Spre înnoirea creației (Guest post)

Dintotdeauna, omul a transformat dimineaţa lui Dumnezeu în umbra morţii. Creaţia, pe care Dumnezeu o făcuse atât de frumoasă, s-a transformat curând într-o sălbăticie cu spini şi mărăcini. Pământul care, în ceasul dimineţii sale fusese martorul binecuvântării Domnului, a fost blestemat. Israel, care a rostit cântarea de laudă pe malurile Mării Roşii, a devenit prizonier în temniţele Babilonului, iar pământul a fost lăsat nelucrat şi părăsit sub picioarele asupritorilor necircumcişi. Soarele (Domnul Isus), care în dimineaţa Betleemului s-a ridicat deasupra lumii cu lumina sa, a apus în noaptea Calvarului – din cauză că omul păcătos L-a respins. Acum, acelaşi Isus trebuie să vadă umbrele înserării creştinătăţii care, în curând, va apune la miezul nopţii judecăţii din Apocalipsa. Împărăţia care va apărea ca lumina „unei dimineţi fără nori“, urmează să ia sfârşit în marea apostazie a lui Gog şi Magog, şi în trecerea cerurilor, şi a pământului dinaintea feţei Aceluia care stă pe marele tron alb.
Totuşi, Dumnezeu va menţine dimineaţa unui cer nou şi a unui pământ nou în frumuseţea şi prospeţimea dintâi. În „povestea“ Sa nu vor fi umbre de seară ale stricăciunii omului, nici noaptea judecăţii. Ea va fi menţinută ca o singură zi eternă, al cărei soare nu va coborî niciodată.
De nenumărate ori, Dumnezeu a încercat să facă un nou început, ca atunci în răcoarea dimineţii, dar omul, de fiecare dată, a transformat dimineaţa Lui în umbra morţii. Totuşi, Dumnezeu nu poate locui în întuneric. Prin urmare, deşi omul poate cufunda întreaga scenă în întuneric, El Însuşi va face, din nou, gloria Lui să fie minunată şi bucuria Lui să fie sigură. După ce a chemat lumina din întuneric, la început, în ceasul dimineţii primei creaţii, va păstra eterna frumuseţe a dimineţii celei de-a doua creaţii.

J G Bellett

An Interactive Climate Change Guide

Guardian offers an interesting guide for everyone who want to know about climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/aug/15/everything-know-climate-change
Enjoy and be aware!

Reducing Food Waste

According to staggering new statistics from the United Nations Food and Agricultutre Organization (FAO), roughly 1/3 of the food produced worldwide for human consumption is lost or wasted, amounting to some 1.3 billion tons per year. In the developing world, over 40% of food looses occur after harvest-while being stored or transported, and during processing and packing. In industrialized countries, more than 40% of losses occur as a result of retailers and consumers discarding unwanted but often perfectly edible food.
At a time when the land, water, and energy resources necessary to feed a global population of 6.9 billion are increasingly limited and when at least 1 billion people remain chronically hungry, food looses mean a waste of those resources and a failure of our food system to meet the needs of the poor. The Worldwatch Institute's Nourishing the planet project is highlighting ways to make the most of the food that is produced and to make more food available to those who need it.
According to tristram Stuart, some 150 million tons of grains are lost annually in low-income countries, 6 times the amount needed to meet the needs of all the hungry people in the developing world. Meanwhile, industrialized countries waste some 222 million tons of perfectly good food annually, a quantity nearly equivalent to the 230 million tond that sub-Saharan Africa produces in a year.
Unlike farmers in many developing countries, agribusiness in industrialized countries have numerous tools  at their disposal to prevent food from spoiling-including pasteurization and ptreservation facilities, drying equipment, climate controlled storage units, transport infrastructure, and chemicals designed to expand shelf-life.
Nourishing the Planet offers three low-cost approaches that can go long way toward making the most of the abundance that our food system already produces. Innovations  in both the developing and industrialized worlds include:
- getting surpluses to those who need it;
- raising consumer awareness and reducing waste to landfills;
- improving storage and processing for small-scale farmers in developing countries.

Religious Leaders and Climate Change

Many of the GOP presidential candidates are seeking the votes of church-goers and religious conservatives by presenting themselves as strong defenders of their faith. While candidates mostly agree with their respective churches on issues like abortion and same-sex-marriage, they are mostly silent  when it comes to environmental platform, in which they deny climate change science, call for elimination of Environmental Protection Agency, and support the deregulation of the oil and coal industries.
In contrast, their churches call for environmental stewardship and creation care. Their faith leaders have advocated support for  the EPA, greater education  on environmental care, and policies to reduce air toxins and lower emissions from power plants.
Newt Gingrich, a Catholic, denies the urgency of the global climate crisis and has called for elimination of the EPA. When asked about his position on climate change and the threat that it poses, Gingrich said that it is an act of egotism for humans to think we are primary source of climate change. Another Catholic candidate, Rick Santorum, calles climate change junk science and argues that it is a beautifully concoted scheme from the left.
However, the Catholic Church has long encouraged stewardship of the environment  and has undertaken numerous renewable energy projects. In May, the Vatican released a report on the urgency of the global climate crisis and recommended action steps. In addition, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently supported the EPA's proposed standards to reduce mercury and other air toxins in order to protect public health.
Evangelical Tim Pawlenty, once a strong advocate for environmental protection has changed his beliefs. He now accuses climate scientists of data manipulation and controversy and casts doubt wheather changes in climate are man-made.
These views are out of step with the vast majority of evangelicals, 90% of whom say that Christians should take a more active role in caring for creation. Michele Buchmann, a Lutheran, is another climate change denier. She has called global warming voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax. In the recent New Hampshire debate, Bachmann called the EPA the job-killing organization of America. Baptist Heman Cain recently called global warming poppycock and told a radio interviewer that there is no such a global warming crisis. But he is also out of step with other southern Baptists who see the environment as a high priority.
When it comes to climate change, Gingrich, Santorum, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Cain and others are out of step with their own churches. And they are also out of step with the people they represent.

A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change

Preamble
Southern Baptists have always been a confessional people, giving testimony to our beliefs, which are based upon the doctrines found in God’s inerrant word—the Holy Bible. As the dawning of new ages has produced substantial challenges requiring a special word, Southern Baptist churches, associations and general bodies have often found it necessary to make declarations in order to define, express and defend beliefs. Though we do not regard this as a complete declaration on these issues, we believe this initiative finds itself consistent with our most cherished distinctives and rooted in historical precedent.
The preamble to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM 2000) declares: “Each generation of Christians bears the responsibility of guarding the treasury of truth that has been entrusted to us [2 Timothy 1:14]. Facing a new century, Southern Baptists must meet the demands and duties of the present hour. New challenges to faith appear in every age.”
We recognize that God’s great blessings on our denomination bestow upon us a great responsibility to offer a biblically-based, moral witness that can help shape individual behavior, private sector behavior and public policy. Conversations like this one demand our voice in order to fulfill our calling to engage the culture as a relevant body of believers. Southern Baptists have always championed faith’s challenges, and we now perpetuate our heritage through this initiative.
We are proud of our deep and lasting commitments to moral issues like the sanctity of human life and biblical definitions of marriage. We will never compromise our convictions nor attenuate our advocacy on these matters, which constitute the most pressing moral issues of our day. However, we are not a single-issue body. We also offer moral witness in other venues and on many issues. We seek to be true to our calling as Christian leaders, but above all, faithful to Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, our attention goes to whatever issues our faith requires us to address.
We have recently engaged in study, reflection and prayer related to the challenges presented by environmental and climate change issues. These things have not always been treated with pressing concern as major issues. Indeed, some of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that these are real problems that deserve our attention. But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era’s challenges that require a unified moral voice.
We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better. To abandon these issues to the secular world is to shirk from our responsibility to be salt and light. The time for timidity regarding God’s creation is no more.
Therefore, we offer these four statements for consideration, beginning with our fellow Southern Baptists, and urge all to follow by taking appropriate actions. May we find ourselves united as we contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all. Laus Deo!
Statement 1
Humans Must Care for Creation and Take Responsibility for Our Contributions to Environmental Degradation.
There is undeniable evidence that the earth—wildlife, water, land and air—can be damaged by human activity, and that people suffer as a result. When this happens, it is especially egregious because creation serves as revelation of God’s presence, majesty and provision. Though not every person will physically hear God’s revelation found in Scripture, all people have access to God’s cosmic revelation: the heavens, the waters, natural order, the beauty of nature (Psalm 19; Romans 1). We believe that human activity is mixed in its impact on creation—sometimes productive and caring, but often reckless, preventable and sinful.
God’s command to tend and keep the earth (Genesis 2) did not pass away with the fall of man; we are still responsible. Lack of concern and failure to act prudently on the part of Christ-followers reflects poorly to the rest of the world. Therefore, we humbly take responsibility for the damage that we have done to God’s cosmic revelation and pledge to take an unwavering stand to preserve and protect the creation over which we have been given responsibility by Almighty God Himself.
Statement 2
It Is Prudent to Address Global Climate Change.
We recognize that we do not have any special revelation to guide us about whether global warming is occurring and, if it is occurring, whether people are causing it. We are looking at the same evidence unfolding over time that other people are seeing.
We recognize that we do not have special training as scientists to allow us to assess the validity of climate science. We understand that all human enterprises are fraught with pride, bias, ignorance and uncertainty.
We recognize that if consensus means unanimity, there is not a consensus regarding the anthropogenic nature of climate change or the severity of the problem. There is general agreement among those engaged with this issue in the scientific community. A minority of sincere and respected scientists offer alternate causes for global climate change other than deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
We recognize that Christians are not united around either the scientific explanations for global warming or policies designed to slow it down. Unlike abortion and respect for the biblical definition of marriage, this is an issue where Christians may find themselves in justified disagreement about both the problem and its solutions.
Yet, even in the absence of perfect knowledge or unanimity, we have to make informed decisions about the future. This will mean we have to take a position of prudence based partly on science that is inevitably changing. We do not believe unanimity is necessary for prudent action. We can make wise decisions even in the absence of infallible evidence.
Though the claims of science are neither infallible nor unanimous, they are substantial and cannot be dismissed out of hand on either scientific or theological grounds. Therefore, in the face of intense concern and guided by the biblical principle of creation stewardship, we resolve to engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or our responsibility to address it. Humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our contributions to climate change—however great or small.
Statement 3
Christian Moral Convictions and Our Southern Baptist Doctrines Demand Our Environmental Stewardship.
While we cannot here review the full range of relevant Christian convictions and Baptist doctrines related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points:

• We must care about environmental and climate issues because of our love for God—“the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe” (BFM 2000)—through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is not our world, it is God’s. Therefore, any damage we do to this world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16). We share God’s concern for the abuse of His creation.

• We must care about environmental issues because of our commitment to God’s Holy and inerrant Word, which is “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried” (BFM 2000). Within these Scriptures we are reminded that when God made mankind, He commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures (Gen. 1:26-28). Therefore, our motivation for facing failures to exercise proper stewardship is not primarily political, social or economic—it is primarily biblical.

• We must care about environmental and climate issues because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us and to protect and care for the “least of these” (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46). The consequences of these problems will most likely hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected are in the world’s poorest regions. Poor nations and individuals have fewer resources available to cope with major challenges and threats. Therefore, “we should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy … [and] the helpless” (BFM 2000) through proper stewardship.

Love of God, love of neighbor and Scripture’s stewardship demands provide enough reason for Southern Baptists and Christians everywhere to respond to these problems with moral passion and concrete action.
Statement 4
It Is Time for Individuals, Churches, Communities and Governments to Act.
We affirm that “every Christian should seek to bring industry, government and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth and brotherly love” (BFM 2000).
We realize that we cannot support some environmental issues as we offer a distinctively Christian voice in these arenas. For instance, we realize that what some call population control leads to evils like abortion. We now call on these environmentalists to reject these evils and accept the sanctity of every human person, both born and unborn.
We realize that simply affirming our God-given responsibility to care for the earth will likely produce no tangible or effective results. Therefore, we pledge to find ways to curb ecological degradation through promoting biblical stewardship habits and increasing awareness in our homes, businesses where we find influence, relationships with others and in our local churches. Many of our churches do not actively preach, promote or practice biblical creation care. We urge churches to begin doing so.
We realize that the primary impetus for prudent action must come from the will of the people, families and those in the private sector. Held to this standard of common good, action by government is often needed to assure the health and well-being of all people. We pledge, therefore, to give serious consideration to responsible policies that acceptably address the conditions set forth in this declaration.
Conclusion
We the undersigned, in accordance with our Christian moral convictions and Southern Baptist doctrines, pledge to act on the basis of the claims made in this document. We will not only teach the truths communicated here but also seek ways to implement the actions that follow from them. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, we urge all who read this declaration to join us in this effort. Laus Deo!

The New Geopolitics of Food (6)

With grain stocks low and climate volatility increasing, the risks are also increasing. We are now so close to the edge that a breakdown in the food system could come at any time. Consider, for example, what would have happened if the 2010 heat wave that was centered in Moscow had instead been centered in Chicago. In round numbers, the 40% drop in Russia's hoped-for harvest of roughly 100 million tons cost the world 40 million tons of grain, but a 40% drop in the far larger U.S. grain harvest of 400 million tons would have cost 160 million tons. The world's carryover stocks of grainwould have dropped to just 52 days of consumption. This level would have not been only the lowest on recort, but also low below the 62-year carryover that set the stage for the 2007-2008 tripling of world grain prices.
There would have been chaos in the world grain markets. Grain prices would have climbed off the charts. Some grain-exporting countries, trying to hold down domestic food prices, would have restricted or even banned exports, as they did in 2007 and 2008. The TV news would have been dominated not by the hundreds of fires in the Russian countryside, but by footage of food riots in low-income grain-importing countries and reports of governments falling as hunger spread out of control. Oil-exporting countries that import grain would have been trying to barter oil for grain, and low-income grain importerswould have lost out. With governments toppling and confidence in the world grain market shattered, the global economy could have started to unravel.
Ww may not also be so lucky. At issue now is weather the world can go beyond focusing on the symptoms of the deteriorating food situation and instead attack and underlying  causes. If we cannot produce higher crop yields with less water and conserve fertile soils, many agricultural areas will cease to be viable. And this go far beyond farmers. If we cannot move at watertime spead to stabilize the climate, we may not be able to avoid runaway food prices. If we cannot accelerate  the shift  to smaller families and stabilize the world population sooner rather than later, the ranks of the hungry will almost certainly continue to expand. The time to act is now.    

The New Geopolitics of Food (5)

After the carnage of the two world wars and the economic missteps that lead to the Great Depression, countries joined together in 1945 to create the United Nations , finally realising that in the modern world we cannot live in isolation. The International Monetary Fund was created to help manage the monetary system and promote economic stability and progress. Within the U.N. system, specialized agencies from the World Health Organization to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) play major roles in the world today. All these have fostered international cooperation.
But while the FAO collects  and analyses gloval agricultural data and provides  technical assistance, there is no organised effort to ensure the adequacy of world food supplies. Indeed, most international negotiations on agricultural trade until recently focused in access to markets, within the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Argentina persistently pressing  Europe and Japan to open their highly protected agricultural  markets. But in the first decade of this century, access to supplies has emerged as the overriding issue as the world transitions from an area of food surpluses to a new politics of food scarcity. At the same time, the U.S. food aid program that once worked to fend off famine wherever it threatened has largely been replaced by the U.N. World Food Program (WFP), where the U.S. is the leading donor. The WFP now has food assistence operations in 70 countries and an annual budget of $ 4 billion. There is little international coordination otherwise. The French president Nicolas Sarkozi is proposing to deal with rising food prices by curbing speculation in commodity markets. Useful though this may be, it treats the symptoms of growing food insecurity, not the causes, such as population growth and climate change. The world now needs to focus not only on agricultural policy, but on a structure that integrates it  with energy, population, and water policies, each of which directly affects food security. But this is not happening. Instead, as land and water become scarcer, as the Earth's temperature rises, and as world food security deteriorates, a dangerous geopolitics of food scarcity is emerging. Land grabbing, water grabbing and buying grain directly from farmers in exporting countries are now integral parts of a global power struggle for food security.

The New Geopolitics of Food (4)

Beyond the changes in the environment that make it ever harder to meet human demand, there is an important intangible factor to consider: over the last half century or so, we have come to take agricultural progress for granted. Decade after decade, advancing technology underpinned steady gains in raising land productivity. World grain yeald per acre has tripled since 1950. But now thay era is coming to an end in some of the more agriculturally advanced countries, where farmers are already using all available technologies to raise yields. In effect, the farmers have caught up with the scientists. After climbing for a century, rice yield per acre in Japan has not risen at all for 16 years. In China, yields may level off soon. Just those two countries alone account for 1/3 of the world's  rice harvest.
The rich country - poor country divide could grow even more pronounced. This January, a new stage in the scramble among the importing countries to secure food began to unfold  when South korea, which imports 70% of its grain, announced that it was creating a new public-private entity that will be responsible for acquiring part of its grain. With an initial office in Chicago, the plan is to bypass the large international trading firms by buying grain directly from U.S. farmers. As the Korean acquire their own grain  elevators, they may well sing multiyear delivery contracts with farmers, agreeing to buy specified quantities of wheat, corn, or soybeans ata fixed price.
Other importers will not stand idly by as South Korea tries to tie up a portion of  the U.S. grain harvest even before it gets to market. The enterprising Koreans may soon be joined by China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and other leading importers. Although South Korea's initial focus is the U.S., far and away the world's largest grain exporter, it may later consider brokering  deals with Canada, Australia, Argentina, and other major exporters. This is happening just as China may be on the verge of entering the U.S. market as a potentially massive importer of grain. With China's 1.4 billion increasingly affluent consumers starting to competewith U.S. consumers for the U.S. grain harvest, cheap food, seen by many as an American birthright, may be coming to an end.
No one knows where this intensifying competition for food supplies will go, but the world seems to be moving away from the international cooperation that evolved over several decades following World War II to an every-country-for-itself philosophy. Food nationalism may help secure food supplies for individual affuent countries, but it does little to enhance world food security. The low-income countries that host land grabs or import grain will likely see their food situation deteriorate.

The New Geopolitics of Food (3)

While temperatures are rising, water tables are falling as farmers overpump for irrigation. This artificially inflates food production in the short run, creating a food bubble that bursts when aquifers are depleted and pumping is necessarily rediced to the rate of recharge. In aris Saudi Arabia, irrigation had surprisingly enabled the country to be eslf-sufficient in wheat for more than 20 years. Now, wheat production is collapsing because the nonreplenishable aquifer the country uses for irrigation is largely depleted. The Saudis soon will be importing all the grain.
Saudi Arabia is only one of some 18 countries with water-based food bibbles. All together, more than half of the world's people live in countries where water tables are falling. The politically troubled Arab Middle East is the first geographic region where grain production has peacked and begun to decline because of water shortages, even as populations continue to grow. Grain production is already going down is Syria and Iraq and may soon decline in Yemen. But the largest food bibbles are in India and China. In India, where farmers have drilled some 20 million irrigation wells, water tables are falling and the wells are starting to go dry. The World Bank reports that 175 million Indians are being fed with grain produced by overpumping. In China, overpumping is concentrated in the North China Plain, which produces half of China's wheat and a third of its corn. An estimated 130 million Chinese are currently fed by overpumping. The question is: how will these countries make up for the inevitable shortfalls when the aquifers are depleted?
Even as we are running our wells dry, we are also mismanaging our soils, creating new deserts. Soil erosion as a result of overplowing and land mismanagementis undermining the productivity of 1/3 of the world's cropland. How severe is it? Look at satellite imagesshowing two huge new dust bowls: one stretching across northen and western China and western Mongolia, the other across central Africa. Wang Tao, a leading Chinese desert scholar, reports that each year some 1 400 square miles of land in northern China turn to desert. In Mongolia and Lesotho, grain harvests have shrunk by half or more over the last few decades. North Korea and Haiti are also suffering from heavy soil losses; both countries face famine if they lose international food aid. Civilisation can survive the loss of its soil reserves, but it cannot survive the loss of its soil reserves.

The New Geopolitics of Food (2)

The doubling of world grain prices since early 2007 has been driven primarily by two factors: accelerating growth in demand and the increasing difficulty of rapidly expanding production. The result is a world that looks different from the bountiful global grain economy of the last century. On the demand side, farmers nowfear clear sources of increasing pressure. The first is population growth. Every year the world's farmers must feed 80 million additional people, nearly all of them in developing countries. The world's population has nearly doubled since 1970 and is headed toward 9 billion by midcentury. Some 3 billion people are also trying to move up the food chain, consuming more meat, milk and eggs. As more families in China and elsewhere enter the middle class, they expect to eat better.
Everything from falling water tables to eroding soils and the consequences of global warming means that the worls's food supply is unlikely to keep up with our collectively  growing appetites. Take climate change: the rule of thumb among crop ecologists is that fore every 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature above the growing season optimumm farmers can expect a 10% decline in grain yields. The relationship was borne out all too dramatically during the 2010 heat wave in Russia, which reduced the country's grain harvest by nearly 40%.

The New Geopolitics of Food (1)

Lester Brown, one of the great thinkers of our time, is linking the concept of geopolitics with that of food. Indeed, nowadays, it seems that geopolitical aspect is determined by food. A doubling in the world price of wheat actually means that the wheat you carry home from the market to handgrind into flour for chapatis costs twice as much. And the same is true for rice. If the world price of rice doubles, so does the price of rice in your neighborhood market in Jakarta. And so does the cost of the bowl of boiled rice on an Indonesian family's dinner table.
Prices are climbing, but the impact is not at all being felt equally. For Americans, who spend less than 1/10 of their income in the supermarket, the soaring food prices are not a calamity. But for the planet's poorest 2 billion people, who spend 50 to 70% of their income on food, these soaring prices may mean going from 2 meals a day to one.
The new geopolitics of food looks a whole lot more volatile than it used to. Scarcity is the new norm. Until recently, sudden price surges just didn't matter as much, as they were quickly followed by a return to the relatively low food prices that helped shape the political stability of the late 20th century across much of the globe. But now both the causes and consequences are ominously different. Historically, price spikes tended to be almost exclusively driven by unusual weather, a monsoon failure in India, a drought in the former Soviet Union, a heat wave in the US Midwest. Such events are always disruptive, but thankfully infrequent. Unfortunately, today's price hikes are driven by trends that are both elevating demand and making it moredifficult to increase production. Among them are a rapidly expanding population, a crop-withering temperature increases, and irrigation wells running dry. Each night, there are 219, 000 additional people to feed at the global dinner table.
More alarming still, the world is losing its ability to soften the effect of shortages. In response to previous price surges, the US, the world's largest grain producer, was effectively able to steer the world away from potential catastrophe. From the mid-20th century until 1995, the US had either grain surpluses or idle cropland that could be plantes to rescue countries in trouble. That's why the food crisis of 2011 is for real, and why it may bring with it more bread riots and political revolutions. What if the upheavals that greeted dictators Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egipt, and Muammar al Qaddafi in Libya (a country that imports 90% of its grain) are not the end of the story, but the beginning of it.

Biomasa

Biomasa este privită ca o soluție tot mai importantă. Citiți despre acest fapt mai jos.
http://www.adevarul.ro/financiar/Forbes-Biomasa-regenerabila-descoperita-investitori_0_486551600.html

Health Risks Posed By Climate Change

Children, the elderly and the poor are much more vulnerable to health impacts than the rest of the population. Children's metabolic rates are higher, so they naturally breathe faster resulting in greater intake of polluted air. Children are also at risk before they are even born. Exposure to pollutant carrying polen of pregnant women increases the likelyhood that their child will have asthma. Additionally, children's bodies are at much greater risk of dehydratation.
Scientists are working to identify the effects of a changing climate and in particular of a carbon pollution of individual people, but the web of relationships between particules and human health is very complex and more research is needed.
Here are some key health risks from climate:
- more than doubled asthma rates and lenghthened asthma season (20 days longer)
- threatened access to clean drinking water
- increases in airborne and insectborne illnesses
- increases in diarrheal, respiratory and heart disease
- increased risk of salmonella spread as average temperatures rise
- increase in hospital use results in rising health care costs

Middle East and Climate Change

The recent unreast in the Middle East, which has been attributes, in part, to high food prices, gives a warning of the type of global unrest that might result in the future years if the climate continues to warm as expected. A hotter climate means that more severe droughts will occur. We can expect an increasing number of unprecedented heat waves and droughts like the 2010 Russian drought in coming decades. This will significantly increase the odds of a world food emergency far worse than the 2007-2008 global food crisis. When we also consider the world's expanding population and the possibility that peak oil will make fertilizers and agriculture much more expensive, we have the potential for a perfect storm of events aligning in the near future, with droughts made significantly worse by climate change contributing to events that will cause disruption of the global economy, intense political turmoil, and war.

Climate-Driven Food Crisis in Second Half of the Century

The statement in the title is a conclusion from a 2009 study in Science "Historical Warnings of Future Food Security with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat". The University of Washington news release explained that rapisly warming climate is likely to seriously alter crop yiealds in the tropics and subtropics by the end of this century and, without adaptation, will leave half of the worlds's population facing serious food shortages.
David Battisti said: "The stresses on global food production from temperature alone are going to be huge, and that doesen't take into account water supplies stressed by the higher temperatures."
Currently 3 billion people live in the tropics and subtropics, and their number is expected to nearly double by the end of the century. If we end up with 5.5 degrees C warming or more by the century's end, and if you throw in the desertification and sharps drops in soil moisture then simply developing crops that are tolerant to heat and heat-induced water stress along with better irrigation is likely to prove utterly inadequate and irrelevant for billions of people.
The only genuine hope for avoiding the worst form of triage is aggressive and immediate agreenhouse gas mitigation.

The Good Man

The good man is the friend of all living things.
Mohandas Gandhi

Quotations

Thomas Berry:
"There is need for awareness that the mountains and rivers and all living things, the sky and its sun and moon and clouds all constitute a healing, sustaining sacred presence for humans which they need as much for their psychic integrity as for their physical nourishment."

O nouă carte despre ecologie

Recent a avut loc lansarea cărții lui Lester Brown, Lumea pe marginea prăpastiei. Prefața acestei cărți este scrisă de Domnul Președinte Ion Iliescu și o redau mai jos. Este preluată de pe blogul domniei sale.
CUVÂNT ÎNAINTE
Cartea lui Lester Brown, “Lumea pe marginea prăpastiei”, constituie un avertisment sever în legătură cu agravarea dezechilibrelor provocate de evoluţia civilizaţiei actuale, prin presiunea crescândă asupra resurselor de bază – în special de hrană, apă şi energie, în condiţiile unei inerţii păguboase şi insensibilităţi condamnabile din partea factorilor de decizie politică, şi inadaptării legităţilor economiei de piaţă – în vederea stopării acestor evoluţii periculoase pentru existenţa civilizaţiei înseşi.
Autorul îl citează pe un expert britanic (John Beddington) care, în 2009, vorbea despre un “asalt total” generat de lipsuri alimentare, deficite de apă şi petrol scump, în perspectiva anului 2030. Un alt expert britanic (Jonathan Porritt) împărtăşeşte analiza lui Beddington, dar face precizarea că momentul de criză, denumit de el “ultima recesiune”, s-ar putea să fie mai aproape de anul 2020, decât de 2030.
Obiectul cărţii lui Lester Brown este încercarea de a da răspuns la întrebarea Cât timp mai avem şi ce este de făcut pentru a salva civilizaţia?
Cartea este construită pe trei capitole:
- În primul sunt descrise fenomene grave, cu efecte profunde asupra societăţii, în ansamblu: în primul rând, secătuirea apelor subterane şi scăderea recoltelor; în al doilea rând, eroziunea solurilor şi expansiunea deşerturilor; şi, în al treilea rând, creşterea temperaturilor, topirea gheţarilor şi securitatea alimentară.
- În al doilea capitol – consecinţa acestor procese: emergenţa politicii deficitului alimentar; refugiaţii alimentari – creşterea fluxurilor migratorii; presiuni asupra stabilităţii generale şi apariţia de “state eşuate”.
- În al treilea capitol se creionează posibile răspunsuri, reluând propunerile enunţate de autor în volumele sale anterioare privind planul B: edificarea unei economii globale eficiente energetic; valorificarea energiei eoliene, solare şi geotermale; refacerea sistemelor naturale de susţinere a economiei, eradicarea sărăciei, stabilizarea populaţiei şi salvarea “statelor eşuate” şi, în fine, asigurarea hranei pentru opt miliarde de locuitori ai planetei.
În concluzie, intitulată sugestiv “Cu ochii pe ceas “, autorul vorbeşte despre importanţa şi emergenţa tuturor măsurilor propuse pentru salvarea civilizaţiei.
* * *
Pentru a ilustra efectele unor schimbări evidente în regimul climatic al planetei, autorul face trimitere la două fenomene petrecute în anul 2010.
Unul în Rusia – valul canicular din zona Moscovei, început la sfârşitul lunii iunie şi prelungit până la mijlocul lunii august. Temperatura atinsă în jurul Moscovei a depăşit cu cca. 8 grade Celsius temperaturile obişnuite pentru această regiune (ceea ce nu se mai înregistrase de-a lungul celor 130 de ani de observaţii meteorologice din Rusia). Efectele au fost dezastruoase: milioane de hectare de păduri au fost distruse; recolte pe suprafeţe enorme – pârjolite; oraşul Moscova a fost învăluit de trombe de fum, creând mari probleme de respiraţie, în special pentru bătrâni, bolnavi şi copii. Efectele economice au fost dintre cele mai grave, estimate la pierderi de cca. 300 miliarde dolari. Recolta de grâne a Rusiei a scăzut de la cca. 100 mil. tone la cca. 60 mil. tone. Rusia (al treilea exportator mondial de grâne) a fost nevoită să interzică exporturile. Efectul pe piaţa mondială a fost creşterea preţului mondial al grâului cu 60%.
Un efect pozitiv – remarcă Lester Brown – a fost declaraţia preşedintelui Medvedev, legată de acest fenomen: “Ceea ce se petrece chiar acum cu clima planetară trebuie să fie un semnal de alarmă pentru noi toţi”. Autorul consideră această declaraţie a preşedintelui Medvedev ca abandonare a poziţiilor oficiale anterioare ale Rusiei, care negau schimbările climatice şi se opuneau iniţiativelor de reducere a emisiilor de carbon.
Al doilea fenomen caracteristic s-a produs aproape concomitent, la sfârşitul lunii iulie, în nordul Pakistanului, când s-au declanşat ploi torenţiale neobişnuite. Acestea s-au suprapus peste topirile de zăpezi şi gheţari din munţii Himalaya, urmare a unui regim termic fără precedent (temperaturi de 53,3 grade Celsius, înregistrate la sfârşit de mai 2010 în zona central sudică a Pakistanului). Drept urmare, fluviul Indus (care străbate Pakistanul de la nord la sud) şi afluenţii săi au ieşit din matcă, inundând cca. o cincime din teritoriul Pakistanului. Au fost avariate şi distruse 2 milioane de case, afectând peste 20 milioane de oameni. Au murit 2000 pakistanezi. Recoltele de peste 2,4 milioane de hectare au fost distruse; reţeaua de canale a unuia dintre cele mai extinse şi vechi sisteme de irigaţii din lume a fost deteriorată; peste 1 milion de vite s-au înecat. A fost considerat cel mai mare dezastru natural din istoria Pakistanului. Aceasta a fost şi consecinţa defrişărilor masive de păduri (urmare a creşterii rapid a populaţiei, care a atins 185 milioane locuitori, faţă de 112 milioane în anul 1992). 90% din pădurile străvechi din bazinul Indusului au dispărut în timp, accentuând caracterul torenţial al scurgerilor pe versanţi, eroziunile şi alunecările de teren, colmatarea rapidă a acumulărilor construite pe râuri şi, respectiv, reducerea capacităţii lor de stocare şi de atenuare a viiturilor.
Deci, toate acţiunile nesăbuite ale oamenilor în timp se transformă în consecinţe catastrofale pentru comunităţile umane (din aceeaşi generaţie sau din generaţiile următoare).
Aceste două exemple ilustrează efectele fenomenului semnalat de comunitatea ştiinţifică, al încălzirii globale şi al schimbărilor climatice, cu efecte din ce în ce mai grave, şi urgenţa măsurilor necesare de contracarare a lor.
S-a semnalat, mai demult, efectul defrişărilor masive de păduri, care, la mijlocul secolului al XIX-lea, acopereau 2/3 din suprafaţa planetei, iar astăzi mai reprezintă doar 25%. Trebuie spus că acelaşi fenomen şi cam aceleaşi dimensiuni le-a cunoscut şi teritoriul României de astăzi (cu suprafeţe împădurite de cca.66% la mijlocul sec. al XIX-lea şi cca. 23% astăzi). Or, pădurile sunt un fel de plămâni ai planetei – ele sunt mari consumatoare de bioxid de carbon – factorul principal al aşa-numitului “fenomen de seră”, care provoacă încălzirea globală. În acelaşi timp, ele degajă mari cantităţi de oxigen în atmosferă. Prin defrişarea pădurilor, omenirea s-a privat singură de un factor de autoprotecţie.
Efectul defrişărilor nesăbuite care au avut loc în ţara noastră, după 1990, după privatizarea pădurilor, mai ales pe versanţii Carpaţilor Orientali, s-a concretizat prin amplificarea viiturilor în bazinul râului Siret. Dar, şi în zona de sud, inclusiv în zone de deal şi câmpie, dispariţia pădurilor, inclusiv a perdelelor de protecţie promovate de ICAR (Institutul de Cercetări Agricole al României, condus de acad. Ionescu-Siseşti) se resimte atât cu efecte asupra producţiei agricole, cât şi prin relansarea proceselor de deşertificare din sudul Dobrogei, al Olteniei şi chiar al Câmpiei Române.
Lester Brown semnalează că, pe parcursul celor 6000 de ani de când a început civilizaţia, omenirea a trăit pe baza productivităţii sustenabile a sistemelor naturale ale pământului. Dar, în ultimele decenii, societatea umană a depăşit nivelul consumului de resurse pe care aceste sisteme îl pot susţine (adică a devenit nesustenabil”!).
Pe lângă efectele defrişărilor de păduri, autorul semnalează faptul că jumătate din populaţia planetei trăieşte în ţări în care apele subterane se împuţinează şi puţurile seacă (multe sisteme de irigaţii se bazează pe pomparea apei din pânza freatică sau din straturi de adâncime); eroziunea solului depăşeşte formarea de noi soluri pe o treime din suprafaţa arabilă a lumii; cirezile şi turmele tot mai numeroase de vite, oi şi capre transformă vaste întinderi de păşuni în deşert. Patru cincimi din resursele piscicole oceanice sunt pescuite la limita capacităţii de reproducere sau în exces. Cererea depăşeşte, deci, oferta în mai toate sistemele naturale!
Totodată, continuarea arderii masive de combustibili fosili supraîncarcă atmosfera cu bioxid de carbon, împingând temperatura Pământului tot mai sus. Aceasta generează tot mai frecvent fenomene climatice extreme, ca valurile de căldură, furtuni tot mai violente sau inundaţii distrugătoare.
Lester Brown semnalează un studiu din 2002 al unui colectiv de savanţi coordonat de Mathis Wackerwegel (de la Academia Naţională de Ştiinţe a SUA), care a introdus conceptul de “amprentă ecologică”, exprimând sintetic efectele însumate ale tuturor proceselor care duc la uzura bogăţiilor naturale ale pământului, inclusiv suprasarcina de bioxid de carbon din atmosferă. Ei au ajuns la concluzia că solicitările colective ale omenirii au depăşit pentru prima oară capacitatea de regenerare a pământului în jurul anului 1980. În 1999, solicitările globale au depăşit productivitatea sustenabilă a sistemelor naturale cu 20%; iar calculele în curs vorbesc de faptul că, în 2007, acest indicator a ajuns la 50%. Adică, acum, ne aflăm în situaţia de avarie, când ar fi nevoie de o planetă şi jumătate pentru a susţine consumul actual al omenirii!
De unde, concluzia autorului că declinul global al sistemelor naturale de susţinere a economiei, declinul, deci, ecologic care va conduce la declin economic şi social este deja în plină desfăşurare. Şi că managementul actual al economiei globale, bazată pe mecanismele pieţei, este la ananghie. Şi asta pentru că gândirea economică şi politică modernă acordă puţină atenţie pragurilor sustenabile de productivitate ale sistemelor naturale ale pământului, fiind puţin sincronizată cu ecosistemul de care depinde şi care se apropie de colaps.
El constată că, desigur, piaţa face bine multe lucruri. Ea alocă resursele cu o eficienţă inimaginabilă, cu atât mai mut irealizabilă pentru orice planificator central (ceea ce noi, în această parte de lume, am resimţit pe deplin, ignorarea pieţei şi încercarea de substituire a ei cu un factor subiectiv – birocraţia de stat – fiind cauza esenţială a falimentului şi prăbuşirii aşa-numitului “socialism de stat”). Dar, pe măsură ce economia mondială s-a amplificat de douăzeci de ori în ultimul secol (creşterea produsului global mondial) – piaţa şi-a dezvăluit un defect – unul atât de serios încât, dacă nu este corectat, va consemna sfârşitul civilizaţiei aşa cum o cunoaştem, deocamdată.
Piaţa, care determină preţurile, nu ne spune adevărul. Ea omite costurile indirecte (deteriorarea factorilor de mediu) care, în unele cazuri, “micşorează” increct costurile directe.
Dezvoltarea unui sistem economic care duce la reducerea suprafeţelor de păduri ale planetei, la extindere eroziunilor de sol, la epuizarea pânzelor freatice, la exterminarea bancurilor de peşte, la creşterea temperaturilor planetei, la topirea calotelor polare şi a gheţarilor (toate, reprezentând “costuri indirecte”) devine sursa propriului colaps al economiei.
Autorul face o paralelă cu dispariţia unor civilizaţii din trecut. Arheologii demonstrează că prăbuşirea unei civilizaţii nu survine brusc. Colapsul economic şi social a fost întotdeauna precedat de o perioadă de declin al mediului înconjurător (în cazul civilizaţiei sumeriene – sărăturarea solurilor irigate; în cazul civilizaţiei maya – defrişarea pădurilor de pe versanţii munţilor). Avem acum o economie care îşi distruge sistemele naturale de susţinere şi care ne-a dus pe calea declinului şi a colapsului. Ne aflăm periculos de aproape de marginea prăpastiei!
Una din verigile slabe ale civilizaţiei actuale, consideră Lester Brown, este problema alimentaţiei. Răspândirea foametei (într-o societate care a acumulat, mai ales în ultima jumătate de secol, o tot mai mare bogăţie) – este tendinţa cea mai tulburătoare pentru acest început de secol. Dacă în 1996 se înregistrase un minim al numărului de oameni cronic înfometaţi şi subnutriţi, însumând 788 milioane, în anul 2009, numărul acestora a depăşit cifra de 1 miliard.
Autorul menţionează că răspândirea foametei a precedat şi prăbuşirea altor civilizaţii din trecut. Dacă răspândirea foametei poate fi considerată un indicator al declinului care precede colapsul social al civilizaţiei actuale globale, atunci acesta a început acum peste un deceniu! Or, acest fenomen a apărut în contextul în care ritmul de creştere a populaţiei planetei se menţine ridicat. De la 6 miliarde locuitori ai planetei în anul 2000, omenirea înregistrează acum aproape 7 miliarde şi se fac prognoze că se va ajunge la 8 şi, poate chiar 9 miliarde.
De aceea, Lester Brown reia în această lucrare propunerile enunţate deja în volumele sale anterioare privind Planul B – pentru salvarea civilizaţiei.
Ideea Planului B este de a determina inversarea actualelor tendinţe ale economiei mondiale care împing omenirea spre distrugerea suporturilor naturale ale economiei şi dezagregarea sistemului climatic, până la marginea prăpastiei. El comportă 4 componente:
1. O masivă reducere a emisiilor de carbon cu 80% până în anul 2020;
2. Stabilizarea populaţiei la maximum 8 miliarde, până în anul 2040;
3. Eradicarea sărăciei;
4. Refacerea pădurilor, a solurilor, apelor freatice şi a bancurilor piscicole.
Lester Brown actualizează, în acest scop, propunerile sale din Planul B, privind un buget anual necesar pentru stoparea actualilor factori distructivi din activitatea economică şi promovarea unui set de măsuri pentru salvarea civilizaţiei.
Un astfel de buget ar însuma sub 200 miliarde dolari, din care 75-80 miliarde ar trebui destinate unor măsuri de ordin social:
- extinderea educaţiei primare universale;
- eradicarea analfabetismului;
- asigurarea unei mese gratuite tuturor şcolarilor;
- sprijinirea familiilor şi copiilor preşcolari;
- sănătatea reproductivă şi planningul familial;
- sistem universal de asistenţă medicală.
Iar cca. 110-120 mld. ar trebui destinaţi restaurării factorilor naturali:
- plantare de copaci (reîmpădurirea planetei);
- protecţia solului arabil;
- restaurarea păşunilor;
- restaurarea pescuitului;
- stabilizarea pânzei freatice;
- protecţia biodiversităţii.
Lester Brown consideră că există şi resursele financiare necesare pentru a susţine un asemenea proiect. Spre comparare, bugetele militare ale statelor însumează 1522 miliarde dolari, din care SUA, 661 miliarde. Deci, bugetul planului B nu reprezintă decât 12% din bugetul militar mondial! Ar suferi oare securitatea mondială dacă s-ar face acest transfer? Nu cred!
Se impune, de altfel, să se schimbe optica asupra conceptului de securitate pentru secolul al XXI-lea.
Pe bună dreptate, Lester Brown consideră că principala ameninţare pentru securitatea mondială, astăzi, nu mai e atât agresiunea militară, ci mai ales schimbările climatice, creşterea populaţiei (predominant în ţările sărace), criza apei, sărăcia, creşterea preţurilor la alimente şi falimentul statelor!
Pentru salvarea civilizaţiei este necesară, deci, o schimbare radicală a înţelegerii pericolelor reale cu care se confruntă omenirea, la acest început de secol, şi adaptarea la nivelul factorilor de decizie politică atât în plan naţional, cât şi al organismelor mondiale (şi, fără îndoială, şi al marilor companii multinaţionale) a măsurilor necesare pentru evitarea colapsului şi a prăbuşirii civilizaţiei – sugerate şi în PLANUL B – propus de Lester Brown.

Polar Ice Sheet Mass Loss is Spreading Up

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice los from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner then model forecasts have predicted. The study, led by the U.S. Jet Propulsion  Laboratory, was published in Geophysical Research Letters.
The authors conclude that, if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next 4 decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15 centimeters by 2050. When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 8 centimeters from glacial ice caps and 9 centimeters from ocean thermal expansion, total sea level rise could reach 32 centimeters.
The rate of human-caused warming is itself projected to accelerate, and the poles are the place where the planet is heating up the most, much faster than expected. Eric Rignot said that if present trends continue, sea level is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.  

Spring is coming!

Spring is nature's way of saying, "Let's party!"
Robin Williams

Small-scale farms

Small-scale eco-farming could double food production in many of the world's poorest regions and also help fight climate change, according to a Unated Nations report. The spectre og world hunger looms even larger as the global population continues to balloon, especially in the least developed nations. Today, more than a billion of the planet's nearly seven billion pleople live at the adge of  subsistence on less than a dollar per day.
Food prices have flared in recent years due to climate-related natural disasters, with the cost of several staple foods reaching unprecedented levels last month, according to the UN's food price index. By mid-century, when the global population is expected to surpass 9 billion, food shortages will become even more critical as will the need of additional output. But the key to boostingoutput in poor countries is a shift from mono-crops doused with chemical fertilisers and pesticides to more sustainable techniques that can both increase yields and repair the environment, the report said. "We are not in a situation in which agriculture can only be about increasing production", said Olivier De Schutter, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. He also pointed out that conventional farming degrades soil, fuels climate change, is vulnerable to wheather shocks, and relies on expensive inputs.

Quotations

One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.
William Shakespeare

E.U. wants to decarbonize economy

The European Union will spend 270 Euro a year to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, the European Commission said. The Commission set targets for 2030 and 2040, envisioning emission cuts of 40% and 60%, respectively. It proposed increasing its target for 2020 to 25% from the current 20%, acknowledging opposition from Eastern European countries to proposals by France, Germany, the U.K. and Denmark to raise that goal to 30%.
"The longer we wait, the higher the cost will be", sais Connie Hedegaard, the E.U. climate commisioner. As oil prices keep rising, Europe is paying more every year for its energy bill and becoming more vulnerable to price shocks. The road map recommends that Europe should achieve its goals largely through domestic measures, since by midcentury, international credits to offset emissions will be less widely available than today.

Quotations 1

We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.  Albert Einstein

2010 - The Warmest Year on Record

Every January, National Climatic Data Center provides an expert analysis of the previous year's climate. This puts the extreme wather of 2010 into a broader context. The record  warmth of the past year adds to the huge body of evidence  that the earth continues to warm.
- 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest year since 1880;
- the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest on record while the Southern Hemisphere was the 6th warmest since 1880;
- 9 out of 10 warmest years on record are from 2001 and after!
- every year since 2000 is one of the 15 warmest years;
- it is the 34th consecutive year that was warmer than the 20th century average;

Food and Climate Risks

The role of a changing climate is appropriately highlighted as a major impediment to maintaining consistent and predictable  food supplies for the wirld's growing population. Food prices have been rising recently and have caused significant hardship for some of the most globally vulnerable populations. These vulnerable populations live in some of the most politically unstable regions, and continued food inflation could exacerbate existing social and economic issues with potentially unpredictable consequences.
Unfortunately as the global climate changes and agricultural productivity shifts, these sort of price rises in basic foods are likely to become more commonplace for the economically sensitive populations in these politically unstable regions: Southeast Asia, Northern Africa, the Middle East.
Recent work shows that several of the world's most important crops could be near climatic thresholds that will seriously impair  agricultural yields. Several of these crops (corn, rice, soybeans, wheat) that are the source of 75% of global calorie consumption appear to be sensitive to increases in temperature variation, especially to the occurrence of a particularly hot day in the middle of the growing season.
Other research suggests that increasing temperatures could cause major difficulties for farmers in Southeast Asia  who produce a large fraction of global rice output, an important staple in the region. This research recognizes that the human body simply cannot perform the hard manual labour as the temperatures climate models predict. By 2050, these temperatures are expected to be commonplace for the region, potentially resulting in a huge loss of agricultural output.
If food prices  rise in the rich world, consumers will spend more of their income on food and forgo other consumption options. In developing nations this trade-off may not be possible, creating a situation where political unrest could become more likely. According to World Bank data, over 50% of the world's population lives on less then $2 a day. Obviously for these populations, even small increases in the prices of staples can cause real difficulties.

Environmental Refugees

Fifty million environmental refugees will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortage sparkled by climate change. When people are not living in sustenable conditions, they migrate. It is obvious that climate change is impacting both food security and food safety. Southern Europe is already seeing a sharp increase in what has long been a slow but steady flow of migrants from Africa, many of whom risk their lives to cross the Strait of Gibraltar into Spain from Morocco or sail in makeshift vessels to Italy from Libya and Tunisia. The flow recently grew to a flood after a month of protests in Tunisia, set off by food shortages and widespread unemployment and poverty, brought down the government of longtime ruler Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
Environmental refugees were described  in by 2001 by Norman Myers of Oxford University as a new phenomenon created by climate change. He said: "These are people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands, because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems together with the associated problems of population pressure and profound poverty".

Egypt and Food Security

As the worls's largest importer of wheat, Egypt is acutely vulnerable to any surge in food prices. Wheat prices have risen 47% over the last year and other staples are rapidly approaching dangerously high levels. Food price inflation and volatility strike hard at the household budgets of average Egyptian families. Many of them spend 40% of their monthly income on food. Ensuring Egyptians have access to a reliable and affordable food supply ia an urgent priority.
Food prices are at record levels partly due to population growth and increased demand from a recovering global economy, tight supplies, high oil prices, and weak agricultural production attributable to climate change-induced natural disasters and crop loss in key producing nations. But the most striking aspect of this latest surge in food prices is the destabilizing role of a relatively new and powerful factor confronting the world's food system: uncertainty. Our changing climate is feeding this uncertainty. Food price volatility and uncertainty are further triggered by shortsighted government and private-sector actions. Any effort to stabilize food prices in Egypt must be led by Egyptians to identify and meet local needs.
Rapid population growth, widespread poverty, massive unemployment among the two-thirds of Egyptians under 30 that form part of the youth bulge, and spiraling inflation all make it difficult for families to keep pace with rising food costs. Egypt has spent $4 billion a year on its bread-subsidization program in an attempt to insulate the 40 % of Egyptians living on less than $2 a day from inflation. And yet prices continue to rise.
Climate change's impact on world agriculture is projected to be severe. Egypt is a profound risk to the negative effects of climate change, including rising temperatures, prolonged drought, increased evaporation and water consumption. Egypt is also vulnerable to rising sea levels leading to more intense flooding, the loss of key agricultural land in the Nile Delta, and the mass migration of 8 million people from rural to urban areas.
In the face of looming water shortages due to increased demand and the effects of climate change, Egypt must also address water-management issues associated with the Nile and reengage with its Nile Basin neighboring countries regarding the future of this shared regional resource.  

International Action on Climate Change

Climate change requires a global response. Energy-related CO2 emissions have risen 145-fold since 1850 and are projected to increase another 36% by 2030. Most emissions come from relatively small number of countries. An effective global strategy to avert dangerous climate change requires commitments and action by all the world's major economies.
The United States, with 5% of the world's population is responsable for 17% of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. On an intensity basis, U.S. emissions are significantly higher than the EU's and Japan's. On a per capita basis, U.S. emissions are more than twice as high as those of the EU and Japan. U.S. emissions are projected to remain largely flat through 2020. By comparison, emissions are projected to decline from current levels by about 4% in the EU and 57% in Japan by 2020.
Emissions are rising fastest in developing countries. China's and India's emissions are projected to grow compared to current levels by about 45% and 47%, respectively, by 2020. Annual emissions from all developing countries surpassed those of developed countries in 2004. Their per capita emissions will remain much lower than those of developed countries. Despite being surpassed by China as the largest  annual emitter of GHGs in 2006, the U.S. accounts for 30% of cumulative energy-related CO2 emissions since 1850, while China accounts for 9%. Cumulative emissions are an important measure because of the long-lasting nature of GHGs in the atmosphere. Although developing country emissions are rising, their cumulative emissions are not projected to reach those of developed countries for several more decades.
In 1992, countries signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with the objective of avoiding dangerous human interference in the climate system. In the Convention, developed countries agreed to take the lead in addressing climate change and to the voluntary aim of reducing their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Soon recognizing that stronger action was needed, governments launched new negotiations on binding emissions targets for developed countries. The resulting agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, requires industrialized countries to reduce emissions an an average 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Kyoto has been now ratified by 182 countries, including all developed countries except the U.S.
Meeting in Montreal in 2005, parties to the Kyoto Protocol opened negotiations on post 2012 commitments for developed countries that are party to the protocol. In Bali in 2007, governments launched a parallel negotiating process under the Framework Convention, that includes the United States, with the aim of an agreed outcome in Copenhagen in 2009. While many parties hoped for a binding agreement in Copenhagen, the summit produced  the Copenhagen Accord, a political agreement negotiated by a group of world leaders. Although the Accord was not formally adoped by UNFCCC parties in Copenhagen, 140 countries have now associated themselves with the agreement and more than 80 have pledged specific mitigation targets or  actions for 2020.
For the past 15 years, the primary thrust of negotiations within the UNFCCC has been the establishment, and the extention, of a legally binding regime to reduce GHG emissions. This should remain the long-term objective. The Copenhagen summit demonstrated the difficulty of achieving a new round of binding climate commitments. Under these circumstances, the best course forward may be an evolutionary one. Parties could take incremental steps to strengthen the multilateral architecture  in ways that promote stronger action in the near term, while providing a stronger foundation for future binding commitments.  

Climate Change, A Real Problem

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrates that the earth is warming. Climate change is happening, caused in large part by human activity, its impacts are beginning to be experienced and these damaging effects will only increase in the decades ahead. Greenhouse emissions from cars and other human activities are the primary cause of the contemporary global warming. Due to the combustion of fossil fuels, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the principal human-produced greenhouse gas, are at a level unequaled for at least 800 000 yeard. The greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities are trapping more of the sun's heat in the earth's atmosphere, resulting in warming. Over the last century, the global average temperatures rose by almost 1.5 degrees F, and the Arctic warmed about twice as much. The oceans have also warmed, especially within  1 000 feet of the surface.
Carbon dioxide and other GHGs always have been present in the atmosphere, keeping the earth hospitable to life by trapping heat and warming our atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution emissions of these gases from human activity have increased steadily, trapping more heat and amplifying the greenhouse effect. Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% and concentrations of other GHGs have grown significantly as well. global average temperatures have risen both on land and in the oceans, with observable impacts already occuring that presage increasingly severe changes in the future. Polar ice is melting at record rates. Glaciers around the globe are in retreat. Storms, including huricanes, are increasing in intensity. Ecosystems around the world already are reacting as plant and animal species  struggle to adapt  to a shifting climate.
Scientists project that if the increase in man-made GHG emissions continues unabated, additional warming of 2 to 11.5 degrees F over the next century is likely, depending on how much more GHGs are emitted and how strongly the climate system responds to them. Although the range of uncertainty for future temperatures is large, even the lower end of the range is likely to have many undesirable effects on natural and human systems. Water supplies in some critical areas will dwindle as snow and ice disappear. Sea levels will rise, threatening coastal populations. Droughts and floods will become more common. Hurricanes and other powerful storms will cause more and more damage. Agricultural production could increase with slight warming in northen countries but is already declining in many low-latitude countries and will decrease everywhere with higher levels of warming due to changes in precipitation, weather extremes, and the spread of crop pests and diseases. Changing weather patterns will also change the distribution and incidence of insect-borne and waterborne diseases, such as malaria and cholera. Human health will be jeopardized by all of these changes. Changes in climate also pose substantial national security risks by expanding the number of weather-related humanitarian missions for military, by opening up new areas for military operations, as for example in the Arctic, and by putting at risk military facilities located in coastal areas.
A growing body of scientific research has documented that climate change is already underway and some dangerous impacts have already occurred. Avoiding more severe impacts in the future requires large reductions in human-induced GHG emissions in the coming decades. Many governments have committed to reduce their countries' emissions by between 50 and 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. If achieved, global emissions reduction on this scale will reduce the costs of damages and of adaptation and will reduce the probability of catastrophic outcomes. While committing  to and achieving such reductions must be a high priority, adapting to climate change that is now unavoidable is also important. Effective adaptation planning while simultaneously reducing emissions is a major challenge that requires unprecedented cooperation and participation throught the world.   

The Dimension of Consumerism

According to World Bank, World Development Indicators Online, in 2006, people around the world spent $30.5 trillion on goods and services (in 2008 dollars). These included basic necessities like food and shelter, but as discretionary incomes rose, people spent more on consumer goods, from richer foods and larger homes to televisions, cars, computers, and air travel. In 2008 alone, people around the world purchased 68 million vehicles, 85 million refrigerators, 297 million computers, and 1.2 billion mobile phones.
Consumption has grown dramatically over the past five decades, up to 28% from the $23.9 trillion spent in 1996 and up sixfold from the $4.9 trillion spent in 1960. Some of this increase comes from the growth in population, but human numbers only grew by a factor of 2.2 between 1960 and 2006. Thus, consumption expenditures per person still almost tripled.
As Gary Gardner and Payal Sampat say in Mind over Matter: Recasting the Role of Materials in our Lives, as consumption has risen, more fossil fuels, minerals and metals have been mined from the earth, more trees have been cut down and more land has been plowed to grow food. Between 1950 and 2005, metals production grew sixfold, oil consumption eightfold, and natural gas consumption 14-fold. 60 billion tons of resources are now extracted anually , about 50% more than just 30 years ago. Today, the average European uses 43 kilograms of resources daily, and the average American uses 88 kilograms.

Wisdom from nature

But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
   or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
   or let the fish in the sea inform you.

from The Book of Job 12:7-8

Air pollution

According to EPA, air toxics are the most hazardous air pollutants. In addition to mercury and arsenic, power plants emit lead, dioxin, and acid gases that are known threats to public health. Even in small amounts these extremely harmful air pollutants are linked cancer, mutations, neurological damage and other serious health problems. Millions of tons of air toxics are released into the air annually from manmade sources such as coal-fired In March 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to propose an updated air quality standard for life-threatening hazardous air pollution from power plants, such as mercury and arsenic. This Air Toxics safeguard is also called the “Power Plant MACT (Maximum Available Control Technology).”

This move by EPA to protect public health will save lives, prevent disease and avoid hospitalizations, while creating new jobs installing air pollution control equipment.

What Are Air Toxics?

power plants, cement and brick manufacturing facilities, and other industrial processes.

The Health Effects of Air Toxics

Air toxics can cause both minor and serious health problems, including:

-pre-mature death

-asthma and other respiratory diseases

-cancer

-birth defects

-reproductive problems such as reduced fertility

-damage to the immune system

-eye irritation

Mercury is one example of a particularly harmful air toxic because it builds up in the environment. A potent neurotoxin especially dangerous to small children and pregnant women, mercury exposure affects a child’s ability to walk, talk, read, write and learn. The mercury problem in the U.S. is so widespread that one in six women has mercury levels in her blood high enough to put her baby at risk, according to the EPA. Less than one teaspoon of mercury is sufficient to contaminate a 20-acre lake, yet 48 tons are being pumped into our air each year from coal fired power plants alone, which comprise largest domestic source of unregulated mercury emissions in the United States.

The Cost of the Status Quo

Our communities are paying for the costs of toxic air pollution with these sometimes deadly health problems, as well as unfishable rivers, lakes and streams. Study after study shows that to protect public health, polluters must significantly reduce the amount of toxic air pollution coming out of their smokestacks, and that means cleaning up pollution from dirty coal plants.  

Fortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency exists to develop and enforce much needed safeguards to keep polluters from making us sick.

The forthcoming Air Toxics Rule for power plants will not only save thousands of lives per year, it will help prevent disease, avoid hospitalizations, and create high-paying new jobs installing and operating the much-needed pollution control equipment.

The Need for a Strong Air Toxics Standard for Power Plants

For Decades, the power sector has successfully fought Clean Air Act implementation requirements to reduce the toxic air emissions from their facilities, even though coal plants are among the largest sources of toxic air pollution. It’s past time to stand up to polluters, and defend public health.

As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA will set new air toxics emissions limits based on the pollution reductions already achieved by the cleanest and best-performing power plants and facilities, making the standards achievable and realistic.

This straightforward approach produces standards that are both reasonable and effective in reducing air pollution and protecting public health. It also provides a level economic playing field, ensuring that power plants with good pollution controls are not at a disadvantage to competitors with no controls.

Climate change and health

What is Ozone?

Ozone is the main component of smog and is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but rather forms when emissions of gases including nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, and methane “cook” in the sun. Ground-level ozone, or smog, is worse in the summertime because sunlight and hot weather accelerate its formation. This means that during summer break seasonal smog alerts often urge children to restrict their activity or stay inside to avoid respiratory effects like asthma.

Ozone comes from sources such as coal-fired power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents. Coal-fired power plants are among the largest sources of smog-forming pollution, with more than 500 plants currently operating in our country, many of them lacking modern pollution controls.

Motor vehicles also account for a huge percentage of smog. On-road vehicles are responsible for more than 35% of NOx emissions and nearly 26% of VOC emissions in the U.S.

The Health Effects of Smog

Ozone is harmful to human health even at very low levels. Smog doesn’t just ruin your view; it poses serious health risks, especially to children and senior citizens. Smog can cause:

• Asthma
• Reduced lung function
• Airway irritation and damage
• Increased susceptibility to respiratory infections
• Permanent lung damage (Scientists have compared exposure to smog pollution as getting sunburn on the lungs)
• Shortness of breath and chest pain
• Wheezing and coughing
• Increased treatment or hospitalization of people with lung diseases, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) including emphysema and chronic bronchitis
• Premature death

Children are at increased risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors.