Climate Change News part.8
SOUTH AFRICA’S PROPOSED BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY 2015
Updated on: 23 October 2015, 11:06 JANE FLOWERS
Updated on: 23 October 2015, 11:06 JANE FLOWERS
Proposed rural development through the sustainable use of natural resources
In October 2015, South Africa Minister of Environment, Mrs. Edna Molewa released the draft Biodiversity Economy Strategy
of the country for public comment via government gazette. The draft strategy was approved by the South African cabinet
in July this year. The aim of the strategy, which encompasses the period ending 2030, is a long-range initiative to add to the gross domestic product through an increased contribution from the biodiversity sector. Placing a value on tourism
and conservation makes good economic sense and will hopefully lead to successful, responsible and sustainable conservation. South Africa has some naturally occurring biological species that have a large potential for generating employment and new business whilst utilizing readily available resources.
The plunder of resources is discouraged, so the strategy makes provision for participants to be accountable for achieving sustainable targets. To facilitate this, the Transformative Enabling Interventions, will determine future requirements.
Government and private sector responsibilities will be discussed via the establishment of a National Bioprospecting Forum. The overall aim is to develop rural based business, whilst addressing constraints and remaining ecologically friendly and fair to stakeholders. Some products are already being used, but there is room for expansion, particularly if regulated to ensure sustainability in the future.
These products include:
Bitter AloeThe Bitter Aloe has been used for hundreds of years and interestingly, has been found in a rock painting that dates over 250 years. Extracts from the plant can be used in laxatives and in the treatment for arthritis. The wound healing properties have resulted in health drinks and the soft leaf flesh is used in the cosmetic industry. At present, theAloe ferox
is listed on CITES appendix ii, which means they are not currently threatened, but they might become so unless strongly regulated. BeesThere are two races of honey bees that occur naturally in South Africa. These are Apis mellifera scutellata,
the African bee and Apis mellifera capensis, the Cape bee. According to Robin Crewe et al, 2009, there are large natural stocks of bees in Africa but conservation is important so that the mistakes made in Europe do not occur through commercial use. RooibosRooibos has been in use in South Africa since the 1700s and is valued for medicinal effects.
One of the most valuable properties is that of the potential cholesterol-lowering effect the tea can have on humans. The plant is an important source of anti-oxidants. The plant occurs naturally in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, which may become stressed as a result of future climate change. The plant was historically used by the SAN and Khoisan peoples who claim to be the rightful holders of the traditional medicinal knowledge of the plant. The future harvesting expansion would surely have to benefit the San peoples. Pelargonium sidoides (South African Geranium)The plant has been used by the traditional people of South Africa for hundreds of years to treat chest illnesses such as bronchitis, coughs and throat infections.
In the 1920s, Charles Stevens promoted the plant as a successful remedy in the treatment of his own tuberculosis. He was taken down in a campaign against quackery. However, more recent studies have shown that it is at least an effective treatment for bronchitis and clinical trials show that extract from the plant can reduce the severity of upper respiratory problems. According to the Red Data List, the plant is not threatened and is categorized under least concern.
http://uk.blastingnews.com/world/2015/10/south-africa-s-proposed-biodiversity-strategy
In October 2015, South Africa Minister of Environment, Mrs. Edna Molewa released the draft Biodiversity Economy Strategy
of the country for public comment via government gazette. The draft strategy was approved by the South African cabinet
in July this year. The aim of the strategy, which encompasses the period ending 2030, is a long-range initiative to add to the gross domestic product through an increased contribution from the biodiversity sector. Placing a value on tourism
and conservation makes good economic sense and will hopefully lead to successful, responsible and sustainable conservation. South Africa has some naturally occurring biological species that have a large potential for generating employment and new business whilst utilizing readily available resources.
The plunder of resources is discouraged, so the strategy makes provision for participants to be accountable for achieving sustainable targets. To facilitate this, the Transformative Enabling Interventions, will determine future requirements.
Government and private sector responsibilities will be discussed via the establishment of a National Bioprospecting Forum. The overall aim is to develop rural based business, whilst addressing constraints and remaining ecologically friendly and fair to stakeholders. Some products are already being used, but there is room for expansion, particularly if regulated to ensure sustainability in the future.
These products include:
- Aloe ferox (bitter Aloe)
- Bee products
- Aspalathus linearis (rooibos), and
- Pelargonium sidoides (the South African Geranium)
Bitter AloeThe Bitter Aloe has been used for hundreds of years and interestingly, has been found in a rock painting that dates over 250 years. Extracts from the plant can be used in laxatives and in the treatment for arthritis. The wound healing properties have resulted in health drinks and the soft leaf flesh is used in the cosmetic industry. At present, theAloe ferox
is listed on CITES appendix ii, which means they are not currently threatened, but they might become so unless strongly regulated. BeesThere are two races of honey bees that occur naturally in South Africa. These are Apis mellifera scutellata,
the African bee and Apis mellifera capensis, the Cape bee. According to Robin Crewe et al, 2009, there are large natural stocks of bees in Africa but conservation is important so that the mistakes made in Europe do not occur through commercial use. RooibosRooibos has been in use in South Africa since the 1700s and is valued for medicinal effects.
One of the most valuable properties is that of the potential cholesterol-lowering effect the tea can have on humans. The plant is an important source of anti-oxidants. The plant occurs naturally in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, which may become stressed as a result of future climate change. The plant was historically used by the SAN and Khoisan peoples who claim to be the rightful holders of the traditional medicinal knowledge of the plant. The future harvesting expansion would surely have to benefit the San peoples. Pelargonium sidoides (South African Geranium)The plant has been used by the traditional people of South Africa for hundreds of years to treat chest illnesses such as bronchitis, coughs and throat infections.
In the 1920s, Charles Stevens promoted the plant as a successful remedy in the treatment of his own tuberculosis. He was taken down in a campaign against quackery. However, more recent studies have shown that it is at least an effective treatment for bronchitis and clinical trials show that extract from the plant can reduce the severity of upper respiratory problems. According to the Red Data List, the plant is not threatened and is categorized under least concern.
http://uk.blastingnews.com/world/2015/10/south-africa-s-proposed-biodiversity-strategy
Millions face hunger due to climate change, 'super El Nino'
Date:1 Oct 2015 By Joseph D'Urso
London - At least 10 million poor people face hunger this year and next because of droughts and erratic rains linked to record global temperatures and an expected "super" version of the evolving El Nino weather pattern, aid charity Oxfam has warned. In Ethiopia alone, 4.5 million people need food aid because a combination of El Nino and long-term climate change has made the rainy season more unpredictable, according to United Nations agencies. El Nino, caused by Pacific Ocean warming, leads to dry weather in some parts of the world and causes floods in others. This year the phenomenon is expected to peak between October and January and could turn into one of the strongest on record. The last "super El Nino" was in 1997-8. "Rice and maize crops are both at risk, with serious implications for millions of poor people from Southern Africa to Central America who are dependent on these staples," Mark Goldring, Oxfam GB's chief executive, said in a statement on Thursday.
A scorching drought has ravaged crops in southern Africa already, with South Africa's key maize crop falling by a third and poor yields set to continue into the southern hemisphere summer, according to the country's weather service.
In neighbouring Zimbabwe, where the maize harvest is 35 percent below average, the government blamed the drought-stricken farm sector for a halving of its economic growth forecast in July. Harvests in Central America have fallen by as much as 60 percent for maize and 80 percent for beans this year due to prolonged dry spells linked to El Nino, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Southeast Asia is also affected, Oxfam said. Warming seas could double the frequency of the most powerful El Ninos, the report noted.
As world leaders prepare for a U.N. summit on climate change in Paris in December, increasing climatic disruption, driven by rising temperatures, threatens to increase the likelihood of humanitarian emergencies at a time when the aid system is already under enormous strain, Oxfam said. "Governments and agencies need to act rapidly to avert humanitarian disasters in the next year," said Goldring.
"This should serve as a wake-up call for them to agree a global deal to tackle climate change."
www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/news/v.php?id=45998
A scorching drought has ravaged crops in southern Africa already, with South Africa's key maize crop falling by a third and poor yields set to continue into the southern hemisphere summer, according to the country's weather service.
In neighbouring Zimbabwe, where the maize harvest is 35 percent below average, the government blamed the drought-stricken farm sector for a halving of its economic growth forecast in July. Harvests in Central America have fallen by as much as 60 percent for maize and 80 percent for beans this year due to prolonged dry spells linked to El Nino, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Southeast Asia is also affected, Oxfam said. Warming seas could double the frequency of the most powerful El Ninos, the report noted.
As world leaders prepare for a U.N. summit on climate change in Paris in December, increasing climatic disruption, driven by rising temperatures, threatens to increase the likelihood of humanitarian emergencies at a time when the aid system is already under enormous strain, Oxfam said. "Governments and agencies need to act rapidly to avert humanitarian disasters in the next year," said Goldring.
"This should serve as a wake-up call for them to agree a global deal to tackle climate change."
www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/news/v.php?id=45998
Why Shell quit drilling in the Arctic
By Paul Barrett, Washington Post Published: 13:25 September 30, 2015
Washington: Royal Dutch Shell’s abrupt announcement earlier this week that it would cease all offshore drilling in the Arctic is surprising for several reasons. One is the unusual degree of confidence the company expressed as recently as mid-August that it had identified 15 billion barrels of oil beneath the well known as Burger J it’s now abandoning.
Mistaken geology
After spending $7 billion over several years to explore a single well this summer, Shell said in a statement that it “found indications of oil and gas ... but these are not sufficient to warrant further exploration.” This contrasts sharply with Shell officials’ statements as recently as July and August that based on 3- and 4-D seismic analysis of core samples its petroleum geologists were “very confident” drillers would find plentiful oil. The geologists’ expectations were the main reason Shell spent all of that money on a project that entailed much-higher- than-average operational risks and international environmental condemnation. Giving up has got to hurt at a company that prides itself on scientific and technical prowess. Shell said it would take an unspecified financial charge related to the folding of its Arctic operation, which carries a value of $3 billion (Dh11 billion) on the company’s balance sheet.
Intensifying fear about oil prices
In late July, when Ann Pickard, Shell’s top executive for the Arctic, explained the economics of drilling in the Chukchi Sea, she readily acknowledged that if oil prices remained below $50 a barrel the offshore adventure would be for naught. At $70, Chukchi oil would be “competitive,” she told Bloomberg Businessweek, and at $110-a reasonable projection, according to the company’s economists-it would be a huge winner. She was talking about prospective prices 15 years from now. Well, in recent weeks, Shell appears to have lost some of its bravado about where prices will be in 2030-that according to a person familiar with the company’s thinking. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have given up altogether on the Chukchi, where it continues to hold 275 Outer Continental lease blocks. Indeed, Marvin Odum, director of Shell Upstream Americas, said in the written statement that the company “continues to see important exploration potential in the basin, and the area is likely to ultimately be of strategic importance to Alaska and the US” Shell lost confidence it could make a profit anytime in the foreseeable future on the oil that’s there. Low oil prices have also necessitated a companywide cost-cutting push; shutting down in the Arctic will help Shell trim expenditures, especially next year. (Pickard, who is expected to retire, was not available for an interview, according to a Shell spokesman.)
Regulatory restrictions
The Obama administration took a lot of flak from environmentalists over its decision to allow Shell to move ahead with drilling in the Arctic. Former Vice President Al Gore, for one, called the White House position “insane.” In the end, an array of partial restrictions the administration imposed on Shell helped push the company to pull up its drill bit and head south. Wildlife officials concerned about noise-sensitive walruses, for example, vetoed Shell’s original plan to drill two wells simultaneously. “That caught us by surprise,” Pickard conceded in July. Shell actually could have turned to the second well this month, but it decided instead to cut its losses. In its statement today, Shell said: “This decision reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging, unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska.”
Environmental pressure ... and fear of Clinton
While green groups failed to stop Shell in the courts, they marshaled an extraordinary campaign ranging from “kayaktivists” who impeded Shell vessels as they departed for the Chukchi to incessant lobbying in Washington. “We are pleased that Shell has finally come to grips with the reality that drilling in the Arctic makes no sense,” Andy Sharpless, chief executive officer of the non-profit Oceana, said by email. “It’s not economically viable nor is it sensible from an environmental standpoint.”
Possibly more significant than the immediate environmental activism is Shell’s concern about who will oversee Arctic regulation come January 2017. In August, Hillary Clinton made her first major break with President Obama over the environment, announcing that she opposed Arctic drilling. “Given what we know, it’s not worth the risk,” Clinton said on Twitter. Despite the candidate’s current struggle to shake off primary foe Senator Bernie Sanders, Shell may fear that a Clinton presidency would doom its chancy northern exploration.
http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/energy/why-shell-quit-drilling-in-the-arctic-1.1592530
Mistaken geology
After spending $7 billion over several years to explore a single well this summer, Shell said in a statement that it “found indications of oil and gas ... but these are not sufficient to warrant further exploration.” This contrasts sharply with Shell officials’ statements as recently as July and August that based on 3- and 4-D seismic analysis of core samples its petroleum geologists were “very confident” drillers would find plentiful oil. The geologists’ expectations were the main reason Shell spent all of that money on a project that entailed much-higher- than-average operational risks and international environmental condemnation. Giving up has got to hurt at a company that prides itself on scientific and technical prowess. Shell said it would take an unspecified financial charge related to the folding of its Arctic operation, which carries a value of $3 billion (Dh11 billion) on the company’s balance sheet.
Intensifying fear about oil prices
In late July, when Ann Pickard, Shell’s top executive for the Arctic, explained the economics of drilling in the Chukchi Sea, she readily acknowledged that if oil prices remained below $50 a barrel the offshore adventure would be for naught. At $70, Chukchi oil would be “competitive,” she told Bloomberg Businessweek, and at $110-a reasonable projection, according to the company’s economists-it would be a huge winner. She was talking about prospective prices 15 years from now. Well, in recent weeks, Shell appears to have lost some of its bravado about where prices will be in 2030-that according to a person familiar with the company’s thinking. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have given up altogether on the Chukchi, where it continues to hold 275 Outer Continental lease blocks. Indeed, Marvin Odum, director of Shell Upstream Americas, said in the written statement that the company “continues to see important exploration potential in the basin, and the area is likely to ultimately be of strategic importance to Alaska and the US” Shell lost confidence it could make a profit anytime in the foreseeable future on the oil that’s there. Low oil prices have also necessitated a companywide cost-cutting push; shutting down in the Arctic will help Shell trim expenditures, especially next year. (Pickard, who is expected to retire, was not available for an interview, according to a Shell spokesman.)
Regulatory restrictions
The Obama administration took a lot of flak from environmentalists over its decision to allow Shell to move ahead with drilling in the Arctic. Former Vice President Al Gore, for one, called the White House position “insane.” In the end, an array of partial restrictions the administration imposed on Shell helped push the company to pull up its drill bit and head south. Wildlife officials concerned about noise-sensitive walruses, for example, vetoed Shell’s original plan to drill two wells simultaneously. “That caught us by surprise,” Pickard conceded in July. Shell actually could have turned to the second well this month, but it decided instead to cut its losses. In its statement today, Shell said: “This decision reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging, unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska.”
Environmental pressure ... and fear of Clinton
While green groups failed to stop Shell in the courts, they marshaled an extraordinary campaign ranging from “kayaktivists” who impeded Shell vessels as they departed for the Chukchi to incessant lobbying in Washington. “We are pleased that Shell has finally come to grips with the reality that drilling in the Arctic makes no sense,” Andy Sharpless, chief executive officer of the non-profit Oceana, said by email. “It’s not economically viable nor is it sensible from an environmental standpoint.”
Possibly more significant than the immediate environmental activism is Shell’s concern about who will oversee Arctic regulation come January 2017. In August, Hillary Clinton made her first major break with President Obama over the environment, announcing that she opposed Arctic drilling. “Given what we know, it’s not worth the risk,” Clinton said on Twitter. Despite the candidate’s current struggle to shake off primary foe Senator Bernie Sanders, Shell may fear that a Clinton presidency would doom its chancy northern exploration.
http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/energy/why-shell-quit-drilling-in-the-arctic-1.1592530
World running out of time to save oceans
10 Sep 2015 Written BY THALIF DEEN
10 Sep 2015 Written BY THALIF DEEN
The United Nations is posting a new environmental warning: the world is running out of time to prevent the gradual degradation of the world’s oceans and the widespread destruction of marine life.
In its first comprehensive assessment on the state of the oceans, the United Nations says delays in implementing solutions to the problems already identified as threatening to degrade the world’s oceans will lead, unnecessarily, to incurring greater environmental, social and economic costs. Comprising 55 chapters, the first World Ocean Assessment will be presented to the General Assembly’s Ad Hoc Working Group of the Whole at a meeting scheduled to take place Sep. 8-11.
The study found the sustainable use of the oceans cannot be achieved unless the management of all sectors of human activities affecting the oceans is coherent. “Human impacts on the sea are no longer minor in relation to the overall scale of the ocean. A coherent overall approach is needed,” the report stated.
According to the United Nations, the Assessment marks the first time ever that scientific experts have assessed the current knowledge on the biological, chemical, economic, physical and social aspects from an integrated, overall perspective.
Steered by the 22-member Group of Experts, the scientists selected from the Pool of Experts, comprised of some 600 members worldwide, looked at the oceans, their flora and fauna and the ways in which humans are benefitting from, and impacting on the ocean. The experts examined a wide range of issues that affect the oceans’ ecosystems and marine biodiversity, including the impacts of climate change, ice coverage, the frequency of storms, ocean acidification,_land-based activities, unsustainable fishing practices, shipping activities, invasive non-native species, offshore hydrocarbon industries and marine debris. “And they found that the world’s oceans are in dire shape,” according to the U.N.
John Tanzer, director of the Global Marine Programme at World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) told IPS the U.N. report is “further substantive proof that the health of our ocean and its economic base are under serious threat and that we need to take immediate action.” He said the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda and negotiation of a new climate deal present major opportunities for governments, businesses and communities to work together in support of the ocean and the people around the world that rely on the ocean for food security and livelihoods. According to the United Nations, the oceans cover more than 70 per cent of the earth’s surface. More than 3.5 billion people depend on them for food, energy and income.
By protecting the ocean’s natural and cultural resources, marine protected areas play a central role in addressing some of the global development challenges of today, such as food and energy security, poverty and climate change. Last June the 193-member General Assembly adopted a resolution aimed at drafting a legally binding international treaty for the conservation of marine biodiversity and to govern the mostly lawless high seas beyond national jurisdiction. The resolution was the result of more than nine years of negotiations by an Ad Hoc Informal Working Group, which first met in 2006. If and when the treaty is adopted, it will be the first global treaty to include conservation measures such as marine protected areas and reserves, environmental impact assessments, access to marine genetic resources and benefit sharing, capacity building and the transfer of marine technology. The High Seas Alliance (HSA), a coalition of some 27 non-governmental organisations, played a significant role in pushing for negotiations on the proposed treaty and has been campaigning for this resolution since 2011.
Meanwhile, in a study released last April, WWF said the untapped riches in the world’s oceans are estimated at nearly 24 trillion dollars – the size of the world’s leading economies. Describing the oceans as economic powerhouses, the study warned that the resources in the high seas are rapidly eroding through over-exploitation, misuse and climate change.
“The ocean rivals the wealth of the world’s richest countries, but it is being allowed to sink to the depths of a failed economy,” said Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International. “As responsible shareholders, we cannot seriously expect to keep recklessly extracting the ocean’s valuable assets without investing in its future.”
If compared to the world’s top 10 economies, the ocean would rank seventh with an annual value of goods and services of 2.5 trillion dollars, according to the study.
www.ethpress.gov.et/herald/index.php/technology/item/2078-world-running-out-of-time-to-save-oceans
In its first comprehensive assessment on the state of the oceans, the United Nations says delays in implementing solutions to the problems already identified as threatening to degrade the world’s oceans will lead, unnecessarily, to incurring greater environmental, social and economic costs. Comprising 55 chapters, the first World Ocean Assessment will be presented to the General Assembly’s Ad Hoc Working Group of the Whole at a meeting scheduled to take place Sep. 8-11.
The study found the sustainable use of the oceans cannot be achieved unless the management of all sectors of human activities affecting the oceans is coherent. “Human impacts on the sea are no longer minor in relation to the overall scale of the ocean. A coherent overall approach is needed,” the report stated.
According to the United Nations, the Assessment marks the first time ever that scientific experts have assessed the current knowledge on the biological, chemical, economic, physical and social aspects from an integrated, overall perspective.
Steered by the 22-member Group of Experts, the scientists selected from the Pool of Experts, comprised of some 600 members worldwide, looked at the oceans, their flora and fauna and the ways in which humans are benefitting from, and impacting on the ocean. The experts examined a wide range of issues that affect the oceans’ ecosystems and marine biodiversity, including the impacts of climate change, ice coverage, the frequency of storms, ocean acidification,_land-based activities, unsustainable fishing practices, shipping activities, invasive non-native species, offshore hydrocarbon industries and marine debris. “And they found that the world’s oceans are in dire shape,” according to the U.N.
John Tanzer, director of the Global Marine Programme at World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) told IPS the U.N. report is “further substantive proof that the health of our ocean and its economic base are under serious threat and that we need to take immediate action.” He said the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda and negotiation of a new climate deal present major opportunities for governments, businesses and communities to work together in support of the ocean and the people around the world that rely on the ocean for food security and livelihoods. According to the United Nations, the oceans cover more than 70 per cent of the earth’s surface. More than 3.5 billion people depend on them for food, energy and income.
By protecting the ocean’s natural and cultural resources, marine protected areas play a central role in addressing some of the global development challenges of today, such as food and energy security, poverty and climate change. Last June the 193-member General Assembly adopted a resolution aimed at drafting a legally binding international treaty for the conservation of marine biodiversity and to govern the mostly lawless high seas beyond national jurisdiction. The resolution was the result of more than nine years of negotiations by an Ad Hoc Informal Working Group, which first met in 2006. If and when the treaty is adopted, it will be the first global treaty to include conservation measures such as marine protected areas and reserves, environmental impact assessments, access to marine genetic resources and benefit sharing, capacity building and the transfer of marine technology. The High Seas Alliance (HSA), a coalition of some 27 non-governmental organisations, played a significant role in pushing for negotiations on the proposed treaty and has been campaigning for this resolution since 2011.
Meanwhile, in a study released last April, WWF said the untapped riches in the world’s oceans are estimated at nearly 24 trillion dollars – the size of the world’s leading economies. Describing the oceans as economic powerhouses, the study warned that the resources in the high seas are rapidly eroding through over-exploitation, misuse and climate change.
“The ocean rivals the wealth of the world’s richest countries, but it is being allowed to sink to the depths of a failed economy,” said Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International. “As responsible shareholders, we cannot seriously expect to keep recklessly extracting the ocean’s valuable assets without investing in its future.”
If compared to the world’s top 10 economies, the ocean would rank seventh with an annual value of goods and services of 2.5 trillion dollars, according to the study.
www.ethpress.gov.et/herald/index.php/technology/item/2078-world-running-out-of-time-to-save-oceans
President Obama’s Alaska visit yields little regarding Arctic Ocean drilling
By John Ryan, KUCB - Unalaska | September 7, 2015
By John Ryan, KUCB - Unalaska | September 7, 2015
The drilling policy could affect the global climate much more than any of Obama’s climate-friendly initiatives. The president wrapped up his climate-change tour of Alaska in Kotzebue, just above the Arctic Circle. “One of the reasons I came up here is to really focus on what is probably the biggest challenge our planet faces,” President Obama said. “If there’s one thing that threatens opportunity and prosperity for everybody, wherever we live, it’s the threat of a changing climate.” In Kotzebue, Obama spoke of climate-friendly initiatives big and small around the state. “And I know you guys have started putting up solar panels and wind turbines around Kotzebue,” President Obama said. And he highlighted his government’s biggest initiative of all aimed at helping the climate: the national Clean Power Plan. “Last month, I announced the first set of nationwide standards to end the limitless carbon emissions from our power plants, and that’s the most important step we’ve ever taken on climate change,” President Obama said.
Alaska is exempt from that plan. The president did not mention one of his policies that does have direct relevance in Kotzebue and the rest of Alaska. Kotzebue is one of the Western Alaska port towns getting business from the quest for oil in the Chukchi Sea. Shell’s Arctic Challenger oil-spill barge and other support vessels are based in Kotzebue Sound.
The Obama administration gave Shell the green light in August to drill into oil-bearing rocks beneath the Chukchi Sea.
The U.S. Geological Survey says more than 20 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from beneath the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. If that oil is burned in engines and homes and businesses, it would pump many times more carbon dioxide into the sky than the president’s big clean power plan would keep out of the sky. “Approximately 15-times greater,” Lois Epstein, an engineer with The Wilderness Society in Anchorage, said. Her group has been opposed to drilling in the Arctic Ocean for mostly non-climate reasons. She says Obama’s approval of Arctic drilling is inconsistent with his big push to fight climate change. “The administration should be at least trying to be consistent in their decision making,” Epstein said. “They have chosen not to be consistent, and that will have climate consequences.”
Other environmentalists have been less diplomatic, calling Obama hypocritical or even schizophrenic when it comes to climate change. Shell Alaska spokesperson Meg Baldino declined to comment on the climate impacts of Arctic Ocean oil.
But earlier this year, the head of Royal Dutch Shell, Ben Van Beurden, said he agrees the world can’t burn all of its fossil fuels and avoid dangerous climate change. “I accept the fact that having the climate change beyond 2 degrees C is probably highly undesirable, and we should do everything to prevent that from happening,” he said. Van Beurden spoke with the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in England. Even though this year’s plummeting oil prices reflect a world awash in oil, the Shell CEO said his company can’t stop looking for new sources, in the Arctic or elsewhere. “I think to just say we can do without hydrocarbons, and we don’t need them any more, stop exploring for them because they are coming out of our ears already that is not quite an accurate reflection for a company like us,” Van Beurden said. Van Beurden put responsibility for opening the Arctic Ocean to drilling on the U.S. government.
“The opening up of the Arctic is not our decision. It’s the decision of an Arctic nation, in this case, the United States,” he said. “And it’s our task to figure out: Can we do this responsibly? Can we do this profitably? Can it be done at all? If the answer to all that is yes, then we should consider it as an investment opportunity.” Shell officials say it could be 10 to 20 years before any oil from the Chukchi Sea would be available as fuel. That would mean Arctic drilling could remain controversial for a long time. During the president’s three-day tour, White House handlers didn’t let journalists ask him any questions, with the exception of an exclusive interview and photo shoot with Rolling Stone magazine
www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/07/president-obamas-alaska-visit-yields-little-regarding-arctic-ocean-drilling
Alaska is exempt from that plan. The president did not mention one of his policies that does have direct relevance in Kotzebue and the rest of Alaska. Kotzebue is one of the Western Alaska port towns getting business from the quest for oil in the Chukchi Sea. Shell’s Arctic Challenger oil-spill barge and other support vessels are based in Kotzebue Sound.
The Obama administration gave Shell the green light in August to drill into oil-bearing rocks beneath the Chukchi Sea.
The U.S. Geological Survey says more than 20 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from beneath the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. If that oil is burned in engines and homes and businesses, it would pump many times more carbon dioxide into the sky than the president’s big clean power plan would keep out of the sky. “Approximately 15-times greater,” Lois Epstein, an engineer with The Wilderness Society in Anchorage, said. Her group has been opposed to drilling in the Arctic Ocean for mostly non-climate reasons. She says Obama’s approval of Arctic drilling is inconsistent with his big push to fight climate change. “The administration should be at least trying to be consistent in their decision making,” Epstein said. “They have chosen not to be consistent, and that will have climate consequences.”
Other environmentalists have been less diplomatic, calling Obama hypocritical or even schizophrenic when it comes to climate change. Shell Alaska spokesperson Meg Baldino declined to comment on the climate impacts of Arctic Ocean oil.
But earlier this year, the head of Royal Dutch Shell, Ben Van Beurden, said he agrees the world can’t burn all of its fossil fuels and avoid dangerous climate change. “I accept the fact that having the climate change beyond 2 degrees C is probably highly undesirable, and we should do everything to prevent that from happening,” he said. Van Beurden spoke with the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in England. Even though this year’s plummeting oil prices reflect a world awash in oil, the Shell CEO said his company can’t stop looking for new sources, in the Arctic or elsewhere. “I think to just say we can do without hydrocarbons, and we don’t need them any more, stop exploring for them because they are coming out of our ears already that is not quite an accurate reflection for a company like us,” Van Beurden said. Van Beurden put responsibility for opening the Arctic Ocean to drilling on the U.S. government.
“The opening up of the Arctic is not our decision. It’s the decision of an Arctic nation, in this case, the United States,” he said. “And it’s our task to figure out: Can we do this responsibly? Can we do this profitably? Can it be done at all? If the answer to all that is yes, then we should consider it as an investment opportunity.” Shell officials say it could be 10 to 20 years before any oil from the Chukchi Sea would be available as fuel. That would mean Arctic drilling could remain controversial for a long time. During the president’s three-day tour, White House handlers didn’t let journalists ask him any questions, with the exception of an exclusive interview and photo shoot with Rolling Stone magazine
www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/07/president-obamas-alaska-visit-yields-little-regarding-arctic-ocean-drilling
How to Invest in Arctic Developments After Obama's Alaska Trip
By Debbie Carlson Sept. 7, 2015 | 9:00 a.m. EDT
As climate change melts some of the Arctic's permafrost, natural resource companies and shippers are eyeing the potential to develop a region that is receiving renewed public attention from President Barack Obama's trip to Alaska.
According to global management consulting firm A.T. Kearney's Global Business Policy Council, worldwide investment in the region could reach $100 billion over the next decade. The Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route could potentially decrease travel times between the U.S., Europe and Asia by 40 percent, while the value of hydrocarbon deposits – crude oil and natural gas – located in the U.S. Arctic alone could exceed $1 trillion. The region is also home to rich metal deposits.
Some of it has already begun. Erik Peterson, partner and managing director at A.T. Kearney's Global Business Policy Council, says 71 ships crossed between Asia and Europe in 2013, versus just five in 2010. Earlier this summer, the Obama administration gave Royal Dutch Shell (ticker: RDS) approval for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea north of Alaska, and Obama plans to ask Congress to speed up plans to build a new icebreaker to patrol Alaska's coast. In Canada, Scandinavia and Russia, some metal-mining companies have operated for a few years.
"Given the low oil prices and the oil glut, we're not thinking about it today, but the expectation is that in the next 20 to 50 years, this is going to be a major producing area with a lot of jobs and a lot of power," says Phil Flynn, senior energy analyst at the PRICE Futures Group in Chicago. Yet investors need to be careful if they want to buy into the few companies that seek to do business at the North Pole. The harsh climate, potential geopolitical concerns and changes in attitudes to mitigate climate change can all be factors that affect companies. Further, low commodity prices have some companies putting holds on their exploration plans. The flurry of attention on Obama's trip to Alaska comes after the U.S. took over the chairmanship of the Arctic Council, an eight-nation council that also includes Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden. "The operative question is how does this administration, in the light of the president's declarations and comments, as well as the policy with respect to allowing Shell to do exploratory drilling in the sea, factor into whatever chairmanship agenda he has over the coming year?" Peterson says.
Investors should consider Obama's dire warnings about climate change and his decision to allow Shell's drilling.
Environmentalists claim hypocrisy, but Peterson says Obama is seeking a balance between the serious concerns about climate change and implications for the Arctic, while working with other nations seeking to exploit resources in the region. "The stakes between these various countries are enormous. It is no easy task by any means," he says. Shell is the only oil major planning to explore in the Arctic, and no one is producing oil there right now, Flynn says. Other oil majors, such as Total (TOT), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), ConocoPhillips Co (COP) and Statoil (STO) have put their Arctic plans on hold because of the low oil prices. "As time goes on and market conditions change, and if Shell is successful, there will be a lot of interest in that area," Flynn says.
Investors should know, however, that Shell isn't loved by analysts. For example, in a research note, Morningstar analysts say because of previous missteps, Shell "is far more likely to remain a laggard than become a leader among the oil majors for the rest of this decade." Despite the potential to tap plenty of energy in the Arctic, John Person, president of NationalFutures.com and a long-time energy-market watcher, is skeptical. "I think there are safer, better, cheaper ways to get at oil at this point of time. And if they didn't go after Arctic oil when it was $150 a barrel, they sure aren't going to when oil is at $45 a barrel," he says. Miners have had more success in the Arctic. Russia's Norilsk Nickel (NILSY) operates in the Arctic, and Canadian miner Agnico Eagle Mines (AEM) has two Arctic-area mines, one in Canada and one in Finland. Adrian Day, chairman and chief executive officer of Adrian Day Asset Management in Annapolis, Maryland, says Agnico Eagle's Meadowbank mine in Canadian province of Nunavut is one of the company's top-performing assets, but it had some issues ramping up production because of the harsh weather environment. Even small problems can be magnified when dealing with such a remote location.
"They had a famous fire in the kitchen. Normally you wouldn't even think about a fire in the kitchen in a mine, right?
It wouldn't be news, but that cost them $18 million because they had to evacuate people," he says. The lessons Agnico Eagle learned in building the Meadowbank mine will be applied elsewhere, Day says, citing comments by the company's management. Day owns Agnico Eagle stock and says it's one of the best mining companies. Regarding Norilsk Nickel, Citi Research analysts say the company has access to "world-class" nickel, copper and platinum group metal deposits in the Russian North. They rate the firm's stock at neutral, given the unlikelihood that nickel prices will rise. Investors who consider buying stock in companies operating in the Arctic need to consider the potential impact on valuations if environmental damage happens because of mining or oil drilling. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Alaska, cleanup was hampered by harsh weather conditions. Any accidents in the Arctic would be difficult to clean up, not only because of the weather, but because of the remoteness of the location.
Peterson also points out the potential for geopolitical concerns between competing nations in the Arctic, pointing out the tensions between Norway and Russia over the Spitsbergen archipelago (also known as Svalbard) over resource rights that date back to the 1920s. "It's a perfect example of the blend of geopolitics and resources development that is likely to occur time and time again in the future," he says. Day says at this point in time, it's probably too narrow for investors to consider a portfolio based around Arctic natural resources. "Certainly the potential in the Arctic is enormous, but the costs are commensurate," he says.
http://money.usnews.com/how-to-invest-in-arctic-developments-after-obamas-alaska-trip
According to global management consulting firm A.T. Kearney's Global Business Policy Council, worldwide investment in the region could reach $100 billion over the next decade. The Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route could potentially decrease travel times between the U.S., Europe and Asia by 40 percent, while the value of hydrocarbon deposits – crude oil and natural gas – located in the U.S. Arctic alone could exceed $1 trillion. The region is also home to rich metal deposits.
Some of it has already begun. Erik Peterson, partner and managing director at A.T. Kearney's Global Business Policy Council, says 71 ships crossed between Asia and Europe in 2013, versus just five in 2010. Earlier this summer, the Obama administration gave Royal Dutch Shell (ticker: RDS) approval for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea north of Alaska, and Obama plans to ask Congress to speed up plans to build a new icebreaker to patrol Alaska's coast. In Canada, Scandinavia and Russia, some metal-mining companies have operated for a few years.
"Given the low oil prices and the oil glut, we're not thinking about it today, but the expectation is that in the next 20 to 50 years, this is going to be a major producing area with a lot of jobs and a lot of power," says Phil Flynn, senior energy analyst at the PRICE Futures Group in Chicago. Yet investors need to be careful if they want to buy into the few companies that seek to do business at the North Pole. The harsh climate, potential geopolitical concerns and changes in attitudes to mitigate climate change can all be factors that affect companies. Further, low commodity prices have some companies putting holds on their exploration plans. The flurry of attention on Obama's trip to Alaska comes after the U.S. took over the chairmanship of the Arctic Council, an eight-nation council that also includes Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden. "The operative question is how does this administration, in the light of the president's declarations and comments, as well as the policy with respect to allowing Shell to do exploratory drilling in the sea, factor into whatever chairmanship agenda he has over the coming year?" Peterson says.
Investors should consider Obama's dire warnings about climate change and his decision to allow Shell's drilling.
Environmentalists claim hypocrisy, but Peterson says Obama is seeking a balance between the serious concerns about climate change and implications for the Arctic, while working with other nations seeking to exploit resources in the region. "The stakes between these various countries are enormous. It is no easy task by any means," he says. Shell is the only oil major planning to explore in the Arctic, and no one is producing oil there right now, Flynn says. Other oil majors, such as Total (TOT), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), ConocoPhillips Co (COP) and Statoil (STO) have put their Arctic plans on hold because of the low oil prices. "As time goes on and market conditions change, and if Shell is successful, there will be a lot of interest in that area," Flynn says.
Investors should know, however, that Shell isn't loved by analysts. For example, in a research note, Morningstar analysts say because of previous missteps, Shell "is far more likely to remain a laggard than become a leader among the oil majors for the rest of this decade." Despite the potential to tap plenty of energy in the Arctic, John Person, president of NationalFutures.com and a long-time energy-market watcher, is skeptical. "I think there are safer, better, cheaper ways to get at oil at this point of time. And if they didn't go after Arctic oil when it was $150 a barrel, they sure aren't going to when oil is at $45 a barrel," he says. Miners have had more success in the Arctic. Russia's Norilsk Nickel (NILSY) operates in the Arctic, and Canadian miner Agnico Eagle Mines (AEM) has two Arctic-area mines, one in Canada and one in Finland. Adrian Day, chairman and chief executive officer of Adrian Day Asset Management in Annapolis, Maryland, says Agnico Eagle's Meadowbank mine in Canadian province of Nunavut is one of the company's top-performing assets, but it had some issues ramping up production because of the harsh weather environment. Even small problems can be magnified when dealing with such a remote location.
"They had a famous fire in the kitchen. Normally you wouldn't even think about a fire in the kitchen in a mine, right?
It wouldn't be news, but that cost them $18 million because they had to evacuate people," he says. The lessons Agnico Eagle learned in building the Meadowbank mine will be applied elsewhere, Day says, citing comments by the company's management. Day owns Agnico Eagle stock and says it's one of the best mining companies. Regarding Norilsk Nickel, Citi Research analysts say the company has access to "world-class" nickel, copper and platinum group metal deposits in the Russian North. They rate the firm's stock at neutral, given the unlikelihood that nickel prices will rise. Investors who consider buying stock in companies operating in the Arctic need to consider the potential impact on valuations if environmental damage happens because of mining or oil drilling. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Alaska, cleanup was hampered by harsh weather conditions. Any accidents in the Arctic would be difficult to clean up, not only because of the weather, but because of the remoteness of the location.
Peterson also points out the potential for geopolitical concerns between competing nations in the Arctic, pointing out the tensions between Norway and Russia over the Spitsbergen archipelago (also known as Svalbard) over resource rights that date back to the 1920s. "It's a perfect example of the blend of geopolitics and resources development that is likely to occur time and time again in the future," he says. Day says at this point in time, it's probably too narrow for investors to consider a portfolio based around Arctic natural resources. "Certainly the potential in the Arctic is enormous, but the costs are commensurate," he says.
http://money.usnews.com/how-to-invest-in-arctic-developments-after-obamas-alaska-trip
Renewable Jet Fuel Is Taking Flight
by Zia Haq August 26, 2015 - 3:58pm
by Zia Haq August 26, 2015 - 3:58pm
It’s been one year since we at the Energy Department ramped up our efforts to develop renewable jet fuel for the military and commercial aviation industry. The Department’s Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) joined Farm to Fly 2.0 a partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Transportation Department’s Federal Aviation Administration, and commercial airlines partners to develop a commercially viable aviation biofuel industry. We also partnered with USDA and the Navy to fund three new commercial-scale biorefinery projects for advanced biofuels, which can be utilized by both the military and civil aviation sectors.
Since then, renewable jet fuel efforts have been taking off. Private companies have made agreements with our biorefinery partners and with one of our national laboratories. In July, FedEx entered into an agreement to purchase bio-derived jet fuel from the Red Rock Biofuels biorefinery in Lakeview, Oregon. This facility is being built with cost-shared government funding and will produce 12 million gallons of renewable jet, diesel, and naphtha fuel from forest residues. Southwest Airlines also signed a fuel off-take agreement with Red Rock in September 2014. Using forest residues as the feedstock can decrease the risk of destructive wildfires in the western United States.
In June, United Airlines announced a $30 million investment in Fulcrum Bioenergy—the largest investment by a domestic airline in the alternative fuels market. This adds to Hong Kong-based airline Cathay Pacific’s equity investment in Fulcrum in 2014. Cathay Pacific entered into a long-term jet fuel supply agreement with Fulcrum for 375 million gallons of fuel over 10 years. Fulcrum is constructing a biorefinery in McCarran, Nevada, to produce 10 million gallons per year of biofuels from municipal solid waste—such as everyday household garbage. LanzaTech and Imperium Aviation Fuels (which is now part of Renewable Energy Group, Inc.) are working with researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to advance a technology that converts ethanol from gas fermentation to drop-in jet fuel through thermochemical conversion.
LanzaTech’s proprietary gas fermentation technology provides an economic route to create fuels and high-value chemicals from carbon in waste streams. This solution mitigates carbon emissions while displacing fossil resources needed for fuel and chemical production. See a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory video on aviation biofuels. All these achievements in only one year—show significant interest by the commercial aviation industry for developing a renewable jet fuel market. Fuel is the largest expense for the commercial airlines industry. Biofuels can provide an alternative, stable supply of fuel that also has lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s an idea that can really take flight.
http://energy.gov/eere/articles/renewable-jet-fuel-taking-flight
Since then, renewable jet fuel efforts have been taking off. Private companies have made agreements with our biorefinery partners and with one of our national laboratories. In July, FedEx entered into an agreement to purchase bio-derived jet fuel from the Red Rock Biofuels biorefinery in Lakeview, Oregon. This facility is being built with cost-shared government funding and will produce 12 million gallons of renewable jet, diesel, and naphtha fuel from forest residues. Southwest Airlines also signed a fuel off-take agreement with Red Rock in September 2014. Using forest residues as the feedstock can decrease the risk of destructive wildfires in the western United States.
In June, United Airlines announced a $30 million investment in Fulcrum Bioenergy—the largest investment by a domestic airline in the alternative fuels market. This adds to Hong Kong-based airline Cathay Pacific’s equity investment in Fulcrum in 2014. Cathay Pacific entered into a long-term jet fuel supply agreement with Fulcrum for 375 million gallons of fuel over 10 years. Fulcrum is constructing a biorefinery in McCarran, Nevada, to produce 10 million gallons per year of biofuels from municipal solid waste—such as everyday household garbage. LanzaTech and Imperium Aviation Fuels (which is now part of Renewable Energy Group, Inc.) are working with researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to advance a technology that converts ethanol from gas fermentation to drop-in jet fuel through thermochemical conversion.
LanzaTech’s proprietary gas fermentation technology provides an economic route to create fuels and high-value chemicals from carbon in waste streams. This solution mitigates carbon emissions while displacing fossil resources needed for fuel and chemical production. See a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory video on aviation biofuels. All these achievements in only one year—show significant interest by the commercial aviation industry for developing a renewable jet fuel market. Fuel is the largest expense for the commercial airlines industry. Biofuels can provide an alternative, stable supply of fuel that also has lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s an idea that can really take flight.
http://energy.gov/eere/articles/renewable-jet-fuel-taking-flight
Approval of Arctic drilling comes just before Obama's visit
By KEVIN FREKING Aug. 18, 2015 12:20 PM EDT
By KEVIN FREKING Aug. 18, 2015 12:20 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration's approval of drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean clashes with the message President Barack Obama will deliver when he visits Alaska to emphasize the dangers of climate change, some environmental groups say. As much as the groups praise Obama for his overall body of work from stricter fuel-efficiency standards to regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants they consider the approval of exploratory drilling in the Arctic a stain on his environmental legacy that will send a mixed message to other countries about the seriousness of confronting global warming. The burning of fossil fuels causes more greenhouse gases to build up in the atmosphere. Some groups would prefer leaving the oil in the ground and not tempting the harsh environmental conditions that could hinder the response to any potential spill.
"It sends a terrible signal to the rest of the world for the United States to be using public resources to promote that development," said Niel Lawrence of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We have to make clear to the rest of the world that we are all in on a clean energy future. And we've got to stop giving the rest of the world license to go exploring by permitting Shell to do it." The administration previously allowed Royal Dutch Shell to begin drilling only the top sections of two wells in the Chukchi Sea because key equipment, called a capping stack, was stuck on a vessel that needed repair in Portland, Oregon. Now, Shell is free to drill into oil-bearing rock, estimated at 8,000 feet below the ocean floor. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that U.S. Arctic waters hold 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Shell is eager to explore in a basin that company officials say could be a "game changer" for domestic production. Obama, who is scheduled to visit Alaska later this month, says he is mindful of the dangers of offshore drilling, particularly given the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
"When it can be done safely and appropriately, U.S. production of oil and natural gas is important," he said at a news conference earlier this year. "I would rather us, with all the safeguards and standards that we have, be producing our oil and gas, rather than importing it, which is bad for our people, but is also potentially purchased from places that have much lower environmental standards than we do." When asked whether the administration was sending contradictory messages, White House spokesman Frank Benenati said the administration has invested heavily in renewable energy so that the nation can transition off fossil fuels. "But it's also true that we cannot make that transition overnight, which is why we have taken steps to ensure safe and responsible development of our domestic energy resources that benefits our economy and enhances global energy security, with safety remaining paramount," Benenati said. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear on her Twitter account Tuesday that she disagrees with Obama. "The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling," she wrote.
The administration's approval of Shell's exploration efforts has done little to stem criticism from congressional Republicans and industry officials who have often accused it of hindering oil and gas production on federal lands. At the same time, the go-ahead has upset a key base of his support. "It's perplexing and depressing, quite frankly, to hear President Obama say he wants to fix climate change but then approve Arctic drilling. It's like a doctor diagnosing a patient but then refusing to write a prescription," said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for the Center for Biological Diversity. Lawrence prefaced his criticism of the go-ahead to Shell by saying Obama has done more to fight climate change than "any other leader in world history."
In his visit to Alaska, Obama is expected to stress the dangers of climate change. He says Alaskans are on the front lines of the problem.
Associated Press writer Dan Joling in Anchorage, Alaska, contributed to this report
http://linkis.com/de9PM
"It sends a terrible signal to the rest of the world for the United States to be using public resources to promote that development," said Niel Lawrence of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We have to make clear to the rest of the world that we are all in on a clean energy future. And we've got to stop giving the rest of the world license to go exploring by permitting Shell to do it." The administration previously allowed Royal Dutch Shell to begin drilling only the top sections of two wells in the Chukchi Sea because key equipment, called a capping stack, was stuck on a vessel that needed repair in Portland, Oregon. Now, Shell is free to drill into oil-bearing rock, estimated at 8,000 feet below the ocean floor. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that U.S. Arctic waters hold 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Shell is eager to explore in a basin that company officials say could be a "game changer" for domestic production. Obama, who is scheduled to visit Alaska later this month, says he is mindful of the dangers of offshore drilling, particularly given the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
"When it can be done safely and appropriately, U.S. production of oil and natural gas is important," he said at a news conference earlier this year. "I would rather us, with all the safeguards and standards that we have, be producing our oil and gas, rather than importing it, which is bad for our people, but is also potentially purchased from places that have much lower environmental standards than we do." When asked whether the administration was sending contradictory messages, White House spokesman Frank Benenati said the administration has invested heavily in renewable energy so that the nation can transition off fossil fuels. "But it's also true that we cannot make that transition overnight, which is why we have taken steps to ensure safe and responsible development of our domestic energy resources that benefits our economy and enhances global energy security, with safety remaining paramount," Benenati said. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear on her Twitter account Tuesday that she disagrees with Obama. "The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling," she wrote.
The administration's approval of Shell's exploration efforts has done little to stem criticism from congressional Republicans and industry officials who have often accused it of hindering oil and gas production on federal lands. At the same time, the go-ahead has upset a key base of his support. "It's perplexing and depressing, quite frankly, to hear President Obama say he wants to fix climate change but then approve Arctic drilling. It's like a doctor diagnosing a patient but then refusing to write a prescription," said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for the Center for Biological Diversity. Lawrence prefaced his criticism of the go-ahead to Shell by saying Obama has done more to fight climate change than "any other leader in world history."
In his visit to Alaska, Obama is expected to stress the dangers of climate change. He says Alaskans are on the front lines of the problem.
Associated Press writer Dan Joling in Anchorage, Alaska, contributed to this report
http://linkis.com/de9PM
June was the hottest June on record for the planet, federal scientists announced Monday. This marked the third month of the year that's been record warm globally. "The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for the month of June since record-keeping began in 1880," NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information said in a statement. This backs up other global data sets from NASA and the Japan Meteorology Agency,
which also reported on June's record warmth. Record warmth was seen in June in the western U.S., parts of northern South America, several regions in central to western Africa, central Asia, and parts of southeastern Asia, the centers reported.
June 2015 broke the previous record for warmest June, set just last year, according to NOAA's data. Earlier this year, both March and May set marks for record warmth. The U.S., overall, had its second-warmest June on record, the centers announced last week. Only June 1933 was hotter. Five western states California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Utah were all record warm. The hot June continues the pattern of unusual warmth seen throughout the year: So far, the first six months of the year have been the warmest on record, due in part to El Nino, a climate pattern marked by warmer-than-average water in the tropical Pacific Ocean. The heat from the warm water helps boost temperatures in the atmosphere around the world.
While El Nino is a part of the warmth, the long-term trend of man-made climate change is also a contributor: NOAA reports that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000, many during years without the boost of an
El Nino. January-June was 1.53 degrees F warmer than average worldwide, NOAA said.
www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/07/20/june-global-heat/30412987
which also reported on June's record warmth. Record warmth was seen in June in the western U.S., parts of northern South America, several regions in central to western Africa, central Asia, and parts of southeastern Asia, the centers reported.
June 2015 broke the previous record for warmest June, set just last year, according to NOAA's data. Earlier this year, both March and May set marks for record warmth. The U.S., overall, had its second-warmest June on record, the centers announced last week. Only June 1933 was hotter. Five western states California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Utah were all record warm. The hot June continues the pattern of unusual warmth seen throughout the year: So far, the first six months of the year have been the warmest on record, due in part to El Nino, a climate pattern marked by warmer-than-average water in the tropical Pacific Ocean. The heat from the warm water helps boost temperatures in the atmosphere around the world.
While El Nino is a part of the warmth, the long-term trend of man-made climate change is also a contributor: NOAA reports that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000, many during years without the boost of an
El Nino. January-June was 1.53 degrees F warmer than average worldwide, NOAA said.
www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/07/20/june-global-heat/30412987
|
|
Climate Change In Africa: African Global Warming Role Small But Crucial To Crisis Solution, Experts Say
By Morgan Winsor on July 16 2015 8:18 AM EDT
While Africa’s lack of modern energy and minimum carbon footprint have made it the slightest contributor to the growing global warming crisis, the massive continent bears the brunt of the world’s rising temperatures with damaging effects such as massive droughts, flooding, unreliable crop yield and waning ecosystems. And yet, analysts have indicated that Africans represent just a small fraction of the global voices partaking in the crucial conversation about climate change.
As more than 2,000 researchers from across the world met at Unesco headquarters in Paris last week for the largest international scientific conference on global warming, only 10 percent of those participants came from Africa, one of the world's worst-affected regions. And while Africa was increasingly more involved in the worldwide discourse on the topic, many agreed that it’s still not enough because scientific research and innovative solutions from African pioneers at the conference would not translate into concrete action if they were not heard loud and clear by policy makers at the much-awaited,upcoming global climate summit in December, experts said.
“The African voice is there,” Edith Ofwona-Adera, a senior program specialist at Canada’s International Development Research Center, who manages climate change projects in Africa and attended the conference, said during a telephone interview. “But the voice of Africans needs to be at the table of the higher-level global talks in terms of scientific evidence that’s being produced. Developing country researchers, including those from Africa, need to be at the forefront.”
At nearly 12 million square miles, Africa covers 6 percent of Earth’s surface area and more than 20 percent of its total land space. The continent’s sheer enormity coupled with its vast natural resources and unique weather patterns make it particularly vulnerable to the severe consequences of global warming, which permeate every aspect of African life.
Rising sea levels and coastal storms have destroyed parts of Kenya, where some streets have turned to virtual rivers. The coastal city of Mombasa is no stranger to flash floods, but this year the torrents were stronger than usual, which environmental scientists have attributed to climate change. The floods have contaminated drinking water storage, leading to shortages and disease. Severe droughts in sub-Saharan Africa -- like the one that gripped East Africa in 2011, slashing crop yields and triggering food shortages and a refugee crisis -- also have been linked to global warming. The impacts of global warming vary for different regions around the world, underscoring the dire need for Africa to play a larger role in framing policies on climate change -- especially when the continent is the second-largest and second-most populous in the world, Ofwona-Adera said. “Africa is the most-affected continent and the least capacity in global climate change. If we are to find common solutions, then you need the voices of those who are affected and those who are highly affected.”
In order for a global approach on climate change to work, experts said there must be local scientists on the ground researching the effects across the African continent, developing innovative solutions and presenting them to policy makers. A financial contribution from various sponsors, including the International Development Research Center, was dedicated to recruiting and funding about 150 scientists from developing counties to attend last week’s meeting in Paris, which was the largest international science conference ahead of December's, according to Benoit Martimort-Asso, an organizer of the event. But that number of scientists was small compared to its international community, and Africa needs financing to foster more homegrown scientific minds. "We are facing a global issue and we need the mobilization of every scientist," Martimort-Asso said in an email last week. "To have a better global model to understand climate change at the global level, Africa is a key place and the international science community needs local data to upgrade that model."
African nations often lack the infrastructure, equipment, material and teachers necessary to improve on higher education. Enrollment rates for higher education in sub-Saharan Africa were by far the lowest in the world, and individuals who study abroad often never return, a Harvard University study found. An estimated 30 percent of the region’s university-trained professionals live outside Africa, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. “We’ve got this enormous brain drain just at the time we need their expertise on the ground,” said Tom Smith, founding director of the Center for Tropical Research at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We build centers of excellence that focus on the developing world but we base them in New York City or Paris. That’s just a poor business model. What we need are centers of excellence that can build capacity in these countries.”
However, some oversight across the continent does exist at a regional level when it comes to international policy framework on global warming. An alliance called the African Group of Negotiators was charged with representing each of Africa’s 54 independent nations – which all have varying needs and characteristics -- with a common and unified front during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. An African national government gets elected to chair the group every two years and receives some technical support from numerous organizations. “African governments have one voice in negotiations at the [Climate Change Conference of Parties],” said Shem Wandiga, the director of the Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation at the University of Nairobi in Kenya. “African voices have been very loud since [the 19th Conference of Parties]. But there is room for improvement.”
African leaders have hoped that by speaking with one voice during the 194-nation process on climate change, their position would be loud and clear. The region has collectively asked for compensation for Africa because of the damaging effects it suffers due to global warming primarily caused by richer nations, such as the United States. Although African countries are among the world's lightest polluters, some experts agreed the region still has its responsibilities and cannot follow in the carbon-heavy footsteps of developed countries. “If African cities develop in the same carbon-intensive way that developed cities have, the climate change outlook of our planet could be devastating,” said Kobie Brand, regional director of Local Governments of Sustainability – Africa.
Africa is becoming increasingly urban, which could either worsen or improve global warming. Currently, two out of three sub-Saharan Africans -- or 600 million people -- have no access to electricity at all. But that was slowly changing, as economists at Stand Bank Group Ltd. were expecting middle-class households in several leading sub-Saharan African economies to balloon from about 15 million to 40 million by 2030. Cell phone ownership also was booming and Internet access was rising, with companies such as Facebook investing in African consumers. Chinese firms have made huge investments in African infrastructure, targeting key sectors such as telecommunications, transport, construction and power. However, with urbanization come environmental hurdles such as pollution, overpopulation, deforestation and strained resources. Still, the region has an opportunity to leapfrog over the damaging energy practices of industrialized nations, experts said.
“The African voice on climate change is not always well heard or represented,” said Jim Taylor, director of environmental education for the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa. “But I really think the chance for change could come from Africa.”
www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-africa-african-global-warming-role-small-crucial-crisis-solution
As more than 2,000 researchers from across the world met at Unesco headquarters in Paris last week for the largest international scientific conference on global warming, only 10 percent of those participants came from Africa, one of the world's worst-affected regions. And while Africa was increasingly more involved in the worldwide discourse on the topic, many agreed that it’s still not enough because scientific research and innovative solutions from African pioneers at the conference would not translate into concrete action if they were not heard loud and clear by policy makers at the much-awaited,upcoming global climate summit in December, experts said.
“The African voice is there,” Edith Ofwona-Adera, a senior program specialist at Canada’s International Development Research Center, who manages climate change projects in Africa and attended the conference, said during a telephone interview. “But the voice of Africans needs to be at the table of the higher-level global talks in terms of scientific evidence that’s being produced. Developing country researchers, including those from Africa, need to be at the forefront.”
At nearly 12 million square miles, Africa covers 6 percent of Earth’s surface area and more than 20 percent of its total land space. The continent’s sheer enormity coupled with its vast natural resources and unique weather patterns make it particularly vulnerable to the severe consequences of global warming, which permeate every aspect of African life.
Rising sea levels and coastal storms have destroyed parts of Kenya, where some streets have turned to virtual rivers. The coastal city of Mombasa is no stranger to flash floods, but this year the torrents were stronger than usual, which environmental scientists have attributed to climate change. The floods have contaminated drinking water storage, leading to shortages and disease. Severe droughts in sub-Saharan Africa -- like the one that gripped East Africa in 2011, slashing crop yields and triggering food shortages and a refugee crisis -- also have been linked to global warming. The impacts of global warming vary for different regions around the world, underscoring the dire need for Africa to play a larger role in framing policies on climate change -- especially when the continent is the second-largest and second-most populous in the world, Ofwona-Adera said. “Africa is the most-affected continent and the least capacity in global climate change. If we are to find common solutions, then you need the voices of those who are affected and those who are highly affected.”
In order for a global approach on climate change to work, experts said there must be local scientists on the ground researching the effects across the African continent, developing innovative solutions and presenting them to policy makers. A financial contribution from various sponsors, including the International Development Research Center, was dedicated to recruiting and funding about 150 scientists from developing counties to attend last week’s meeting in Paris, which was the largest international science conference ahead of December's, according to Benoit Martimort-Asso, an organizer of the event. But that number of scientists was small compared to its international community, and Africa needs financing to foster more homegrown scientific minds. "We are facing a global issue and we need the mobilization of every scientist," Martimort-Asso said in an email last week. "To have a better global model to understand climate change at the global level, Africa is a key place and the international science community needs local data to upgrade that model."
African nations often lack the infrastructure, equipment, material and teachers necessary to improve on higher education. Enrollment rates for higher education in sub-Saharan Africa were by far the lowest in the world, and individuals who study abroad often never return, a Harvard University study found. An estimated 30 percent of the region’s university-trained professionals live outside Africa, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. “We’ve got this enormous brain drain just at the time we need their expertise on the ground,” said Tom Smith, founding director of the Center for Tropical Research at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We build centers of excellence that focus on the developing world but we base them in New York City or Paris. That’s just a poor business model. What we need are centers of excellence that can build capacity in these countries.”
However, some oversight across the continent does exist at a regional level when it comes to international policy framework on global warming. An alliance called the African Group of Negotiators was charged with representing each of Africa’s 54 independent nations – which all have varying needs and characteristics -- with a common and unified front during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. An African national government gets elected to chair the group every two years and receives some technical support from numerous organizations. “African governments have one voice in negotiations at the [Climate Change Conference of Parties],” said Shem Wandiga, the director of the Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation at the University of Nairobi in Kenya. “African voices have been very loud since [the 19th Conference of Parties]. But there is room for improvement.”
African leaders have hoped that by speaking with one voice during the 194-nation process on climate change, their position would be loud and clear. The region has collectively asked for compensation for Africa because of the damaging effects it suffers due to global warming primarily caused by richer nations, such as the United States. Although African countries are among the world's lightest polluters, some experts agreed the region still has its responsibilities and cannot follow in the carbon-heavy footsteps of developed countries. “If African cities develop in the same carbon-intensive way that developed cities have, the climate change outlook of our planet could be devastating,” said Kobie Brand, regional director of Local Governments of Sustainability – Africa.
Africa is becoming increasingly urban, which could either worsen or improve global warming. Currently, two out of three sub-Saharan Africans -- or 600 million people -- have no access to electricity at all. But that was slowly changing, as economists at Stand Bank Group Ltd. were expecting middle-class households in several leading sub-Saharan African economies to balloon from about 15 million to 40 million by 2030. Cell phone ownership also was booming and Internet access was rising, with companies such as Facebook investing in African consumers. Chinese firms have made huge investments in African infrastructure, targeting key sectors such as telecommunications, transport, construction and power. However, with urbanization come environmental hurdles such as pollution, overpopulation, deforestation and strained resources. Still, the region has an opportunity to leapfrog over the damaging energy practices of industrialized nations, experts said.
“The African voice on climate change is not always well heard or represented,” said Jim Taylor, director of environmental education for the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa. “But I really think the chance for change could come from Africa.”
www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-africa-african-global-warming-role-small-crucial-crisis-solution
Europe and Pacific Northwest face record heat
By Michael Carlowicz,NASA’s Earth Observatory July 15, 2015
By Michael Carlowicz,NASA’s Earth Observatory July 15, 2015
For two weeks in late June and early July 2015, western Europe and the Pacific Northwest of North America endured record-setting heat and parched landscapes. Other parts of the world got a taste of the heat, too, as new temperature records were set on three continents. The map above shows daytime land surface temperature anomalies in Europe from June 30 to July 9, 2015. Temperatures for those ten days are compared to the 2001–2010 average for the same period. Shades of red depict areas where the land surface was hotter than the long-term average; areas in blue were below average. White pixels were normal, and gray pixels did not have enough data, most likely due to excessive cloud cover.
This temperature anomaly map is based on data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite. Observed by satellites uniformly around the world, land surface temperatures (LSTs) are not the same as air temperatures. LSTs reflect the heating of the land by sunlight, and they can sometimes be significantly hotter or cooler than air temperatures. To learn more about LSTs and air temperatures, read: Where is the Hottest Place on Earth?
The map below offers the global picture of land surface temperature anomalies for June 30 to July 9. Note how temperatures were also significantly above normal in the Pacific Northwest of North America, in the mid-section of Africa, and in a long stretch from central Asia to northeast Siberia. Temperatures on the surface of Greenland were above normal, while cooler than normal weather settled in across Arctic Russia and Scandinavia. Much of the continental United States experienced mild temperatures.
On July 2, the air temperature in Maastricht reached 38.2 degrees Celsius (100.8 degrees Fahrenheit), the highest temperature ever recorded in The Netherlands. The mercury reached 40.3°C (104.5°F) in Kitzingen, Germany, on July 5, and 38.9°C (102.0°F) in Geneva, Switzerland, on July 7, the highest temperature ever recorded in either nation. Dozens of cities—including London, Paris, Berlin, Cordoba, Frankfurt, Madrid—easily surpassed records for the hottest June or July day on record. In some cities, both monthly records fell in a matter of days. Meteorologists attribute the temperature extremes in Europe to a kinked jet stream and a strong ridge of high pressure over Western Europe. A similar pattern has been making for stifling heat along the Pacific coast of North America. In the latter case, the weather seems to be driven by an unusually warm mass of water in the eastern Pacific Ocean, as well as the building El Niño.
In North America, Seattle endured record highs on four consecutive days in June and July, and Boise, Idaho, topped 37.8°C (100°F) for nine days in a row. Five western states—California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—recorded their warmest June ever, and early July was not much better. July temperature records fell in Asia and South America, too. Temperatures reached 41.1°C (106.0°F) in Kamalasai, Thailand, on July 3. Urumita, Colombia, topped the national July record with 42.2°C (108.0°F) on July 1. And Ashkabat, the capital of Turkmenistan, air temperatures on June 30 reached 47.2°C (117°F), the highest ever recorded in that nation.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2309
This temperature anomaly map is based on data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite. Observed by satellites uniformly around the world, land surface temperatures (LSTs) are not the same as air temperatures. LSTs reflect the heating of the land by sunlight, and they can sometimes be significantly hotter or cooler than air temperatures. To learn more about LSTs and air temperatures, read: Where is the Hottest Place on Earth?
The map below offers the global picture of land surface temperature anomalies for June 30 to July 9. Note how temperatures were also significantly above normal in the Pacific Northwest of North America, in the mid-section of Africa, and in a long stretch from central Asia to northeast Siberia. Temperatures on the surface of Greenland were above normal, while cooler than normal weather settled in across Arctic Russia and Scandinavia. Much of the continental United States experienced mild temperatures.
On July 2, the air temperature in Maastricht reached 38.2 degrees Celsius (100.8 degrees Fahrenheit), the highest temperature ever recorded in The Netherlands. The mercury reached 40.3°C (104.5°F) in Kitzingen, Germany, on July 5, and 38.9°C (102.0°F) in Geneva, Switzerland, on July 7, the highest temperature ever recorded in either nation. Dozens of cities—including London, Paris, Berlin, Cordoba, Frankfurt, Madrid—easily surpassed records for the hottest June or July day on record. In some cities, both monthly records fell in a matter of days. Meteorologists attribute the temperature extremes in Europe to a kinked jet stream and a strong ridge of high pressure over Western Europe. A similar pattern has been making for stifling heat along the Pacific coast of North America. In the latter case, the weather seems to be driven by an unusually warm mass of water in the eastern Pacific Ocean, as well as the building El Niño.
In North America, Seattle endured record highs on four consecutive days in June and July, and Boise, Idaho, topped 37.8°C (100°F) for nine days in a row. Five western states—California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—recorded their warmest June ever, and early July was not much better. July temperature records fell in Asia and South America, too. Temperatures reached 41.1°C (106.0°F) in Kamalasai, Thailand, on July 3. Urumita, Colombia, topped the national July record with 42.2°C (108.0°F) on July 1. And Ashkabat, the capital of Turkmenistan, air temperatures on June 30 reached 47.2°C (117°F), the highest ever recorded in that nation.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2309
Time for a Second Green Revolution
Published: 26th June 2015 06:00 AM Last Updated: 25th June 2015 10:53 PM
Green Revolution in India began in 1963 through the introduction of a high-yielding wheat crop variety by American agronomist Dr Norman Borlaug. However, the term Green Revolution applies to the period from 1967—when it was widely adopted by the Indian farmer—to 1978, when it resulted in record grain output of 131 million tones, ranking India as one of world’s biggest agricultural producers and a member of an elite club of nations exporting food grains. It was a quantum leap from the bleak and humiliating years of our dependence on PL 480 wheat sent by America.
Although India had become self-sufficient in basic food grains—wheat and rice—after Green Revolution, in recent years we have been facing recurrent spells of shortages in essential items like lentils, edible oil, sugar and onions resulting in their knee-jerk imports at exorbitant prices. Experts feel that if we do not focus immediately on increasing food production by rationalising priorities in the agriculture sector, we may be in for a rude shock of unmanageable food scarcity.
It is really a multi-dimensional problem. Firstly, our population is growing exponentially and so is the demand of food. Secondly, under pressure of population and industrialisation the land under cultivation is continuously decreasing. Thirdly, in spite of all the development not only our agriculture but also the food distribution system is almost entirely dependent on climate. Come drought, excessive rains, floods, hailstorms or any vagaries of weather, and there are prophets of doom mushrooming all over with predictions of food scarcity and rising prices. Fourthly, we are still unable to provide assured irrigation cover to a large part of our culturable land. And lastly, in spite of Green Revolution, we have not been able to sustain the growth of agriculture production to match our requirements and limitations of inputs, and sadly there has hardly been any remarkable research by agriculture scientists to achieve it.
The last mentioned factor holds the key to solving the problem. Time has come to launch a second Green Revolution to provide long-term food security to the nation, and it is the direction in which agriculture scientists and institutions need to focus. But here arises a pertinent question. Is it fair to say that with all the infrastructure and expertise available to agriculture institutions and universities, they have not contributed to the technology of agriculture? Yes, they most certainly have—by developing new seed strains, equipment, techniques etc. But all this was done before also, during first Green Revolution. What we really need now is to accept that some crucial inputs of traditional agriculture are getting scarcer—after and as a consequence of first revolution—and we have to reduce our dependence on them and research on increasing productivity with this handicap. These inputs are very basic in nature, they are land and water. Their shortage will pose the real challenge to another Green Revolution. And we will do well to remember that it was precisely these inputs, especially water, which was taken for granted and exploited to the hilt with improved seeds and chemical fertilisers, during Green Revolution.
In the present scenario not only is cultivable land shrinking, water availability is also on premium. We have almost dried our rivers and are emptying groundwater reservoirs by reckless extraction. Extensive use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides is polluting not only surface water resources but groundwater, too. It sounds a paradox, but agriculture is now creating an unprecedented crisis for environment. This trend has to be reversed. The road map for the next Green Revolution is, therefore, quite clear. We will have to develop techniques which would deliver more crop for each drop of irrigation as well as more yield per field of cultivated land. Although land available for agriculture is declining there is still scope to increase productivity from it, mainly because we are far behind most countries in per hectare yield. With new technology, improved seeds, rationalised crop rotation and balancing soil chemistry etc., we can obtain much more crop from the available land. Genetically improved seeds, which are being scoffed at—due to lack of proper education and information—can enhance productivity greatly.
But the problem on the water front is acute. We use about 73 per cent of our available freshwater in agriculture. This share from an already stressed resource is so high that not only important user sectors like industries, sanitation, environment, fisheries, etc. suffer, but there is crisis even for the basic need of drinking water. Traditional system of over application of water by flooding the fields is still practised by most farmers, who are not yet ready to rationalise it through water-efficient techniques like sprinkler and drip irrigation. The result is gross wastage of water and low productivity. This is a lose-lose situation and has to be addressed urgently.
So what will be the benchmarks to meet this challenge to a second Green Revolution? First, agriculture scientists should start their research by accepting that whatever water is available for irrigating crops is not only limited but also mostly polluted. Their target should be to obtain maximum production from frugal use of this water in irrigation. Of course, reuse and recycling of unclean water would be attempted after treating it to acceptable parameters for agricultural application. Researchers should focus on alternative organic fertilisers and pesticides which will need less water. Irrigation should aim at giving only the required amount of water in the root zone of plants for which drip and/or sprinkler system must be applied in the entire cultivable area—through subsidy, wherever necessary. The new government is committed to provide water to every field. This has to be done by making field channels, wherever terrain permits. At all other places sprinklers with minimal extraction of groundwater should be used to meet the target of total irrigation coverage to cultivated land.
Perhaps these targets would appear difficult and impracticable now, but it is not so. Israel is practising them successfully for a long time. We have seen sprinkler irrigation of rice in Japan 25 years ago, and their productivity at that time was 2.5 times of ours. Our agro-scientists, irrigation engineers and farmers can certainly bring a water-efficient second Green Revolution—only they would have to get rid of the mind-fix that we have unlimited water resources. Once upon a time it was so, but now they are just pleasant memories which should not come in the way of facing a stark reality. And the reality is that we will have to collect and store each drop of water, check its misuse and wastage, and use it frugally yet efficiently—especially in agriculture, because that is the biggest user sector of water. This should be the target of the second Green Revolution.
www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Time-for-a-Second-Green-Revolution
Although India had become self-sufficient in basic food grains—wheat and rice—after Green Revolution, in recent years we have been facing recurrent spells of shortages in essential items like lentils, edible oil, sugar and onions resulting in their knee-jerk imports at exorbitant prices. Experts feel that if we do not focus immediately on increasing food production by rationalising priorities in the agriculture sector, we may be in for a rude shock of unmanageable food scarcity.
It is really a multi-dimensional problem. Firstly, our population is growing exponentially and so is the demand of food. Secondly, under pressure of population and industrialisation the land under cultivation is continuously decreasing. Thirdly, in spite of all the development not only our agriculture but also the food distribution system is almost entirely dependent on climate. Come drought, excessive rains, floods, hailstorms or any vagaries of weather, and there are prophets of doom mushrooming all over with predictions of food scarcity and rising prices. Fourthly, we are still unable to provide assured irrigation cover to a large part of our culturable land. And lastly, in spite of Green Revolution, we have not been able to sustain the growth of agriculture production to match our requirements and limitations of inputs, and sadly there has hardly been any remarkable research by agriculture scientists to achieve it.
The last mentioned factor holds the key to solving the problem. Time has come to launch a second Green Revolution to provide long-term food security to the nation, and it is the direction in which agriculture scientists and institutions need to focus. But here arises a pertinent question. Is it fair to say that with all the infrastructure and expertise available to agriculture institutions and universities, they have not contributed to the technology of agriculture? Yes, they most certainly have—by developing new seed strains, equipment, techniques etc. But all this was done before also, during first Green Revolution. What we really need now is to accept that some crucial inputs of traditional agriculture are getting scarcer—after and as a consequence of first revolution—and we have to reduce our dependence on them and research on increasing productivity with this handicap. These inputs are very basic in nature, they are land and water. Their shortage will pose the real challenge to another Green Revolution. And we will do well to remember that it was precisely these inputs, especially water, which was taken for granted and exploited to the hilt with improved seeds and chemical fertilisers, during Green Revolution.
In the present scenario not only is cultivable land shrinking, water availability is also on premium. We have almost dried our rivers and are emptying groundwater reservoirs by reckless extraction. Extensive use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides is polluting not only surface water resources but groundwater, too. It sounds a paradox, but agriculture is now creating an unprecedented crisis for environment. This trend has to be reversed. The road map for the next Green Revolution is, therefore, quite clear. We will have to develop techniques which would deliver more crop for each drop of irrigation as well as more yield per field of cultivated land. Although land available for agriculture is declining there is still scope to increase productivity from it, mainly because we are far behind most countries in per hectare yield. With new technology, improved seeds, rationalised crop rotation and balancing soil chemistry etc., we can obtain much more crop from the available land. Genetically improved seeds, which are being scoffed at—due to lack of proper education and information—can enhance productivity greatly.
But the problem on the water front is acute. We use about 73 per cent of our available freshwater in agriculture. This share from an already stressed resource is so high that not only important user sectors like industries, sanitation, environment, fisheries, etc. suffer, but there is crisis even for the basic need of drinking water. Traditional system of over application of water by flooding the fields is still practised by most farmers, who are not yet ready to rationalise it through water-efficient techniques like sprinkler and drip irrigation. The result is gross wastage of water and low productivity. This is a lose-lose situation and has to be addressed urgently.
So what will be the benchmarks to meet this challenge to a second Green Revolution? First, agriculture scientists should start their research by accepting that whatever water is available for irrigating crops is not only limited but also mostly polluted. Their target should be to obtain maximum production from frugal use of this water in irrigation. Of course, reuse and recycling of unclean water would be attempted after treating it to acceptable parameters for agricultural application. Researchers should focus on alternative organic fertilisers and pesticides which will need less water. Irrigation should aim at giving only the required amount of water in the root zone of plants for which drip and/or sprinkler system must be applied in the entire cultivable area—through subsidy, wherever necessary. The new government is committed to provide water to every field. This has to be done by making field channels, wherever terrain permits. At all other places sprinklers with minimal extraction of groundwater should be used to meet the target of total irrigation coverage to cultivated land.
Perhaps these targets would appear difficult and impracticable now, but it is not so. Israel is practising them successfully for a long time. We have seen sprinkler irrigation of rice in Japan 25 years ago, and their productivity at that time was 2.5 times of ours. Our agro-scientists, irrigation engineers and farmers can certainly bring a water-efficient second Green Revolution—only they would have to get rid of the mind-fix that we have unlimited water resources. Once upon a time it was so, but now they are just pleasant memories which should not come in the way of facing a stark reality. And the reality is that we will have to collect and store each drop of water, check its misuse and wastage, and use it frugally yet efficiently—especially in agriculture, because that is the biggest user sector of water. This should be the target of the second Green Revolution.
www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Time-for-a-Second-Green-Revolution