Saturday, May 26, 2007

U.S. set to reject targets on climate change


U.S. set to reject targets on climate change: report
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. is set to reject new targets on climate change at next month's Group of Eight summit, the Associated Press reported Saturday, citing a document released by environmentalists.
That would ruin Germany's and Britain's expectations for a new global agreement on carbon emissions, the report said.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants the meeting to agree on targets for greenhouse gas production cuts and a timetable for an agreement on emissions reduction that would succeed the Kyoto Protocol, AP said. The Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, is an agreement between developed nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
But unattributed comments on a draft summit communiqué suggest the White House has serious reservations, the AP news report said. Greenpeace attributed the comments to U.S. officials and said they were given to the group by an undisclosed third party, AP said.
"The U.S. still has serious fundamental concerns about this draft statement," the notes said, according to AP. "The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple 'red lines' tin terms of what we simply cannot agree to."
The document claims that the White House is 'fundamentally opposed' to many of the European objectives.
The 27 European Union members have agreed on a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The cut would rise to 30% if a broader international pact can be made, the AP said. See MarketWatch's special report on global warming.
At the June 6-8 Group of Eight summit in Heiligendamm, on Germany's Baltic Sea coast, Germany's Merkel wants to win agreements for a global cut in emissions of 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, as well as commitments to energy-efficient strategies, the news agency said. End of Story
Myra P. Saefong is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Carbon dioxide emissions to rise 59 percent by 2030



Carbon dioxide emissions to rise 59 percent by 2030


By Timothy Gardner
From Reuters


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Global emissions of the main gas scientists link to global warming will rise 59 percent from 2004 to 2030, with much of the growth coming from coal burning in developing countries like China, the U.S. government forecast on Monday.

Greenhouse emission forecasts will be watched widely in coming months ahead of a U.N. conference in Indonesia late this year in which world governments will discuss whether the Kyoto Protocol on global warming can be extended.

The United States, the world's top carbon dioxide emitter, in 2001 pulled out of the pact that requires developing countries to cut emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. China, the world's second-largest emitter, was not required, as a developing country, to limit emissions in the first round of the international agreement.

Global carbon dioxide emissions will hit 42.88 billion tonnes in 2030, up from 26.9 billion tonnes in 2004, and 21.2 billion in 1990, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its annual International Energy Outlook.

The forecast was down slightly from last year's prediction of 43.7 billion tonnes by 2030 on signs that concerns about global global warming have begun to change the world's fuel mix.

The trim in expected emissions did not represent the type of deep cuts of about 50 percent below 1990 levels in CO2 and other heat-trapping gases that scientists say will be necessary to cut risks of deadly storms, heat waves, droughts and floods that climate change could bring.

CHINA

The percentage of total CO2 emissions from plants that burn coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, will rise from 39 percent in 2004 to 43 percent by 2030.

By 2010, CO2 output in rapidly growing China, which is rapidly building coal plants and highways, will edge out emissions from the United States, by 6.49 billion tonnes to 6.21 billion tonnes, the EIA said. That confirmed a report this spring from the Paris-based International Energy Agency that said China would overtake the United States as the world's biggest CO2 emitter either this year or next.

By 2030 Chinese emissions will be 11.2 billion tonnes annually, while U.S. output will be 8.0 billion tonnes, the EIA said.

Chinese officials point to their country's relatively low per-capita emission of greenhouse gases, saying that historically, the main culprits of the emissions buildup in the atmosphere are developed nations, which have no right to deny economic growth to others.

In 2003, U.S. individuals were far bigger emitters, at 20 tonnes per capita against China's 3.2 tonnes per capita and a world average of 3.7, according to the U.N.

Many environmentalists say China is working hard to cut emissions. "In terms of absolute emissions China may overtake us, but they are much larger in terms of population ... and have actually put in some real policies in place to reduce emissions," said Gary Cook, director of the U.S. Climate Action Network, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations.

China's auto efficiency standards, for instance, are higher than those in the United States.

A mainstream energy source could get a boost as the debate on climate change goes on. Concerns about global warming, high fossil fuel prices, and domestic energy supplies could boost electricity generation from low-emissions nuclear power 7.7 percent annually in China and 9.1 percent a year in India from 2004 to 2030, the EIA forecast.

"There are some signs that concerns about global climate change are beginning to affect the world fuel mix," the EIA said.



Wednesday, May 16, 2007

13 years to turn round global warming


http://www.ftd.de/karriere_management/business_english/:Business%20English/199471.html

von Fiona Harvey und Gernot Wagner (London)

UN sets deadline to avoid worst effects. The rescue plan is "costly but affordable".

The world has until 2020 to reverse the trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change, the world's top climate scientists have warned. Achieving this would reduce the world's annual gross domestic product by 3 per cent in 2030, the UN expert panel concluded. Emissions have been rising for the past 150 years.

Charles Kolstad, professor of environmental economics at the University of California and a lead author of the report, told the FT: "It is costly but affordable. You do not want to throw that kind of money away. But if you want to accomplish the goal, then the cost is acceptable."

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to the required level can be achieved with today's technologies but bringing them into widespread use is likely to require extensive changes in public policy, according to the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group convened by the UN.

The cost of cutting emissions to the required levels would be about $1,500bn a year from 2020, according to estimates made by the FT based on data published by the IPCC. Global GDP is projected to double from $45,000bn last year to about $90,000bn in 2020.

The IPCC also estimates that $20,000bn must be spent by 2030 on the world's energy infrastructure which, if used in ways that help to reduce emissions, will help defray the costs. The report said the cost would be equivalent to shaving growth in the world's GDP by only 0.12 percentage points a year by 2030.

Most of the technology needed to achieve the necessary cut in emissions is already commercially available, including nuclear power, renewable energy generation and measures that promote energy efficiency.

Geoff Levermore of Manchester University, a lead author, said: "The [report] shows there is the technology available, it is affordable, but that improved government policies around the world are now required to help reduce emissions."

If emissions were to peak in 2015, which is viewed as unlikely to be achieved, and thereafter fall by about 50-80 per cent over the next several decades global warming would be limited to about 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC report found. The world has already warmed by about 0.7°C in the past century. But if emissions continue to grow until 2030, which is widely viewed as more likely, temperatures would probably rise by 3°C above pre-industrial levels.

This corresponds to a level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere equivalent to about 535 to 590 parts per million of carbon dioxide, according to the report.

Scientists fear that at levels above that, the likelihood of "feedback" effects which amplify temperature rises could result in runaway climate change - a rapid acceleration in temperature and effects such as more violent storms, desertification and a sharp reduction in agricultural productivity.

This is the third and final part of the most authoritative assessment of climate change to date, which has been six years in the making and drawn on the work of more than 2,500 scientists. The key findings have been agreed unanimously by more than 100 governments, including those of the US, China, India and the European Union, and will form the basis for international policy.

They will also provide the framework for discussions, set to begin this December in Bali, on a successor to the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the main provisions of which expire in 2012.

Though the picture of climate change painted in the report is bleak, the report showed signs of agreement that the costs of avoiding the worst effects are not as great as had been feared.

Monday, May 14, 2007

US tries to weaken G-8 climate change declaration


WASHINGTON -- Negotiators from the United States are trying to weaken the language of a climate change declaration set to be unveiled at next month's G-8 summit of the world's leading industrial powers, according to documents.

A draft proposal dated April 2007 that is being debated in Bonn by senior officials of the Group of Eight includes a pledge to limit the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as an agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The United States is seeking to strike that section, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

Many scientists have warned that an increase of more than 3.6 degrees this century could trigger disastrous consequences such as mass extinction of species and accelerated melting of polar ice sheets, which would raise sea levels.

The documents indicate that American officials are also trying to eliminate draft language that says, "We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change." Industrial and developing countries have used the United Nations as the forum for crafting climate agreements for years.

Neither the White House Council on Environmental Quality nor the State Department could immediately be reached for comment. Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has consistently advocated more climate research and voluntary energy-efficiency measures as the way to address global warming.

The G-8 leaders are scheduled to sign off on the global warming declaration during their June 6-8 summit in Heligendamm, Germany.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, along with outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, have been pushing for a strong statement on climate change as part of the June meeting, and newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said in his acceptance speech last week that global warming is his top priority.

The US representatives in Bonn, however, are trying to soften the message of the statement by deleting sections that would call on the industrialized world to modify activities linked to warming.

They also proposed striking one of the document's opening phrases, which says, "We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and sustain our common basis of living."

Philip Clapp, who heads the advocacy group National Environmental Trust and has read the document, said US opposition to the draft declaration could strain the country's relationship with its allies and jeopardize the world's ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decade.

"The administration is proposing to eliminate any statement that acting on global warming is urgent and all measures that will begin to reduce global warming pollution, including any proposal to improve the energy efficiency of our economy," Clapp said. "A continued US refusal to take a lead in combating global warming will set back progress for years."

In New York today, former president Bill Clinton and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will convene an international meeting of government officials and business leaders to trade ideas on ways to curb global warming.

Mayors and governors of more than 30 localities from Colombia to South Korea, along with chief executives from international companies, will join Clinton and Bloomberg for the conference that ends Thursday.

Although cities cover less than 1 percent of the earth's surface, they are disproportionately responsible for polluting it, contributing 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

"Cities must take responsibility for our contribution to global climate change," said Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, one of the participants. He will announce his own city's carbon-reduction plan tomorrow in California before traveling to New York.

The New York conference will include discussions on building greener cities, using renewable energy sources, transforming waste into energy, and finding ways to engage the private sector in the effort.

Bloomberg recently unveiled a 23-year plan to make New York sustainable over the long term. The city now has 8.2 million people and by 2030, there will be an additional million people living there. Conference participants are expected to discuss Bloomberg's most controversial program, which proposes charging motorists extra money for driving into the most congested parts of Manhattan as a way to reduce traffic and pollution.

The state Legislature must approve the congestion-pricing scheme, and many say it is a near-impossible hurdle because a great number of lawmakers from the city's outer neighborhoods of commuters will not support it.

The Bloomberg administration wants to reduce New York's emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases, essentially trap energy from the sun. City buildings, which consume electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and steam, contribute heavily to emissions.

Material from the Associated Press was included in this report.

Global warming to make 1 billion refugees


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2042001.cms

LONDON: Global warming will create at least one billion refugees by 2050 as water shortages and crop failures force people to leave their homes, sparking local wars over access to resources, a leading aid agency said on Monday.

In its report ‘Human tide: The real migration crisis’, Christian Aid said that as the developed world was responsible for most of the climate-changing pollution, it should bear the brunt of the cost of helping those worst hit by it — the poor. “We believe that forced migration is now the most urgent threat facing poor people in the developing world,” said lead author John Davison.

Scientists predict that average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 3.0 degrees Celsius this century because of greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, causing floods and famines and putting million of lives at risk.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that by 2080 up to 3.2 billion people — one third of the planet’s population — will be short of water, up to 600 million will be short of food and up to 7 million will face coastal flooding.

“We estimate that, unless strong preventative action is taken, between now and 2050 climate change will push the number of displaced people globally to at least one billion,” the Christian Aid report said. Security experts fear that the tidal wave of forced migration will not only fuel existing conflicts but create new ones in some of the poorest and most deprived parts of the world, those least equipped to deal with them, it said.

“A world of many more Darfurs is the increasingly likely nightmare scenario,” the report said, citing the conflict in the western Sudan where the United Nations says at least 200,000 people have been killed and 2 million forced out of their homes.

While many climate refugees would cross national borders — becoming an international problem — many millions more would be unable to leave their countries and would remain largely invisible to outsiders, it said. “These internally displaced persons, or IDPs, have no rights under international law and no official voice,” the report said.

“Their living conditions are likely to be desperate and in many cases their lives will be in danger.” Christian Aid said Colombia was second only to Sudan in the number of IDPs. Many displaced Colombians had been forced to flee by civil war but their number was now being swelled by those evicted from land destined for huge palm oil plantations.
People in Myanmar are also being displaced to make way for palm oil plantations and dams, it said.

Palm oil is in increasing demand to make biofuel as a substitute for petrol in the battle against global warming. In Mali, Christian Aid said that farmers were already having to leave their land to find work because erratic rains and falling crop yields were making their lives untenable.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

A Planet of Death or a World Reborn?



http://www.planetwork.net/ClimateEmergency.html – case sensitive

Up to now I have been somewhat casual about Climate Change, at least compared with the immediate direct causes of Mass Extinction. It seemed to me that the truly irrevocable consequences of climate were 50 to 100 years away and because climate change is so directly threatening to humanity we would deal with it.

On May 3 in Terrigal Australia my reality was totally rearranged. I had just finished a conference on Bio-Char, or as the Australians call it Agri-char, using charcoal to remove carbon from the atmosphere by improving the soil. And while the steady stream of giant ships carrying coal to China that we could see beyond the bay was disconcerting, the conclusions of the conference were generally encouraging. Even as everyone had acknowledged that energy would dominate until the price of carbon was bid up sometime in the future.

I was at the train station on the way to Sydney airport to fly to San Francisco when an Austrian expatriate farming a thousand hectares in Bolivia brought me the news. The Arctic ice is disappearing three times faster than predicted, instead of 2050 there will be no ice in 2020. We have 12 years. It is hopeless.

As we already knew from Tim Flannery’s keynote at the conference the day before, if the ice cover disappears from the Arctic the ocean there will no longer reflect, but instead absorb heat and rise 6 degrees centigrade within a few years. From there forward the entire weather pattern that humanity, and indeed most mammals, had evolved with would be gone. Even before that point we now know that while warming brings more rain, it comes in torrential storms, and increased transpiration and soil drying more than makes up for it brining on overall dryer conditions for agriculture.

The night before I had heard about this first hand from a farmer who had just lost his water. Irrigated agriculture was essentially finished in large and growing parts of south eastern Australia. Its one thing to give up on agriculture in Australia, but what about the central US, Europe and Asia? It is hard for us to imagine global famine, but many, indeed most civilizations have collapsed due to similar conditions on a local scale.

I spent the first day in despair, shock and the delirium of jetlag in fevered dreams. My mind reeling, unable to take on the magnitude of what appeared to be the reality of the situation. Twelve years or less; given the momentum of the system, of industrial technology, of coal, how could we do anything in the face of it.

But, gradually I regrouped and quickly went over to a more creative stance. What would it look like for humanity to have a future, to overcome this challenge? There are two precedents I can think of: WWII when we transformed our entire industrial infrastructure in little over a year in response to an enormous perceived threat, and the Apollo program; we went to the Moon and back in ten years with strong decisive leadership.

What will it take for us to meet this emergency challenge if we have 12 years instead of fifty?

First, no matter what, it will probably take/waste another 1-2 years to get to sufficient consensus to act as decisively as we need to. In the US this will be the next election cycle, but everywhere it will be a huge leap even from where we are now.

Then we get the tangible measures:

1. No more coal! It’s history, over, done. There is no such thing as clean coal. The energy is in the carbon bonds. Even if you make natural gas out of it there are still two CO2’s for each methane you make and another CO2 when you burn that. Pumping CO2 into oil fields is more about producing oil than really sequestering CO2.

2. Protect and re-grow the tropical forests. This will capture and remove net CO2 from the atmosphere. The forests in northern latitudes do not directly bring benefit to short term climate, but the tropical forests are the key. We are at a dangerous tipping point where drought could cause these forests to burn. But intact they make there own rain, and we may need to study how to help the frogs sing for the rain.

3. Make agricultural charcoal while also making energy out of biomass. This is the new breakthrough inspired by the ancient civilizations in the Amazon. If we gasify/pyrolyze biomass (agricultural waste, energy crops, forest waste and die-off) we can make a combination of energy and charcoal, which when buried in the ground improves soil fertility and water retaining properties while storing a large portion of the carbon there, preventing it from returning to the atmosphere. According to my initial back of the envelop calculations, when fully deployed we could remove on the order of 1 billion tons of carbon per year from the atmosphere, while producing on the order of 1 billion kWh of electricity or very roughly 1 Quad (1 quadrillion BTU) of energy. This is in one sense something like simply a retooling of automobile and truck manufacturing capacity, but still assumes 6 million units at 1MW capacity each.

To put this in perspective, we are currently emitting on the order of 7 billion tons per year of carbon from fossil energy e.g. coal, oil and gas. The greatest immediate reduction from this would be due to conservation, both technological and elective. For example, California realized a 15% reduction in electrical consumption in one year due to the electricity rate fraud perpetrated by Enron and other Texas based companies under deregulation.

4. Given sufficient motivation we might realize a 50% increase in efficiency in a few years, and another 50% of that in a few more years. Efficiency is the low hanging fruit as we in the US are so inefficient that we could make huge strides very quickly.

5. Crash program to increase renewables, wind, biomass, solar, geothermal (especially heat pumps), tidal, wave, ocean thermal. But to be honest, all renewables excluding biomass, which is currently co-firing coal plants, accounts for less than 1% of global energy production. Solar now is analogous to where automobiles were in 1900. There is enormous potential by 2100, but how much we can achieve in 10 years is a tremendous challenge.

6. Thorium nuclear might displace coal in existing centralized grids. There is a new Thorium nuclear technology that apparently has the potential to consume the existing stockpiles of uranium and plutonium, using it to seed a thorium breeder reactor that produces reaction products with a much shorter half-life than conventional reactor technology. This may be one of the miracles we need to make a bridge to truly renewable energy, while effectively cleaning up the nuclear mess we already have.

7. The end of feed lot beef production and industrial agriculture. The nitrogen emissions of American beef consumption may be worse than our SUV’s. Both for our own security and for reversing the problem, the path is the same: Slow down water, soak it into the soil, store it away as much as possible. Grow food locally, in your community, on your property, harvest or grow your own energy, from the sun wind and biomass; stabilize local security, and reduce your CO2 equivalent emissions. This is the new spiritual imperative.

8. The American Dream is not only negotiable, but defunct, no matter what we do. If we do not address Catastrophic Climate Change within a few years of the loss of the arctic the whole world will rapidly degenerate into violent anarchy, starting in the USA.

On the other hand, we have achieved a society with the highest standard of material consumption and the lowest levels of self-reported happiness of any culture in the history of the planet. The perpetuation of this system for a few more years is no reason to foreclose the future of all future generations of life on Earth. When united in a meaningful shared struggle people report high levels of meaning and satisfaction, even in the face of extreme material deprivation. A UN study seeking to identify the core root of the problems of the world ultimately arrived at one word: meaninglessness. We have a unique opportunity to rise to the greatest challenge in the history of humanity, to deliver to all future generations of life a vital and abundant planet with fully deployed truly sustainable technology for all. Nothing could be more meaningful.

But now it seems that we must do it in an unimaginable short time!

When I arrived back here in Boulder Colorado today, after a weekend at my community home at Solstice Grove in California building a new shrine for the temple and saying prayers, I discovered that that primary source of the story I had heard was NCAR, based here in Boulder, intentionally published in the Geophysical Review on May 1st just before the official report of the IPCC report, which was itself more political than scientific.

What the report from the NCAR scientists challenging the IPCC status quo report had actually said is that the Arctic ice is actually disappearing three times faster than the models used by the IPCC predict. The official line is that that ice may disappear in 2050-2100. So, three times faster, or 30 years earlier, would mean 2020-2033. So, instead of 12 years we may have as much as 25 years. A reprieve, maybe, but my initial reaction holds. We are now, “In a Climate Emergency!”

There is no time to waste, let us rise to the challenge and get on with the work to save the world. Never has there been such an opportunity for a heroic struggle. The transformation of the system required for survival will necessarily employ everyone in the world in the most meaningful work imaginable. And when we succeed the world will be reborn within our lifetime.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Death in the rainforest: fragile creatures give the world a new

Death in the rainforest: fragile creatures give the world a new  
climate warning

Amphibian and reptile numbers fall by 75% in Costa Rica reserve meant
to save them

Ian Sample, science correspondent
April 17, 2007
The Guardian (U.K.)


A protected rainforest in one of the world's richest biodiversity
hotspots has suffered an alarming collapse in amphibians and
reptiles, suggesting such havens may fail to slow the creatures'
slide towards global extinction.

Conservationists working in a lowland forest reserve at La Selva in
Costa Rica used biological records dating from 1970 to show that
species of frogs, toads, lizards, snakes and salamanders have
plummeted on average 75% in the past 35 years.

Dramatic falls in amphibian and reptile numbers elsewhere in the
world have been blamed on habitat destruction and the fungal disease
chytridiomycosis, which has inflicted a devastating toll across
central and South America. But scientists hoped many species would
continue to thrive in dedicated reserves, where building, land-
clearance and agricultural chemicals are banned.

The new findings suggest an unknown ecological effect is behind at
least some of the sudden losses and have prompted scientists to call
for urgent studies in other protected forest areas. The researchers,
led by Maureen Donelly at Florida International University, believe
climate change has brought warmer, wetter weather to the refuge, with
the knock-on effect of reducing the amount of leaf litter on the
forest floor. Nearly all of the species rely on leaf litter to some
extent, either using it for shelter, or feeding on insects that eat
the leaves.

The study revealed sharp declines among two species of salamander,
whose numbers fell on average 14.52% every year between 1970 and
2005. Frog species slumped too, with numbers of the mimicking rain
frog falling 13.49%, the common tink frog 6.69%, and the strawberry
poison frog 1.18% a year. Lizards suffered similar falls, with one
species, the striped litter skink, down 10.03% each year, and orange-
tailed geckos declining by 8.05% every year.

The researchers also analysed weather records for the region, which
revealed a rise of more than 1C in temperature over the 35-year
period and a doubling of the number of wet days. The study was
published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences yesterday. "All of the falls recorded elsewhere have been in
high, mountainous regions and those have mostly been driven by the
spread of fungus. All of the tests we've done for the fungus here
have been negative," said Steven Whitfield, a co-author of the study.

"Our best guess is that the declines are related to a drop in leaf
litter on the forest floor. Most of the species use leaf material as
a place to hide, but because it's moist, it's also a place to shelter
when it's dry and warm. Many of these species also feed on the
insects that eat the leaf matter, so if that disappears, so does
their food and shelter."

The scientists say it is crucial to extend the study to other
protected forests, such as those in Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, to
assess the populations of amphibians and reptiles there.

"If we are to design effective conservation strategies, we need to
know what's causing these declines. If it's down to a link between
climate and leaf litter, then we need to better understand that,"
said Mr Whitfield.

Amphibians are considered delicate sentinels of environmental change.
Sudden population collapses were first noticed during the 1980s,
during which more than 120 species are thought to have become extinct.

In Britain, the common toad population is "seriously threatened",
with natterjack toads having declined by 75% in the past century.
Numbers of great crested newts in the country have dropped by 60%
since the 1960s.

Last year, English Nature announced that the chytridiomycosis had
arrived in Britain following the escape of infected bullfrogs
imported from North America. The organisation destroyed 11,000 frogs
in an attempt to contain the spread.

The collapse of amphibian populations prompted 50 of the world's
leading conservation experts to call last year for an urgent mission
to save them from extinction. In a letter to the US journal Science,
the conservationists proposed a $400m (£217m) plan called the
Amphibian Survival Alliance, which would dispatch teams to collect
endangered amphibians for captive breeding.

John Fa, director of conservation science at the Durrell Wildlife
Conservation Trust in Jersey, said: "Something needs to be done in
terms of saving these species, and maybe that is captive breeding,
but it's difficult. You have to know that even if you're able to
breed up the numbers, will they survive in the environment when you
put them back?"
Declined at least 75% in the past 35 years, even in protected areas:
Common salamander; strawberry poison frog; Bransford's litter frog;
broad-headed rain frog; Noble's rain frog; mimicking rain frog;
common tink frog; Warszewitsch's frog; orange-tailed gecko; leaf
litter lizard; striped litter skink.



http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,2058785,00.html



Sunday, May 06, 2007

The Spirituality of Collapse

The Spirituality of Collapse Print E-mail
Written by ')" _base_href="http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/">Carolyn Baker
Sunday, 06 May 2007
by Carolyn Baker

Civilization is a mental/material world of culturally transmitted illusion.
— William Kötke



The first edition of this article was written in February, 2006, but I have recently revised and updated it. Since the first writing, the theme of collapse seems to have reverberated around the world, now manifesting its symptoms in the scientific community’s latest dramatic reports on global warming, the issue of Peak Oil coming further out of the closet — being discussed openly in mainstream media, and the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble that now finds 1 out of every 264 homes in the nation facing foreclosure as each day the value of the dollar decreases and the value of precious metals soars.

As I share my awareness of collapse with others, I meet a variety of responses. Many, especially those folks in academia, and the history profession in particular, view the idea of collapse with bemused scorn, asserting that while civilization might appear to be collapsing, current events are not really new and are merely variations on prior historical occurrences. At the opposite end of the spectrum, fundamentalist Christians read current events through the tea leaves of biblical prophecies—some putting their own and the planet’s life on hold as they await “the rapture”—and still others, like the LaHaye-Jenkins crowd, bankroll millions from the profits of their “end times” prognostications.

But in the spirit of one of the wisest teachers of all time, psychologist Carl Jung, I find bone-marrow truth, not in the cerebral disengagement of academia nor in the apocalyptic madness of literal interpretations of the Book of Revelation, but somewhere in the middle, holding, as Jung would say, the “tension of the opposites.” In holding that tension, Jung taught, lies the potential for transforming our inner and outer worlds.

For most Americans, heads anchored firmly in the sand, shrugging off anything they are now hearing about “Peak Oil,” still driving their gas-gulping SUVs, reveling in suburban sprawl, and gullibly counting on their pensions and 401Ks to be there when they need them, the notion of civilization’s collapse is still largely relegated to the lunatic fringe. Whatever the problem, they cluelessly argue, technology will find a solution. But millions of those same individuals are far deeper in debt than they were one year ago, and during that year, they have seen the prices of gas, food, and virtually everything else dramatically increase. Some of those Americans have in the past year have had to face the reality that they are part of the rapidly-vanishing middle class who are only one paycheck or one catastrophic illness away from financial oblivion—who between mortgage, car payments, monthly bills, childcare, medical expenses, gas prices, and doubling monthly credit card bills, now realize that not only will they not be able to pay for their kids’ college education but that every new day necessitates walking more precariously over an economic tightrope across a gaping precipice with a thousand-foot drop. Those folks know in their bones the reality of collapse—they feel it, smell it, taste it, but may not yet be able to allow the words to pass from their lips. It’s still too horrifying to fully contemplate.

For both groups of Americans, collapse is very bad news. It will mean the end of lifestyles they cannot imagine living without. They have become their lifestyle, and in its absence, they believe they will have no identity—that literally, they will cease to exist. For these folks, collapse will be extremely painful, and worse. Since they have isolated themselves in their hermetically-sealed suburban “dormitories,” they are not likely to survive unless they are willing to radically alter their behavior, and by the time they are, if they are, it may be far too late to do so.

Unquestionably, collapse will be brutal and agonizing. It is, in fact, the cessation of life based on fossil fuels, weather and climate as we have known them, and the money system to which we have become accustomed. It will be physically, economically, emotionally, and spiritually excruciating. It will test human beings, particularly those individuals who are not members of the ruling elite but who enjoy privileged, comfortable lifestyles devoid of sacrifice and inconvenience, beyond anything they could imagine in their worst nightmares. Some will endure; others will perish; in fact, some experts speculate that at least one-third of humans on planet Earth will not survive. Whether collapse occurs slowly or quickly, it will be torturous.

Collapse is a form of death, and Americans do not like the word “death.” We go to extraordinary lengths to dress it up, pretty-fy it, deny it, and as my favorite of all meaningless anti-death cliche goes, “put it behind us.” Like banshees, we drive ourselves heroically in the first half of life as if there were no death. It will engulf others but not us. We are the “exception,” and whether as individual Americans or as a nation, we are addicted to our exceptionalism—others will die; not us. Other civilizations will collapse; not ours. Yet it was Jung who said that, “There is a great obligation laid upon the American people—that it shall face itself—that it shall admit its moment of tragedy in the present—admit that it has a great future only if it has the courage to face itself.” (Report on America, International Psychoanalytic Congress, Nuremberg, 1910) America the nation is not likely to “face itself,” but as individual Americans, we must, if we intend to successfully navigate collapse.

I too resist collapse, but at the same time that I resist it for similar or different reasons from those around me, I am also consciously working to embrace it. To embrace something or someone is not necessarily to throw one’s arms wildly around that event or person, but to slowly, intentionally open to the gifts inherent in what we most dread. I do not say this lightly. I am a survivor of breast cancer. My world “collapsed” thirteen years ago when I was diagnosed with it. But as is frequently the case, my world was also transformed by a terminal illness, and I became a different person as a result of it. As the Buddhist teacher, Pema Chödrön writes, “Openness doesn’t come from resisting our fears, but from getting to know them well.” (Comfortable With Uncertainty, P. 47)

So what might be some of the gifts of collapse?

First, collapse strips us of who we think we are so that who we really are may be revealed. Civilization’s toxicity has fostered the illusion that one is, for example, a professional person with money in the bank, a secure mortgage, a good credit rating, a healthy body and mind, raising healthy children who will grow up to become successful like oneself, and that when one retires, one will be well-taken-care of. If that has become your identity, and if you don’t look deeper, you won’t discover who you really are; and when collapse happens, you will be shattered because you have failed to notice the strengths, resources, and gifts that abide in your essence which transcend and supercede your ego-identity. In a post-collapse world, academic degrees and stock portfolios matter little. The real question, as Richard Heinberg so succinctly puts it is: Do you know how to make shoes?

Just ask countless individuals who have had everything stripped away as a result of speaking truth to power. One day they were “solid citizens” with sterling careers; the next day, they were “enemies of the state” fearing for their very lives. We can learn much from their journeys about preparing for life after collapse. One way to prepare is to explore the issue of identity apart from one’s social roles. For me, a spiritual path has been crucial in assessing who I am apart from what I do.

Secondly, collapse will decimate our anti-tribal, individualistic, Anglo-American programming by forcing us to join with others for survival. You may own a home outright with ample acreage on which you have produced a stunning organic garden, have a ten-year cache of food and water, drive a hybrid car, and live a completely solarized life, but if you think you will survive in isolation, you are tragically deluded. Collapse dictates that we will depend on each other, or we will die.

I have been an activist for over thirty years. Without exception, every time I have been involved with other activists in promoting change, personalities clash, egos become bruised, people tantrum, become disillusioned, and walk away from the group. We all seem to have Ph.D.’s in “self-sufficiency” but remain tragically ignorant of genuine cooperation. We will transform this pattern as civilization collapses, or we will perish, and the process of that transformation probably won’t be a pretty picture. However, we can begin preparing in present time for the collective thinking and action that collapse will necessitate by, for example, starting “Solari Investor Circles”: which join small groups of people together to research the resources in their community and how they can use those to prepare for collapse. A particularly useful tool in the Solari model is the concept of “Coming Clean” by Catherine Austin Fitts, which offers individual and group guidelines for working harmoniously to transform our communities from the inside out. Another is my article “Preparing For Collapse: Three Things You Can Do”.

Not only will we be compelled to relate differently to humans, but to all beings in the non-human world as well. Only as we begin to read the survival manuals that trees, stars, insects, and birds have written for us, will our species be spared. The very “pests” that we resent as unhygienic or annoying may, in fact, save our lives. One year ago, the honey bees used to circle around me on warm days when I ate my lunch outside under the trees, sitting on the grass. Today, I sit under the same trees on the same grass, but the honey bees are gone. No one seems to be able to tell us why. Maybe it’s time to ask the bees to tell us why.

Paradoxically, collapse may bring meaning and purpose to our lives which might otherwise have eluded us. In our linear, progress-based existence, we rarely contemplate words like “purpose.” With civilization’s collapse, we may be forced to evaluate daily, perhaps moment to moment, why we are here, if we want to remain here, if life is worth living, if there is something greater than ourselves for which we are willing to remain alive and to which we choose to contribute energy. These decisions probably will not be made in the cozy comfort of our homes, but in the streets, the fields, the deserts, the forests, in the eerie echoing of our voices throughout abandoned suburbs, and beside forgotten rivers and trails. Purpose will rapidly cease being about what we can accomplish and will increasingly become more about who we are. In a collapsing world, the so-called “purpose-driven life” will no longer exist. Humans will be “driven” by only one issue: the determination to survive and assist loved ones in surviving. From that quest for survival will emerge authentic purpose, which will undoubtedly not resemble anything we can imagine today.

Lest the reader infer that I’m portraying collapse as some exercise in airy-fairy spirituality devoid of practicalities, I hasten to add that collapse will require humans to attend to the most pragmatic realities of existence—food, water, shelter, health care, and a host of other survival issues. As centralized systems such as federal, state, and local governments are eviscerated, communities will be compelled to unite in order to solve these issues—to grow gardens, make clothing and other items, treat each others’ illnesses, bury one another, create community currencies, and rebuild infrastructures on an intensely local level.

The quality of spirituality that may emerge from attending to such fundamentals may be a genuine “fundamentalism” in the truest sense of the word. In a post-collapse world, “fundamental” spirituality will be about caring for the basic needs of loved ones, becoming nurturing stewards of the ecosystems in whatever condition they may be at that time, noticing what one now values as opposed to what was most important prior to collapse—seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling all aspects of existence to which we were oblivious, or only mildly attentive, before the distractions were stripped away. Certainly, this is not likely to be the comfortable, privileged, indulgent spirituality of the New Age workshop circuit, but may more closely resemble the earth-based honoring of the sacred that our tribal ancestors so dearly revered.

Spiritually, we can now begin preparing for the collapse of civilization as we have known it by opening ourselves each day to the “lesser collapses” of civilization that we see around us, such as the loss of a viable, uncorrupted electoral process, the demise of centralized systems and corporations that no one ever thought would go bankrupt, the decay of infrastructure, and the deterioration of institutions such as education, religion, health care, and the legal system. Human beings have had several thousand years to create functional societies, and in many cases, they have. Those civilizations have also collapsed because all civilizations ultimately do. The United States has had 231 years to fashion a sustainable nation. With the death of Abraham Lincoln at the end of the Civil War, corporations and centralized systems triumphed in controlling every aspect of American life, and they have been doing so until the present moment. Thus, not surprisingly, in the 1970s when corporate America knew very well that U.S. oil production had peaked and that within three decades, the nation and the world would be confronting a catastrophic energy crisis, it did absolutely nothing, choosing rather to wallow in the profits of hydrocarbon energy and suppress alternative technology rather than assist the nation in building lifeboats.

For millennia, many indigenous people have described the demise of civilization we are now witnessing as a purification process—a time of rebirth and transformation. Their ancient wisdom challenges us to face with equanimity the collapse that is in process; that is, to hold as much as humanly possible in our hearts and minds, the reality of the pain the collapse will entail, alongside the unimaginable opportunities it offers. As Pema Chödrön would say, “Get to know collapse well.”

Some people tell me that they would rather not know what’s going on because they prefer to live their lives from day to day doing the best they can to make a better world, enjoy their loved ones, and earn their bread. I certainly understand their desire to protect themselves from the pain of awareness, but I also know that they are exchanging long-term preparedness for temporary comfort and that the pain of awareness in present time is far less than the pain they will incur as a result of ignoring it.

I do not claim to be an expert on collapse or spirituality, but I leave you now with these words from wise women and men who are:

Only with this kind of equanimity can we realize that no matter what comes along, we’re always standing in the middle of sacred space. Only with equanimity can we see that everything that comes into our circle has come to teach us what we need to know.
—Pema Chödrön

We are clearly destroying ourselves. And yet, in this act of self-destruction, something is being revealed to us. From this point of view, the endless self-destruction that we are perpetrating on each other is the atemporal footprint of this revelation, expressed in symbolic form, projected in time, as it is the medium through which we can recognize what is being revealed.

It is a scary time to be alive, but it is a wonderful time to be alive. It is good to know that there is so much accumulated intelligence and compassion among us.
—Richard Heinberg, Beyond The Peak

Never underestimate the power of compassionately recognizing what’s going on.
—Pema Chödrön