Question: Sounds great. But that’ll cost. Where should the money come from?
Answer: Part of the funding could be generated in conventional ways. The remainder will have to be financed through money creation.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
Thursday, September 29, 2011
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: So what to do?
Answer: A global "bottom line" will have to be established, which will oblige business as well as governments and other parties to comply with minimum environmental standards. As was described for the social "bottom line", non-compliance should give complying countries the right to impose trade sanctions. Rather then its current hammering on totally unrestrained trade the World Trade Organization, WTO, should take the lead in establishing and implementing these environmental and social "bottom lines". At the same time, a massive effort should be initiated to provide poor countries with the technology required for effective pollution control. Financing of this effort should take place within the framework of an overall sustainable development program, which should also address the already mentioned issues of adequate land and water management, conservation of natural areas and bio-diversity, and the conversion to clean, renewable fuel.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: Why not indeed? Why is all that knowledge and technology not used?
Answer: Because of its cost, and – related to that - because the competition between countries to attract and keep business makes governments slack on imposing and maintaining environmental regulations.
Explanation: costs of pollution control, globalization and environmental regulations
Pollution control technology is often expensive. It does not as a rule add to production quantity and, with the partial exception of agricultural products, product quality. Therefore, pollution control raises production costs. That reduces profits and makes products less competitive in international markets. Recognizing this, governments, especially of poor countries, tend to avoid bothering their business sector with environmental regulations - until environmental problems become such that action can no longer be delayed. Likewise, in their drive to attract foreign investment governments outdo themselves in trying to outdo governments in offering a favorable investment climate. Environmental regulations that increase production costs are not part of that climate. Thanks to globalization, international business can threaten to set up shop elsewhere if environmental regulations are perceived as too tight. Thus both national and international business push, directly or indirectly, to loosen environmental laws, if not in writing then in enforcement.
Moreover, especially in poor, badly governed countries (the two usually go together), those responsible for causing most of the environmental damage are part of the local economic and political elite, and are thus easily capable to block any measures they see as contrary to their interests.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
Answer: Because of its cost, and – related to that - because the competition between countries to attract and keep business makes governments slack on imposing and maintaining environmental regulations.
Explanation: costs of pollution control, globalization and environmental regulations
Pollution control technology is often expensive. It does not as a rule add to production quantity and, with the partial exception of agricultural products, product quality. Therefore, pollution control raises production costs. That reduces profits and makes products less competitive in international markets. Recognizing this, governments, especially of poor countries, tend to avoid bothering their business sector with environmental regulations - until environmental problems become such that action can no longer be delayed. Likewise, in their drive to attract foreign investment governments outdo themselves in trying to outdo governments in offering a favorable investment climate. Environmental regulations that increase production costs are not part of that climate. Thanks to globalization, international business can threaten to set up shop elsewhere if environmental regulations are perceived as too tight. Thus both national and international business push, directly or indirectly, to loosen environmental laws, if not in writing then in enforcement.
Moreover, especially in poor, badly governed countries (the two usually go together), those responsible for causing most of the environmental damage are part of the local economic and political elite, and are thus easily capable to block any measures they see as contrary to their interests.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: What’s wrong with those arguments?
Answer: Bad economics, and poor morals.
Bad economics: Much of the damage being done to the environment will be difficult or impossible to restore. And for what can be restored, the longer we wait, the higher the cost. Mainstream economics, markets, and voters have, unfortunately, a very short time horizon, and do not take account of future costs and damages. In present cost-benefit calculations environmental costs, that is, the cost of damage to the environment, are not counted. Therefore neither the private sector nor markets can be counted upon to remedy the situation: by the time markets will react it will be too late, or the cost of remedying the situation will be astronomical.
Morals: The environment is a public good, and investment in its maintenance and where possible, recuperation is, because of its importance for current as well as future generations, a moral duty. The millions of deaths that occur each year, almost all of them among the (very) poor and mostly, among children under five, are simply unacceptable.
Even less acceptable is that, if current trends continue, more suffering and death lie ahead.
The key problem is that there is simply no time to follow the path the rich countries have followed, that is, to first sacrifice the environment on the altar of economic growth, and only then start paying attention to our surroundings. Moreover, what’s the point of making the same mistakes the rich countries made? Contrary to, say, the 19th century and the first 60 to 70 years of the 20th, the knowledge and the technology to produce in an environmentally friendly manner are there. So why not use it?
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
Answer: Bad economics, and poor morals.
Bad economics: Much of the damage being done to the environment will be difficult or impossible to restore. And for what can be restored, the longer we wait, the higher the cost. Mainstream economics, markets, and voters have, unfortunately, a very short time horizon, and do not take account of future costs and damages. In present cost-benefit calculations environmental costs, that is, the cost of damage to the environment, are not counted. Therefore neither the private sector nor markets can be counted upon to remedy the situation: by the time markets will react it will be too late, or the cost of remedying the situation will be astronomical.
Morals: The environment is a public good, and investment in its maintenance and where possible, recuperation is, because of its importance for current as well as future generations, a moral duty. The millions of deaths that occur each year, almost all of them among the (very) poor and mostly, among children under five, are simply unacceptable.
Even less acceptable is that, if current trends continue, more suffering and death lie ahead.
The key problem is that there is simply no time to follow the path the rich countries have followed, that is, to first sacrifice the environment on the altar of economic growth, and only then start paying attention to our surroundings. Moreover, what’s the point of making the same mistakes the rich countries made? Contrary to, say, the 19th century and the first 60 to 70 years of the 20th, the knowledge and the technology to produce in an environmentally friendly manner are there. So why not use it?
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: Why the lack of action, and results?
Answer: Governments are unwilling to spend the large sums of money that are needed to effectively address the problems. Powerful interest groups – oil producing nations and companies, loggers – block initiatives to change things around. And most important: short term economic interests are put above the longer term common good.
Explanation: Priorities, rationalization, and ideology.
Politicians give priority to the economy. They are largely pushed to do so by voters, who consider the present contents of their wallet much more important then the problems we will face in thirty years.
Rationalization is used to play down the consequences: nature is more resilient, so it is said, that all those environmental doomsday prophets pretend it to be, and nature, and people, will adapt to the changes.
Ideology is also used to justify inaction: the invisible hand of the market will ensure that everything will turn out all right. When the time comes people, companies and governments, prodded by the right balance between costs and benefits, will take the required action. For example, if oil becomes scarce and therefore, expensive, companies will be stimulated to look for alternatives – and will actively identify, develop and market them. No need to interfere in that process – it is better not to.
Another ideological argument is that presently we, and especially the poor countries, can’t afford to spend much money on the environment. The same argument is used to argue against large scale spending on fighting poverty. It states that first, countries have to create wealth, and only then can they invest in improving the environment – or fighting poverty. That’s what the rich countries did, the poor countries should follow the same path.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
Answer: Governments are unwilling to spend the large sums of money that are needed to effectively address the problems. Powerful interest groups – oil producing nations and companies, loggers – block initiatives to change things around. And most important: short term economic interests are put above the longer term common good.
Explanation: Priorities, rationalization, and ideology.
Politicians give priority to the economy. They are largely pushed to do so by voters, who consider the present contents of their wallet much more important then the problems we will face in thirty years.
Rationalization is used to play down the consequences: nature is more resilient, so it is said, that all those environmental doomsday prophets pretend it to be, and nature, and people, will adapt to the changes.
Ideology is also used to justify inaction: the invisible hand of the market will ensure that everything will turn out all right. When the time comes people, companies and governments, prodded by the right balance between costs and benefits, will take the required action. For example, if oil becomes scarce and therefore, expensive, companies will be stimulated to look for alternatives – and will actively identify, develop and market them. No need to interfere in that process – it is better not to.
Another ideological argument is that presently we, and especially the poor countries, can’t afford to spend much money on the environment. The same argument is used to argue against large scale spending on fighting poverty. It states that first, countries have to create wealth, and only then can they invest in improving the environment – or fighting poverty. That’s what the rich countries did, the poor countries should follow the same path.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: That’s a frightening list. What’s being done about it?
image from http://www.forestbusinessnetwork.com
Answer: Relatively speaking, very little - in spite of the efforts of many environmental organizations. Natural ecosystems continue to disappear, though in some countries the pace has slowed somewhat. On the other hand, in the former Soviet Union the destruction of natural habitats, especially forests, is rapidly increasing. Loss of agricultural land continues and in some cases, accelerates, in spite of minor, mostly local successes. As regards the Greenhouse effect: the world’s nations are hotly debating an agreement, drafted in Kyoto, Japan, that doesn’t even begin to address the problem. Instead of calling for the large- scale replacement of fossil fuel with renewable energy, an essential strategy for reducing greenhouse emissions, it calls for no more than a stabilization of emission levels.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: What are the major environmental dangers facing us today?
Answer: Though some progress has been made in the rich nations in controlling pollution and protecting ecosystems, the situation in the rest of the world is dire. Since the rich countries account for only some 20% of the worlds’ landmass, it can safely be said that the global environment is at risk. A list:
Answer: Though some progress has been made in the rich nations in controlling pollution and protecting ecosystems, the situation in the rest of the world is dire. Since the rich countries account for only some 20% of the worlds’ landmass, it can safely be said that the global environment is at risk. A list:
- Natural ecosystems are disappearing rapidly. If things continue as today, in twenty to thirty years most of the remaining tropical forests, a large part of mountain forests and most of the world’s wetlands will be gone or severely marred by pollution.
THE DYING EARTH
image from www.google.com
- Air and water pollution are costing millions of lives each year – through acute infections or chronic health problems that lead to premature death. Soil pollution threatens ground water supplies and as such, can develop into a major cause of water pollution and health hazard.
NO CLEAN AIR TO BREATHE
image from www.google.com
- Global warming will raise sea levels by several feet in this century, threatening the half of the global population that lives in coastal areas: at sea level, and sometimes below it. Moreover, it leads to increasingly strong and therefore destructive storms and flooding, and upsets ecosystems through the expansion of non-indigenous plant and animal species. In drier areas it also leads to desertification.
image from http://savetheusa.webs.com
- Desertification and soil erosion, caused by wind and water, and salinization of irrigated areas due to poor water management lead to a steady decrease in the quantity and quality of agricultural land. This is true especially in the most densely populated areas of the world.
LAND FALL
image from www.google.com
- By 2050 over half the global population, in rich as well as poor countries, is expected to face serious fresh water shortages.
NO WATER TO DRINK
Monday, September 26, 2011
JUST SOME OF THE PHILIPPINE ENDANGERED SPECIES
Philippine Eagle
Crocodiles
Philippine Tarsier
Philippine Iguanashttp://newshopper.sulekha.com/philippines-endangered-animals_photo_1378947.htm
Mouse Deer
Philippine Spotted Deer
PHILIPPINES FOREST INFORMATION AND DATA
According to the U.N. FAO, 25.7% or about 7,665,000 ha of Philippines is forested, according to FAO. Of this 11.2% ( 861,000 ) is classified as primary forest, the most biodiverse and carbon-dense form of forest. Philippines had 352,000 ha of planted forest.
Change in Forest Cover: Between 1990 and 2010, Philippines lost an average of 54,750 ha or 0.83% per year. In total, between 1990 and 2010, Philippines gained 16.7% of its forest cover, or around 1,095,000 ha.
Philippines's forests contain 663 million metric tons of carbon in living forest biomass. Biodiversity and Protected Areas: Philippines has some 1196 known species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles according to figures from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Of these, 45.8% are endemic, meaning they exist in no other country, and 14.7% are threatened. Philippines is home to at least 8931 species of vascular plants, of which 39.2% are endemic. 5.1% of Philippines is protected under IUCN categories I-V.
Change in Forest Cover: Between 1990 and 2010, Philippines lost an average of 54,750 ha or 0.83% per year. In total, between 1990 and 2010, Philippines gained 16.7% of its forest cover, or around 1,095,000 ha.
Philippines's forests contain 663 million metric tons of carbon in living forest biomass. Biodiversity and Protected Areas: Philippines has some 1196 known species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles according to figures from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Of these, 45.8% are endemic, meaning they exist in no other country, and 14.7% are threatened. Philippines is home to at least 8931 species of vascular plants, of which 39.2% are endemic. 5.1% of Philippines is protected under IUCN categories I-V.
2011 Update
In May 2011, Sassan Saatchi of Caltech's Jet Propulsion Lab and colleagues published a paper in PNAS with new carbon stock estimates for global tropical forests.
In May 2011, Sassan Saatchi of Caltech's Jet Propulsion Lab and colleagues published a paper in PNAS with new carbon stock estimates for global tropical forests.
| Forest definition (canopy cover %) | 10% tree cover | 25% tree cover | 30% tree cover |
| Forest Area (M ha) | 21 | 13 | 11 |
| Aboveground forest carbon (Mt C) | 1,810 | 1,176 | 1,068 |
| Belowground forest carbon (Mt C) | 502 | 324 | 293 |
| Total forest carbon (Mt C) | 2,312 | 1,500 | 1,361 |
| Average Carbon Density (t C/ha) | 111 | 118 | 120 |
M=million, t=metric tons; all figures are mean carbon stock values
FIVE BASIC STEPS TO SAVING RAINFORESTS
image from www.google.com/philippine rainforest
"TREES" is a concept originally devised for an elementary school audience but serves well as set of principles for saving rainforests and, on a broader scale, ecosystems around the world.
- Teach others about the importance of the environment and how they can help save rainforests.
- Restore damaged ecosystems by planting trees on land where forests have been cut down.
- Encourage people to live in a way that doesn't hurt the environment.
- Establish parks to protect rainforests and wildlife.
- Support companies that operate in ways that minimize damage to the environment.
MONGABAY.COM SAYS;
The once spectacular primary forests of the Philippines are now a relic of a bygone era. What little primary forest does remain exists on the island of Palawan, the last sanctuary for the Palawan eagle.
Between 1990 and 2005 the Philippines lost a third of its forest cover. While the current deforestation rate is around 2 percent per year, this represents a 20 percent drop from the rate of the 1990s. Widespread logging was responsible for much of the historical forest loss in the Philippines. Despite government bans on timber harvesting following severe flooding in the late 1980s and early 1990s, illegal logging continues today. Illicit wood cut from secondary and primary forests is routinely smuggled to other Asian countries.
After temporarily lifting the log export ban in the late 1990s, the government has increasingly tried to crack down on timber smuggling and forest degradation, but with limited success. Additional threats to Philippine forests come from legal and illegal mining operations—which also cause pollution— agricultural fires, collection of fuelwood, and rural population expansion. In recent years, deforestation has been increasingly blamed for soil erosion, river siltation, flooding, and drought; environmental awareness is now rising in the country. Activists are quick to criticize government decisions that adversely affect the country's environment.
image from www.google.com/philippine rainforest
With less and less forest in the Philippines, locals are increasingly reliant on plantations to meet their timber needs. As a result, plantation cover has fallen 65 percent between 1990 and 2005.
The continuing disappearance of Filipino wild lands is of great to concern to ecologists due to the high levels of endemic species. Of the 1,196 known species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles in the country, nearly 46 percent are endemic. Among plants, the number is around 40 percent. Only about 5 percent of the Philippines land area is under some form of protection.
SOURCE: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20philippines.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
