Environment  
  Link to 'Archive'  www.enjoyingenglish2008.org 
Feature: World Natural Disasters visit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/natural-disasters
Special Feature: Copenhagen Climate Change from The Guardian - end features

China faces severe environment challenges  06-03-2011 

Watch Video

Play Video

China still faces grave environmental challenges ahead, despite some progress being achieved in 2010.

The State Council's information office has issued a report on China's environmental situation over the last year. Officials say environmental quality has partially improved, but on the whole the problems are pressing. Acid rain, agricultural pollution, a deteriorating ecological system and surface water pollution are some of the major concerns.

In the meantime some environment protection projects have met or even exceeded their targets, such as the reduction of sulfur dioxide with emissions falling 14 percent compared to 2005. However as China starts its 12th Five Year Plan this year, it will be under growing pressure to solve multiple problems.

The State Council's information office has issued a report on China's environmental situation over the last year. Officials say environmental quality has partially improved, but on the whole the problems are pressing.

 

Related stories

• Central China drought has significant impact on environment 2011-06-03
• Drought hits environment and ecosystem in Jiangsu 2011-05-31
• China's eco-protection policies safeguard Tibet's unique environment 2011-05-19
• China's oceanic environment basically healthy: gov't report 2011-05-13

Editor:Zheng Limin |Source: CNTV.CN

Ozone layer faces record loss over Arctic 

AP – Britain's Prince Harry tries out an immersion suit, during training for the Walking with the Wounded …

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press John Heilprin, Associated Press – Tue Apr 5, 5:47 am ET

GENEVA – The depletion of the ozone layer shielding Earth from damaging ultraviolet rays has reached an unprecedented low over the Arctic this spring because of harmful chemicals and a cold winter, the U.N. weather agency said Tuesday.

The Earth's fragile ozone layer in the Arctic region has suffered a loss of about 40 percent from the start of winter until late March, exceeding the previous seasonal loss of about 30 percent, the World Meteorological Organization said.

The Geneva-based agency blamed the loss on a buildup of ozone-eating chemicals once widely used as coolants and fire retardants in a variety of appliances and on very cold temperatures in the stratosphere, the second major layer of the Earth's atmosphere, just above the troposphere.

Arctic ozone conditions vary more than the seasonal ozone "hole" that forms high in the stratosphere near the South Pole each winter and spring, and the temperatures are always warmer than over Antarctica.

Because of changing weather and temperatures some Arctic winters experience almost no ozone loss while others with exceptionally cold stratospheric conditions can occasionally lead to substantial ozone depletion, U.N. scientists say.

This year the Arctic winter was warmer than average at ground level, but colder in the stratosphere than normal Arctic winters. U.N. officials say the latest losses — unprecedented, but not entirely unexpected — were detected in observations from the ground and from balloons and satellites over the Arctic.

Atmospheric scientists who are concerned about global warming focus on the Arctic because that is a region where the effects are expected to be felt first.

Ozone scientists have said that significant Arctic ozone depletion is possible in the case of a cold and stable Arctic stratospheric winter. Ozone losses occur over the polar regions when temperatures drop below -78 degrees Celsius (-108 Fahrenheit), when clouds form in the stratosphere.

Average temperatures in January range from about -40 to 0 C (-40 to 32 F), while average temperatures in July range from about -10 to 10 C (14 to 50 F).

"The Arctic stratosphere continues to be vulnerable to ozone destruction caused by ozone-depleting substances linked to human activities," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud. "The degree of ozone loss experienced in any particular winter depends on the meteorological conditions."

The loss comes despite the U.N. ozone treaty, known as the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which has resulted in cutbacks in ozone-damaging chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons, halons and other, that were used in the making of refrigerators, air conditioners, fire extinguishers and even hairspray.

The 196-nation ozone treaty encourages industries to use replacement chemicals less damaging to ozone, the atmospheric layer that helps protect against the sun's most harmful rays.

But because these compounds have long atmospheric lifetimes, it takes decades for their concentrations to subside to pre-1980 levels as was agreed in the Montreal Protocol.

U.N. officials project the ozone layer outside the polar regions will recover to pre-1980 levels sometime between 2030 and 2040.

Chernobyl - 24 years on

By John Hall  Tuesday, 27 April 2010

GETTY

A ferris wheel and carousel abandoned in the amusement park in the ghost town of Prypyat, adjacent to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

• 'Chernobyl - a history in pictures'

 

24 years ago today, the world woke up to news of the Chernobyl disaster - the worst nuclear power plant accident in history. Our photo essay looks back at the event and its devastating consequences.

Click here or on the image to launch 'Chernobyl - a history in pictures'

Greenland ice sheet is safer than scientists previously thought

New study overturns fears that increased melting could lubricate the ice sheet, causing it to sink ever faster into the sea

• Damian Carrington  guardian.co.uk,  26.01.2011
• 
  
Melting ice sheet in Greenland. Photograph: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

The threat of the Greenland ice sheet slipping ever faster into the sea because of warmer summers has been ruled out by a scientific study.

Until now, it was thought that increased melting could lubricate the ice sheet, causing it to sink ever faster into the sea. The issue was a key unknown in the landmark 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which pinned the blame for climate change firmly on greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

However, the impact of rising sea temperatures on melting ice sheets is still uncertain, meaning it remains difficult to put an upper limit on potential sea level rises. Understanding the risk is crucial because about 70% of the world's population live in coastal regions, which host many of the world's biggest cities, such as London, New York and Bangkok.

"The Greenland ice sheet is safer than we thought," said Professor Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds, who led the research published tomorrow in Nature.

Shepherd's team used satellite imagery to track the progress of the west Greenland ice sheet as it slipped towards the sea each summer, over five years.

Researchers had feared that more melting from the surface of the ice in hotter years would in turn provide more meltwater for a slippery film at the sheet's base. More melting would mean more slippage and a greater rise in the sea level.

But they discovered that, above a certain threshold, the slipping began to slow. On-the-ground studies and work done on alpine glaciers suggest that higher volumes of meltwater form distinct channels under the ice, draining the water more efficiently and reducing the formation of a lubricating film.

The Greenland ice sheet studied by Shepherd's team is up to 1,000m (3,280ft) thick. If the entire ice sheet melted, sea levels would rise by a catastrophic seven metres, but this is likely to take 3,000 years if warm air blowing over the ice is the only way in which the ice melts.

Shepherd said most of the Greenland ice cap was on land and not in contact with the sea, unlike the west Antarctic ice sheet. That ice sheet contains enough water to push up sea level by six metres if it all melted.

He said the next scientific question to answer was whether warmer oceans would erode the edges of ice caps, causing them to fall rapidly into the ocean. "The real threat now is from the oceans melting the west Antarctic ice sheet, which is 3km-4km thick, of which 1km-2km is below sea level."

Shepherd said his work was helping to reduce uncertainties about the consequences of climate change. Asked if he thought his work suggested the wider risks of global warming could be discounted, he said: "Not at all."

China makes gain in battle against desertification but has long fight ahead

Expert warns it could take 300 years to recover desert land resulting from over-cultivation and water demands

• Jonathan Watts in Beijing  -  04.01.2011.

A child on a sand dune in Waixi, Gansu province, China, where desert is overtaking farmland. Photograph: Eugene Hoshiko/AP

China has gained a sliver of ground in its ancient battle against the desert sands, the government announced today, though it warned another 300 years may be needed to solve "the most serious ecological problem facing the country".

A survey showed more than a quarter of China's land remained either degraded or lost to sand and gravel due to a combination of a naturally dry climate, centuries of over-cultivation and decades of excessive demand on water and soil from the world's biggest population and fastest growing economy.

Unveiling the results, state forestry officials said desertification had been stabilised, but recovery efforts would have to be stepped up.

Despite the world's biggest tree-planting campaign, the relocation of millions of "eco-migrants" and restrictions on herding and farming, the report noted the "desertification trend has not fundamentally reversed".

There were small signs of improvement. In the five years to 2010, the authors estimated the area of desert had shrunk by an annual average of 1,717 square kilometres. This was 40% better than the results from 2000-05, the first in China's history to ever show a gain.

But 1.7m hectares - more than six times the area of the UK - is still covered in sand dunes or gobi gravel desert. An even wider swathe of land is plagued by wind and water erosion or salination.

The report said desertification continued to pose a "serious hidden danger" to China's security and its capacity for economic development.

The government estimates that 530,000 square kilometres can be restored through afforestation, protection and natural regeneration. But the time needed for such an undertaking makes the Long March look like a weekend stroll.

"We've made progress, but we face a daunting challenge," said Liu Tuo, head of the desertification control office in the state forestry administration. "It may take China 300 years."

To accelerate the process, senior officials said anti-desertification spending would be beefed up to 200bn yuan (£19.4bn) over the next decade.

But there are major obstacles. In a few areas, such as mountainous north-west Sichuan, deserts continue to expand because local officials ignore restrictions on land reclamation and water use.

Zhu Lieke, deputy head of the state forestry administration, said climate change was another growing concern.

"The frequent occurrence of extreme meteorological disasters, such as prolonged drought, has increased the vulnerability of the land to desertification," he said, citing climate simulations that project a 17% increase in desert areas with each 1 degree rise in temperature.

Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia remain badly affected, partly because they are at a high elevation and more vulnerable to rising global temperatures, glacier melt, retreating snowlines and water shortages.

"We cannot be optimistic about the desertification situation on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau," said Zhu. "Of all the challenges Tibet faces, the biggest is climate change."

The government has controversially moved hundreds of thousands of nomadic herders off degraded grasslands in the past 10 years. Tibetan critics are suspicious that this is being done to clear land for development or resource extraction. Many environmentalists also question whether it is a mistake to put too much of the blame on overgrazing.

"The grass doesn't grow well without animals so herding limits may not be the best solution," said Wang Yongchen, an environmental activist who has seen the impact on annual visits to the plateau. "Our government is making a big effort to deal with ecological problems, but management and artificial steps alone cannot cope with the consequences of climate change."

Whatever actions the authorities take, it is unlikely that they can ever completely deal with desertification and its consequences.

The dust storms which blew in to Beijing from the Gobi have become rarer in recent years because of government efforts to encourage vegetation - which prevents the soil from being picked up by the wind - in surrounding regions.

Despite the improvement, officials were asked why the capital still had suffered a bright orange, dust-filled sky last spring.

"The sandstorms are a natural disaster like typhoons or earthquakes. We can try to control the source, but we cannot eradicate them altogether," said Liu.

He said China has the world's worst desertification problem because it has to meet the demands of such a huge population. Finding a balance is the government's stated goal, but it remains elusive.

Biodiversity talks: Ministers in Nagoya adopt new strategy

Chair of the UN biodiversity talks gavelled into effect a set of targets for 2020 to at least halve the loss of natural habitats

• Jonathan Watts in Nagoya  guardian.co.uk, 29.10.2010
  

Ministers at the UN conference on biodiversity in Nagoya have set targets for 2020. Photograph: AP

Environment ministers from almost 200 nations agreed late tonight to adopt a new United Nations strategy that aims to stem the worst loss of life on earth since the demise of the dinosaurs.

With a typhoon looming outside and cheering inside the Nagoya conference hall, the Japanese chair of the UN biodiversity talks gavelled into effect the Aichi Targets, set to at least halve the loss of natural habitats and expand nature reserves to 17% of the world's land area by 2020 up from less than 10% today.

Fish and other aquatic life should be provided with greater refuge, under the Aichi Targets — as the plan is named, after the region around Nagoya — which including a widening of marine protected zones to 10 per cent of the world's seas, an increase from barely 1 per cent today.

Frantic late-night negotiations also saw the UN's COP10 biodiversity conference adopt a new treaty, the Nagoya Protocol, to manage the world's genetic resources and share the multibillion-dollar benefits with developing nations and indigenous communities.

Despite concerns that targets are inadequately funded and not sufficiently ambitiousto reverse the decline of habitats and species, most organisers, delegates and NGOs expressed there was relief that negotiations had avoided the friction and fracture of last year's climate talks in Copenhagen. "This is a day to celebrate in terms of a new and innovative response to the alarming loss of biodiversity and ecosystems," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme.

"It is an important moment for the United Nations and the ability of countries to put aside the narrow differences that all too often divide in favour of the broader, shared issues that can united peoples and nations."

Under the Aichi Targets, all signatories to the UN Convention on Biodiversity,are supposed to draw up national biodiversity plans. Together, their voluntary actions are supposed to halt over-fishing, control invasive species, reduce pollution minimise the pressure on coral reefs from ocean acidification, and halt the loss of genetic diversity in agricultural ecosystems.

Perhaps the most remarkable breakthrough, was the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol which lays down ground rules on how nations should cooperate in accessing and sharing the benefits of genetic resources — including plants, fungi and pathogens.

Governments have been discussing this subject for 18 years, but it has been held up until now because it ran across issues of trade, health, traditional medicine and science and pitted multinational pharmaceutical companies against indigenous communities.

Tthe Nagoya Protocol, will see governments considering ways to provide recompense for genetic material and traditional medical knowledge collected in the past that is now being used, patented and sold. This is likely to be done through a special fund for developing nations that could be used for conservation or scientific research centres.

The protocol will come into effect in 2020 and needs to be ratified by signatory nations. Several delegates, including those from Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, expressed unease that the protocol inadequately safeguarded the benefits due to developing nations, but said they would not stand in the way of a consensus.

Another area of frustration was financing. The conference did not specify how much money would be provided to achieve its goals to save habitats and species. Instead governments agreed to draw up a funding plan, with sums, baselines and other details, by 2012.

The host country, Japan, has pledged $2bn this week for biodiversity while the UK and France have earmarked smaller sums for related projects. However, most developed countries were unable to pledge major funding. Conservation groups said it was vital that significant extra finance was put in place to halt the demise of nature.

"We were disappointed that most rich countries came to Nagoya with empty pockets — unable or unwilling to provide the resources that will make it possible for the developing world to implement their ambitious targets." said Jim Leape, director general of WWF International.

But Leape welcomed the overall deal. "This agreement reaffirms the fundamental need to conserve nature as the very foundation of our economy and our society. Governments have sent a strong message that protecting the health of the planet has a place in international politics and countries are ready to join forces to save life on Earth."

Other groups emphasized that implementation was the key. "Participants may be leaving Nagoya this Friday but they still need to be working to save life on this planet from Monday morning," said IUCN's Director of Conservation Policy, Jane Smart. "There is a momentum here which we cannot afford to lose — in fact we have to build on it if we stand any chance of success in halting the extinction crisis." In earlier reports the IUCN noted that a fifth of the world's vertebrates are under threat and the die-off of all species is at a level not seen in 65 million years.

Pepsi takes fight with Coca-Cola into potato fields PepsiCo, the parent company of Walkers crisps, is Britain's biggest crisp maker, buying more than 350,000 tonnes of potatoes a year John Vidal, environment editor  The Guardian, 19.10. 2010. Walkers crisps Photograph: Linda Nylind The consumer war waged between Pepsi and Coke takes a new twist in Britain today with PepsiCo pledging to reduce the carbon emissions and water consumption of its UK operations by an ambitious 50% in five years, in the process leapfrogging Coca-Cola's plan to improve its ecological efficiency by a similar amount. PepsiCo, the $60bn-a-year parent company of Walkers crisps, Quaker Oats, and Tropicana fruit juices, is Britain's biggest crisp maker, buying more than 350,000 tonnes of potatoes a year. The group says it will now replace the three varieties of potato it grows in Britain with types that need less water in production and which store better. The 350 farms which cultivate the corporation's potatoes will also switch to low-carbon fertilisers and use more precise irrigation. Instead of applying about 10 tonnes of water in the field, to grow one tonne of potatoes in dry areas, after 2015 the farms will use about five tonnes. "These are ambitious but achievable targets," said David Wilkinson, PepsiCo's agriculture director for Europe, "Britain is a testbed. If it goes well we will be able to use these methods worldwide." Pepsi and Coke, which sell their products in almost every country in the world and are two of the best known global brands, have long fought each other over taste, price, sugar content and market distribution. Each has been criticised by communities, courts, and developing countries, for depleting water supplies in drought-prone areas and for allegedly poisoning water with pesticides. A massive movement has now emerged in India to hold multinational companies accountable for their water use. The state of Kerala in India banned the sale and production of Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, Fanta, and other soft drinks made by the firms' local subsidiaries. The Indian environmental activist Vandana Shiva has calculated that it takes nine litres of clean water to manufacture a litre of Coke, though Coca-Cola says the correct figure is 3.12 litres on average. Research has shown both companies that most of the water they consume is used for growing ingredients rather than in the manufacturing process itself. "The food industry is starting to recognise that a large part of its focus must be on the agricultural supply chain. PepsiCo has taken a leadership role in recognising that it is, at its heart, an agricultural business. The focus of the business on improving its key environmental impacts … is most welcome," said Richard Perkins, commodities adviser at WWF One in five plant species face extinction First ever comprehensive study of plants, from giant rainforests to common snowdrops, finds 22% of all species at risk • Third of all 'extinct' mammals species found alive   Juliette Jowit  29.09.2010.  guardian.co.uk, The tree tumbo – which is found in the African desert and can live to more than 1,000 years old – is one of the species identified as at-risk. Photograph: Andrew Mcrobb/PA One in five of the world's plant species – the basis of all life on earth – are at risk of extinction, according to a landmark study published today. At first glance, the 20% figure looks far better than the previous official estimate of almost three-quarters, but the announcement is being greeted with deep concern. The previous estimate that 70% of plants were either critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable was based on what scientists universally acknowledged were studies heavily biased towards species already thought to be under threat. Today the first ever comprehensive assessment of plants, from giant tropical rainforests to the rarest of delicate orchids, concludes the real figure is at least 22%. It could well be higher because hundreds of species being discovered by scientists each year are likely to be in the "at risk" category. "We think this is a conservative estimate," said Eimear Nic Lughadha, one of the scientists at Kew Gardens in west London responsible for the project. The plant study is also considered critical to understanding the level of threat to all the natural world's biodiversity, said Craig Hilton-Taylor of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which runs the world's offical "red list" of threatened species. "Plants are the basis of life, and unless we know what's happening to plants it has many implications," said Hilton-Taylor. The results will be presented to world leaders meeting at Nagoya in Japan in October to discuss the world's biodiversity crisis, along with new red lists for vertebrates and several groups of the planet's millions of invertebrate species. "This is a base point," said Lughadha. "What we do from now is going to lead to the future of plants. We need to challenge the idea that plants are there to be exploited by us, we need to move to a system where we're nurturing plants much more carefully [and] actively taking steps to conserve them." Politicians and conservation experts will also be told that by far the biggest threat to plants is human – rather than natural – causes, especially intensive agriculture, livestock grazing, logging and infrastructure development. Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, who will travel to Japan for the final talks, said the results were deeply troubling. She added: "Plant life is vital to our very existence, providing us with food, water, medicines, and the ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change." Scientists randomly selected 7,000 species from across the major plant groups as a representative sample of the estimated 380,000-400,000 so far known to science. Of these, 3,000 were found to have too little information to begin making an proper assessment – a result that was expected and so built into the selection process. The remaining 4,000 species were assessed and the level or risk based on a combination of the absolute number of plants estimated in the wild, the known decline, and the total area in which they are thought to live. Of the 4,000, 63% were found to be of "least concern", 10% near threatened, 11% vulnerable, 7% endangered and 4% critically endangered. Another 5% were rated "data deficient". The proportion of plant species deemed at-risk is similar to that of the IUCN's red list for mammals, worse than that for birds (less than 10% at-risk) and better than the number for amphibians (more than a quarter under threat). Nearly two-thirds of threatened plant species are found in tropical rainforests, five times the proportion for the nearest other habitats – rocky areas, temperate forests and tropical dry forests. This is because of their huge density of biodiversity and the widespread risks of logging and clearance for other agriculture, said analysts. Previously the red list for plants contained assessments for a greater number of plants – about 12,873 or 3% of known species – but was not considered representative because scientists had focused on at-risk species so that they could get attention and funding for conservation. The assessment was done using experts and collections at the herbaria at Kew Gardens, the Natural History Museum in London and Missouri Botanical Garden in the US, plus specialist experts from the IUCN. From pines to snowdrops to rosewood – six of the endangered plants Wollemi pine (Wollemia nobilis) – critically endangered The wollemi pine was discovered in 1994 in Wollemi National Park, Australia, and there fewer than 50 mature individuals are known. Its long-term regeneration from seed is unknown but seems doubtful due to competition with other trees. Its small size and limited range means it is at risk from any chance event such as fire or the spread of disease. Common snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) – near threatened The common snowdrop was once widely distributed in the east Carpathian mountains in central and eastern Europe. Although it is widely naturalised, including in the UK, during the past decade its native distribution has been considerably reduced, due mainly to habitat loss through the increase in residential developments and recreational land use. Rosewood (Dalbergia andapensis) – critically endangered D. andapensis is a species of rosewood, a highly valued timber sed in the production of fine furniture and musical instruments. It is estimated that 52,000 tonnes of rosewood and ebony were logged in north-east Madagascar in 2009, and this habitat is itself under threat from conversion to agriculture for a growing rural population. Wood bitter-vetch (Vicia orobus) – least concern Wood bitter-vetch is a rare species found through much of western Europe, including the British Isles, at woodland margins, field edges and rocky places, often on limestone. In Ireland it is considered to be threatened as a result of habitat loss, and is being protected by the National Botanic Gardens of Ireland. Whited's milkvetch (Astragalus sinuatus) - Critically Endangered Whited's milkvetch is restricted to a tiny area of the state of Washington, USA. Its dry hillside habitat is threatened by invasive, non-native species, by grazing and by agriculture. Seeds have been collected and banked by the Berry Botanic Garden Seed Bank for Rare and Endangered Plants of the Pacific Northwest and the Miller Seed Vault, University of Washington Botanic Gardens. Encephalartos altensteinii – vulnerable E. altensteinii is found in coastal regions of the eastern cape, South Africa, where the number of individuals has declined by more than 30% in the past 50 years. Large numbers have been removed from its native habitat, including 438 plants in one poaching incident in 1995, mainly by horticultural collectors for pot plants or medicinal use. Human impact on world's rivers 'threatens water security of 5 billion' Study on effect of all human intervention on water supplies finds water security and biodiversity severely damaged Adam Vaughan  guardian.co.uk,  29.09.2010 17.53 Chemical waste water is discharged into the Yangtze river Photograph: Lu Guang/Greenpeace Nearly 80% of the world's rivers are so badly affected by humanity's footprint that the water security of almost 5 billion people, and the survival of thousands of aquatic species, are threatened, scientists warned today. The global study put together by institutions across the globe is the first to simultaneously look at all types of human intervention – from dams and reservoirs to irrigation and pollution – on freshwater. It paints a devastating picture of a world whose rivers are in serious decline. While developing countries are suffering from threats to both water security and biodiversity – particularly in Africa and central Asia – the authors said they were surprised by the level of threat posed to wildlife in rich countries. "What made our jaws drop is that some of the highest threat levels in the world are in the United States and Europe," says Prof Peter McIntyre, one of the lead authors, who began work on the project as a Smith Fellow at the University of Michigan. "Americans tend to think water pollution problems are pretty well under control, but we still face enormous challenges." Some of the worst threats to aquatic species in the US are in the south-eastern states, including the Mississippi river. Prof Charles Vörösmarty of the City University of New York, lead author and an expert on global water, said the impact on wildlife in developed countries was the result of river systems that had been heavily engineered and altered by man. "With all the protection the EU has in place for waterways, it was surprising to see it was a hotspot for biodiversity loss. But for a long time Europeans have altered their landscapes, including the removal of 90% of wetlands and floodplains, which are crucial parts of river ecosystems," he said. Published in the journal Nature today, the international team behind the report looked at datasets to produce a map of how 23 different human influences – such as dams, the introduction of alien non-native fish and pollution – affect water security and biodiversity. Previous studies have tended to look at just one influence at a time. Even the world's great rivers, such as the Yangtze, the Nile and the Ganges, are suffering serious biodiversity and water security stress, the map shows. Despite their size, more than 30 of the 47 largest rivers showed at least moderate threats to water security, due to a range of human impacts such as pollution and extracting water for irrigation. Even the Amazon, which is considered to be relatively pristine, still has human fingerprints on it, said Vörösmarty. "While the Amazon is in generally good shape, in the upstream regions such as Peru, there are many high density areas of people that inject threat into the system. The legacy of that human threat passes downstream into the remote forested areas of the river." Globally, between 10,000 and 20,000 aquatic wildlife species are at risk or face extinction because of the human degradation of global rivers, the report said. The world's least affected rivers, the authors found, were those furthest from populated areas, such as remote parts of the tropics, Siberia and elsewhere in the polar regions. Vörösmarty said he hopes the report highlights the need to address the root causes of the degradation of rivers. "We're spending trillions of US dollars to fix a problem we've created in the first place. It's much cheaper to treat the causes rather than the symptoms, which is what we do in the developed world today," he said. In the UK, rivers have been getting cleaner over the past decade. But a report by the UK's Environment Agency last year admitted only five of 6,114 rivers in England and Wales are considered pristine and three-quarters were so polluted they are likely to fail new European quality standards. UK retailers cut waste by half British Retail Consortium report finds shops send less than 25% of waste to landfill – down from about 50% in 2005 Rebecca Smithers  guardian.co.uk,   17.09.2010.2010 Retailers have been under criticism for the amount of waste they send to landfill. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian UKs retailers have voluntarily halved the amount of waste they send to landfill compared with five years ago, a new report reveals today. Less than a quarter of the discarded food, packaging, bags and building materials produced by retailers is now sent to landfill compared with almost 50% in 2005, the study from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) found.   It says retailers are increasingly reducing landfill waste by reusing materials or finding partners who could reuse them, and by recycling and adopting alternative technologies for organic waste, such as energy recovery via anaerobic digestion. But the organisation is urging the government to ensure that its localism agenda and nimbyism does not hinder retailers from meeting national and European environmental targets. The BRC's A Better Retailing Climate Progress Report 2010 also says retailers have achieved an 18% reduction since 2005 in both energy-related emissions from buildings and carbon dioxide emissions from transporting goods. The report sets out the progress made in meeting a set of goals signed by retailers two years ago, for reducing the environmental impact of their businesses by 2013. Among the examples of good practice cited are John Lewis's new Cardiff store that recycled virtually all of the waste produced in its construction. The result was that just 14 tonnes of waste went to landfill from the construction site, with 99% recycled. Also highlighted is the world's first zero-carbon store – Tesco in Ramsey, Cambridgeshire – which opened in December 2009. But the report warns that: "Significant challenges remain, particularly for stores located in older buildings and shared retail space. A review of the UK's strategy on waste disposal, launched by Defra in June, is looking at new ways of dealing with commercial waste and promoting "responsibility deals" with businesses to drive down the amount of waste created in production and retail. The new environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, has called for a "zero waste" society, as retailers face ongoing criticism over the volume of food waste being dispatched to landfill. But the BRC said retailers needed the government to "help them, rather than hinder" if they were to take their environmental ambitions further. Stephen Robertson, BRC director general, said: "Retailers have a proud record of delivering impressive environmental results on a voluntary basis – without the need for legislation. This includes helping their customers use 4.6 billion fewer single-use carrier bags between 2006 and 2010, despite a major growth in sales." He went on: "There could be benefits from more local decision-making. But the government's localism agenda presents significant challenges to the excellent environmental work being done by retailers. Many climate change objectives are set nationally and internationally but often the opposition to schemes, such as wind farms or energy from waste plants, comes locally. "We can't let nimbyism get in the way. A national approach is the best way to help retailers achieve environmental objectives at a local level." Mississippi brimming with dead fish near Gulf of Mexico‎ 09-15-2010 14:05 BJT Special Report:US Oil Slick Causes Huge Damages | Local residents spotted hundreds of thousands of dead fish floating atop the Mississippi River late Friday evening near Bayou Chaland in Plaquemines Parish, La., just north of the Gulf of Mexico, a spot that has been affected by the BP oil spill, the Times Picayune reported. The river looked like a road paved with dead fish. Local authorities have asked the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help investigate the cause of the fish kill, which included several different fish species, as well as crabs, shrimp, freshwater eel and a dolphin.

Water and life return to Iraq's 'Garden of Eden'

One of Saddam Hussein's greatest acts of ecological destruction – the draining of the Mesopotamian marshes – has been reversed as birds and rivers return to the region

• Juliette Jowit   guardian.co.uk,   09. 2010.
  

• Iraq's marshes drained by Saddam in the 90s to punish rebellious marsh inhabitants are now thriving once more. Photograph: Korsh Ararat, Omar Fadil and Mudhafar Salim/Nature Iraq

Saddam Hussein's draining of the Mesopotamian marshes of Iraq – recorded as the Garden of Eden in the Bible - was one of the most infamous outrages of his regime, leaving a vast area of once-teeming river delta a dry, salt-encrusted desert, emptied of insects, birds and the people who lived on them. 

But nearly two decades later the area is buzzing and twittering with life again after local people and a new breed of Iraqi conservationists have restored much of what was once the world's third largest wetland to some of its former glory.

 

The story of this once almost impossible restoration is told in an exhibition of photographs that has opened in the UK. They show the huge expanses of reeds and open water – now at least half the size of the Florida Everglades – where plants, insects and fish have returned, creating a vast feeding area for migrating and breeding birds, including the majestic Sacred Ibis, the endemic Basrah Reed Warbler and the Iraq Babbler, along with most of the world's population of Marbled Teal ducks, bee-eaters and many more.

"We call them stop-over sites, refuelling sites," said Richard Porter, Middle East advisor for the conservation group Birdlife International, who has helped train biologists and other experts for the local Birdlife partner Nature Iraq. "They are as important as the breeding and over-wintering grounds for species; if you have got to make a journey from central Africa to norther Europe and Asia, and you've got nothing to feed on, you're stuffed."

The Mesopotamian marshes originally made up an area more than three times the size of Norfolk, where the exhibition is showing, in Holt. It sprawled across thousands of square kilometres of floodplain where the Euphrates and Tigris rivers divided into a network of tributaries meandering and pulsating south to the Arabian sea. They were home to more than 80 bird species, otters and long-fingered bats, and hundreds of thousands of Marsh Arabs who grew rice and dates, raised water buffalo, fished and built boats and homes from reeds. 

In the early 1990s, this way of life came to an abrupt end when Hussein ordered the marshes to be drained to punish the local population for an uprising after his failed invasion of Kuwait, a problem exacerbated by the continued construction of dams upstream.

He ordered the area to be hemmed in by constructing around 4,000km of earthen walls that towered up to 7m above the unbroken flat landscape. The wetlands retreated to as little as 5-10% of their original size, according to a 2001 United Nations Environment Agency report. 

After Hussein was toppled by American forces in 2003, Azzam Alwash returned from his adopted home in the US to the area, where he had lived for part of his childhood, and learned to hunt ducks with his father while they inspected the irrigation ditches. Alwash found the local people who had stayed had already begun to break up the walls with shovels or earth diggers, and they have continued to do so. They have destroyed up to 98% of the embankments, he told the Guardian, "not because they are tree-huggers or bird-lovers, but because it's a source of economic income to them, because they can harvest reeds and sell them. They can fish and feed a family or sell them to earn extra income."

 

Alwash, a civil engineer, set up Nature Iraq and has organised training for graduates who help with monitoring work. "We take guards with us with Kalashnikovs, but the most difficult part is the road between [the capital] Baghdad to the marsh," said Alwash. "Once I'm inside the marshes it's relatively safe."

 

About half the original marshland has been restored - even more had been reinstated, but there was a setback last year because of a drought. Nature Iraq has now drawn up a plan to cope with the diminishing water flows from dams upstream in Turkey by channelling irrigation water back into the rivers and building a barrage to retain meltwater from the mountains and create a "mechanical flood" of water to replicate the important pulses of freshwater that wash through the marshlands every spring.

 

Alwash and his team are also trying to tackle the problem of local poaching, although he has great sympathy with those who have few alternative sources of income, and hopes the opening of a new oil industry will help create jobs.

"We have done some work in trying to educate the lo

cals," he added. "We say: 'Go out and hunt but take less; make $10 today – you don't have to make $20, and make $10 tomorrow'. We just keep at it. You can't give up."

• The exhibition runs until July 25 at Birdscapes Gallery in Glandford, Norfolk

Climategate shows the need for openness by scientists

In the age of the blogosphere, blocking facts means science is damaged and public trust lost

• Damian Carrington   The Observer,   11.07. 2010

A scientist checks the effects of climate change on an Australian rainforest. Photograph: Phil Walter/Getty Images

"Like it or not, this [demand for openness] indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century." That, say many, will be the lasting legacy of the independent review published last week into the controversial emails between climate scientists that were stolen from the University of East Anglia and posted online.

Scientists were cleared, as expected, of any fiddling of the figures to exaggerate the case for global warming. But the review heavily criticised them and the university for consistently blocking access to data and failing to recognise the risk such secrecy posed to the "credibility of UK climate science".

It is now possible to assess the damage. The scientific evidence – showing that the world is warming fast due to human actions and presents a clear future danger – remains untarnished. However, the public's trust in that science has been scorched.

Professor Bob Watson, chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and former head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said he wanted the report to "draw a line under this episode so that the scientific community can begin to regain the trust of the public and continue to do its vital work on climate change".

But if there was no great global warming conspiracy, why did the leaking of the emails last November become such a PR disaster? Climate scientists, such as Oxford University's Myles Allen, blame the media: "What everyone has lost sight of is the spectacular failure of mainstream journalism to keep the whole affair in perspective."

The review, led by Sir Muir Russell, does not mention the media. Instead, it examines the reaction of the scientists at the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to the pressure exerted by bloggers: "An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover-up."

The review adds: "We found a lack of recognition… of the extent to which earlier action to release information… might have minimised the problems."

Pressure on the scientists, whose once esoteric work creating records of past temperatures had gained global significance, was intense. In 2005, CRU head Phil Jones replied to a request: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" But, the review implies, the more they blocked, the more the Freedom of Information requests flooded in.

On the same day the Russell review was published, the Information Commissioner's Office published a little-noticed notice stating that UEA had breached two FOI regulations in relation to requests made in 2008. Professor Geoffrey Boulton, an eminent earth scientist and Russell review panel member, said: "We have to move science from a private enterprise to a public enterprise."

It was bad luck that the CRU scientists were singled out, said Dr James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, adding that the group was among the best in the world at climate science. But he said: "Science has to start examining the way it works. This report compares peer review, which is 'pure', with the blogosphere, which is 'impure' – and there's some truth in that, to be sure – but the peer-review process can be exceedingly prejudiced and exert censorship even."

Russell found the CRU scientists were innocent of subverting the peer-review process, through which researchers recommend or reject work for publication in a journal. The review acknowledges the language in some emails could be thought to reflect "partial and aggressive" behaviour, such as this from CRU's Keith Briffa: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required an extensive case for rejecting" a paper. But, said Russell, "we think it more plausible that it reflects the rough and tumble of interaction in an area of science that has become heavily contested".

Arch-critic of CRU, blogger Steve McIntyre, was far from convinced. In his opinion, "the only reasonably objective inquiry to date", which criticised the behaviour of the CRU scientists, was that by Fred Pearce in The Guardian.The editor of the Lancet, Dr Richard Horton, gave evidence to the inquiry on peer review. What was at stake was far bigger than the climate change science being done at CRU, he said.

"What Russell has identified is the beginning of a revolution in the way science is being done," he said. "If scientists don't adapt to this soon, the trust that the public and politicians put in science will be jeopardised. The credibility of science itself is at stake."

Eiris review names Britain as 'dirty man of Europe'

Survey of Europe's top 300 companies reveals UK as worst offender in terms of corporate impact on global warming.

• Terry Macalister  The Observer, Sunday 27.06.2010

Protesters in New Orleans target BP over the oil spill from its drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico. Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

Britain is being accused of being the "dirty man of Europe" after new research showed that, of the world's top 300 companies, more than half of those most engaged in carbon-polluting sectors were based in the UK.

A review of Europe's top 300 companies by the ethical investment consultant Eiris found that the greatest proportion of those with "very high impact" in relation to global warming came from the UK, more than double the number from any other country.

Of those companies in the top 300 dedicated to solving or mitigating the problems of climate change, only 3% were located in Britain. Eiris's findings come at a time when BP, one of the UK's best-known companies, has attracted bad publicity worldwide over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

A spokesman for Eiris said that its review was "worrying from a consumer point of view but also from an investment perspective". He added: "It is particularly alarming for pension funds and other long-term investors as climate change rises up the political agenda."

The greater exposure of UK plc to risk from climate change largely stems from the number of big oil and mining companies that dominate the FTSE 100 index in London.

Greenpeace said that the Eiris research was a "shameful" indictment of the UK, which had failed to build up a low-carbon business sector despite much political rhetoric.

Ben Stewart, a spokesman for the environmental campaign group, said: "It seems Britain is still the dirty man of Europe. These figures will shame the succession of ministers who promised Britain would be at the forefront of developing clean tech.

"As things stand, our economy is poorly placed to benefit from this century's inevitable shift to low-carbon industry, while Germany looks well-positioned to gain from first-mover advantage."

Eiris estimates that 41% of the top 300 companies in Britain and Europe have a significant impact on global warming, either directly from their operations or through the products they manufacture.

However, there was some good news to come out of the survey. More than 60% of companies with a high or very high impact on the environment have put in place measures under which executive remuneration is in some way linked to the company's carbon emission reductions.

More than half of all companies in the most polluting brackets have some kind of long-term carbon reduction targets in place, although Eiris notes that concrete action is harder to find.

French and German companies in the top 300 are at the forefront among those providing solutions to climate change. The consultancy does, however, point out that many British businesses may be excluded from the ranking because they are smaller.

In fact, the UK government has led initiatives to limit climate change, publishing the low carbon transition plan and introducing a carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme, as well as a feed-in tariff scheme, promoting clean energy production in the home.

In the 1980s, the UK was described by Scandinavian countries as "the dirty man of Europe" because of high emissions of sulphur dioxide from industrial power plants, which exported acid rain across the Baltic

BP accused of killing endangered sea turtles in cleanup operation

Environmentalists press Obama administration to put a halt to BP's 'burn fields' to dispose of oil from the Gulf spil

• Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
• guardian.co.uk,  25.06.2010
  

A Kemp's Ridley turtle rescued from the BP oil spill is cleaned up at the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans. Photograph: Bevil Knapp/EPA

Endangered sea turtles and other marine creatures are being corralled into 500 square-mile "burn fields" and burnt alive in operations intended to contain oil from BP's ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama administration confirmed today.

The killing of the turtles – which once teetered on the brink of extinction – has outraged environmentalists and could put BP into even deeper legal jeopardy.

Environmental organisations are demanding that the oil company stop blocking rescue of the turtles, and are pressing the US administration to halt the burning and look at prosecuting BP and its contractors for killing endangered species during the cleanup operation. Harming or killing a sea turtle carries fines of up to $50,000 (£33,000).

"It is criminal and cruel and they need to be held accountable," said Carole Allen, Gulf office director of the Sea Turtle Restoration Project. "There should not be another lighting of a fire of any kind till people have gone in there and looked for turtles."

The Obama administration, confirming the kills, said BP was under orders to avoid the turtles. "My understanding is that protocols include looking for wildlife prior to igniting of oil," a spokeswoman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) said. "We take these things very seriously."

The agency this week posted a single turtle spotter on the burn vessels, but government scientists are pressing for more wildlife experts to try to rescue the animals before the oil is lit – or at the very least to give them access to the burn fields.

"One can't just ride through an area where they are burning and expect to be safe while looking for turtles. We don't expect that, but we would like to access those areas where we suspect there may be turtles," said Blair Witherington, a sea turtle research scientist at Florida's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.

More than 425 turtles are known to have died in the spill zone since 30 April, Noaa said.

Conservationists say the losses could imperil the long-term survival of the creatures. All five species of turtles found in the Gulf are endangered or threatened: the Kemp's Ridley most of all.

But in a video posted on YouTube, Mike Ellis, a skipper from Venice, Louisiana, accuses BP of chasing away a boat of conservationists trying to rescue turtles caught in the oil and weed a few miles away from the leak.

"They ran us out of there and then they shut us down," said Ellis.

On days when the weather is fine and there is relatively no wind, BP conducts up to a dozen "controlled burns", torching vast expanses of the ocean surface within a corral of fireproof booms.

Biologists say such burns are deadly for young turtles because oil and sargassum – the seaweed mats that provide nutrients to jellyfish and a range of other creatures – – congregate in the same locations. The sargassum is also a perfect hunting ground for young sea turtles, who are not developed enough to dive to the ocean floor to forage for food.

Once BP moves in, the turtles are doomed. "They drag a boom between two shrimp boats and whatever gets caught between the two boats, they circle it up and catch it on fire. Once the turtles are in there, they can't get out," Ellis said.

The heartbreak for conservationists is that the convergence of sargassum and oil offers the best chance of finding young turtles before they suffocate on the crude. But it can also be deadly.

"When they breathe and come to the surface, they get a mouthful and a bellyful of toxic substance that is very much like wallpaper paste," said John Hewitt, the director of husbandry at the New Orleans aquarium. "If we don't remove them and clean them up, in three or four days that probably spells the end of the turtle."

Since the spill, the aquarium has taken in 90 sea turtles, scrubbing the oil off their shells with toothbrushes and washing-up liquid.

Even before the fires, the two-month gusher in the Gulf of Mexico was threatening the long-term survival of sea turtles.

"This is the worst calamity that I have ever seen for sea turtles," said David Godfrey, executive director of the Sea Turtle Conservancy. "This is really the cradle of sea turtle reproduction for the western hemisphere."The threat to the turtles could continue well after the gusher is capped. The oil spill is turning vast expanses of the Gulf into a dead zone, killing off the jellyfish, crabs and conches that are the staples of an adult diet.

Conservationists are also worried about the survival of the next generation of loggerhead turtles, which are about to climb up on to badly oiled shorelines to begin their nesting season. "They are doomed" said Godfrey.

Godfrey said his organisation was working on plans to dig up about 1,000 nests, or 100,000 eggs, from nesting grounds in the Florida Panhandle and transfer them to hatcheries for safekeeping. "It is a last gasp measure to save 100,000 young sea turtles," he said. "We need every one of these turtles to survive."

Chinese earthquake may have been man-made, say scientists

An earthquake that killed at least 80,000 people in Sichuan last year may have been triggered by an enormous dam just miles from the epicentre

 

By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai  GMT 02.02.2009

Destroyed buildings in the earthquake-damaged town of Beichuan, Sichuan Province, China Photo: AFP/GETTY

The 511ft-high Zipingpu dam holds 315 million tonnes of water and lies just 550 yards from the fault line, and three miles from the epicentre, of the Sichuan earthquake.

Now scientists in China and the United States believe the weight of water, and the effect of it penetrating into the rock, could have affected the pressure on the fault line underneath, possibly unleashing a chain of ruptures that led to the quake.

 

Related Articles

• Millions still homeless a year after Sichuan earthquake

• Downturn leaves 26m unemployed in China

• Chinese mark anniversary of Sichuan earthquake

• Grim conditions force Chinese president to revisit site of Sichuan earthquake

• China's young leave Tiananmen in the past

Fan Xiao, the chief engineer of the Sichuan Geology and Mineral Bureau in Chengdu, said it was "very likely" that the construction and filling of the reservoir in 2004 had led to the disaster.  "There have been many cases in which a water reservoir has triggered an earthquake," said Mr Fan. "This earthquake was very unusual for this area.

There have been no seismic activities greater than a magnitude seven quake along this particular seismic belt before."

The 7.9 magnitude quake struck last May and left more than five million people homeless. It remains a raw and emotional topic for most Chinese, and the government has been quick to quash any suggestion that Zipingpu may have been responsible for the catastrophe. Researchers have been denied access to seismological and geological data to examine the earthquake further.

Zipingpu is only one of nearly 400 hydroelectric dams in the earthquake zone. Mr Fan said the government had been warned of the danger of building so many large-scale projects in a seismically active area, but that the warnings had gone unheeded.

"I not only opposed the construction of Zipingpu, but also the overdevelopment of the reservoirs on Minjiang River. There are ten major reservoirs on the main river, 29 on its tributaries and a lot more smaller-scale reservoirs, all of which block the flow of the entire river, and are very hazardous to the local geology," he said.

Although Sichuan is an earthquake-prone region, many scientists were caught by surprise by the magnitude of the quake. Christian Klose, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said there had not been any "major seismic activity" on that fault line for millions of years.

He argued that the sudden shift of a huge quantity of water into the region could have simultaneously relaxed the tension between the two sides of the fault, allowing them to move apart, and also increased the direct pressure enough to cause a violent rupture. The effect was "25 times more" than a year's worth of natural stress from tectonic movement, he said.

Although the official government line is that its massive construction projects had nothing to do with the quake, some state researchers in Beijing have called for a full investigation. Lei Xinglin, of the China Earthquake Administration, said that the Zipingpu reservoir "clearly affected the local seismicity and it is worthwhile to study the role it played in triggering the earthquake further". He added that firm conclusions remain "premature" however.

There is a history of earthquakes triggered by dams, including several caused by the construction of the Hoover dam in the US, but none of such a magnitude.

The Champs-Elysées in Paris turns green (10 pictures)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2010/may/24/champs-elysees

• 
• 7 / 10
• 

Thumbnail view

• More on this story

• 

French farmers bring rural reality to Champs Elysées

Paris avenue transformed overnight to highlight crisis in agricultural sector

Now doesn't THAT put a spring in your step  By Daily Mail Reporter   15.05.2010

We enjoyed the delayed daffodils and slow snowdrops all the more when they finally arrived.   And now it’s time to admire the belated blossoms on our cherry trees.

 

This magnificent parade of pink sheltered walkers and cyclists on The Stray in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, yesterday. The 200-acre patch of green space is famous for its superb cherry blossom.

In the pink: The cherry blossoms have finally bloomed on The Stray, a park in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, providing a spectacular setting for walkers yesterday

Britain's still covered in frost in coldest month for 17 years

Enlarge  

Cold comfort: Frost covers the ground in Petersfield, Hampshire, as the UK remains in the grip of unseasonably cold weather

Enlarge  

Icy outlook: Freezing arctic winds brought winter back to parts of north Wales, with snow covering the Snowdon Mountains at Llyn Ogwen

Enlarge  

Cold snap: A Lake District fell walker wanders over snow-covered ground at Ullswater

Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic myths

Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption

The volcano in southern Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull glacier sends ash into the air just before sunset. Photograph: Brynjar Gauti/AP

Along with the ash and lava, there have been many interesting asides tossed into the air for our consideration by the Eyjafjallajokull volcano. We have noticed just how reliant our globalised systems are on air travel. We have been reminded of nature's brute force and primordial beauty. And we have been intrigued by what a wonderfully complex language Icelandic appears to be – to Anglo-Saxon ears, at least.

But one opportunity the volcano has gifted us in particular is the chance to put to bed once and for all that barrel-aged climate sceptic canard which maintains that volcanoes emit far more carbon dioxide than anthropogenic sources. It's always been a favourite, but has been pushed even further up the charts of popularity in recent months by the repeated claims of Ian Plimer, the Australian mining geologist who wrote the climate sceptic bible Heaven and Earth last year. 

Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia's ABC Network website last August:

It was also a point picked up by my colleague James Randerson when he interviewed Plimer last December. In Heaven and Earth, Plimer says: "Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined." Randerson challenged Plimer on this point, stating that the US Geological Survey (USGS) states: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes." 

   Corallium rubrum, also known as red coral or precious coral, in Calafuria near Livorno, Italy.

A proposal the regulate the trade, especially on the internet in this species was defeated at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Photograph: Giovanni Marola/AFP/Getty Images

Catlin Arctic team brave thin ice and polar bears to monitor acid oceans

Scientists to set up ice base in northern Canada to examine impact of ocean acidification on the region's animals and plants

Ann Daniels is leading this year's Catlin Arctic Survey. Photograph: CAS/Martin Hartley

Why iceberg the size of Luxembourg could mean cold winters ahead for Europe

The iceberg split off the Mertz Glacier, a 100-mile spit of floating ice protruding into the Southern Ocean from Antarctica

Researchers from France and Australia, said the iceberg could block an area that produces super cold, dense water. This dense water keeps Earth's climate on an even keel. It sinks to the bottom of the sea, which drives ocean circulation and shifts heat around the globe.  A slowdown in this process could mean bitterly cold winds in the north Atlantic Ocean and across Europe in the next 10 years.

 

More...

• Scientists discover giant rubbish patch filled with plastic in Atlantic
• More than two-thirds of new Tories are sceptical about climate change

 

It could also disturb the exceptionally rich biodiversity in the southern Ocean, including a major colony of emperor penguins on Antarctica.  The billion tonne mass was dislodged by an older iceberg which split off in 1987. 

 

Collision: Before and after the Mertz Glacier Tongue broke off in February, when it was dislodged by another, older iceberg.

Jammed against the Antarctic continent for more than 20 years, it smashed into the Metz tongue, like a slow-motion battering ram, after it began to drift. 'The ice-tongue was almost broken already, hanging like a loose tooth,' said Benoit Legresy, a French geologist who has been studying the glacier.

Tide and ocean currents constantly beat against exposed areas, whilst longer summers and rising temperatures also take their toll.

 

The area of Antarctica where the new iceberg recently split off. 

The Metz Glacicer, fitted with GPS beacons and other measuring equipment could providde crucial insights in how these influences should be apportioned.  It would be the first time there would be a full cycle of  a major calving event - before, during and after.

The Biggest Dump in the World

As large as the USA, the Great Pacific Waste Patch is the biggest dump in the world. Ed Cumming discovers that it keeps getting bigger, and could be poisoning us all By Ed Cumming   16.03.2010

The Pacific Garbage Patch had been predicted as early as the late Eighties but it was only formally discovered in 1997 Photo: IMAGEBROKER

 

The world’s biggest rubbish dump keeps growing. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch – or the Pacific Trash Vortex – is a floating monument to our culture of waste, the final resting place of every forgotten carrier bag, every discarded bottle and every piece of packaging blown away in the wind. Opinions about the exact size of this great, soupy mix vary, but some claim it has doubled over the past decade, making it now six times the size of the UK.

 

Dr Simon Boxall, a physical oceanographer at the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton, goes even further: “It’s the size of North America. But although the patch itself is extremely large, it’s only one very clear representation of the much bigger worldwide problem.”

 

Related Articles

• Adventurer to sail plastic boat into ocean's plastic dump

• Bhopal gas disaster's legacy lives on 25 years later

This global problem is the motive behind the Plastiki, a 60ft, 12-ton catamaran built from 12,500 recycled plastic bottles, which embarks on its maiden voyage from San Francisco this week.   The brainchild of David de Rothschild, the flamboyant British banking heir and environmentalist, the Plastiki will sail right through the middle of the Garbage Patch as part of a campaign to help make more people aware of the Pacific’s threatened communities and of the damage our waste is doing to our oceans.

 

Plastic is the main issue.  Fifty years ago, most flotsam was biodegradable. Now it is 90 per cent plastic.  In 2006, the United Nations Environment Programme estimated that there were 46,000 pieces of floating plastic in every square mile of ocean.  With its stubborn refusal to biodegrade, all plastic not buried in landfills – roughly half of it – sweeps into streams and sewers and then out into rivers and, finally, the ocean.  Some of it – some say as much as 70 per cent – sinks to the ocean floor.  The remainder floats, usually within 20 metres of the surface, and is carried into stable circular currents, or gyres “like ocean ring-roads”, says Dr Boxall.  Once inside these gyres, the plastic is drawn by wind and surface currents towards the centre, where it steadily accumulates.

 

The world’s major oceans all have these gyres, and all are gathering rubbish.  Although the North Pacific – bordering California, Japan and China – is the biggest, there are also increasingly prominent gyres in the South Pacific, the North and South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. Our problems with plastics are only just beginning.

 

 

 

The Pacific Garbage Patch had been predicted as early as the late Eighties but it was only formally discovered in 1997 by Charles Moore, an American yacht-racing captain sailing home across the North Pacific from a competition in Hawaii.  He noticed a large amount of debris in the centre of the gyre, and together with the oceanographer, Curtis Ebbesmeyer, formulated the idea of the Eastern Garbage Patch.  Other research revealed a secondary patch to the West, and these two together constitute the Great Pacific Patch, located roughly between 135-155°W and 35-45°N. In 1999, Moore followed up his initial findings with a report showing that there was eight times as much plastic as plankton in the North Pacific.  And there is a lot of plankton.

 

The image of a great floating mound of trash, though evocative, can be misleading. Dr Boxall says: “People imagine it as a kind of football pitch of rubbish you can go and walk on – it’s not like that.” As most of the plastic has been broken down into tiny particles, floating beneath the surface, it is impossible to photograph from aircraft or satellites, or even really to see until you are right in its centre. As a result, it is difficult to convey the grave danger this 100 million tons or so of rubbish – and counting – presents. This is where the Plastiki – named after Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki project in 1947 – comes in. Its crew of six is being skippered by the rising star of British ocean sailing, Jo Royle, 29. Ms Royle is everything you could want at the figurehead of your mission: blonde, vivacious and – behind a Lancastrian burr that survived her upbringing in Devon – a passionate environmentalist. She seems unfazed about sailing slap bang into the middle of the watery skip of the world.

“I can’t wait to get there,” she says. “Being in the middle of the ocean puts you back in your place – if you’re not responsive, you don’t survive. It makes you think hard about how you consume.”

However, she readily concedes that it is easy for the layman to ask: “So what?” Some might be tempted to argue that the rubbish has to end up somewhere, and that the ocean is no worse than landfill. Herein lies the main danger: plastic does not biodegrade, but when exposed to sunlight it photo-degrades, breaking down into smaller and smaller particles, and finally to “nurdles”, the industry name for the tiny grains that are the building blocks of most modern plastics. These tiny particles are not harmful on their own, but they are very absorbent, and soak up waterborne toxins, such as pesticides and cooling agents. These nurdles, now saturated in poisons, are eaten by filter-feeders at the very bottom of the food chain, and then make their way up it.

The scale of the toxin problem is unknown. Although plastics have now been around for a century, their use has only been really widespread for 50 years. Also, the threat is not only from food – marine extracts are used in countless other products too: particularly cosmetics. Since there are so many possible routes for toxins from these plastics to enter our food chain, there has yet to be an in-depth scientific study of their possible effect on humans. But these particles are certainly killing marine life: the UN estimates that more than one million birds and 100,000 mammals die every year from plastics – by poisoning, entanglement and choking. There are also studies under way investigating the possible connection between a rise in fertility problems and cancers, and the proliferation of plastic in the ocean.

The solution is equally confounding – there is just so much junk. Most experts agree that the real change needs to come above ground, from people taking more responsibility for their dumping.

As Ms Royle says: “The four worst-offending plastics – carrier bags, bottle-tops, bottles and styrofoam – are some we could easily do without, with a bit more thought. It’s just about making the effort to change our habits: not getting chips in a styrofoam container, reusing carrier bags – small things.”

There are some – led by the renowned American environmentalist and National Geographic Explorer-at-large Sylvia Earle– who think that we should simply try not to use plastics at all. Ms Royle dismisses this approach: “Plastic is a part of our world, and it’s hugely important.”

Others would like the US government to embark on an operation to clean the ocean manually, using tankers to retrieve the plastic, which could then be used as fuel.

“I don’t think that’s a very good idea,” says Ms Royle. “It would take a tremendous amount of resources to sweep the ocean. If you then burn the plastic, you create a lot of black carbon dioxide, which pollutes the atmosphere. I think the solution has to come from the shore.” She points out that San Francisco, the city closest to the Great Pacific Patch, has successfully implemented policies to stop people using wasteful plastics. “If they can do it, so can we. We just need to stop all this dumb usage.”

Dr Boxall is decidedly less optimistic: “There is nothing we can do,” he says. “It’s too big. It’s here to stay. It’s like nuclear waste. Even an oil spillage, disastrous as it is, eventually breaks down. Plastic doesn’t. We’ve simply got to become better about how we dispose of waste.”

The Plastiki team hopes its voyage can make a difference, however small. But until something drastically changes – particularly in developing countries, such as China and Brazil – the ocean will continue to bear the brunt of our wasteful ways with plastic. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and its growing imitators around the world, will continue to sprawl.

The Met Office's reassessment of its data comes amid growing public scepticism towards global warming

Division: An iceberg breaks off in the Antarctic. Some experts say sights like this prove the world is heating up but others believe it was hotter in medieval times 

UN calls for action on growing electronic waste

Study suggests the increased dumping of used computers, mobile phones and other electronic equipment poses a serious threat to health and the environment

• Bobbie Johnson   guardian.co.uk, Monday 22.02.2010.

Migrant workers in Guiyu, China, scavenge used electronic equipment, which often contains highly toxic material. Photograph: Jim Puckett/AP

The world must do more to cope with the drastic rise in electronic waste, according to a UN study published today.

All the deadliest earthquakes since 1900, including coordinates (Interactive)

Haiti has been hit by a devastating earthquake. Where have the deadliest earthquakes struck over the past century?

  An injured child in Haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake Photograph: Ivanoh Demers/AP

An earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale struck Haiti last night, devastating the Carribean island. Thousands are feared dead, including many from the UN's 9,000-strong peacekeeping force stationed there.

The United States Geological Survey keeps track of the deadliest earthquakes around the world since 1900. According to their data, the most deadly earthquake to strike over the past 110 years hit Tangshan in China in July 1976. Measuring 7.5, the quake caused 255,000 deaths.

Check out the table below for the deadliest earthquakes since 1970 or download the spreadsheet for full data back to 1900 including co-ordinates.

Download the data

• DATA: All the deadliest earthquakes since 1900
• Save The Children emergency appeal

Can you do something with this data?

Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group or mail us at datastore@guardian.co.uk

• Get the A-Z of data
• More at the Datastore directory
• Follow us on Twitter

Summary table

The changing face of China's coal industry

Jonathan Watts reports from Inner Mongolia on a project that could clean up the planet's fastest growing source of greenhouse emissions – or make them far, far worse.

Video: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/nov/15/mining-energy

Beijing has seen the future and knows it must be green

While China aims to hold the patents on tomorrow's clean technologies, the US remains in the climate change dark ages

The announcement was greeted with a muted sigh of disappointment. The target will not bring a reduction in China's emissions: reducing carbon intensity means only that carbon emissions will grow at a slower pace than the economy – in theory allowing for growing prosperity without mounting damage. 

There was disappointment, nevertheless, with the Chinese numbers. According to Nick Mabey of the environmental consultancy E3G, it looks like an opening bid, a small variation on the growth scenarios that Chinese officials have been working on. Two key questions remain: how much more are the Chinese keeping back for the negotiating table, and what will make them disclose it?  

China's offer follows hard on President Obama's even less impressive contribution. Hamstrung by a Senate that remains in the climate dark ages and refuses even to address the issues before next spring, Obama has offered a 17% cut by 2020 on its 2005 emissions. If that looks small, the US offer shrinks to a miserly 4% when it is calculated on a 1990 baseline, the starting point for most developed countries. On that baseline, the EU has offered 20%- 30% and Japan's new government 40% cuts. Even Brazil, a country not obliged to cut its emissions, has matched the US offer. From the scientific perspective, the total of all these offers falls far short of what is required to keep the temperature rise below 2C and the catastrophic changes that could trigger.  

There is little doubt that, had the US acted, China would have felt obliged to raise its own game. The world's two biggest emitters seem to have eyes only for each other, neither willing to lead yet both seeking to avoid blame. There are, though, important underlying differences. In the last three years the Chinese have taken important strategic decisions on climate change: they have recognised that it threatens China's future prosperity, that low carbon technologies are the key not only to climate security but to technological leadership, and that, if there is to be a future, it has to be green.

None of these insights are evident in the US, outside the relatively small circles of activists, scientists and policy makers whose arguments are routinely drowned out by the tendentious noise of Fox News.

A sclerotic political system, in which legislators depend for election funding on fossil fuel and other lobbies, risks replicating on a national scale the fate of General Motors. Once the world's biggest car company, GM brought itself to bankruptcy by resisting every innovation from removing lead in petrol to the smallest steps in fuel efficiency. It spent its energy stuffing cash into Congress in a vain attempt to hold back the future instead of investing in the next generation technologies. It succeeded only in wrecking its own future as more agile Japanese competitors took over its markets.

But for China, though the outcome in Copenhagen may affect the pace of change, it will not change the underlying strategy. Wen Jiabao will go to Copenhagen, and has the authority to raise the offer if others step up. There is room to increase its pledge and to open up to verification. In contrast, Obama will visit only for a day and at present is not planning to be there for the crucial closing sessions. He is limited in what he can offer, for fear of destroying the already fragile chances of convincing Congress to face up to its responsibilities.

China means business with first-ever carbon emissions targets.

The Asian powerhouse has clearly bought into the climate change diplomacy game – but how much difference will these self-imposed goals actually make?

 

Steel mills blow industrial smoke over residential buildings in in Benxi, China. The country yesterday set its first-ever carbon targets. Photograph: Gilles Sabrie/Corbis

China could regret setting its first carbon target. Even if the impact on the economy proves manageable, the country's negotiators have now condemned the world's most populous nation to jargon-filled number crunching and climate geekery for decades to come. 
 

During the past six years in China, I can count the number of times I have heard locals talk about carbon offsetting on one finger. They didn't need to: under the Kyoto protocol, China and other developing nations were not obliged to do anything to reduce emissions. That will all change with yesterday's announcement, which paves the way for China to establish carbon trading, carbon taxing and, perhaps one day, carbon offsetting.

 

What it will not mean is an overall reduction of greenhouse gases from the world's biggest emitter. The new target is a 40-45% reduction in carbon intensity (emissions per yuan of economic activity) between 2005 and 2020. That means slowing the rate of increase rather than cutting back.

China's emissions will increase by between 90% and 108% between 2005 and 2020 if the economy grows at 8% per year, according to Arthur Kroeber of Dragonomics Research & Advisory (although other estimates suggest an emissions growth of as little as 40%).

But it could be a lot worse. According to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, China's new target will prevent more than 4 gigatons of carbon entering the earth's atmosphere between 2010 to 2015, in addition to the 1.5 gigatons already saved by the energy efficiency drive during the current five-year plan. 
 

There appears to have been considerable coordination between China and the US in announcing roughly equivalent targets within a day of each other. The World Resources Institute calculates that President Obama's goal of a 17% emissions reduction is worth slightly more than a 40% improvement in carbon intensity. A like-for-like deal seems to have been reached, even though China remains publicly adamant that its actions are voluntary while those of the developed nations are mandatory.

 

Xie Zhenhua, the vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, stressed yesterday that the goal only applies at home. It is not, he said, "internationally binding or subject to international verification". This may upset some foreign observers, but China has a better record of meeting ambitious domestic targets over the past five years than many countries have managed with internationally binding commitments.

 

A bigger question mark over China's announcement is the lack of ambition relative to what it has already been doing. The target is less than the country is aiming for in the current five years and less than it achieved in the previous 15 years. Xie acknowledged that China achieved energy conservation gains of 47% between 1990 and 2005. But he insisted the lower headline figure of the new target masked the fact that it is harder to achieve because all the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

There is some truth in this – over the past five years, China has replaced thousands of small, inefficient power plants, steel factories and cement makers with more modern facilities. It has also invested heavily in renewable energy. Doing so again will be more difficult and costly.

But other countries are also pushing themselves hard despite increased costs and challenges – most notably Japan, which is already one of the world's most efficient nations but still raised its carbon reduction target 10% this year.  

China's vice minister for foreign affairs, He Yafei, has said it is unreasonable to compare developed and developing nations because of the rich world's historical responsibility for carbon emissions. This is contentious. Data from the World Resources Institute puts China's cumulative emissions since 1900 at third behind the US and Russia.

 

However, given its 1.3 billion population, the carbon footprint of the average person in China is around a third and a quarter lower than in Europe and the US respectively. In addition, almost a fifth of the emissions that are calculated as Chinese are used to manufacture products for export to countries like the UK. 
 

But look forward instead of back and the picture is very different. If current trends continue, China will soon be the number one climate villain in a whole new set of categories. People living in rich cities like Shanghai already have a higher average carbon footprint than people in the Japan, the UK or France. Without stronger action, this will be true of an ever increasing number of people in China. 

A carbon intensity target does not mean a cut in emissions, it means a slowing of the growth in greenhouse gases relative to the expansion of the economy. This could still means very significant carbon savings. The bad news is that China's emissions are still likely to increase substantially between now and 2020 – by as much as 40%, even with carbon intensity cuts in place. 

But the jargon is clearly coming along. China is very serious about contributing in every way to the global warming debate.  Source: Not known.

 The Global Warming Challenge Click image Link 

Chinese protesters confront police over incinerator plans in Guangzhou

Residents say government is lying over health dangers as Chinese protesters gain confidence and support

A local holds a banner reading "oppose garbage incineration, protect green Guangzhou" outside government offices in Guangzhou, Guangdong province. Photograph: Reuters

The latest in a series of environment-related protests in China was sparked by rumours that a similar facility in a nearby village is responsible for an increase of cancer cases among locals.

By Christopher Booker  Daily Mail - 23.11.2009.

Just imagine if we learned we were about to be landed with the biggest bill in the history of the world - simply on the say-so of a group of scientists. Would we not want to be absolutely sure that those scientists were 100 per cent dependable in what they were saying?

Should we not then be extremely worried - and even very angry - if it emerged that those scientists had been conspiring among themselves to fiddle the evidence for what they were telling us?

This is the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves thanks to news reported in Saturday's Daily Mail which has raised huge question marks over the reliability of the science behind the theory of global warming.

A picture of polar bears on the melted ice of the Arctic Circle which was used by Al Gore, in his book An Inconvenient Truth on global warming

Hundreds of emails leaked from the internal computer system of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia show how a small group of highly influential senior British and U.S. scientists have for years been secretly discussing ways in which their evidence could be manipulated to make the threat posed by global warming sound much worse than it is.

To place the significance of these revelations into context, let us recall how exactly a year ago, Parliament passed, virtually unopposed, what was far and away the most expensive new law ever put before it. On the Government's own figures, the Climate Change Act is going to cost Britain £18 billion a year - that's £720 for every household in the country - every year from now until 2050.  

We shall be paying this through soaring 'green taxes' on everything from air travel to the £3,300 tax being proposed on each new car; through rocketing fuel bills to subsidise thousands more wind turbines and to pay for removing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations.

In fact, the true cost of the act, if complied with to the letter, would certainly be far higher, because what it lays down is that, over the next 40 years, we must cut our emissions of carbon dioxide by over 80 per cent.

Pretty well every aspect of our lives in today's industrialised society involves emitting carbon dioxide - and short of some technological revolution as yet undreamed of, the only way we could meet that target would be to close almost every part of our economy. Yet, astonishingly, scarcely a single MP even questioned the need for such a law; only three voted against it.

I recently published a book on what I have no hesitation in calling the most alarming story I have ever reported in all my years as a journalist.

Emissions rising from Drax Power Station near Selby, Yorkshire - the climate change act will cost the UK £18billion a year

This is the story of how the belief that the world has to fight the threat of global warming has crept to the top of the political agenda, to the point where, not just in Britain but across the world, governments are solemnly discussing by far the most costly series of measures any bunch of politicians has proposed.

This is what they will all be discussing at next month's great UN conference, when 20,000 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists from all over the world gather in Copenhagen to discuss a new treaty to decide just what measures we shall all have to accept to keep the supposed threat of global warming at bay.

We all know the basic thesis: that thanks to mankind burning fossil fuels, the world's temperatures are hurtling upwards, and that unless the most drastic action is taken, we can look forward to an unprecedented global catastrophe - droughts, hurricanes, killer heatwaves, melting icecaps, sea levels rising to the point where many of the world's major cities are submerged.

All this is what has been predicted by the expensive computer models relied on by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), which the politicians tell us we must trust as the ultimate source of authority on the future of the world's climate.

On every side we are told that 'the science is settled', that '2,500 of the world's top climate scientists' agree that these terrifying predictions will all come true unless we take the most drastic action. So carried away have they all been by this belief that scarcely a single politician dares question it.

Yet the oddest thing which has become increasingly evident in the past year or two is the fact that almost none of these things is happening, certainly not in the way those computer models have been predicting. Although carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, temperatures have not been rising in the way the computer models all agree they should have done.

Mount Kilimanjaro's massive ice fields which are rapidly thinning as temperatures rise, according to scientists

In the past decade, the overall trend of temperatures has been not upwards, but down.

The hard evidence tells us that there have actually been fewer major droughts, hurricanes and heatwaves in recent years than there were in earlier decades.

There is no less ice at the Earth's poles today than there was 30 years ago. Sea levels may have been rising very slowly, but no faster than they have been for 200 years.

In other words, as a growing army of genuine experts across the world has been trying to tell us, there is not a single item on the list of apocalyptic predictions we have been fed for so long by the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore which is not being called into question by what is actually happening to the world's climate.

The scientists who have been challenging almost every aspect of the official theory on global warming have ranged from world-ranking physicists such as Professor Richard Lindzen, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Professors Will Happer and Freeman Dyson of Princeton University, to 700 scientists of many disciplines.

These include Nobel Prize-winners and former contributors to the IPCC, who signed a 'minority report' of the U.S. Senate's environment committee.

Cutting carbon emissions from aeroplanes is one the many legislative changes that the Government are implementing in order to avoid increased global warming

It is beginning to look as though the panic over global warming, which has our politicians so in its grip, may have been no more than a colossal scare story - to line up alongside all those other scares which have raced in and out of the headlines in recent decades, such as the 'Millennium Bug', which at midnight on December 31, 1999, was going to crash the world's computers.

So the real question which arises from this most terrifying of all scare scenarios is: why did the world's politicians get swept along by it?

One of the more suspicious features of the man-made global warming theory is precisely this extraordinary pressure, which has been built up to insist the evidence for it is so overwhelming that it is a moral crime to question it.

For several years, anyone daring to doubt the theory - not least some of the world's most eminent climate scientists - has been vilified as a 'denier', to be compared with those who try to deny the historical reality of Hitler's Holocaust.

Al Gore was one of the first to condemn as 'flat earthers' anyone who was sceptical of his reckless scaremongering, likening such people to the cranks who believe the Moon landings were all somehow 'faked on a movie lot in Arizona' (delightfully, among the scientists who have come out as 'climate sceptics' are two of the U.S. astronauts who did land on the Moon, Dr Buzz Aldrin and Dr Jack Schmitt).

In the scientific world, notably in the U.S. and Europe, it has long been a major scandal that those daring to doubt the official orthodoxy on global warming face ostracism from their academic colleagues, have had research funding withdrawn and have not been allowed to publish their papers in the leading scientific journals.

A layer of smog is seen over Paris - scientists who support climate change theories say that it is one of the main causes of increasing global temperatures

But equally suspicious has been the way the advocates of the warming orthodoxy have been repeatedly shown to have fiddled the scientific evidence being used to promote it.

The most notorious example of this was the so-called 'hockey stick' graph, which for years was brandished to show that, after flat-lining for 1,000 years, global temperatures had suddenly soared upwards in the late 20th century to levels never known before in recorded history.

The hockey stick was used by the IPCC and Gore as the supreme icon of their cause. Then, two statisticians revealed that the graph had been created by a computer model programmed to produce hockey stick shapes whatever data were fed into it.

And now come these leaked emails showing that the very scientists who were responsible for championing the hockey stick - all at the heart of the IPCC establishment - have been regularly discussing how the evidence could be manipulated to promote their cause.

The greatest myth of all in this story is the claim that the succession of alarmist reports produced by the IPCC represents a 'consensus' of the views of '2,500 of the world's top climate scientists'.

In every way, this is wildly misleading. The vast majority of those who contribute to those IPCC reports are not climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all, but economists or sociologists - even just environmental activists with no scientific qualifications whatever.

The IPCC was never intended to be an impartial body, weighing the evidence for and against man-made global warming and coming up with objective conclusions.

It was set up by a small group of scientists already so firmly committed to the belief in 'human-induced climate change' that they were not prepared to examine any evidence which contradicted it.

A detailed study of the contributors to the most recent IPCC report has shown that the number of scientists responsible for the key chapter on the extent and causes of global warming - on which everything else in the report depended - was not 2,500, but barely 50.

Almost all this handful of scientists were firmly committed to the official view on global warming before they were appointed - and they include those whose leaked emails have now created a shock wave running around the world.

Tellingly, what they also all have in common is that their findings are based on computer models programmed to assume the chief cause of global warming is the rise in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

It is precisely this assumption which more than anything else has been called into question by the fact that global temperatures have not been continuing to rise as the computer models insisted they should.

Even some of the most committed scientific supporters of the global warming theory now admit the warming process has come to a halt - although they insist that in a decade or two it will re- emerge again stronger than ever.

The fact remains that the models on which the whole global warming panic was based have been proved dismally wrong, suggesting that the theory on which they were programmed may itself have been fundamentally flawed.

Yet on this basis, the world's politicians, led by our own in Britain, are nevertheless proposing the most damaging measures ever put forward in history - cuts in carbon emission which, if implemented, would plunge our world back into the Dark Ages - to meet a crisis which it now seems was never going to happen anyway.

Before it is too late, we must insist our politicians re- examine the increasingly shaky scientific case on which all those proposals are based.

For nearly 20 years, from Al Gore to President Obama, they have been intoning to us that 'the science is settled'. But as ever more scientists from outside the IPCC's self- selected 'magic circle' now maintain, it has never been more obvious that this simply isn't true.

No one has put this better than Professor Lindzen, one of the world's leading climatologists, when he wrote: 'Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st-century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections contemplated a roll-back of the industrial age.'

With the entire future of our civilisation at stake, it is no longer good enough for our politicians just to shout 'deniers' and 'flat earthers' at all those genuinely expert scientists now begging them to look properly at the evidence. They must be prepared to listen - and, for the sake of our planet, to think again.

• The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History? by Christopher Booker (Continuum £16.99). To order a copy at £15.30 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0845 155 0720      end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html#ixzz0XgnvqQLG

Kenya evicts thousands of forest squatters in attempt to save Rift valley.  Xan Rice in Nairobi   guardian.co.uk,  18.11. 2009

Tourism, tea and energy industries threatened after a quarter of huge Mau forest destroyed in 20 years

Some of the residents of the Mau forest in Kenya stand by the roadside. Photograph: Finbarr O'Reilly/Reuters

Several thousand people who had settled illegally in Kenya's most important forest have left their homes at the beginning of an eviction plan designed to end rampant environmental degradation in the Rift valley.

A serious drought that has led to water and power shortages across the country was a contributing factor. But human destruction of the once-thick Mau Forest, which has caused its aquifer levels to fall significantly and seen soil erosion increase, played a major part. At its root, as so often happens in Kenya, is politics and corruption.

Before the 1990s, the forest was a protected area. But then senior officials in President Daniel arap Moi's government grabbed large plots of the highly fertile land for themselves – Moi still owns a large tea farm in the Mau – profiting from the timber they cleared. They also removed protection from other parts of the forest where thousands of their supporters were allowed to settle and begin farming. Many of the plots were subdivided and then illegally sold on, sometimes to unwitting buyers.

Amid warnings that the entire ecosystem in the Rift valley and western Kenya was in danger due to the rapid deforestation, Kenya's government has made saving the Mau its number one environmental priority. A task force formed by the prime minister, Raila Odinga, last year recommended that all settlers in the forest be removed and that cleared areas be rehabilitated through mass tree planting. Only genuine titleholders – many of the titles in circulation are fictitious – are to be considered for compensation.  

Villagers say visitors to delta are a threat to wildlife and their fishing industry

Tourists take to the waters of the Okavango Delta in the local fishermen's preferred makoro canoes. Photograph: Stuart Westmorland/Corbis

Music, dancing and smiling platitudes greeted the royal guest in the fishing village of Samochima, northern Botswana. But cutting through the convivial mood was a cry of anguish – and a plea for a way of life threatened by tourism in the world's largest inland delta. 

Crown Prince Haakon of Norway had arrived as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). While addressing an audience in the shade of some fig trees, he was confronted by a local fisherman, Saoshiko Njwaki, who spoke out bluntly about growing resentment at the world's indifference to their plight.

At stake is no ordinary prize. The Okavango Delta is a watery wilderness of channels, lagoons and islands that empty into the Kalahari desert. Its 16,000 sq km of swamps are filled with birds, crocodiles, elephants, hippos, lions and an abundance of other wildlife.

During his trip, Prince Haakon said he hoped the UNDP could help the rival factions reach a compromise. "It's all about balance so the tourism and fishing industries can find ways of working out their differences through democratic processes and peaceful means," he said



Sudan White Nile marshes polluted by oil.
Picture gallery: http://guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery2009/nov/18/oil-water-pollution

• Global Warming
• Climate
• Ice Ages

• Early Climate
• Fossils
• Origin of Life

• Geologic temperature record
• Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
• Climate model
• Temperature record

http://www.ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0512/index.html  -  National Geographic Magazine Online  Note: section of the address '0512' links to May's edition.  Subsitute '0412' for April issue etc, or search for back-copies, archive features / topics.

Leak Caused Copenhagen Climate Change Talks to Collapse

Jairam Ramesh claims Connie Hedegaard admitted leak of text was 'death blow from which summit never recovered' 

Jonathan Watts in Boao, Hainan   guardian.co.uk, 12.04.2010

Confidential document reveals Obama's hardline US climate talk strategy

The chairwoman of the Copenhagen conference Connie Hedegaard greets the Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh at a dinner before the summit last December. Photograph: Jens Astrup/AFP/Getty Images

The Copenhagen conference was destroyed from the start by the leak of the "Danish draft" negotiating text to The Guardian, the Indian environment minister said this weekend in a warning that the breakdown of international trust would continue to undermine climate talks this year.

In an interview with The Guardian ahead of a new round of meetings, Jairam Ramesh shed new light on last December's fraught summit and highlighted the continuing gulf between rich nations and the Basic block of emerging economies — Brazil, South Africa, India and China.

Dismissing Britain's attempt to blame China for the disappointment of Copenhagen, the Indian minister said the outcome was determined by a failed "ambush", targeted at the leaders of emerging economies, by the host nation Denmark. This attempted to switch a new negotiating text for the existing UN texts.

"The Danish draft was circulated at the beginning of the conference, which got mysteriously leaked to the Guardian. That completely destroyed trust. It was the leak of the Danish draft that destroyed Copenhagen from day one," said Ramesh, at a sustainable growth forum in Hainan.

This back door negotiating track collapsed when the text was leaked before consensus had been reached, undermining the authority of the Danish chair, Connie Hedegaard.

"Yesterday Connie Hedegaard came to see me in Delhi and she admitted for the first time that the leak of the Danish draft was the death blow from which Copenhagen never recovered," said Ramesh.

The wide-ranging 30-page compromise draft was scrapped, leaving world leaders to scrabble for a replacement. Most of the negotiating was done during the frantic, final 24 hours, during which Basic nations formed their own huddle. According to Ramesh, their leaders had made it clear from the outset that they were not there to negotiate a document.

After the weak Copenhagen accord was unveiled, several European negotiators said China had blocked numerical targets, including a proposal from the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, that the 2050 goal would only apply to rich nations.  Ramesh described this criticism as intellectual hypocrisy. He said a 2050 goal for rich nations would implicitly curtail the "carbon space" left for development by emerging economies, ie the amount of greenhouse gases that could be emitted without causing dangerous global warming.

India and China are the core of the Basic group, which has begun holding quarterly meetings to coordinate its response to future climate negotiations. Its next gathering will be in Cape Town on 25 April, ahead of a ministerial meeting called by Merkel on 2 May to lay the political groundwork for talks later this year in Berlin and Cancun.

***Special*** A Guyanese view of Copenhagen: What of the cash promised to save our trees?

Journalists have heard much about this windfall but they have little evidence to suggest it will actually happen

 

A red-billed toucan, native to Guyana which is three-quarters covered in forest. Photograph: Minden/FLPA RM

As news of the suspension of the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen reached Guyana yesterday it was greeted by a flurry of mocking Facebook updates from journalists in the country.

"So we gonna cut down de trees now … or sell them to the Chinese?" a former editor asked, with more than a hint of cynicism. "What happened to the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS)?" another journalist quipped.

 
They were referring to the fate of Guyanese president Bharrat Jagdeo's LCDS, a plan by which Guyana would be paid up to $580m a year – the sum experts believe the country's rainforests are worth if cut down – to preserve its vast quantity of trees. 
 

Journalists have heard too much about this promised windfall and until they hear something concrete to show it is going to go ahead they will remain cynical.

 

Back home, the newspaper columnists have predicted the "melting" of the Copenhagen talks – and Jagdeo and his $580m a year strategy along with it. The brief suspension of the summit, on the basis that developing countries do not think rich countries are going to do enough to help them, only justified their fears.

 

The concept that countries would be paid to preserve their forests is part of a UN strategy called Redd, which stands for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. With a rainforest the size of the UK, Guyana has a lot of forest and funding to lose if the Copenhagen talks fail. 
 

If Redd is agreed, Guyana could become the first country to receive funds under the scheme. In fact, there is a lot of pressure on Guyana to complete its Redd strategy, because the world needs a model by which Redd funds can flow.

 

However, beyond the Copenhagen talks, some of the biggest problems Guyana faces are back home. People understand that the LCDS strategy means preserving trees and that they should get money for it – but the understanding stops there. At a recent meeting with miners, one asked the president: "How do you store carbon? Do you like, trap it in a bottle?"

 

There is also confusion as to whether the forest Jagdeo has undertaken to preserve includes traditional Amerindian land.  Yet despite this confusion, there is an appetite for news from Copenhagen – people want to know what is being decided.

But I know of only two other reporters who cover the environment and climate change. One of them, Johann Earl, just arrived in Copenhagen. He is here with strong backing from the government and writes for a newspaper aligned to the government.

Money is often the crux. I met the president at one of the first meetings he attended here. His first words were: "How long are you here? Has your money run out?" It was a fair point: it is very expensive and I am only here in Copenhagen because I won a fellowship with the Climate Change Media Partnership. My newsroom could never afford to send me. And almost no editor would grant a few days to cover a climate change story. 

When I did get out to cover the efforts of a community in Surama to stop its trees being cut down, my story was entered in a local competition for environment journalists. Yet despite the first prize being almost four months' salary of an average reporter, the award was cancelled because of lack of entries.

• Neil Marks has covered tourism, environment and climate change stories for both print and electronic media in Guyana over the past decade.

Blame Denmark, not China for Copenhagen failure   (Agencies)  Updated: 2010-01-01

It's been several days since the chaotic end to the Copenhagen climate conference but the aftershocks from its failure are still reverberating. As John Prescott points out in his letter to the Guardian, the pointing of fingers in the blame game does not help the regaining of trust needed for the positive resumption of talks early next year and to complete them by December 2010, the new deadline agreed to in Copenhagen.

First, the misinformation put out in the past few days has to be corrected. The UK climate secretary, Ed Miliband, backed by individuals such as Mark Lynas (both writing in the Guardian) have turned on China as the villain that "hijacked" the conference. The main "evidence" they gave was that China vetoed an "agreement" on a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050 and an 80% reduction by developed countries, in the small meeting of 26 leaders on Copenhagen's final day.

Full Coverage:  Copenhagen Summit Related readings:  China not to blame on climate: FM  Europe feels left out in cold on climate deal  China refutes British criticism over climate talks  Wen stresses co-op against climate change

There was indeed a "hijack" in Copenhagen, but it was not by China. The hijack was organised by the host government, Denmark, whose prime minister convened a meeting of 26 leaders in the last two days of the conference, in an attempt to override the painstaking negotiations taking place among 193 countries throughout the two weeks and in fact in the past two to four years.

That exclusive meeting was not mandated by the UN climate convention. Indeed, the developing countries had warned the Danish prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, not to come up with his own "Danish text" to be negotiated by a small group that he himself would select, as this would violate the multilateral treaty-based process, and would replace the documents carefully negotiated by all countries with one unilaterally issued by the host country.

Despite this, the Danish government produced just such a document, and it convened exactly the kind of exclusive group that would undermine the UN climate convention's multilateral and democratic process. Under that process, the 193 countries had been collectively working on coming to a conclusion on the many aspects of the climate deal.

Weeks before, it had become clear that Copenhagen could not adopt a full agreement because many basic differences remained. Copenhagen should have been designed as a stepping stone to a future successful outcome accepted by all. Unfortunately, the host country Denmark selected a small number of the 110 top leaders who came, to meet in secret, without the mandate or even knowledge of the convention's membership.

The selected leaders were given a draft Danish document that mainly represented the developed countries' positions, thereby marginalising the developing countries' views tabled at the two-year negotiations.

Meanwhile, most of the thousands of delegates were working for two weeks on producing two reports representing the latest state of play, indicating areas of agreement and those where final decisions still had to be taken.

These reports were finally adopted by the conference. They should have been announced as the real outcome of Copenhagen, together with a decision to resume and complete work next year. It would not have been a resounding success, but it would have been an honest ending that would not have been termed a failure.

Instead, the Copenhagen accord was criticised by the final plenary of members and not adopted. The unwise attempt by the Danish presidency to impose a non-legitimate meeting to override the legitimate multilateral process was the reason why Copenhagen will be considered a disaster.

The accord itself is weak mainly because it does not contain any commitments by the developed countries to cut their emissions in the medium term. Perhaps the reason for this most glaring omission is that the national pledges so far announced amount to only a 11-19% overall reduction by the developed countries by 2020 (compared to 1990), a far cry from the over 40% target demanded by the developing countries and recent science.

To deflect from this great failure on their part, the developed countries tried to inject long-term emission-reduction goals of 50% for the world and 80% for themselves, by 2050 compared to 1990. When this failed to get through the 26-country meeting, some countries, especially the UK, began to blame China for the failure of Copenhagen.

In fact, these targets, especially taken together, have been highly contentious during the two years of discussions, and for good reasons. They would result in a highly inequitable outcome where developed countries get off from their responsibilities and push the burden of adjustment onto the developing countries.

Together, they imply that developing countries would have to cut their emissions overall by about 20% in absolute terms and at least 60% in per capita terms. By 2050, developed countries with high per capita emissions – such as the US – would be allowed to have two to five times higher per capita emission levels than developing countries. The latter would have to severely curb not only their emissions but also their economic growth, especially since there is, up to now, no credible plans let alone commitments for financial and technology transfers to help them shift to a low-emissions development path.

The developed countries have already completed their industrialisation on the basis of cheap carbon-based energy and can afford to take on an 80% goal for 2050, especially since they now have the technological and organisational capacity and infrastructure. For a minimally equitable deal, they should commit to cuts of at least 200-400%, or move into negative emission territory, with net re-absorption of greenhouse gases, to enable developing countries the atmospheric space to develop.

The acceptance of the two targets would also have locked in a most unfair sharing of the remaining global carbon budget as it would have allowed the developed countries to get off free from their historical responsibility and their carbon debt. They would have been allocated the rights to a large amount of "carbon space", historically and in the future, without being given the obligation and responsibility to undertake adequate emission cuts nor to make adequate financial and technology transfers to developing countries.

Fortunately these targets are absent from the accord. The imperative for the negotiations next year is to agree on what science says is necessary for the world to do (in terms of limits to temperature rise or in global emissions cut) but also on what is a just and equitable formula for sharing the costs and burdens of adjustment, and to decide on both simultaneously. By asking for agreement on only a global goal and a very low commitment figure for their own obligatory cut, the developed countries were attempting to fix a global carbon budget distribution that enables them to get away with the hijacking of atmospheric space, a resource worth many trillions of dollars.

Learning from Copenhagen's mistakes, the countries should return to the multilateral track and resume negotiations in the climate convention's two working groups as early as possible.

They can start with the two reports passed at Copenhagen as reference points. There should not be more attempts to hijack this multilateral process, which represents our best hope to achieve final results.

The bottom-up democratic process is slower but also steadier, compared to the top-down attempt to impose a solution by a few powers that will always lack legitimacy in decision-making and success or sustainability in implementation.

Copenhagen climate change talks stall

• Vital hours lost over claim Kyoto treaty being killed
• Brown flies in early as time to clinch deal runs out

• John Vidal, Suzanne Goldenberg and Jonathan Watts in Copenhagen
• The Guardian, Tuesday 15.12.2009.  

A fraught day in Copenhagen yesterday saw disputes cause the loss of five vital hours of negotiating time and the UN and Danish organisers accused of sidelining developing nations by holding informal consultations with selected countries.

 

"The disaster has already begun because we have not closed the gap an inch. We have not moved," a senior Asian negotiator said. "We are just trying to paste over it with political rhetoric."

 

John Vidal on five-hour halt to climate change talks Link to this audio

The rancour that has run through the summit between developed and developing nations broke out again when the Africa group of countries and others accused the UN chair of the conference of trying to "kill" the Kyoto protocol. The issue is that Kyoto is the only legal treaty compelling rich nations to slash their greenhouse gas emissions. But rich states complain that Kyoto makes no demand on developing countries, particularly China and India, whose carbon emissions have risen fast and will dominate future growth.

The lost time was "very regrettable", said the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband. "We have not done a brilliant job today. We are now four minutes to midnight." Ministers began arriving yesterday for the high-level political section of the talks.

The negotiations run on twin tracks: a Kyoto track and a non-Kyoto track. The US, Japan, Australia and others want a draft treaty to be taken from the non-Kyoto track. But after a lengthy time-out and frantic diplomacy from the UN and Danish hosts, it was agreed that the twin-track approach would continue. This means world leaders will have to contend with two draft treaties when they make the final decisions, which is seen as a victory for the developing nations.

 

Victor Fodeke, head of the Nigerian special climate change unit, said: "Africa is on death row. It has been sidelined by some countries. If there is any attempt to remove one of the tracks of negotiations, then it's obvious the train will crash."

 

Miliband said: "There can be an overall political decision expressed in the two documents. There is a real will for substance. I understand the anxiety of developing countries not wanting to declare an end to the Kyoto protocol before a new agreement is in place."

A Downing Street source said there was still time to get a deal: "I expect this agreement to be finished by the time the leaders come, except for final numbers. But it will take leaders to put those in."

 

The tension in Copenhagen continued last night as police were involved in fresh confrontations with protesters in the Christiania area of the city. Riot police reportedly used tear gas on people attending a party in a marquee, as helicopters circled over the area, an abandoned military barracks near the city centre which has been occupied by alternative lifestyle groups since the 1970s. Since Saturday more than 1,000 protesters have been arrested.

Gordon Brown will fly to Copenhagen today, two days earlier than planned. He is expected to focus on the vexed issue of how much money needs to flow from north to south to pay for dealing with global warming. A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister has reprioritised his diary to ensure he can put the time that is required into shaping the next few days."

Other leaders arriving early include prime ministers Kevin Rudd of Australia and Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh.

 

The time-out was called by the chair of the talks, Connie Hedegaard, the Danish climate minister. But her proposal that a core of ministers from 50 out of 192 nations gather to hammer out a compromise text merely incensed those left behind. "Developed nations won't come to the table with real numbers. That is the main obstacle preventing progress," said Su Wei, China's top negotiator.

 

The US administration attempted to sweeten a deal for developing countries with the promise of a $350m (£215m) fund for clean energy technologies, such as wind and solar power. The US energy secretary, Stephen Chu, likened the initiative to the breakthrough in seed technology after the second world war that dramatically boosted food production. "We need a game-changer like the green revolution was for agriculture," he said.

 

Chu claimed he detected no sign of resentment from the developing countries. "I don't feel that at all that there is any mistrust," he said. "Perhaps in discussion they may see me as a scientist and say: 'Let's just get on with it. Let's solve the problem'."

 

Barack Obama has dispatched more than half a dozen members of his team to try to demonstrate America's commitment to cutting emissions and bringing in energy-efficient technologies, but much persuading remains to be done, say observers.

 

"Because the Senate hasn't acted [to pass climate change legislation], I think there is quite a lot of interest in what the US is willing to commit," said Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

There is one American leader whose green credentials are often seen as impeccable – Al Gore, left. The former vice-president was treated like a rock star when he arrived at the summit to release reports on the melting of the Arctic ice cap. He told the packed room that there was a 75% chance that the entire cap would melt in summer in the next five to seven years.

Green property: 25 ways to help save the planet

How to save the planet and trim your bills. Sarah Lonsdale lists her top eco-friendly tips for 2010 .

By Sarah Lonsdale   05.01.2010

Thrifty and nifty: wear a jumper instead of turning on the heater Photo: GETTY

Listen to a solar-powered digital radio

 

1 Eat your supper by candlelight. OK, turning off the lights for an hour will only save you pennies (depending on how bright your dining room lights are – an hour a day for the six dark months will save you from £2-£11) but it’s far more romantic and for anyone over 35, candlelight is much kinder to skin than electric glare. Tesco tea lights, £1.75 for 50.

 
Related Articles

• Green living: 19 ways to save the planet - list

• Eco homes: Power broker

• Save money with eco gadgets

• Eco homes: Retro-green your house

• Double glazing: Lovely historic house, but it's freezing

2 Put on a jumper when you feel cold. Rather than reach for the thermostat when the nights are chilly, add another layer.

3 Invest in a ceiling airer and get rid of the tumble-dryer. The single most energy-hungry of all the white goods, the tumble-dryer is an eco-disaster. A well-positioned ceiling airer will dry your clothes in 24 hours and will pay for itself within a year — the average tumble-dryer used three times a week will cost you £65 a year to run. From £56 from www.dpcompany-ltd.com.

4 Use a draught excluder. Sometimes the simplest ideas are the best. Ill-fitting front and back doors can leak heat in the winter. Take a tip from your grandparents’ book and install a sausage dog or snake draught excluder. Attractive red floral fabric sausage dog draught excluder, £25 from www.cathkidston.co.uk; alternatively, make your own with some old curtain/tablecloth remnants and stuff it with shredded polystyrene packaging left over from Christmas.  

5 Install a wood-burning stove in your fireplace. Up to seven times more efficient than open fires, wood-burning stoves are an easy and attractive way to reduce your reliance on gas and electricity — especially if you make friends with local tree surgeons and farmers who might sell you their offcuts cheaply. Better still, buy one with a cooking ring on top so you can heat your water with “free” heat from the top of your stove.  

6 Fit a letter box insulator. Believe it or not, a leaky letter box can lose 20-25 per cent of a home’s heat on its own. Just screw this airtight insulator onto the back of your door and save yourself a packet.

7 Use vinegar to clean windows. Fill an empty spray pump with white vinegar — this will cost about 50p compared with up to £2–£3 for chemical cleaners. Not only will your windows be radiantly shiny but you’ll be reducing the amount of harmful chemicals in your home.  

8 Buy an energy monitor. Tells you which household appliance is using the most energy and which family member has left the lights on all day.  

9 Install a water butt. With all homes set to be metered, and drier summers in southern England forecast to be the norm, a water butt can save your money and your peas. Every house with even a small patio garden should have at least one. Run a couple off your greenhouse roof with a length of hosepipe.  

10 Don’t waste money on a so-called eco kettle. Just fill up your tea or coffee cups with water from the tap, pour this into the kettle, and then switch on, to boil only the amount of water you actually need.

 

11 Put a brick in your cistern. Saving around three litres a flush, which works out at £20 a year on metered homes, it is still one of the simplest and cheapest ways of saving money on your bills.

12 Get a free home energy audit: the Energy Saving Trust claims it can save £300 off the average annual fuel bill by analysing your home energy usage.  

13 Go foraging. Our countryside, urban parks and seaside are bursting with free wild, delicious food — which comes with no packaging or food miles to fret over. Mushrooms, sea kale, wood sorrel, sloes, blackberries, chestnuts and wild garlic are among just a few of the delicious wild comestibles in our woods and fields.

14 Insulate the loft. Not the sexiest of resolutions, but with potential savings of £200-plus a year against an outlay of about £150 (and less if you’re over 60), the question is, why haven’t you done it already?  

15 Turn your washing machine dial to 30C for every wash. If you wash your clothes at 40C or 60C and use the washing machine the average five times a week, by turning the dial to 30C you can save up to £150 a year on electricity bills. According to the Energy Saving Trust, switching to 30C degrees, replacing all tungsten bulbs with eco ones and switching off appliances left on standby could save the average householder £300 a year.

 

16 Reuse envelopes. With just a roll of sticky white labels (£1.99 for 500 from most stationary stores) you can reuse every envelope that comes through your door, reducing paper waste and saving you money.

 

17 Teach yourself to sew. With so many clothes gaining an extra lease of life from a bit of hemming, patching, button replacing or mending, relearn the lost art of sewing; join your local “stitch 'n’ bitch” group for gossip while you darn.  

18 Join your local books or clothes swapping group. Most small towns, or communities within larger ones, operate groups. Take along your unwanted items, and in return receive a token to exchange for someone else’s cast off.

19 Change your shower head for an ecocamel version. One of the easiest ways of saving energy, this clever gizmo uses about 30 litres of water per shower rather than the usual 50 and can save up to 30,000 litres a year. Savings of £70-£140 a year.

20 Fit a solar-powered shed light. With a solar panel and simple wiring system leading to a low-energy light bulb, you can light up your outhouse for free.  

21 Rediscover the joy of slippers. Once the epitome of cosy domesticity, slippers have recently lost out in our overheated homes. Now that the thermostat needs to be set below 20C, invest in a sheepskin-lined pair.

22 Listen to the Test match with power from the sun. A solar digital radio gives crystal-clear sound and, sat on a sunny window, will give you free, uninterrupted coverage of your favourite programmes. 

23 Replace your petrol or electric lawnmower with a push-along. Over the summer months your lawnmower will use up pounds and pounds of fuel.   Keep that Sunday lunch tummy in trim and save money with a push-along.

24 Don’t throw away holey socks, torn sheets and laddered tights. Keep them in your understairs cupboard or kitchen drawer and use them as dusters and mops. Socks make perfect dusters while sheets cut to size are good for cleaning windows and washing down paintwork. Use old tights, bunched up and fixed with a rubber band, as sponges and washing-up wipes.

 

25 Interline your curtains. While investing in double glazing is expensive, much of your heat escapes through single-paned windows on dark cold nights when drawing heavy, thermal-lined curtains will save you lots of money. Thermal curtain lining fabric from £3.99 a metre from most haberdashers.

China, India, Brazil and South Africa prepare for post-Copenhagen meeting

Influential bloc of large developing countries expected to define common position on emissions cuts and climate aid

• John Vidal, environment editor   guardian.co.uk, 13.01.2010
• 

Brazil's President Lula addresses the Copenhagen summit. Photograph: Bob Strong/Reuters 

One month after the Copenhagen climate summit ended in recriminations and and a weak outline of a global deal, key groups of developing countries will meet to try to explore ways to get to agree a legally binding final agreement.

As the dust settles on the stormy Danish meeting, environment ministers from the so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will meet on January 24 in New Delhi. No formal agenda has been set, but observers expect the emerging geopolitical alliance between the four large developing countries who brokered the final "deal" with the US in Denmark will define a common position on emission reductions and climate aid money, and seek ways to convince other countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord that emerged last month.

Fewer than 30 countries out of the 192 who are signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organised Copenhagen, have indicated that they will sign. Many are known to be deeply unhappy with the $100bn pledged for climate aid and the decision not to