Fisheries are being demolished, while nations argue over who and what is to blame. Photo: Christingo (flickr)

As fisheries decline, nations are busy arguing over who's to blame. Japan is pointing to whales as a culprit, and in doing so, drawing the ire of conservationists and scientists.

Japan has claimed that whales' eating habits are responsible for the diminishing numbers of fish. Many say this is because Japan has been campaigning to end the ban on whale hunting and is looking for international support.

At the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission, a coalition of conservation groups and scientists accused Japan of dodging responsibility for the declining stocks.

Daniel Pauly, director of a renowned fisheries research center, said whales are "no more responsible than the Martians" and that Japan's accusation "prevents the very small resources of West African countries from being devoted to understanding the real reasons why their fisheries are declining."

According to Dr. Pauly’s decade-long study, only about 1 percent of what whales eat is also desired by human consumers.

He and others blame not whales but East Asian and European fishing fleets trolling the coast of West Africa.

"Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems," says Stanford's Steve Palumbi, "then this century is the last century of wild seafood.”

Here's one thing you can do to make sure that doesn't happen: Urge the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would ensure that the world's oceans are managed sustainably.

The World Wildlife Federation, whose website offers letters you can email to your Senator and e-postcards to alert your friends, gives ample reason why the law is needed:

"Two-thirds of fish stocks that supply the global market have been overexploited or fished to maximum capacity; more than half of the world's coral reefs are threatened by human activity; and close to one-fifth of Southeast Asia's reefs have been damaged or destroyed by coral bleaching.

Children working in the Stung Meanchey Dump in Cambodia. Photo: EB78 (flickr)

Have you ever wondered what happens to the garbage after you leave it on the curb?

In developing countries, trash from the cities are commonly picked through by the poor and unwanted members of society. These trash pickers go by many names: the Zabaleen in Egypt, pepenadores in Mexico, and ragpickers in India.

These people rely on trash for their livelihoods. They spend hours sorting through these huge piles of rancid waste by hand. For them, almost everything is reusable. Organic materials are used to feed their livestock; recyclable materials are washed and resold. Indian ragpickers make only 100-150 rupees ($2.50-$3.75) for eight hours of sifting.

These overlooked members of society perform an important service for the rest of the population. In Delhi, ragpickers "represent almost 1% of Delhi's total population and handle about 20% of the city's enormous daily waste," according to Paul Colombini, who created a website on which Delhi recyclers can tell their own stories. It is estimated that these ragpickers save the city 600,000 rupees a day in trash disposal costs.

Though this work is dirty and smelly, they take pride knowing the invaluable service they perform.

We don't like attention. Rubbish is never attractive and we're quite happy carrying on quietly ... but our work supports a whole industry that's virtually invisible to most people.

Photo: Swiss.frog's photostream (flickr)

Working Villages International (WVI) is an NGO with a unique take on how to eliminate poverty in Africa. Their new initiative, Village Reliance, aims to combat poverty directly, rather than dealing only with its effects. They want to give people the skills and tools to take control of their own lives and bring themselves out of poverty.

The goal of this program is to build a village that will be environmentally and economically self-sustainable for people living in the Ruzizi Valley of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

They are building from scratch a model village which will have full employment, private ownership of small farms and businesses, zero carbon footprint and total 100 percent recycling. This project is a practical demonstration that it’s possible to profoundly increase living standards in rural Africa without hampering local culture and ingenuity.

In the future, WVI hopes to spread these villages across the DRC and the entire continent.

The Green Jobs Act puts $125 million to developing green jobs in the U.S. Photo: Rain Forest Action Network (flickr)

The unemployed in the U.S. may be taking the next big steps to solve our climate crisis.

The U.S. House of Representative recently approved the Green Jobs Act of 2007, which provides $125 million dollars to fund national and state job training programs in green industries, such as energy efficient buildings and construction, renewable electric power, and energy efficient transportation. It also researches new jobs and skills that are created by growing renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. This research is then used to develop job standards and create training programs.

The Green Jobs Act would create jobs that allow people in poverty programs to become self sufficient. Priority for the training programs would go to veterans, displaced workers, and at risk youth. The Senate has passed a similar bill, and a conference committee is meeting to work out the different versions.

The Green Jobs Act was largely supported by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, as part of founder Van Jones’ Green Collar Job Campaign, which argues that the only way for a green economy to succeed is for all sectors of society to be equally involved and equally benefiting.

As Van Jones explains, “It’s not a hand out here; you’re really connecting people who most need work with the work that most needs to get done.”

Photo: tlindenbaum(flickr)

Ethanol is traditionally used as an additive to fuel, but these days it's adding to something else: the global food crisis.

Most U.S. ethanol is made from corn, the kind used mostly to make high fructose corn syrup and feed for cattle, chicken and pigs. But it seems a little backwards to devote farmland for fuel when 850 million people go hungry each year, according to the UN, a number expected to increase by 100 million in the next year.

Ethanol’s supporters say its environmental, economic and strategic benefits outweigh any link to higher food prices. The National Corn Growers Association claims greenhouse gases could be reduced by 20 percent if we used 15 billion gallons of ethanol in our cars.

As an example of its economic advantages, The Ethanol Factbook reported that:

A 40 million gallon per year ethanol plant will cost about $60 million to build, expand the economic base for the local economy by $110 million, generate an additional $19.6 million in household income, improve the tax revenue for the state and local governments by $1.2 million, and create nearly 700 permanent jobs.

Ethanol also has the potential to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

Moreover, many supporters of ethanol claim that there is a very low correlation between higher food prices and expanded ethanol production. “We think that there are enough elements in current commodity markets that resulted in very high prices for cereals and oilseeds and even they would have happened without this hike in biofuel production," says Loek Boonekamp, a top official for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Skeptics of ethanol say there’s not enough research to prove ethanol is beneficial in the long term, that it is fueling increased food prices, and that ethanol-based corn subsidies help only a select few.

Environmental benefits? Two independent scientists looked at the footprint of biofuels, and found that the way they’re produced creates more harm than good to the environment.

The latest World Bank assessment on rising food prices found that, “Almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for biofuels production in the U.S.” The New York Times reported that, “Work by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington suggests that biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of the recent increase in global commodity prices.”

What’s clear is that ethanol is coming under fire — even here in the U.S. — as food prices climb higher. According to the L.A. Times, “Some analysts believe the rapid increase in the use of corn to make ethanol has left the nation with little room to maneuver through weather-related disasters in the Midwest.”

Economist Jeffery Sachs argues we should redouble scientific efforts to grow biofuels on land that’s not suitable for growing food, but that we should end our “misguided” corn-to-ethanol subsidies. “Farmers hardly need them given world demand for food and feed grains.”

Regardless of the arguments for and against, ending ethanol subsidies may not provide the immediate assistance that UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon is looking for to solve the world’s food crisis. It would take time for farmers to convert their fields. Factor in growing time, and the impact might not be felt for several seasons.

But some experts say the conversions would take immediate pressure off food prices. At the very least, this is a great opportunity for the U.S. government to show that they are concerned about the world's growing hunger.

Global emissions trading under debate. Photo: mhaithaca (flickr)

Last week Prime Minister of Japan Yasuo Fukuda announced on that as part of Japan’s innovative new program to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 60-80 percent by 2050, Japan will invest in the global emissions trading market.

Yet the success of an emissions’ trading strategy is currently in hot debate.

Emissions trading is where a capped, or limited, amount of greenhouse gas emissions is agreed upon internationally, as in the Kyoto Treaty. Countries are then limited in the amount of pollution they can emit. Those countries emitting more than the cap are permitted to buy "credits" from those producing less. These credits allow the countries buying them to produce more than the agreed upon amount of pollution, and rewards the countries selling them for reducing emissions. The idea is that greenhouse gases will be reduced as time goes on because the allowed amount of gas will become smaller and the credits more expensive.

Yet some argue that because the accounting in emissions trading is not transparent and there is limited accountability, a tax based system would be more effective. Furthermore, recently researchers have found that the result of emissions trading has frequently been exporting carbon-intensive industries into developing countries. President Bush’s chief environmental adviser admits that emissions targets “cause a shift offshore” of pollutive industries. In other words, the U.S. and other developed nations are “saving” their emissions by forcing developing countries to account for them.

As factories in developing nations usually use more energy than those in the developed world, this leads to an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The National Center for Atmospheric Research found that the U.S. ‘saved’ about 3 percent in carbon emissions over seven years by outsourcing to China, while in that same amount of time Chinese CO2 output rose 14 percent.

As a developed country, Japan stands to gain from this dedication to reducing emissions through increasing the emissions trading market. And while cutting their emissions by 60-80 percent is a costly challenge now, in the long run Japan will likely be a major player in establishing rules and norms for carbon trading, and could hugely profit in the future when they sell their credits.

Persistent water shortages are driving creative thinking about the water crisis. Luke Robinson (flickr)

Global warming is estimated to gradually force over 135 million people off their land, largely in the developing world. But around the world, countries including Spain and the United States are experiencing drastic water shortages as a result of climate change right now. This global scarcity is prompting new ways of managing water as supplies dwindle.

According to the New York Times,most of southeast Spain is transforming into desert, a change driven by both global warming and poorly planned development. As the area dries, Spanish farmers and developers have been forced to desperate fighting over water allotments. This comes as no surprise to Spanish ecologists, who as early as 1997 predicted a “water war”.

And it's not just Spain. “Water will be the environmental issue this year- the problem is urgent and immediate,” said Barbara Helferrich, from the European Union’s Environment Directorate. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization meets in Rome this week to discuss the global food crisis, which is caused partly by water shortages around the world, including southern Spain.

Even in the U.S., cities like Los Angeles are being driven to desperate measures by persistent water shortages. Current plans in Los Angeles to deal with one of the most severe shortages in decades include using thoroughly cleaned sewage to increase drinking water supplies. Other water-short U.S. cities are discussing similar programs.

So what's the best way to conserve water?

The Earth Policy Institute suggests "a block rate pricing system where a low level of consumption—that required to satisfy basic needs—is very cheap, while prices increase at higher levels of consumption."

In Osaka, Japan, for instance, users pay a set monthly fee that includes 10 cubic meters of water; beyond that prices increase in steps from 82¢ per cubic meter up to $3 or more for high-volume users.

This sort of pricing would go a long way in Spain — or Los Angeles — by making excessive water usage prohibitively expensive, saving the water for those who really need it.

An Australian professor says the push to grow crops for biofuels rather than food has worsened the plight of cyclone victims in Myanmar.

Back in 2005, Myanmar's ruling junta required every farmer with an acre of land to plant Jatropha trees on their property. The oil squeezed from the non-edible crop boasts greater yields of oil per acre than other biofuels, with one-fifth the carbon emissions of petroleum-based products. The junta hoped biofuel exports would replace Myanmar's 40,000 barrels per day of petroleum imports and help an economy on the verge of collapse.

Production of biofuels in developing countries has been vigorously supported by industrialized countries. In fact, the International Herald Tribune reports that venture capital investment in biofuels has increased by 800 percent over the past four years.

But in Myanmar, otherwise known as Burma, the junta failed to build a refining plant, leaving its citizens with a useless Jatropha crop, setting off a chain reaction that increased food insecurity and fuel prices. Then the cyclone wiped out much of Myanmar's mid-year rice harvest.

Given Myanmar's political, social and economic idiosyncracies, it's certainly not the ideal case study for jatropha or biofuel. But plans to invest billions of dollars in biofuel refineries in neighboring countries have been put on hold, leading to questions about how sustainable the current equilibrium between food and fuel production really is.

Photo: wili_hybrid (flickr)

Contrary to opinions such as Senator Frank Murkowski's, the Arctic is not just “snow and ice.”

From Inuit tribes to the migratory caribou, the Arctic is full of life, especially during the summer. For energy-hungry nations, however, the Arctic is full of another element of interest: oil.

Beneath its melting icecaps lie the “world’s largest remaining untapped gas reserves and some of its largest undeveloped oil reserves,” says the WWF. In face of the current “oil shock,” the five nations that border the Arctic Ocean — Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the U.S. — all want a slice of this lucrative “ice” spot.

Late last May, these five rival nations met in Greenland to resolve these competing claims. The convention reaffirmed rules laid out by the UN Law of the Sea Convention, which draws national boundaries based on geological features. The UN is expected to oversee decisions on Arctic control by 2020.

Climate change has a big role in increasing the appeal of the Arctic. Rising temperatures rapidly melt the Arctic ice, which increase drilling and shipping access during summer months. Eventually, this will even open up “a route through the Arctic Ocean linking the Atlantic and Pacific that would reduce the sea journey from New York to Singapore by thousands of miles,” says The Telegraph.

Absent from the meeting were environmental groups, who “said the closed-door meeting paved the way for a land grab by countries who have claims to the continental shelf at the pole,” according to The Guardian.

Environmentalists also object to the environmental dangers of drilling.

John Calder, the director of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Arctic Research Division, warns not only of the landscape destruction and negative impacts on the indigenous Arctic villages due to infrastructure development, but also the calamitous effects of oil accidents:

Oil spills are especially dangerous in the Arctic, because its cold and heavily season-dependent ecosystems take a long time to recover. Besides, it is very difficult to remove the damage from oil spills in remote and cold regions, especially in parts of the ocean where there is ice.

Rainforest destruction and tribal interests conflict with development. Photo: Orvarati (flickr)

One of the world’s last uncontacted tribes was photographed this week from a helicopter flying over the Amazon rainforest, near the Brazil-Peru border. The photos were taken by the Brazilian government’s Indian Affairs Department to, “show the [tribes’] houses, to show they are there… This is very important because there are some who doubt their existence.”

Proof that this tribe exists complicates the current battle between those who want to conserve the Amazon and those who want to develop it. Even though they've not been contacted before, these tribes are a casualty of the forest battle.

Currently, the Indian Affairs Department guesses there are about 500 uncontacted Indians living on the Brazil side of the border. However, as previously uncontacted tribes in Peru have tried unsuccessfully to defend their territory from loggers, they have been systematically killed and forced to move across the border.

This migration is a problem not only for the tribes losing their traditional homeland, but also for the uncontacted tribes who are already living in Brazil. The Indian affairs department of Brazil predicts more violence in the area, not only between tribes and loggers, but between tribes now living in the same territory.

Contacted tribes in both Brazil and Peru have been active in attempting to prevent further intrusion into the rainforest. Brazilian Indians are holding a mass rally this week in Altamira, protesting the series of dams the government wants to build on the Xingu River. They say that they have not been included in the decision making process, even though the dams would essentially destroy their way of life. Kayapó Indian leader Raoni, sent a defiant letter to Brazil’s President Lula vowing to stop the construction. He also protests the government's violations of indigenous rights enshrined in Brazil's 1988 Constitution.

The conflict over the rainforest is not confined to regional politics. In Peru, a French company is being sued by an Amazon Indian organization, AIDESEP, in an attempt to prevent drilling for oil nearby the border area where the uncontacted tribes were just photographed. AIDESEP asserts that Perenco, a U.S. company recently taken over by French owners, should be prohibited from working in the area and contacting any tribes.

Any contact with the tribes could be catastrophic. The recently contacted Murunahua tribe by the Yurua river watched half of their members die from disease, a mortality rate common in recently contacted tribes.

Despite the danger to the tribes, and international law that acknowledges the uncontacted tribes as the rightful owners of their land, Perenco is currently expanding into these areas.

José Carlos dos Reis Meirelles Júnior, head of the Indian Protection post near the Peru border says, "What is happening in this region is a monumental crime against the natural world, the tribes, the fauna and is further testimony to the complete irrationality with which we, the ‘civilized’ ones, treat the world."

Photo: Deforestation in Mato Grosso, a major soybean growing region in Brazil leoffreita (flickr)

The woman known as the “guardian angel” of the world’s biggest rainforest has called it quits.

Marina Silva cited "the growing resistance found by our team in important sectors of the government and society" in stepping down as Brazil’s environment minister. Environmentalists saw her as a key ally in defending the Amazon.

Silva’s resignation is but one in a series of foreboding events in the face of increasing deforestation. Despite three years of decline, deforestation accelerated in the Brazilian Amazon during the last half of 2007. Land conversion pressures are attributed to soaring prices and demand for soy and beef exports. Brazil’s ascent to an agricultural superpower and its steady, 5-percent economic growth has stimulated hydroelectric dams, roads and other infrastructure projects.

The environmental effects of Amazonian destruction have global consequences. Deforestation not only threatens the existence of the indigenous populations who have lived in the Amazon for millennia, but also irreversibly damages a region of unparalleled biodiversity. Deforestation also exacerbates global warming. According to mongabay, an environmental news site:

… the country is ranked as the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases due largely to deforestation and forest degradation, which account for 70 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite the global importance of the Amazon, Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has made it clear that an international debate on the Amazon's fate is unwelcome.

This week, President Lula declared: "The Brazilian Amazon has an owner, and that owner is the Brazilian people.” He acknowledged conservationists' concerns but stressed the need to use the resources of the Amazon forest, which makes up two-thirds of the country’s territory.

If Brazil insists on framing the Amazon as a domestic issue, perhaps the best hope for conservation lies with the people who inhabit it. Construction of the Belo Monte dam — which would be one of the world's largest hydroelectric power plants, after China's Three Gorges and the Itaipu dam shared by Brazil and Paraguay and would also threatens severe ecological and social damage — gathered more than 1,000 environmental activists and Indians protesters in Altamira last week.

Nineteen years ago, a similar dam project was successfully defeated after being met with international condemnation. With today’s rate of deforestation and economic pressures, however, the future of the Amazon looks grim. The actions of both President Lula and Marina Silva lead us to one conclusion: in Brazil, economic growth trumps environmental protection.

Alternatives to Plastic: Home Gardens. Photo: key lime_pie (flickr)

I recently came upon a blog by a Chicago woman committed to living as close to a plastic-free life as possible. Her journey to a life without plastic began last September, and over the months her postings about her adventures and increasing knowledge have gathered an audience in the thousands.

The statistics about our reliance on plastics are shocking: According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of plastic in our waste stream has increased from less than 1 percent in 1960 to 11.7 percent in 2006. And, while Americans drank 50 billion bottles of water in 2006, 38 billion of those ended up in the trash, according to Fast Company magazine.

The anonymous blogger, whose blog is titled Life Less Plastic, explains that she's doing this for personal health reasons, as well to do better by the environment. Among her most popular posts is an entry describing "What I'm Doing to Be Mostly Plastic-Free," which includes:

10. Washing my dishes with Dr. Bronner's bar soap. It works! I'm not kidding!
11. Bringing my own stainless steel coffee mug to the coffee shop. This is important because paper cups are lined with plastic.
12. Bringing along a reusable water bottle or mug for water, and NEVER drinking bottled water.
13. Bringing my own takeout containers to restaurants in case I have leftovers. This sounds embarrassing, but no one has ever even noticed that I've brought my own container except for the people I'm with.
14. Not buying aluminum food cans, excluding canned tomatoes and vegetable broth, which I haven't been able to give up yet. Hopefully, I can/jar some tomatoes this summer and do away with this plastic use, though.

In a society where plastic is pervasive and packaging alternatives are few, even Life Less Plastic's author hasn't been able to do without medicine, which comes in plastic bottles; toothpaste; and even some packaged foods she hasn't been able to find in the bulk section of nearby supermarkets.

Plastics have been around for a while, but we are only beginning to understand their potentially negative consequences. Without plastic, we wouldn't have seen the advances in science and medicine we saw in the last century. However, as the Chicago blogger points out, there are a lot of ways to "live a life less plastic."

Photo: greenhem (flickr)

Plastic bags have long been associated with litter and waste. The world uses tens of billions of plastic bags every year – bags that end up hanging from trees, traveling along freeways, escaping garbage cans and waste dumps.

Plastic-bag recycling rates are extremely low – about 1 to 3 percent worldwide, according to Reusablebags.com.

While plastics have helped us in many ways – medical advances, for one – by now we are seeing an increasing amount of wasteful uses. The mass production and ubiquitousness of plastic bags has hit a nerve in many developing countries. Lawmaking bodies in every region of the world have begun to regulate the use of plastics — and some are even banning the use of plastic bags outright.

Here's a partial list:

India. In August 2005, the state of Maharashtra initiated a bag ban after bags "blocked sewage and drainage systems during record monsoon rains," according to The Guardian. "Flooding and landslides killed more than 1,000 people in the state.” Anyone seen with a plastic bag can be fined 1,000 rupees, or about $25.

Kenya. The East African nation has enforced new regulations banning production and distribution of light-density bags, according to Nairobi's Business Daily (as reported by allAfrica.com). Three years ago, Kenyan researchers had appealed for a ban, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai had argued that plastic bags can lead to malaria, because discarded bags left outside can fill with rainwater and breed disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Uganda and Tanzania. Kenya's neighbors also banned the use of all disposable one-use plastic bags nationwide. One Ugandan blogger wrote that “This seemingly radical step has a direct connection to human health and also to environmental well-being of citizens across Africa. Apart from the fossil fuel usage needed in their production, plastic bags have a remarkable ability to pollute across borders.”

China. Authorities announced that by this June, one-use plastic bags will be outlawed in the hope that residents will return to their old habit of using cloth bags and baskets. "Beijing residents appeared to take the ban in stride, reflecting rising environmental consciousness and concern over skyrocketing oil prices," reports National Geographic.

Some developed nations also have taken drastic steps to reduce the impact of plastics. Ireland, for example, imposed a 33-cent tax in 2002. It worked quickly to depress demand. According to the New York Times, the use of plastic bags dropped 94 percent within weeks.

April 22 marks the 38th celebration of Earth Day. In honor of the day, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is presenting its Champions of Earth award. In 2004, the UNEP established the international environment award to celebrate the contributions of "individuals from every region of the world that have shown extraordinary leadership on environmental issues."

The UNEP is recognizing Dr. Balgis Osman-Elasha, a leading climate change researcher from Sudan. Dr. Balgis Osman-Elasha is considered to be at the forefront of climate change research and is a leading author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr. Osman-Elasha is seen by many as a role model for African women. She uses her knowledge and leadership skills to advance understanding of climate change and educate university students in Sudan about the impact and implications of climate change. She is changing the world, and starting at home.

Photo: unity.project

Photo: Geoff Oliver Bugbee for Mercy Corps

A few months ago, I wrote about a team of journalists reporting on water issues and conflict in Kenya and Ethiopia, where a tremendous drought is spreading across the region. Pastoralists — herders whose livelihoods depend on the animals they breed and tend — are running out of water and pasture land. As a result, they are crossing borders and traditional tribal boundaries in pursuit of water. This search for scarce resources is leading to tensions, as The East African Standard reports from Nairobi:

"There is already a build-up of inter and intra clan tensions over water and pasture," says the DO [District Officer]. In fact, he says, they have had to quell inter clan clashes at Sake, with the assistance of elders. Those far away from the Ethiopian border have been left at the mercy of nature, the Government and development agencies, to provide water.

In Ethiopia, the reporting team created a film that compellingly illustrates the oncoming crisis. “Pastoralists are more vulnerable to drought than they were 40 years ago," the film tells us. "Researchers predict that they will be some of the first people on Earth forced to abandon their way of life due to climate change.”