WHEN PUSH TURNS TO SHOVE

My best friend said a very.... interesting (?) comment today in school. I forget how the conversation went, but it ended up like this "... you'll probably want to be the President of Greenpeace one day."

And that got me thinking.

Greenpeace is THE environmental NGO out there, yet its methods are often controversial, usually involving direct action. This ranges from sit-ins to the blocking of whaling vessels and criminal damage on coal-plants. To the average person, such activities do seem rather radical- after all, its 'just' the environment, but to me, (except the last bit) all of their activities are justified, for the public continues to ignore environmental concerns in favor of tiger-bone, ivory and sharks- fin soup.

But, where do we draw the line? Where does direct activism become eco-terrorism? Can it really be justified in the name of the environment? As forecasts for the state of our biosphere becomes ever more dire, does it become right to bomb, maim or kill in defence of the planet? Consider the fact that human lives are going to be sacrificed by depleted mountain glaciers, melted ice and more extreme weather events

It does not. Not for me. Because the value of human life is the same as the value of animal and plant life all over the world. This means that if you're fighting to save species, destroying your own to call attention and grab the headlines does seem rather bird-brained.

And what would happen if we set an oil-palm headquarters alight? Carbon dioxide is released, isn't it? It therefore becomes more illogical to destroy the environment in the hope of saving it.

Still, deploying vessels to physically block whaling craft is quite alright. And shooting animal poachers is also fine. Maybe we should consider the death penalty or life imprisonment for poachers and illegal fishermen.

In the meantime, lets accept that since its the Year of the Tiger, that great beast deserves our respect. Why waste money eating its parts when the science says there're no benefits whatsoever? You wouldn't want a tiger to eat you, right?

THE ALLAH ISSUE

Government response to the attacks have been rather positive, but these cops need to catch the perpetrators fast.

When Malaysia makes it into international newsmagazines, its almost always for the bad stuff. Piracy and the loss of mangroves in National Geographic, human trafficking in Newsweek, and the Perak political crisis in The Economist. Not to mention rampant deforestation in many NGOs reports and websites. Well, we just got in The Economist, thanks to the Allah controversy, and the burning of churches.

Aren't we famous?

My belief is that Catholics should be allowed to use the word Allah, simply because, in the Middle East, where Christianity came from, Allah simply means 'God'. For 600 years after that, Arab Christians and Jews continued to use it to mean God, and when the Prophet Muhammad founded Islam, the preexisting word for God was then taken to be used by Muslims worldwide. There is, thus, a shared history of the word Allah for the 3 Abrahamic religions, and it should stay that way.

This is Allah, a beautiful name for a beautiful God in three beautiful religions. Check out the Wikipedia article for full details on the word.

In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, Christians are allowed to freely use Allah in their worship and even public posters and banners. Even Arab Christians use the term to mean 'God'. According to Gwynne Dyer, a journalist for the Salt Lake Tribune "... Malaysian Muslims should take a lesson from early [Arabian Muslims]...[the Christians] were quickly conquered by Muslim armies, but were not forcibly converted... improbable that they had to change the word they used for God". (Read the article here)

The government likes to say that when we use Allah, we will confuse the nation's Muslims. However, since the Herald already carries the word TERHAD, how are Muslims supposed to get to read it? Plus, I believe this nation's Muslims are intelligent enough to know the difference in the contextual usage of the word. Those believing that the word's usage is somehow their right (!) are lacking judgement, maturity and are an affront to the intelligence of Malaysian Muslims. A simple history review (provided Free Of Charge above),is enough for this country's educated Muslims to understand the truth.

Like the Economist's article, I believe that the current controversy is no more than the effort of the government to woo Islamic hardliners after losing more of their support to PAS in the last general election. Prominent intellectuals, like Universiti Malaya's Azmi Sharom also believe in this scenario. By contrast, PAS has become a voice of moderation saying that the other Abrahamic religions be allowed to use Allah to mean God in Malay. The 1Malaysia concept has thus come under serious threat, because whoever wins, gaping wounds have been opened. And these can't be stitched up easily.

If the whole issue is indeed a tactic by UMNO to win votes, then the 1Malaysia concept is as good as dead.

In short, this issue has to play out in the courts with all parties maintaining cool heads. Reiterating my support for the Herald, I would like to point out that if the Herald loses this case, which word do we lose next? Amen?

WHY WE MUST ACT

Now, the world knows that governments need to act, fast, to counter climate change. And most of us already know the perils of living in a warmer world. Many of us are even unfortunate enough to have experienced global warming's initial effects already (think the Kelantan-Terengganu floods and the current searingly hot afternoons). Still, government officials, not feeling these effects directly, drag their feet when it comes to action.

As great a leader as he is, President Obama is still subservient to the laws of politics, notably compromise. Pity.

One reason for this is politics, simple, despicable politics. You see, leaders promise to take action on climate change, but never specify just how much action they want to take, or when they want to take it. And of course, ambiguity is always the mark of a great politician. But more troubling is the fact that environmentalist leaders are scared to death of alienating the voters who don't believe in man-made global warming, or those who argue about the cost. Other than forget the environmentalist votes they could get, they then decide to compromise. Which is why you hear about Obama's plan for clean coal, when a greener choice would be mext-generation nuclear power.

This is a coal strip mine. Now, how clean can this be, compared to the near zero- emissions rate for nuclear power?

Thing is, global-warming won't compromise. The tons of carbon we've belched into the Earth won't hang around and wait for all of us to agree on the issue; it's cooking the planet as we speak. Which means if a government's got something it wants to do on global warming, then it sure as heck should start doing it! Screw the politics.

But politics isn't the worst of it.

There's actually a fair bit of greed here. Oil rich nations (with a significant number of African ones) are dead against a carbon neutral economy, in which oil won't feature. Heck, oil's effects are much more far-ranging than simply the environment- it's caused wars, widened the rich-poor gap, and, in developing countries, caused the curse of black gold. But, because it brings in a windfall in profits, governments are not about to give it up for something as universal as, say, solar. That includes Malaysia; petronas funds too much of the government budget for it to wean itself off oil in the near future.

Despite having oil, many Nigerians live in slums like this, as powerful elites siphon off oil royalties.

Therefore, it's up to us. It is us who must reject plastic, save energy (the sun is bright enough to be used to study- just open your windows), and recycle whatever cannot be reused. Branching out from mere global warming, we must also save our endangered animals by ensuring they remain in the wild- not in our houses, not on our dinner plates, but in our seas, skies and forests. It will be a tough fight, and public revolution is necessary. But we, the young people of today, must look at the choices our parents and grandparents made yesterday, and reject them in favour of a tomorrow with the real planet God made for us.

A TO-DO LIST

Now that Copenhagen has failed, the world's attention now turns to the next international meeting in Mexico, 2010. And, as everyone knows, there are certain things that the world's nations need to do to for the next meeting to flow without allegations of hypocrisy, walkouts or protests. My ideas are fairly simple, but they will work wonders in helping to draft an agreement, as well as in carrying out the tasks agreed upon.

For developed countries, it is absolutely critical to start coming up with more agendas on how to tackle the problem in their own country first. To this day, the US still has not passed a domestic climate bill, with President Obama more concerned on the health care issue. Adaptation of green energy, especially next-generation nuclear power, is also going very slowly. In developed countries, politics, rather than economics holds up the process. Plus, developed countries, are fearful of imposing more emissions limits on major carmakers, as the world slowly begins to escape recession, but with the economic outloook getting better, it is time to start doing so. Europe also has to do more, such as imposing a carbon tax, besides its' regular carbon market.

Next generation nuclear plants like this one are essential to combat global warming. Too bad nuclear energy still suffers from bad press.

Speaking of markets and money, the fund for developing countries carbon emissions should also be increased. Developed countries have pledged $ 100 billion to help developing countries fight climate change, but while this figure is too little, the $800 billion requested by Malaysian PM Najib Tun Razak is way too much. Still, the developed nations need to raise money, and this is probably best done through carbon markets. But, better than this method is to develop and transfer green technologies to developing countries, as well as harnessing their abilities to fight climate change (like jatropha biofuel).

As for the developing countries, they've got quite a bit to do too. First, they need to compile a full energy audit, showing all energy sources and measuring the emissions of major industrial sites. They should also note certain target areas for immediate action, and put these areas on the priority list for receiving Western aid and technology. Plus, they should also do complete analyses of transportation systems, calculating the number of cars on the road, and what energy sources do public transport systems use. It's also integral to do energy audits for all government buildings as well as providing incentives for private companies to do the same.

Sights like this are common in developing countries too. Sadly, their environmental impact assessments aren't.

Even more important is the effort needed by developing countries to receive the money that 1st World nations properly. It is a known fact that many developing countries, the African ones in particular, handle simple cash aid with such corruption that perhaps 90% of the money given is siphoned off by official after official before it finally reaches its' target. By that time, the amount is too little to be put to any use. The problem is much worse in these countries' Environmental Protection Agencies, as bribery to flout eco-laws is a norm in developing countries' industries. It is imperative thus, that for effective use of the money, or maybe even increased handouts (if the West decides to trust the 3rd World more), corruption must be stamped out.

Perhaps one of the biggest stumbling blocks in global climate action could be removed if corruption was tackled. As an extra bonus, social equality would improve too.

These steps are by no means the only ones, they are simply what I consider to be the most important. Not just because they'll be effective in the next round of talks, but because they will have multiple advantages, not just climate related ones. So, to work!

A RESPONSE TO THE INDIAN RESPONSE

The Indian government is acting like fools.

I'm sorry, but there is no other way to describe it. Even China has some common sense.

This comes after reading the whole of India's response to the Copenhagen Accord, made by its' Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, who said India 'has come out quite well in Copenhagen'.

Excuse me?Mr. Ramesh, do you want your grandchildren to inherit a 50 degree Celsius India?

Lets' analyse, and debunk all his baseless arguments here, shall we? "The Copenhagen accord "bears in mind that the social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries," Ramesh said.

Right. Now, firstly, the Accord was never created to give Mr Ramesh something to gloat about, only to make sure SOMETHING came out of the meeting. And yes, it is true that economic development and poverty eradication are the main concerns of developing nations. But seriously, there are many ways to develop a country, and eradicate poverty, while preserving the ecosystem. Reducing wastage of electricity is one, via energy-efficient devices, that would help the poor save money, while enjoying equal privileges.Compact fluorescent lightbulbs are more energy efficient and last longer compared to tungsten bulbs. Wouldn't this help the poor save money and aid in poverty eradication?

And what about green energy technologies? India produces some of the brightest scientific minds every year. Surely the Indian government is not underestimating its' graduates capabilities to come up with new clean tech to help India corner the market for such devices? If the government tried a little harder, it can stop India's brain drain (to the U.S. especially) and work on its own, cost efficient measures to save Earth. Plus, if India expects the developed world to come up with solutions, then Indians will have to buy green products from other countries, and this will NOT benefit Indian economic development (or poverty eradication) in any way.
With India producing more and more scientists, doesn't it make perfect sense to fund local development of green tech? Wouldn't this help economic development?

Next, the good minister wants "to ensure that the interests of developing countries and India in particular are protected in the course of negotiations in 2010 and beyond".

So, it is not in India's interests to protect from extreme weather events caused by climate change? Might I remind Mr. Ramesh that just last year, India was hit by severe floods in Maharashtha, Andrha Pradesh and Bihar? And bear in mind that AP is a key agricultural center for Indian consumption. Is Mr. Ramesh so concerned about mere economic development that he forgets a human's basic necessity to eat? Or worse, is his cushy office enough to make him forget about the fate of hundreds of poor farmers who rely on a good, predictable, un-global warming-ed, climate to fill their bellies and clothe their bodies?
Mr. Ramesh obviously doesn't think of these people, who will be forced to do this daily (?) if he continues to resist solid, legally binding action against global warming.

Maybe it is. After all, this is a man who was willing to form a coalition (with Brazil, South Africa, and China) that worked to block a proper deal in Copenhagen.

I'm sure he enjoyed his vacation there. And that his post as Environment Minister comes with a gas-guzzling, Earth warming SUV. You're a good man, Mr Ramesh.

COPENHAGEN'S FAILURE

So, in the end, my worst fears came to pass. There was a walkout (by the Africans), developed countries promised no increase in emissions cuts, developing nations acted like they're all broke and need funding, and generally, no-one could agree on anything.

And in the end, 26 nations (out of 193!!) got together at the last minute and hashed out the Copenhagen Accord, a mere realization that in future, the world must come up with a strategy to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Like we didn't know that already.

Plus, the other nations only 'noted' the Accord, without committing to it particularly enthusiastically. Whatever Obama says about the Accord (do check out India's response), Copenhagen WAS a FAILURE!

Oh and that was a 'small' matter about climate protesters clogging up the venue.

I'm not kidding. There were so many of them, and the wonderful organizers, wanting to 'be democratic' and 'champion freedom of speech', let them harass, block and crowd the place. This was to the extent that important people who actually had important things to contribute could not get in. Like Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Report.

Anyway, a big, sincere thank you to all those who prayed for a victory of common sense. I feel your pain and I'm sorry it got thwarted. But, the battle goes on.

And a big thank you to China, for blocking anything and everything constructive, plus all developing nations who act like global warming is a rich world problem and keep insisting they fund every damn thing the developing world needs to do to stop it. Right down to the last freakin' eco-bulb. Screw them all.

I guess we shouldn't forget the developed countries. Thanks for setting a wonderful example, and to the U.S, that 17% emissions cuts target is a really wonderful effort. And to all you rich, money-minded fools all over the world for presenting governments with a powerful lobby against emissions cuts.

And lastly, if you're the consumer out there who insists on his air-cond every night, his SUV, his extravagant plastic use, his laziness to recycle, and his general Earth-polluting ignorance, this goes out to you too.

I love you all!

WHAT THEY COULD DO

If the repeated demands for money and tech are any indication, developed countries sincerely believe that they have little of their own stuff to contribute to the fight against global warming. Truth be told, they do and not just in terms of products either, but also in market terms.

Firstly, the nature of the people in developing nations means that battles on green tech are fought not only on efficiency, but also on cost. 3rd-world people, much more than richer populations, are less idealistic when it comes to the environment, and more concerned about cost. In this sense, due to the rapid emergence of developing nation consumption, green companies will be more motivated to cheapen their products, which in turn promises greater profits, and that leads to greater funds available for further research.Wanted- cheaper solar panels. If solar panels carried a "Made in China" tag, they could be hundreds of times cheaper.

As an added bonus in the price wars, developing countries also allow for green appliances to be produced far more cheaply. Take China, where mobile phones can be made and sold for $80, with full touchscreens, internet access and every other cool feature. Similarly, such price revolutions could be moved to solar cells, compact fluorescent bulbs and wind turbines. Of course, quality control is an important issue that needs more than ever to be taken into account.

And then there's the young population. While most developed countries are facing an aging population, developing nations have been blessed with a boom on young people. Not only are young people the engine for change (helping spearhead calls for climate action) but they will provide a pool of workers and innovators in the world's next big field: green tech. Plus, they provide companies with an incentive to develop such products as electric sports cars, green laptops and hip reusable shopping bags. They are, in short, producers and consumers in the exciting new world of reduce, reuse and recycle.The Tesla Roadster electric sports car. The younger population of developing nations would provide an eager market for such green products.

Last of all, developing nations also contain stores of untapped resources that are integral in cutting emissions. Take for example China. With one of the world's largest proven lithium reserves, Chinese participation is essential in the development of electric car batteries. In addition, African nations close to the Sahara Desert typically contain a plant- the jatropha, which has seeds containing oil suitable for biofuel. Jatropha is exempt from the typical food vs fuel debate plaguing most biofuels because it grows on land that can't support any other plant.A hedge of jatropha. Want 'em to power your cars, Americans? You need to work with us first.

But for these benefits to actually come through, developing nations must stop heaping near-total responsibility on rich countries, and promote green-mindedness among their people. Similarly, the 1st world should realize that only shared partnerships with the 3rd world will result in a comprehensive effort to repel the spectre of global warming.

DEVELOPED VS. DEVELOPING- WHERE THEY STAND NOW

Anyone following our governments' efforts to unite to save the environment would surely notice a gaping rift, that between developing and developed countries. The former is represented by: the U.S. and fighting for the developing countries is the up-and-coming kingpin of the world economy: China.Side by side? Not when it comes to the environment.

The story goes like this: since the Chinese are building the equivalent of two coal-fired power plants every week, developed countries insist developing countries should be bound to cut emissions by as great a number as the developed countries must do themselves. This is true, since new data shows developing countries now account for 54% of CO2 emissions worldwide, and that developed-country emissions are starting to come down. Thank God.
The Chinese, still developing, love cheap coal. The Germans, developed, get along much better with solar.

According to developing countries, however, developed countries are mainly responsible for global warming. True, since in the past, developed countries did emit more then developing nations, and since there's a lag time before CO2 starts heating the planet, past developed countries are responsible for most of the CURRENT warming we are experiencing. Developing countries also insist that they are still developing and should be allowed to do so without interference. And, they say that if they are to cut emissions, developed countries must fund it and provide the technology.U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman. On climate change, Mr. Anifah says: "Give us the tools and we will act." Wonder how Mrs. Clinton feels.

There are numerous reasons for both sides taking the positions they do. Mainly, it is economic- developing countries do not want to have to pay for the high upfront costs. Developing countries who depend largely on oil also do not want to have to give it up. After all, if they keep resisting the switch to renewables, high oil prices will benefit them greatly. Plus, clean technologies are right up the alley of rich countries, who have the money and expertise to control the market, and developing countries do not want to lose out. That might also be why they demand for clean-tech transfers from rich countries. This is highly regrettable, as the long term returns from going green are way higher.

Socially, developing countries prefer to focus on economic development, as opposed to environmental preservation. As I have written before, the level of environmental consciousness in developing countries is tragically low. People here prefer jobs and cash to hybrids and recyclables. In China, the Communist Party is bound to increase the standard of living drastically, to compensate for the lack of freedom under communist rule. If they were to slow this improvement in favour of the environment, the Party could very well face riots that might kick them out of power.The Communist Party needs a roaring economy to stay in power. Too bad for the Earth.

These thinking patterns do no good to anyone. In fact, if they continue, then developed countries might give up their own efforts to cut emissions, and just when they were starting to go green too. Regardless of what developing country governments say, shouldn't we stand up and start the change?

OFFSETS- SOME REALITIES

Among mega-companies, offsets seem to be the buzzword when it comes to slashing CO2 emissions. In fact, it has even become popular among regular citizens seeking to go green while maintaining flights, pleasure cruises and the like.

What are offsets? Basically it works like this. If you go on a carbon-emitting flight to, say, New York, you calculate roughly how much CO2 your flight emitted, and then try to soak it up, usually by planting trees. One year in Sydney, town authorities planted trees to offset carbon emissions from New Year's fireworks. (This piece will focus largely on tree-planting offsets).

Now I know what you're thinking, it does seem too good to be true right?

Yes, it probably is.
Offsets- like planting trees- sound good. But are they?

Lets examine some scientific evidence. Trees take many years to mature to an age where they are capable of even absorbing the carbon from a motorbike, let alone a plane trip. Younger trees certainly do not absorb as much carbon as older ones, meaning that the trees you plant as offsets might not be living up to your expectations. Maintenance of forests can be notoriously difficult, especially if trees are planted outside their optimum climates, and can release CO2- think forest rangers, tractors, etc. Take for example Coldplay's offsets project: which ended up with nothing more than dead mango trees, which, when decomposing release more CO2 into the atmosphere.Sorry gents. Guess Death and all his friends paid a visit to those mango trees.

Invasive species also form part of the critique against offsets. As everyone knows, certain trees are meant to be grown in certain places only. When green-minded dreamers ignorant of the facts mess with this, things get icky. For example, eucalyptus trees are often planted to deliver fast results. However, planted in Third World countries, its' thirst for water kills other native species, and deprives the soil of nutrients while not returning enough nutrients. According to my copy of The Earth Report 2, a 100sqm hybrid eucalyptus plantation, in one year, takes up 1594 kg of calcium, and returns only 335 kg.

Even if eucalyptus and similar trees are not used, the want of quick offsets, and a lack of regulation means that local ecosystems and animal habitats could get seriously messed up. To make matters worse, there have been claims that indigenous communities have been forced off their land to make way for tree-planting projects, as evidenced by a World Rainforest Movement report documenting land disputes and human rights abuses at Mount Elgon, Uganda, where 300 families were chased off their land.

Other forms of offsets, like investing in clean technology, (members of the public usually donate to wind-farm developments) might show more promise than tree-planting. But again, there are risks. Without proper documentation, regulation and information disclosure, people could just get swindled into donating to failed projects. Wikipedia cites:
-widespread instances of people or organizations buying worthless credits that do not reduce
emissions
-companies profiting from doing very little to actually reduce emissions
-a shortage of verification making it difficult for buyers to confirm the value of their donations
Investments in clean-tech could be a good form of offsets. With regulation. Maybe.

Whatever happens in the whole offsets business, the fact remains that we need to CUT emissions, not try to balance them out. That means nixing the SUVs and the drives to places within walking distance. That means saving energy, and practicing the 3R concept. Whatever governments say or do, we, the people, have the real power to save Earth.

THE POLAR PROBLEM

From the Hopenhagen Blog

Even as I speak, the very last polar bear may be dying of hunger on account of climate change, on account of us. And I will sure miss the polar bears. Their babies are so warm and cuddly and trusting, just like ours. --Kurt Vonnegut, Armageddon in Retrospect.

We’ve got 100 years left with polar bears. So says the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. One hundred years before the Arctic’s most iconic beast–now the poster animal for global warming–can no longer find food, and joins the ranks of saber tooth tigers, mastodons, and woolly rhinos. But there still is hope. So says Richard Ellis.

My own- There are actually various reports on the scale of the crisis. Polar bears being seen with one cub, instead of the usual two are one. Dead bears found on the ice- two or three as reported by one National Geographic journalist- is another indication. But they all agree on the same thing. Fail to act against global warming, and that's the end of the bears that captivated our childhood imaginations (no offence, Mr. Panda).

My own- See those smashed up bits of ice? They're not supposed to be there, not in areas previously frozen all year around. Note the rounded edges. To photographer Mitusaki Iwago's ice, the loss of the floes' sharp edges is also due to global warming. That the imposing image of a creation so mighty, it claimed the Titanic, is becoming more "gentle" is another example of how man has stripped the Earth of its' dignity.

The Hopenhagen blog- As for the upcoming Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, drastic measures are a crucial component to the bears' survival. "... Resolutions passed to diminish global warming and the spread of greenhouse gases will have a direct impact on the bears. How could they not? Polar bears, more than any other species are dependent upon the Polar ice cap for their survival, and unless steps are taken to slow down the melting, the bears, without their life-saving ice pack, will swim into oblivion."