The World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, yesterday unveiled a $1.2bn (£606m) rapid response fund to help developing countries deal with the food price crisis. Speaking from an African development meeting in Japan, Zoellick said the fund was part of a $2bn general increase in World Bank spending on agriculture.

Last week Saudi Arabia donated $500 million to the World Food Programme allowing it to meet its $755 million appeal to maintain its food aid operations.

The fast-track World Bank money would be available immediately, bypassing the normal project vetting procedures, and would help fund safety net support for the hungry, in the form of school feeding programmes or food-for-work schemes. Zoellick said priority would be given to pregnant women and infants, who were most vulnerable. The money would also be spent on seeds and fertiliser for farmers for the next few harvests.

Zoellick said the World Bank board was also planning to introduce risk management tools such as hedge funds and insurance schemes to protect poor countries and their farmers.

He also called for a review of subsidies and targets for biofuels, which are competing with food for land, investment and other resources.

To keep up to date with environmental news, site updates, tools and search the internet please visit the Click 4 Carbon Home Page.

U2 singer Bono has taken part in a tree-planting project with school children in Tokyo, Japan.

The rocker, who's known for his humanitarian and philanthropic work, led the event which is part of the city's environmental initiatives project.

He encouraged the attendees to become more environmentally friendly, saying: "I do believe that politicians like Governor Ishihara need to hear from you that this is important to you. It's your money that they are spending.

"That is what I'll be doing over the week as well as planting this tree today. Finding out how much support there are for these issues of environment and extreme poverty."

Nearly 100 children sang together with the legendary rock singer at The Sea Forest where a total of 480,000 trees are due to be planted, creating an 88 hectare forest floating off Tokyo bay.

The city hopes the forest when completed in 2016 will help cool the city down during the hot summer months.

Bono also plans to attend the Tokyo International Conference on African Development, where he will be among 43 leaders of African nations to discuss poverty, conflict, the food crisis and disease in the continent.

Visit our home page to learn how you can plant trees without actually having to put your hand in your pocket!

World leaders are to meet next week for urgent talks aimed at preventing tens of millions of the world's poor dying of hunger as a result of soaring food prices.

The summit in Rome is expected to pledge immediate aid to poor countries threatened by malnutrition as well as charting longer-term strategies for improving food production.

The urgency of the meeting follows historic spikes in the price of some staple foods. The price of rice has doubled since January this year, while the cost of dairy products, soya beans, wheat and sugar have also seen large increases.

The world's urban poor have been hit hardest, sending a wave of unrest and instability around the world. Thirty-seven countries have been hit by food riots so far this year, including Cameroon, Niger, Egypt and Haiti.

The Rome summit is the first of a series of high-level meetings aimed at tackling what many leaders now see as a much bigger threat to international stability than terrorism.

Increasing summer temperatures could mean some parts of southern England are too hot to grow vines for making wine by 2080, according to a new book launched today (26 May 2008). The author, Emeritus Professor Richard Selley from Imperial College London, claims that if average summer temperatures in the UK continue to rise as predicted, the Thames ......

read more | digg story

So .... who, in the electronics industry, is at the forefront in fighting climate change and who is sadly ignorant to the fact that everything is hotting up around them.

Climate Counts is a collaborative effort to bring consumers and companies together in the fight against global climate change. They are a nonprofit organization launched in collaboration with Clean Air-Cool Planet.

They have created a scorecard system to see how serious companies are about stopping climate change - and how they compare to their sector competitors. The annually updated scorecard reflects the self-reported efforts of companies to address climate change - or avoid it altogether.

The higher the score, the greater the company's commitment to fighting global warming.

If you're wired, you know the companies in the Electronics sector well. They make our computers, our TVs, our PDAs, our MP3 players, and our cell phones. The best of these companies have worked to make sure the latest technology is consistent with the most current thinking about corporate climate leadership. They're doing everything from reducing emissions in their production processes, to making products that require less energy, to taking back products that are obsolete and turning them into the next big thing. But the range of scores in the sector is notable; those companies at the bottom of the sector may have a different perspective on what it really means to be "cool" than those at the top.

1) IBM 77
2) Canon 74
3) Toshiba 70
4) Hewlett-Packard 68
5) Sony 68
6) Motorola 66
7) Hitachi 51
8) Samsung 51
9) Siemens 51
10) Dell 49
11) Nokia 37
12) Apple 11

So, whilst companies like IBM, Canon, Toshiba and the like care about the environment we live in it looks like Apple care more about the size of their profits than the size of their footprint.

Maybe we should all think twice and take things like this into consideration before making that next electronics purchase.

And the next time you need to search for that next electronic purchase use the Click 4 Carbon environmentally friendly search engine which won`t cost you a penny to use yet you can help offset your carbon consumption, and reduce your carbon footprint with the minimum of effort.

Following a three-year legal battle to protect the polar bear from extinction due to global warming, three environmental groups won protection for the species with the announcement today that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is listing the polar bear as a federally “threatened” species.

The decision was issued in response to a 2005 scientific petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and was required by a court order in a lawsuit brought by the groups to end the administration's delay in issuing a final Endangered Species Act listing decision.

While the polar bear listing is one of the administration's clearest acknowledgments to date of the urgent threat posed by global warming, the administration is simultaneously attempting to reduce the protections the bear will receive under the Act. It claims in the listing decision that federal agencies need not consider the impact of global warming pollution on the polar bear; it has also proposed a separate regulation reducing the protections the polar bear would otherwise receive.

“This decision is a watershed event because it has forced the Bush administration to acknowledge global warming's brutal impacts,” said Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the 2005 petition. “It’s not too late to save the polar bear, and we'll keep fighting to ensure that the polar bear gets the help it needs through the full protections of the Endangered Species Act. The administration's attempts to reduce protection to the polar bear from greenhouse gas emissions are illegal and won't hold up in court.”

Polar bears live only in the Arctic and are totally dependent on the sea ice for all their essential needs. Global warming is an overwhelming threat to the polar bear, which is already suffering starvation, drowning, and population declines as the sea ice melts away.

"The polar bear is already on thin ice. Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is a major step forward, but the Bush administration has proposed using loopholes in the law to allow the greatest threat to the polar bear — global warming pollution — to continue unabated," said Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project at NRDC. “If the key threats to the polar bear are not addressed soon, zoos will be the only place our grandchildren will be able to see a polar bear.”

“The administration's inclusion of this language exempts the impact of global warming on the polar bear and would gut any protections the ruling would have provided,” said Melanie Duchin, global warming campaigner for Greenpeace USA in Alaska. “Global warming threatens polar bears with extinction, so to exempt global warming pollution from the formula for protecting the species violates the spirit and intent of the ESA.”

Each step in the listing process has required legal action to enforce the Endangered Species Act's deadlines for protecting species. The three groups first sued the Bush administration in December 2005 because the government had ignored their petition to protect the polar bear. As a result of that lawsuit, in February 2006 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that protection of polar bears "may be warranted," and commenced a full status review of the species. A settlement agreement in the case committed the Service to make the second of three required findings by December 27, 2006, at which time the administration announced the proposal to list the species as “threatened.”

By law, the administration was required to make the May 15, 2008 final listing decision within one year of the proposal, or by January 9, 2008. When the administration failed to comply with that deadline, the groups filed suit on March 10, 2008 to end the delay. On April 28, the District Court issued an order requiring the administration to issue a decision by May 15.

Scientists predicted and have now documented the grim impacts to polar bears as the Arctic warms rapidly. Shrinking sea ice drastically restricts polar bears' ability to hunt their main prey, ice seals. In the spring of 2006, scientists located the bodies of several bears that had starved to death. Reduced food availability due to global warming has also caused polar bears to resort to cannibalism off the north coast of Alaska and Canada. In September, the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that, based on polar bear distribution and current global warming projections, two-thirds of the world's polar bear population would likely be extinct by 2050, including all polar bears within the United States.

The Arctic melt is also outpacing predictions. September 2007 shattered all previous records for sea-ice loss when the Arctic ice cap shrank to a record 1 million square miles — equivalent to an area six times the size of California — below the average summer sea-ice extent of the past several decades, reaching levels not predicted to occur until mid-century. Scientists already predict that this year's sea-ice minimum could shatter the record set in 2007, and several leading scientists have now stated that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the summer by 2012.

Listing the polar bear guarantees that federal agencies will be obligated to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize polar bears' continued existence or adversely modify their critical habitat, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to prepare a recovery plan for the polar bear, specifying measures necessary for its protection.

ZIMBABWE is suffering more from the impact of global warming like most other countries in Africa signalling the burden of climate change risks to be felt more by the poor in the near future.

In a paper presented at a three-day regional workshop on Trade and Development, Agro-Biodiversity and Food Security, Ms Mutsa Chasi of the Environmental Management Agency said Zimbabwe is now experiencing an unprecedented series of extreme weather events which have serious implications on food security and the economy as a whole.

She revealed that six warmest years on record for Zimbabwe have occurred since 1987 and that the increased frequency of droughts since 1990 (90/91, 91/92, 92/93, 93/94, 94/95, 97/98, 01/02, 02/03, 04/05, 06/07) is causing massive drop in crop yields in the country's agricultural sector.

A report compiled by the Met Services using 30 years' data collected at stations at Belvedere, Harare, Bulawayo Goetz, and Beitbridge illustrates that weather extremes are the source of the problems. For the three sites presented, rainfall data shows no consistent trend indicating that changes in temperature and weather patterns were affecting the frequency and severity of rainfall, droughts, floods, access to water and the use of land.

Key findings of temperature changes indicated that:

1) There is a consistent trend of an increase in the occurrence of maximum temperature extremes at all the three stations

2) The chance of minimum temperatures being in the lower 10th percentile declined during the period

3) The observed rate of warming averages 2°C per century, and as high as 2.6-2.7°C per century at Beitbridge and Bulawayo

4) The number of cold days was observed to be decreasing at a rate of 14-17 days per century, whereas the number of warm days was increasing

5) The study indicated that 2°C temperature rise would adversely affect the size of the area suitable for sorghum production in the country (from a simulation model)

"Zimbabwe like most other African countries will be the least prepared to cope with climate change. The threat of increased global warming associated with the release of greenhouse gases is real. Harare and Bulawayo have experienced a warming of about 2 degrees Celsius in the last 30 years and precipitation patterns also show a reduction of 30 percent in rainfall," Ms Chasi said.

She said the findings by the Met Services also showed that floods and droughts in the region are gradually increasing in number and frequency.

The study also indicates that:

i) Water resources are expected to dwindle

ii) The evergreen forests of the Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe may be reduced to seasonal forests

iii) Southwest Zimbabwe may produce desert conditions

iv) Maize yields are likely to decrease considerably

v) Climate change may negatively impact on our efforts to achieve sustainable development

vi) Climate change may lead to declining water resources, reduced agricultural productivity, spread of vector-borne diseases to new areas, high risks to forests (outbreaks of fires), drop in fish population and increased flooding from sea level rise and heavier rainfall

Zimbabwe in the just-ended rainfall season experienced weather conditions, which were highly unusual and unprecedented in many areas. In the first half of the rainfall season (Oct to Dec), the rainfall in some parts of the country was the highest on record while drought conditions continued to worsen in the second half -- January to March.

There is nothing similar in recorded weather history to rainfall recorded in Zimbabwe last December. Since 1987, Zimbabwe has recorded six warmest years and this is consistent with a warming trend, which was being experienced in other parts of the continent and elsewhere in the world.

The level of one of Bulawayo's major water supply dams, Umzingwane has been declining since 1977,the 80s, the 90s and onwards in the 2000s owing largely to extreme weather changes -- severe droughts coupled with flooding in the others years.

Climate experts say Africa will be hit hardest and earliest when it is the rich industrialised countries in the North that are responsible for 75 percent of green house gas emissions.

Africa only emits about 3,6 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions per year. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that Africa will suffer the most from the impacts of climate change.

Climate experts say Africa is steadily warming, climate is changing and that there will be further changes in rainfall and temperatures. Africa is warmer by 0,5 degrees Celsius than it was a century ago. Climate experts say Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change because of various factors such as widespread poverty, the unsustainable use of natural resources, over-dependence on rain-fed agriculture and weak institutional support structures.

Global surface temperatures have warmed by up to 0,8°C since the turn of century and climate experts say human activities are largely responsible for altering the atmospheric chemistry, particularly CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

Global sea surface temperatures have risen while climate change statistics indicate that globally the sea level has risen by 10-25 cm in the last 100 years.

Climate change studies also show an increase in GHG concentrations from 1980s and extremes in climate over the same period. They say the main impact of climate change on the continent will be increased frequency of natural disasters, droughts, floods and other weather extremes that lead to loss of life, economic disruptions, social unrest and forced migration as well as major environmental problems.

Prolonged drought periods will cause stress on water resources and reduce food security due to diminished agricultural productivity, increase outbreaks of vector borne diseases and other health impacts. In addition, climate change poses a threat to forestry, water resources, biodiversity and other natural resources.

Globally, precipitation patterns have changed. Rainfall patterns in Zimbabwe also show similar trends with rainfall characteristics such as onset, dry spell, rainfall intensity, rainfall amounts showing signs of change.

Zimbabwe is experiencing an increase in the frequency of floods. Cyclone-induced flooding included cyclone Bonita 1996, Eline 2000, Japhet 2003 and another in 2007.

"With predictions that agricultural productivity in Zimbabwe could decrease by up to 30 percent because of increases in climatic extremes, climate change poses one of the most serious food security challenges of the 21st century in the country," Ms Chasi said.

"The high prevalence and intensity of poverty may amplify the negative impacts of climate change, particularly among rural and peri-urban populations, with unprecedented consequences on an already degraded environment."

Today, tobacco is grown in more than 100 countries. 80 of these are developing third world countries and in many the growing of tobacco is a major environmental problem.

Here are some of the reasons why:

How tobacco is damaging the health of our world:

• Many tobacco growing countries have a big problem with deforestation. Trees are cut down to make way for tobacco fields, and to produce wood for drying tobacco leaves. Together, this represents almost 2% of global deforestation

• Nearly 5% of forests are going up in smoke thanks to tobacco cultivation in developing countries

• Growing of tobacco necessitates a vast array of toxic fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides which damage the environment. A tobacco field is sprayed several times during the growing season

• Most importantly, the growing of tobacco in developing countries reduces food production. Tobacco plantations take up space that could be used to produce food for 10 to 20 million people

How tobacco is staining our nation:

• 40% of all litter removed from our streets are cigarette stubs

• Cigarettes and matches are the most common source of ignition causing deaths from fire

So that’s what we mean by the bigger picture. Yes, by giving up you are doing yourself a huge favour. You’ve already improved your own health and quality of life. But you’ve also opted out of an industry and a habit that is harming the health of the environment at home and abroad. Ultimately, cigarettes are harming the very world we all live in.

That’s quite a thought to carry with you. By staying smoke-free you’re improving life for yourself and those around you. You also have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re no longer contributing to a poorer environment – either on your own doorstep or the other side of the world.

So STOP SMOKING NOW and make a world of difference.

Labels: deforestation, environment, environmental, tobacco

Working out the environmental impact of the food we buy can be confusing. It's no longer just about food miles - there's production, processing, packaging and storage to weigh up too.

What are Food Miles?
More people are stopping to consider the impact that everyday goods - including food - have on the environment. Food miles, the distance food travels from field to plate, is a way of indicating the environmental impact of the food we eat. Half the vegetables and 95 per cent of the fruit eaten in the UK comes from beyond their shores.

Increasingly, it arrives by plane - and air travel gives off more CO2 than any other form of transport.

The term 'food miles' was coined in the 1990s by Dr Tim Lang, professor of food policy at London's City University. While the idea of food miles has become common currency, many other processes contribute to the carbon footprint of our food. Agriculture, processing, storage and the way we shop all have to be factored into the bigger carbon emissions picture.

Together these factors combine to make the food we eat responsible for a third of UK households' impact on climate change.

Air grievance
The most contentious food miles are clocked up by the fresh fruit and vegetables arriving by plane from across the globe. Reducing the carbon footprint of food is not as simple as choosing not to buy fresh fruit and vegetables flown in from Africa or South America, however.

Although air-freighted produce accounts for less than one per cent of total UK food miles, it is responsible for around 11 per cent of the total CO2 emissions from UK food transport. That's because transport by plane generates 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping does, for example, and it's the fastest-growing way of moving food around, according to latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

The most recent increase is affected by imports of animal feed from Brazil and the USA, but it is the green beans grown in Kenya, 70 per cent of which are destined for UK supermarkets, that draw much of the anti-air freight fire.

Because of concerns about the carbon emissions generated by air-freighting, Marks and Spencer and Tesco now label fresh produce flown in from abroad with a sticker depicting an airplane.

Miles in the Balance
Others believe that highlighting the fact that the food is air-freighted can demonise such produce and threaten the livelihoods of some of the world's poorest people, who are dependent on exporting by plane. The £200million fresh fruit and vegetable trade with the UK supports one million people living in Africa.

To support environmentally friendly food production without unnecessarily harming vulnerable developing economies, the Soil Association has decided that, in order to qualify as 'organic', all air-freighted food will have to meet ethical trade standards from 2009. Incidentally most Fairtrade fruit, such as pineapples, bananas and mangoes, is transported by sea.

Lorry loads
Food transport is responsible for 25 per cent of the kilometres clocked up by HGVs on our congested roads. Supermarkets have national distribution systems, so even food grown near a particular branch may have travelled by lorry to a central depot and back to its place of origin. Ingredients used in the food processing industry travel around the country from factory to factory before reaching the shops.

All these journeys around Britain mean that HGVs transporting food transport are responsible for a quarter of CO2 emissions.

Car Culprits
It's easy to overlook the fact that the food we eat clocks up extra miles on the drive to the supermarket and back. The last set of figures looking at the distance food travels found a seven per cent increase in city car journeys making longer and more frequent trips to the shops. Cars are responsible for 20 per cent of the UK's CO2 emissions from food transport.

Is home-grown always better?
Even locally grown and organic food can be kept chilled for months. Refrigeration requires energy; trying to cheat our climate by growing fruit and vegetables outside their natural season is also contributing to climate change.

A 2005 Defra report indicated that it can be more energy-efficient to import tomatoes from Spain by lorry than to grow them in a heated greenhouse in the UK. Lettuce grown out of season in the UK also compared unfavourably with Spanish salad when total carbon emissions were measured.

DID YOU KNOW?
A study carried out at Lincoln University in New Zealand concluded that rearing and distributing British lamb produces more CO2 emissions than importing the meat 11,000 miles by sea. New Zealand farmers use more renewable energy and less fertiliser, so agriculture is much more energy efficient than the UK's, making up for the food miles.

Carbon 'foodprint'
Different farming systems use varying amounts of energy. The reckoning of all the carbon emissions produced in the growing, processing and distribution of our food starts in the field. Measuring the environmental impact, from fork to plate, is known as the life cycle.

Organic farming uses less energy because it relies much less heavily on fertilisers and chemicals used in intensive farming, the manufacture of which creates greenhouse gases.

Meat is the most energy-intensive of all foods to produce, taking up larger amounts of water than any other food production - 2,400 litres of water to produce a 150g hamburger compared to 13 litres of water for a 70g tomato. Cows give off methane which contributes to global warming, too. Livestock rearing generates more greenhouse gases than transport does.

Processing and packaging also contribute to food's carbon footprint, as does keeping it chilled or frozen. All these carbon emissions can outweigh those produced by food miles.

Is there still mileage in food miles?
While some think the term food miles will be superseded by a life cycle carbon footprint, it is still important to keep track of the distance food travels.

Food miles have jump-started the debate about the carbon footprint of our food. Paul Steedman of the Food Ethics Council insists they're still a valuable concept, although only one component of the life cycle of food. 'It's heartening the way people are now thinking about the ethics of food, and we don't want to throw the baby out of the bathwater,' says Steedman.

He and others would argue that comparing English and New Zealand apples in July and finding that the imports score lower on carbon emissions is a red herring, because consumers shouldn't expect to eat apples out of season and that supermarkets shouldn't be selling unseasonal fresh fruit and vegetables all year round. That way, he argues, the responsibility wouldn't lie with shoppers having to weigh up which foods are better for the environment.

Carbon labelling
But a global food economy seems here to stay and consumers will doubtless continue to demand the out-of-season produce that they've grown used to. The challenge is to reduce the impact food production has on climate change.

By working out a way of measuring how much CO2 is given off at every stage of production that's partly what the Carbon Trust is helping organisations to do. Look for the pilot label showing the carbon emission in grams on Walkers cheese and onion crisps. Innocent smoothies are being measured and already the fruits' journey from India has been shown to make up less than a quarter of the carbon emission tally on its mango and passion fruit smoothie.

Following a pledge by its chief executive Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco is working with the Carbon Trust to map the carbon footprint of foods including tomatoes, potatoes and orange juice. Companies opting for the Carbon Trust scheme must commit to reducing emissions or lose the right to use the label.

Only when several similar foods have their carbon footprint measured can shoppers choose their foods accordingly. Until then, shopping locally for what's grown locally (and, preferably, organically) and in season, may be the only guarantee that the food we buy is doing the least possible damage to our environment.

Labels: carbon emissions, carbon footprint, carbon trust, co2, environment, environmental, fairtrade, food miles, greenhouse gas emissions, organic, soil association

Financial incentives for cutting carbon emissions could earn developing countries up to US$13 billion in carbon credits per year — but there are several issues for policymakers to tackle first, says a new study.

The study, published in the latest issue Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, analyses the best ways to reward developing countries that manage to reduce their carbon emissions from deforestation.

Authors Johannes Ebeling and Maï Yasué estimated the carbon credits that could be generated by reducing emissions from deforestation (or 'RED'), based on annual deforestation data from 1990—2005.

They found that a ten per cent global reduction could generate a 'carbon finance' of up to about US$13 billion per year.

They suggest that the funding issues faced by forest conservation might be addressed by linking RED efforts with the international carbon market, responsible for transactions worth US$33.3 billion in 2006.

A scheme known as REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) has been proposed for the new protocol that will replace Kyoto in 2012.

But REDD will mainly benefit countries with a record of heavy deforestation, which may hinder political support from countries with a good REDD record, the authors warn.

Ebeling told SciDev.Net that a solution must be found so that countries with restricted deforestation are compensated.

Another major concern is that countries that could benefit most from REDD credits, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia, score low on governance. These countries, say the authors, tend to have higher deforestation rates and less success in conservation.

"Even if lower deforestation rates are achieved, weak governance structures may make it difficult to pass on benefits to rural populations, and corrupt government agencies may show little interest in sharing benefits fairly or support bottom-up conservation initiatives," write the authors.

Following last year's UN climate-change meeting in Bali, there has been some debate about forest conservation methods. Suggestions have included incorporation into carbon-trading schemes and an international fund for tackling deforestation (see Managing world's tropical forest spurs debate).

"Given that deforestation accounts for over 20 per cent of anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emissions, it is essential that [RED credits] are at the centre of the process," says Matthew Owen, director of Cool Earth, a UK nongovernmental organisation.

"Relying on a fund would give a limited amount of cash but, with RED credits, nations will be able to independently trade them in a global carbon market, that will only grow in size."

Labels: carbon credits, carbon emissions, carbon finance, climate change, deforestation, kyoto, REDD

Costa Rica will plant seven million trees in 2008 to soak up as many greenhouse gas emissions as it produces, in a bid to become the world's first carbon neutral nation, a top official said Monday.

"The stated goal is to be the first neutral country as far as greenhouse gas emissions is concerned," said Energy and Environment Minister Roberto Dobles.

"To get there, this administration is betting on halting deforestation and on the 'Plant a Tree' project," he added, referring to an ongoing government initiative to plant as many trees as possible in the country.

The project aims to "plant seven million trees this year, meaning that in our country there would be 1.5 trees for each Costa Rican.

He added that in 2007 the country managed to plant five million trees, spurred by the desire to forestall an impending environmental catastrophe.

"Climate change is the main threat facing humanity and, even so, the world still can't agree to fight this problem," Dobles said.

Every country can help in the struggle, even a small nation like his own, Dobles said.

"We all know developed countries and big developing nations like China, Brazil and India are chiefly responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that destroy the ozone layer.

"That doesn't mean a country like Costa Rica should stand by doing nothing. On the contrary, we're working on a series of initiatives on the national and global levels to lessen the impact" of climate change, the minister said.

(PICTURE: The Monteverde Costa Rica Cloud Forest is one of the most famous conservation areas in Central America. It's a tropical rain forest but because of it's altitude (1400 meters or 4.600 feet), it's called a Cloud Forest.)

Labels: carbon neutral, climate change, costa rica, energy, environment, environmental, forest, ghg, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, rainforests

Anyone who wants to help save the planet should turn vegetarian, according to Sir Paul McCartney.

The former Beatle said the world's meat industry was one of the main contributors to global warming.

Sir Paul urged people to tackle the problem by turning to a meat-free diet.

"I would urge everyone to think about taking this simple step to help our precious environment and save it for the children of the future," he said in an interview with animal rights organisation Peta.

The superstar became a vegetarian himself after watching lambs play in a field outside his home.

When asked what was the most important change someone could make to help the environment, he said: "I think the biggest change anyone could make in their own lifestyle would be to become vegetarian.

"The surprising thing is that even though many of us, including me, were brought up as traditional meat and fish eaters, it is a simple matter these days, and an exciting one, to consider changing your diet to a healthier one which not only brings benefits to the person who does it but also to the planet as a whole."

He said he found it "very surprising" that most major environmental organisations left vegetarianism off their lists of top ways to tackle global warming.

"Of course there are many powerful businesses which would wish to resist this idea but it is becoming clearer that a simple change in people's lifestyles could make a major difference to our environment," he said.

"What is interesting is that nowadays it is so easy to become vegetarian and so many people are reducing meat in their diet.

"That is a simple but extremely effective step that many people could take to help the environment and improve their own health at the same time."

Sir Paul, 65, appears along with Alicia Silverstone, Casey Affleck and Forest Whitaker in the latest Peta campaign promoting vegetarianism.

Labels: animal rights, environment, environmental, global warming, peta, save the planet, sir paul mccartney, the beatles, vegetarian

The halting of logging in the world's rainforests is the single greatest solution to climate change, Prince Charles has said.

He called for a mechanism to be devised to pay poor countries to prevent them felling their rainforests.

The prince told the BBC's Today programme that the forests provided the earth's "air conditioning system".

He said it was "crazy" the rainforests were worth more "dead than alive" to some of the world's poorest people.

The world's forests store carbon in their wood and in their soils.

But they are being felled for timber products, food and now bio fuels. Experts say this carbon is being released into the atmosphere and contributes to global warming.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, published in 2006, suggested that the destruction adds about 18% to the CO2 from human sources.

Prince Charles said of the rainforests: "When you think they release 20 billion tonnes of water vapour into the air every day, and also absorb carbon on a gigantic scale, they are incredibly valuable, and they provide the rainfall we all depend on."

He said a way had to be found to ensure people living in the rainforest were adequately rewarded for the "eco-system services that their forest provides the rest of the world".

He said: "The trouble is the rainforests are home to something like 1.4 billion of the poorest people in the world.

"In order to survive there has to be an effort to produce things which tends to be at the expense of the rainforest.

"What we've got to do is try to ensure that those forests are more valuable alive than dead.

"At the moment there's more value in them being dead. This is the crazy thing."

Prince Charles said of the rainforests: "When you think they release 20 billion tonnes of water vapour into the air every day, and also absorb carbon on a gigantic scale, they are incredibly valuable, and they provide the rainfall we all depend on."

He said a way had to be found to ensure people living in the rainforest were adequately rewarded for the "eco-system services that their forest provides the rest of the world".

He said: "The trouble is the rainforests are home to something like 1.4 billion of the poorest people in the world.

"In order to survive there has to be an effort to produce things which tends to be at the expense of the rainforest.

"What we've got to do is try to ensure that those forests are more valuable alive than dead.

"At the moment there's more value in them being dead. This is the crazy thing."

Drought and starvation

The prince called on governments, big business and consumers to demand an end to logging in the rainforest.

He said the time was right to persuade business to play its part because there was increasing concern about global warming.

"Halting deforestation would be the easiest and cheapest way in helping in the battle against climate change," he said.

"Waiting for all the new technologies to come on stream is not going to be soon enough."

Charles said if deforestation did not slow down soon there would be "far more drought and starvation on a grand scale".

Urgency

He said: "We're asking for something pretty dreadful unless we really understand the issues now, and urgency of those issues.

"It is the easiest way to create a win on the climate change front while all sorts of other things come along later."

The BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, says that Prince Charles' observation that saving the forests is the cheapest and most effective way of cutting CO2 emissions is "widely acknowledged".

At the recent Bali climate conference, developing countries asked for compensation from rich nations if they agreed to avoid future deforestation.

Talks are continuing, but there are issues over sovereignty – and genuine difficulties over who pays, who collects, and how much money should be offered.

Mike Childs, of Friends of the Earth, said: "The Prince is absolutely right to highlight deforestation as the single greatest cause of climate change, but putting a stop to it much more complex.

"Forests are cut down for many different reasons, such as the growing of food, animal fodder and bio fuels."

Labels: bio fuels, carbon, climate change, co2, deforestation, eco-system, economics, friends of the earth, global warming, prince charles, rainforests, stern review

Welcome to C4C's blog.

WHAT HAVE YOU CLICK4'D TODAY??