MAY 2007
norway to buy its way into forefront of carbon cutting
"Norway will be at the forefront of international climate effort. I propose that in the period up to 2050 Norway will undertake to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 100% of our own emissions." He said the government would "sharpen" measures to meet its existing obligations under the Kyoto protocol by 10% in the period up to 2012, and had agreed to a 30% cut in emissions by 2030.
The prime minister's proposal propels Norway to the top of the international carbon cutting league. Britain has legally committed itself to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% up to 2050, California has proposed 80%, and both Sweden and Iceland have pledged where possible to stop all oil imports by then. Europe says it intends to cut emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 30% if others make similar cuts.
Like other wealthy countries, Norway intends to reach its target mainly by offsetting its 54m tonnes of carbon emissions a year using quotas bought on international markets. The country, which is the world's fifth largest oil exporter, has built up savings from oil and gas exports of nearly $300bn. Norwegian emissions per capita are about 11 tonnes, almost three times the world average.
Although the proposals were widely welcomed in Norway, critics argued that the country would be doing much more to fight climate change if it stopped producing oil and gas that other countries burn. "It should do more at home rather than use its vast oil wealth to buy its way out of the problem," said a spokesman for environmental group Greenpeace. "Norway should take responsibility for the 500m tonnes of emissions that it causes by its exports of oil and gas."
It was unclear last night whether Norway intended that its targets would include its large shipping and aviation emissions, which are not at the moment part of Kyoto treaty targets.
VERY IMPORTANT COMMENT ON SMALL
FARMERS AND INDIAN GOVT.INTRO OF GM FOOD WHICH MAY RELATE
TO THE DEATH OF BEES
ZNet Commentary
India needs her small farmers For food security,
livelihood security, peace and democracy April 06, 2007
By Vandana Shiva
India is a land of small farmers, with 650 million of her
1 billion people living on the land. In other words, the
land provides livelihood security for 65 per cent of the
people, and the small farmers provide food security for 1
billion.
Policies driven by corporate globalisation are pushing
farmers off the land, and peasants out of agriculture.
This is not a natural evolutionary process. It is a
violent and imposed process. The 150,000 farmers suicides
are one aspect of this violence. The killing of dozens of
peasants in Nandigram who were resisting land acquisition
for a Special Economic Zone is another aspect of the
violence involved in the forced uprooting of India's
small farmers.
Citizens have been outraged and shocked by both
dimensions of the violence against the providers of our
food. Yet the government is putting the policies of
uprooting the peasantry on fast forward. The Prime
Minister, the Agriculture Minister, the Head of the
Planning Commission have all made statements that are in
effect a declaration of a war against the small farmers,
treating two-thirds of India's population as disposable.
It is the small biodiverse farm, which has higher
productivity than large industrial farms. Large farmers
and industrial farming has serious limitations on
increasing agricultural productivity.
Productivity is output per unit input. Biological
productivity is output per unit acre. Small biodiverse
farms have higher productivity than monocultures, which
are a necessary aspect of industrial agriculture based on
external inputs. Higher biological productivity
translates into higher incomes for small farmers. In
Rajasthan, monocultures of Pearl Millet gave Rs. 2480 of
net profit per acre, whereas a biodiverse farm of Pearl
Millet Moth Bean Sesame gave Rs. 12045, a difference of
nearly Rs. 10,000 per acre. In Uttaranchal, a monoculture
of paddy gave Rs. 6720 per acre, whereas a biodiverse
farm gave Rs 24,600 per acre, a difference of Rs. 16,000.
In Sikkim, a monoculture farm of maize gave Rs. 4950 per
acre while a mixed farm of maize, radish, Lahi saag and
peas gave Rs. 11,700. Navdanya's rice and wheat farmers
have doubled the production of rice and wheat by using
indigenous seeds and organic methods. Jhumba rice in
Uttaranchal has 176 quintal per ha of biomass production
compared to 96 quintal per ha of Kasturi, a high yielding
rice variety. The paddy yields are 104 and 56 quintal per
ha respectively.
Farmers in West Uttar Pradesh have got 62.5 quintal per
ha using a native wheat variety 308 for organic
production compared to 50 quintal per ha for chemically
produced wheat.
Small farmers have tremendous scope for increasing
productivity because the natural capital - the soil, the
water, the biodiversity, can be enhanced through
conservation and rejuvenation. On large farms, natural
resources are exploited and depleted. The soil looses
fertility through chemical fertilizers; it is compacted
by heavy machinery. Water is over exploited since
chemical farming needs ten times more water than
ecological farming. Biodiversity is eroded since
industrial scale farming can only be practised as a
monoculture. And energy use is intensified, contributing
to global warming. The small farms of India have the
highest potential for increasing productivity. There are
scientific reasons for this. A small farmer can intensify
biodiversity and the higher the biodiversity, the higher
the productivity and stability and sustainability of
agriculture. A large farm has to intensify external
inputs such agrichemicals and fossil fuels, which lower
the productivity, and lead to non-sustainability and
economic and ecological vulnerability. When the
industrial model of high external inputs is imposed on
small farmers, the result is debt and suicides. The
industrial model of farming is at the root of farmers'
suicides. Yet, the disease is being offered as a cure.
Every government institution, which should be
looking after the welfare of the country and the welfare
of small farmers, is launching an assault on the
peasantry. The Agriculture Minister, Sharad Pawar, whose
job is to look after farmers' and provide them livelihood
security has stated that farmers' need to be
"weaned" off the land.
And the Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek
Singh Ahluwalia has talked of "the feasibility of
large corporate ownership of farmland" (Economic
Times, 28/03/07)
The peasants of Singur and Nandigram, Paradip and Kalinga
Nagar, have declared loudly and consistently that they
intend to farm their land. The future defined by the
majority of small farmers of India is in terms of their
land sovereignty and food sovereignty. India needs her
small farmers because her freedom is in their hands.
Wherever the totally inappropriate model of industrial
corporate agriculture has been applied, farmers are in
distress, the soil has been destroyed, and the water has
been over exploited and polluted. And wherever the
government has pushed rural communities off the land for
industrialization, it has had to use violence and has
created zones where Naxalism is viewed as the only
alternative.
A food secure and peaceful India is in the hands of her
small farmers. Without small farmers, India will be a
food insecure, violent and undemocratic society.
The Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) had neglected
demands of the small farmers. The Congress lost two
regional elections because of the crisis in food and
agriculture the government is creating in order to
benefit its friends in the corporate world - the
Monsanto's and Cargills, the ITC's and Levers, the
Reliance's and Wal-Mart's.
In 2009, India will have its general elections. If the
anti-farmer, pro-corporate policies continue to be pushed
by the Prime Minister, the Agriculture Minister, the Vice
Chairman of the Planning Commission, the Congress will
have to pay a heavy price.Shiva
India needs her small farmers For food security,
livelihood security, peace and democracy Apr 06
Uganda forest protest turns deadly
Four people have been killed in the Ugandan
capital Kampala during protests against a government move
to allow an Indian-owned company to grow sugar cane in a
protected forest. Two men of Asian origin were
stoned to death by protesters and security guards shot
dead two demonstrators who were trying to break into a
shop, police said.
Troops in armoured cars were deployed in Kampala after
police fired tear gas and live rounds to stop rioters
attacking Asian businesses.
Thousands had rallied in the capital against the plan to
clear around 7,000 of the 30,000 hectares (75,000 acres)
in Mabira Forest Reserve east of Kampala.The government
plans to seek parliamentary approval before handing over
the forest land to the Indian-founded Mehta Group
for sugar cane farming. Military police beat and
dispersed the demonstrators, who had also attacked
motorists of Indian origin and burnt a truck that was
carrying sugar.
"All Indians should go back to Bombay. Mr President,
let Mabira stay," read some of the placards
brandished by the crowd. Temple Attacked
As scores of demonstrators hurled rocks at police
in pouring rain, officers rescued more than 100 Asian men
besieged in a Hindu temple and elsewhere.
Fifty-year-old Dipaul Patel said: "We were inside
the temple and the protesters started attacking us from
outside. "It was very frightening."
One witness, Senusu Mugodansonga, said a mob
killed an Asian man after he crashed a motorbike into
them. Frank Muramuzi, the organiser of the
demonstration, said the march began peacefully, before a
"misunderstanding" with the police.
"All of a sudden they opened fire with tear gas and
live ammunition," Muramuzi said.
Idi Amin, Uganda's former military ruler, expelled
Uganda's Asians in 1972. Thousands have returned,
but they are viewed with suspicion by some Ugandans who
resent their domination of many businesses. Police
commanders had approved Thursday's march, called to
protest against plans to cut down thousands of hectares
of Mabira forest to expand the estate of a local sugar
company, Scoul. Scoul is part of the Mehta Group.
The controversy began last year when
Yoweri Museveni, the president, ordered a study into
whether to use part of the forest to grow sugar
cane. Mabira - which has been a nature reserve
since 1932 - is one of Uganda's last remaining patches of
natural forest. The government's proposal has
angered many Ugandans, with some saying the environmental
costs of slashing the forest would far exceed the
economic benefits of the plantation.
Environmentalists say destroying Mabira could have grave
ecological consequences, from increased soil erosion to
the drying up of rivers and rainfall, and the removal of
a buffer against polluting nearby Lake Victoria.
They say it would also threaten monkeys and nine species
found only in Mabira and surrounding forests.
Dam project aims to
save Aral Sea
By Natalya Antelava
BBC News,
As the sun rises above the Aral Sea, Alek, a local fisherman, steers the boat, leans forward and pulls the net out of the glittering water.
It is full of carp, sturgeon and flounder - just two years ago he could not have even dreamt of this catch.
"All thanks to the dam," Alek grins as he throws the fish into a growing pile on the bottom of his rowing boat.
The dam is part of a $68m project, initiated by the Kazakh government and financed by loans from the World Bank.
It is an ambitious undertaking that
aims to reverse one of the world's worst man-made
environmental disasters and bring back the sea which many
predicted could never return.
TERRIFIC
ANTI-PESTICIDES VICTORY:
NYC SETTLES 7-YEAR OLD LAWSUIT WITH NO SPRAY COALITION,
ET. AL.
City admits that pesticides may remain in the
environment beyond their intended purpose and may cause
adverse health effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For seven years, the No Spray Coalition and other
environmental groups have battled the City of New York in
Federal Court in opposition to the Giuliani
administration's massive and indiscriminate spraying of
toxic pesticides, including Malathion.
On April 12, a federal judge signed a settlement
agreement in which New York City admits that the
pesticides sprayed may indeed be dangerous to human
health as well as to the natural environment.
The settlement agreement states that, contrary to the
City's prior statements, pesticides
- may remain in the environment beyond their intended
purpose - cause adverse health effects - kill mosquitoes'
natural predators - increase mosquito resistance to the
sprays, and - are not presently approved for direct
application to waterways.
This settlement agreement is a tremendous victory for
health advocates and a rebuff to the anti-environmental
polices of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Thousands of New Yorkers were made seriously sick by the
spraying. A number of members of the No Spray Coalition,
including several of the plaintiffs, died from
pesticide-related illnesses. Many suffer from Multiple
Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) or Asthma caused or
exacerbated by the spraying. We are very glad that the
new City administration has to some degree acknowledged
that pesticides are extremely dangerous to human health.
They need to be rejected as a way of killing mosquitoes.
In particular, the use of insect repellents containing
DEET should never be used, especially on children.
The settlement agreement stipulates that the City meet
with the Coalition for two 3-hour sessions. We will be
discussing that and other concerns with the City when we
meet.
One plaintiff in the lawsuit, artist Robert Lederman,
notes that in 1999 and 2000 then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
and other City officials claimed that the spraying was
"safe" and was used as "a last
resort" in its effort to kill mosquitoes said to be
vectors for West Nile encephalitis.
"This agreement represents the latest rebuff to the
notion that Giuliani was a good Mayor," Lederman
said. "In 1999 and 2000, while repeatedly spraying
the population of NY with pesticides derived from
Nazi-era nerve gasses, Giuliani appeared in daily press
conferences claiming that the chemicals were completely
harmless. The City of NY has now admitted that these
chemicals are harmful, that they persist in the
environment and that much more caution will have to be
used if they decide to ever spray them again."
Attorneys for the No Spray Coalition -- Joel Kupferman,
(NY Environmental Law and Justice Project, and National
Lawyers Guild), and Karl Coplan and Daniel Estrin (PACE
Environmental Litigation Clinic), announced that as part
of the settlement the City agreed to pay $80,000 to five
grassroots environmental and wildlife rehabilitation
groups and meet with the plaintiffs in several sessions
to review an extensive list of concerns that the
Coalition provided. The Plaintiffs are not permitted,
under the terms of the Clean Water Act, to receive a
monetary settlement themselves.
The resolution of the lawsuit begins a new phase in our
activities. In our letter of concerns to the City, which
is officially attached to the lawsuit settlement and
available for reading on our website, the No Spray
Coalition seeks to win official approval for a proposed
"Community Health and Environment Council."
Should the City approve this new Council, it would
- make recommendations on environmental health impacts of
pesticide use and alternatives
- review and propose alternative, nontoxic control of
mosquitoes.
- critique the city's official mosquito control plan
- offer new plans to replace adulticides with safe
materials
- assess agents chosen with regard to interaction with
all toxins in our living environment.
There is currently no testing of chemical or biological
agents in combination, and these
chemicals often have synergistic or cumulative impacts on
health and the environment that fall below the officially
designated danger zone when examined separately.
While we hope that the City would approve the proposal to
establish the Community Health and Environmental Council,
we recognize that it will probably take another prolonged
struggle to achieve that, the next step in our fight to
make the City accountable environmentally and health-wise
to the people subjected to these toxins.
We expect that the terms of the Settlement Agreement will
be especially helpful to those fighting against pesticide
spraying elsewhere. Indeed, we consulted with many
organizations not only in the U.S. but in Canada and
Mexico as well, and we negotiated clauses in the
Agreement with the needs of other locales in mind.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were:
No Spray Coalition
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
Disabled in Action
Save Organic Standards - New York (by its president,
Howard Brandstein)
Valerie Sheppard (Rest In Peace, Valerie!)
Mitchel Cohen
Robert Lederman
Eva Yaa Asantewaa.NoSpray Newz NYC settles anti-pesticides
lawsuit brought by No Spray Coalition