The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.
We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.
Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.
There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.
http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news/cop15-remarks-of-president-barack-obama.html
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
28
November
2009
When I posted pictures of our newly purchased car on Facebook, an ex-classmate asked, “Why an OPC?” OPC refers to Off Peak Car. The allowable hours to drive an OPC are weekdays 7pm to 7am, after 3pm on Saturdays and eve of public holidays and the whole day on Sundays and public holidays.
Then I just rattled on how economical an OPC will be. I talked about how we bdo not need to drive to office since I travel overseas quite a bit. I informed that season parking is expensive at both my wife’s workplace and mine. I explained on the amount of petrol, road tax and ERP charges that we could save. The car could possibly last longer due to lower frequency of usage and thus discourage regular changing of vehicle that can incur more loans. This is of course disregarding the human natures of materialism and superficiality (changing car every 3 to 5 years).
Surprisingly, I did not even attempt to elaborate that OPC Scheme can help drivers to be more environmentally friendly. Usage comes with lower fuel consumption (though the fuel efficiency of my car is not that fantastic) due to lower driving frequency. Consequently, there is lower carbon emission per vehicle. Collectively, the country can benefit from cleaner air and better traffic, especially with the launch of a new scheme in January 2010. The allowable hours will be extended to full day on Saturdays and eve of public holidays with the exchange of slightly higher road tax. I feel that this will encourage more drivers in Singapore to opt for this scheme. For my wife and me, we only need a car that can bring us to marketing, shopping, leisure activities, church and our parents’ places on weekends. We can still use it after work if necessary. Even if we need to drive during the hours outside the allowable period, we just need to apply an e-day license online and pay $20. Of course, every family has their own unique lifestyle. We feel that this will be suitable for us. I think there is no need to reveal what car am I driving now but I will sure inform all when I get my hybrid car one day.
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
22
October
2009
Australia, as what many people perceived, is one of the countries, which spend immense effort in conserving the environment. For a country with such beautiful nature, that mentality to save the environment for further damage seems to be relevant in terms of biodiversity, pollution, energy consumption, greenhouse gases, global warming, climate change etc. The country had experienced extreme weather because of climate change and global warming. Unexpected floods and droughts had affected farming activities for many years. Here are the green signs that I picked up during my trip to Sydney and Melbourne.
During the week of 11th to 17th of October, Australia was commemorating enviroweek (http://www.enviroweek.org/). The tag line was “It’s easy being green. Have you decided what you will do?” Australians were encouraged to decide to take certain actions to save the environment like using public transport instead of drive to work and to raise funds for environmental cause.
Like many countries, their hotels came with advices to guests in preserving the resources like shampoo and toilet paper. They also advised the guests to re-use their towels and toiletries a few times before requesting for brand new ones. Hotel Ibis in Melbourne adopted the “half a teaspoon” concept. This essentially highlights the availability of the world’s freshwater supply. If the total amount of water on Earth is 1 Litre, then there is only half a teaspoon of freshwater for us. What they did was that every bathroom in the hotel had a timer installed onto the wall. The time for you to bathe was set at 4 minutes. Ideally, it meant to ration our usage of water through our bathroom activities. This is in conjunction with Australia’s aiming towards “Target 155”, which is a water conservation program for households.
In terms of transportation, the cities of Melbourne and Sydney were filled with low carbon emission buses like our Euro IV ones in Singapore. I was also thrilled to have the chance to drive a Toyota Prius – Hybrid from Melbourne Airport to Port Campbell (passing through The Twelve Apostles and Loch Arc Gorge) and then back to Phillip Island. The distance covered was more than 800KM and that only costs me 65AUD on petrol. 800KM may be equivalent to the distance that I will drive in Singapore for one month. This particular car model is common on the roads as well. In addition, there are actually designated cycling paths on the already narrow road and confusing traffic system to promote alternative transportation means.
There were advertisements like posters, TV and radio ads, promoting the usage of solar panel for household heating system and purchase of hybrid cars like Toyota Prius and Honda Civic. There was a “Build Green Expo” from 16th to 18th of October. The exhibition displayed household green technologies like solar powered rooftop, energy saving light bulb and water tank for sprinkling system. Solar power technology was used during Sydney Olympic as one of the electricity generators. All these were relevant as 65% of New South Wales are currently experiencing drought while the bush or forest fire in Victoria state remains top priority for water usage.
Organic products are widely available in markets and stores. Some supermarkets and shopping malls like Target promote the concept of “bring your own bag”. If you need to get a bag from Target, they will sell you compostable bags at 10 cents each. These bags, when thrown away, can be made into compost and disposed back into nature without any harm.
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
27
June
2009
On the Way to Copenhagen
By UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
It is a particular pleasure to have this opportunity to share some of my thoughts through the inaugural edition of this bulletin – which I hope will become a vibrant medium of communication and exchange in the period ahead – as we each do our part to keep the promise we made in Bali and to realize success in Poznan and then Copenhagen.
Our achievement in Bali came as the culmination of years of hard work by many who grapple with the multiple dimensions of the complex challenge of climate change on a daily basis: scientists, economists, politicians, policy makers, technological innovators, public servants and ordinary citizens around the world. To succeed in Copenhagen, we must bring our best to the table in service of a higher purpose. Time is short and the stakes extremely high.
I commend the Parties to the Convention for starting work in earnest during the Bangkok Climate Change Talks and for the progress they made in Bonn. And I wish them all success at future sessions in Accra and beyond.
I have made it a personal priority to ensure that the United Nations plays its full role in this process, not only because climate change is just the kind of global challenge that the UN is best suited to address but also because of the clear moral imperative for bold, decisive and urgent action. We have a duty to the vulnerable who contribute least to the problem but experience its impacts most severely, and we have a responsibility to succeeding generations. We also have an historical obligation to successfully transition to a low-carbon global economy. In the last century, we rose to the occasion to welcome the Industrial Revolution, the technology revolution, and the era of globalization. In this century, responding to the climate change challenge demands that we harness that same resolve.
The United Nations system is taking action to support the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the journey through Poznan to Copenhagen. In this effort, we are guided by the Parties’ wishes, as expressed in the existing agreements under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, and in the Bali Action Plan.
I continue my personal advocacy and action through consultations with world leaders and other measures to sustain political momentum towards a shared vision for long-term cooperative action.
I have repeatedly conveyed the UN system’s commitment to strengthen and coordinate its work on climate change. Recently, all UN agencies, funds, and programmes agreed to organize their work on climate change along the lines of the building blocks of the Bali Roadmap. They have committed to delivering concrete results in support of Member States – especially through implementation in five focus areas – namely, reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; technology transfer; finance; capacity building; and adaptation. And they are also backing action in four cross-cutting areas that underpin progress on each building block – science, assessment, monitoring, and early warning; global, regional, and national action; public awareness; and a climate-neutral UN. These areas were identified primarily in response to the negotiation process, and in pursuance of the broader mandates and capacities in the UN system. I expect to report progress from this process in Poznan.
Raising public awareness among governments, businesses, civil society organizations and individuals remains high on my agenda. On 5 June 2008, this year’s World Environment Day, we promoted the message “Kick the CO2 Habit: Towards a Low-Carbon Economy.” That theme was chosen in recognition of the damaging extent of our dependence on carbon-based energy and our belief that solutions are within reach.
I also pledge to lead by example. With the groundbreaking ceremony of the renovations for the UN Headquarters in New York on 5 May 2008, we have started the march towards a greener and more efficient UN. It is my sincere hope that at the conclusion of this historic period of renovation we will have facilities that are not only safer and more modern but also a model of environmental stewardship. I know the chief executives of all United Nations programmes, funds and specialized agencies are following suit and moving towards climate neutrality in their respective organizations.
These are examples of some of the specific actions we are taking. When different players – be they an individual, organization, business or government – take action bound by a common cause, we are all energized and our vision is brought that much closer to reality.Our common priority is a deal in Copenhagen, on time, and in full. This bulletin is a welcome way to keep us in touch and on track as we each do our part to meet our collective obligation to realize this goal.
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
15
June
2009
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19463513/ns/us_news-environment
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
5
June
2009
Standing beside a cashier’s counter, with both hands full with goods she bought in Carrefour, Zhao Shaojuan realized that she forgot to bring a bag with her.
Just a year before, all shopping malls, supermarkets and open markets in Beijing provided free plastic bags. The 66-year-old Zhao still finds it hard to adopt to taking a bag when shopping.
“But I will try to bring a bag next time,” said the retired high school teacher.
Chen Gang, a 30-year-old office worker,said that he is used to taking a bag when he goes to supermarkets.
Almost a year ago, on June 1, 2008, China banned supermarkets, shops and open markets from supplying free plastic bags to customers, in a drive to protect environment and cut waste.
So what has happened in the past year?
On Monday afternoon, a Xinhua report watched 100 customers and found 24 bought plastic bags in a Wal-Mart in southern Beijing.
Statistics from the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) showed that the 106 outlets of Wal-Mart China had reduced plastic bag usage by 80 percent in the past year.
The number of plastic bags used in supermarkets was lowered by 40 billion, or 66 percent, said the NDRC.
Xie Zhenhua, NDRC deputy director, gave a more vivid example: all the plastic bags saved in one year equal 1.6 million tonnes of petroleum.
He explained that plastic bags take about 200 years to decompose and they greatly contaminate soil and water sources. If they end up in rivers and the sea, they may lead to the deaths of fish, animals and plants.
However, shopkeepers in open markets and commune groceries still provide free plastic bags, for fear that otherwise, no customer will patronize their business.
For Zhan Nan, a cashier in Wal-Mart, it is easy to live without plastic bags.
“People may feel inconvenient at first, but they will become easy without plastic bags, it’s just a problem of habit.”
Supermarkets in Beijing including Carrefour and Wal-Mart have encouraged customers to use resuable shopping bags, which hang above every cashier’s counter.
The plastic bag ban is only a part of the government drive for environment protection, which has included developing clean energy, and lowering carbon emissions.
China has allocated 21 million yuan (about 3.1 million U.S. dollars), about 5.25 percent of its four-trillion economic stimulus package, into energy saving and ecological construction.
The State Administration of Industry and Commerce issued a regulation that any shopkeeper who provides free plastic bags to customers will receive a 10,000 yuan fine. However, only very few people receive fine in Beijing.
It’s hard work to persuade 1.3 billion people to give up plastic bags, said Shi Pengxiang, a project manager of Greenpeace China.
“But more important, we have made a start,” said Shi.
Zhang Jin 2009-05-26 17:15:58 Xinhua News
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
4
June
2009
Planet at Risk: Experts Warn Population Growth, Resource Depletion, Climate Change Could Bring Catastrophe in Next Century
It’s an idea that most of us would rather not face — that within the next century, life as we know it could come to an end. Our civilization could crumble, leaving only traces of modern human existence behind.
It seems outlandish, extreme — even impossible. But according to cutting edge scientific research, it is a very real possibility. And unless we make drastic changes now, it could very well happen.
Experts have a stark warning: that unless we change course, the “perfect storm” of population growth, dwindling resources and climate change has the potential to converge in the next century with catastrophic results.
The Future: It’s Nearer Than We Think
By 2015, there are expected to be hopeful signs. Experts predict alternative energy solutions that are currently in their infancy will gain momentum. Windmills may sprout up everywhere. Off the coast of Scotland, a sprawling wave farm will harvest renewable energy from the ocean. Vatican City will meet all of its energy needs with solar power. And the U.S. will produce cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles in accordance with newly unveiled emissions guidelines.
But will it be enough? In 2015, global demand for fossil fuels could be massive and growing, but experts say oil will be harder to find and far more expensive to consume.
“We have no new source of energy on the horizon that’s currently capable of being developed on a large enough scale to replace the supply of oil in any near- term framework,” says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College.
If the cost of gasoline skyrockets, few may be able to afford to maintain the lifestyles to which we’ve grown accustomed. There may be a mass exodus from the suburbs, as driving gas-fueled cars becomes nearly impossible economically. But will that convince us to change our ways?
“Until we have a crisis of some kind, I don’t think we’re going to be motivated to make the really deep changes in the way we use energy, the technologies we use, the density of our cities, our travel patterns,” says Thomas Homer-Dixon, a political science professor and author of “The Upside of Down.”
The imagined crises in Lucy’s futuristic world come in the forms of earthshaking hurricanes spawned by over-reliance on climate-damaging coal and other nonrenewable resources. What if climate change in our world is actually much closer than we think? Many experts say we have to start seriously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2015, or we may pass a point of no return.
“If we continue on the business as usual trajectory, there will be a tipping point that we cannot avert,” says John P. Holdren, science advisor to President Obama. “We will indeed drive the car over the cliff.”
Scientists predict that by 2020, global catastrophes may well begin to accelerate. The human population is expected to explode and animal species may be dying off at a rapid rate. As the world becomes more chaotic, the costs of mending it would grow more and more daunting. By 2030, gradually rising temperatures may have shifted rainfall patterns around the globe, and many experts warn much of the world may face serious shortages of our most basic need — water.
“By 2030, two-thirds of the world’s population will be under water stress,” says Janine Benyus, science writer and founder of the Biomimicry Institute.
Some cities will have the forethought to plan ahead. Starting in 2009, San Diego began building huge desalination plants to turn ocean water into an abundance of fresh water. But in the middle of the country, people may be running out — and there may well not be funds to transport it from the coast. If and when a place like Tucson, Ariz., runs dry, people will panic.
“Something that will catch people’s attention is the first rich city that just runs out of water,” says Homer-Dixon.
Americans may well meet these challenges with resourcefulness and work hard to keep the threats at bay. But even as things stabilize on the home front, experts predict hundreds of thousands of environmental refugees may begin streaming through Europe, fleeing droughts and famines. Millions of Latin Americans could align on the U.S. border seeking entry, and some could encounter violent resistance.
“I can’t imagine the horrors that will take place on the border as millions of refugees try to get into the United States,” says Klare.
History Repeats Itself
In the history of Earth, there have been five mass extinctions in which at least half the species on the planet disappeared. Scientists believe the extinctions were brought on by natural disasters — massive volcanic eruptions, rapid climate changes and meteors hitting Earth.
Today, scientists say we are in the middle of a “sixth extinction” — and for the first time, it’s being caused by one species — us. It seems inconceivable that we could do so much damage to our planet that we actually cause society as we know it to collapse. But historical precedent shows that it is, in fact, a very real possibility.
“Every society that collapsed thought it couldn’t happen to them,” says Joseph Tainter, an expert in anthropology and societal collapse. “The Roman Empire thought it couldn’t happen. The Maya civilization thought it couldn’t happen. Everyone thought it couldn’t happen to them. But it did.”
These populations grew too much and exhausted their resources — and their climate suddenly changed. People were forced to fight each other for what little was left or face starvation. Entire societies broke down.
“Civilizations in the past have lost the fight,” says climatologist Heidi Cullen. “They have collapsed as a result of the inability to deal with several different events going on at once. I think the takeaway is that honestly, we are not that special.”
Our Current Course: Where We’re Headed
If we remain on the current course, it’s estimated that by 2050, the world’s population may have increased by at least half and many parts of the world may be facing grave shortages of resources. The Southwest U.S. could face an extended drought, while pests threaten crops. As global sea levels rise, much of the world map could be redrawn. People will begin to migrate back to urban areas in search of better lives.
There would likely still be beacons of green living — massive solar farms may produce enough power to light up entire regions of the country. Towns like Greenburg, Kan., decimated in 2007 by a tornado and rebuilt to be completely self-sustaining, may inspire communities around the globe do the same. But unless the rest of the world gets on board — and fast — some experts warn it may just not be enough.
“A few hundred years down the line, they’ll look back and say the dark ages began with the twenty-first century,” says E. O. Wilson, an award-winning evolutionary biologist and professor at Harvard University.
But just how bad could things get? In one scenario, scientists imagine that by the year 2100, immense storms irreparably damage major metropolises. Streets, subway tunnels, and buildings would flood and begin to rot. The stagnant water would breed filth and displace residents, forcing them into homelessness. Poverty levels and death rates could skyrocket. A new and virulent strain of disease might develop — then mutate and spread around the globe, potentially claiming tens of thousands of lives.
In this scenario, as the crisis explodes, looting grows rampant, major world powers go to war over water, and millions of people die from famine. Civilization literally collapses under its own weight.
By ALEXA DANNER
May 29, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Earth2100/story?id=7697237&page=1
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
18
May
2009
http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNewsMolt/idUKTRE53G44020090417
This is probably one of the first piece of good news I heard the moment I arrived in the US. This will definitely have a strong ripple effect not only on policy, but in industry as well. Policy wise it definitely paves the way for a mandatory cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. (which is better… that is another discussion for another day). For the Clean Tech industry, this is good news as this paves the way for carbon credits in a mandatory market, people switching over to less polluting options, more people getting concern about CO2 emmissions and climate change.
I guess I would still caution the industry side as it is best not to rely on govt policies to push your business. Yes, it can help and add value, but at the end of the day, its all about economics and bringing value. That is more critical, after all.. who knows in the next 4-8 years (1-2 election cycle) we will see another 180 shift in CO2 policies.
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
12
May
2009
April 22 (HealthDay News) — Watching your weight does more than protect your health. It also may help fight climate change.
Researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine say that because food production is a major contributor to greenhouse gases, a lean population, such as in Vietnam, consumes about 20 percent less food and produces fewer greenhouse gases than a population in which 40 percent of people are obese, a rate close to that of the United States.
Also, less energy is required to transport slim people, say the researchers, Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts, of the school’s Department of Epidemiology and Population Health.
They calculated that a lean population of a billion people would emit 1,000 million tons less transportation-related carbon dioxide equivalents a year than an obese population would emit.
Their research was published April 20 in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
“When it comes to food consumption, moving about in a heavy body is like driving around in a gas guzzler,” the researchers said. “The heavier our bodies become, the harder and more unpleasant it is to move about in them, and the more dependent we become on our cars. Staying slim is good for health and for the environment.”
“We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend toward fatness and recognize it as a key factor in the battle to reduce emissions and slow climate change,” they said.
However, they noted that the trend is in the opposite direction. The average body mass index (BMI) is increasing in nearly every country. The average male BMI in England, for instance, increased from 26 to 27.3 between 1994 and 2004, while the average female BMI increased from 25.8 to 26.9.
cco-blogger Uncategorized No Comments »
