johnsearth

KISS Principle Applied to the Environment

2021-07-14T13:44:00.000+07:00

A recent article on Grist on "subtraction" - getting rid of elements instead of adding new ones. That led me to thinking about the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) and how that applies to the environment.

When students are asked what is the best method to solve the solid waste problem, the answer is almost always: Recycling. Using the KISS principle; however, Source Reduction is the best answer. If you do not produce the waste, you don't need to manage it (by recycling or any other method). There are also problems with recycling that students (and much of the general public) do not understand. First is they think that making a small object (such as a decoration) is what recycling is all about. But objects make made like this are eventually thrown out (if used at all). Secondly, people are still under the illusion that all plastics can be recycled. Not only wrong, but those non-recyclable plastics include many commonly used (such as plastic straws).

Another area for KISS is in pollution control. One thing that I have been interested in for the last forty years as an engineer is "front-of-the pipe solutions to pollution control. Traditional approach is end-of-the-pipe, meaning air pollution control devices and wastewater treatment. It is still the primarily taught method and is often used by companies as an excuse.

Returning to the subtraction method, a good example is removing roads, etc. Consider flooding for example. Rather than adding expensive pumps and other equipment, removing pavements would allow water to soak into the soil, thereby reducing runoff and the resulting flooding. And its much cheaper.

Probably the most important KISS principle in today's consumeristic society is simply buying less. If people do not buy it, then there is nothing to throw away. Of course, this means a shift away from consumerism. This may not be easy, since many large corporations use it to make large profits and then greenwash the public (hello, Apple!)

To the question, how do we solve global warming?, the most common answers are "reforestation" and "planting trees". While this is a good idea, only planting trees is not enough to remove all global emissions. Since burning of fossil fuels is the cause of most of global warming, the simplest thing to do is stop burning fossil fuels. Pure and simple!

An extension of this (and a solution to traffic congestion) is to simply remove cars (especially gasoline-driven cars) from the road. This is a solution I have been promoting for over twenty-five years (since my days doing impact assessments on transportation). The COVID-19 situation has shown how this can work.

A lot of discussion has been on biodiversity lately. The best way of saving biodiversity is also the simplest - the setup, maintenance, and preservation of bioreserves.

There are some words of warning, however. First, not all things can best be done by simple solutions. One good example of this is food; simply growing of more food does not solve the food shortage problem. Other examples of this are education and water quantity.

Innovation vs. innovation talk

2019-02-08T14:36:00.002+07:00

Recently, I have been tired of hearing the talk about innovation. I am all for innovation, rather it is the talk that bothers me. Politicians, administrators, and business people always talk about innovation, but then they make policies which do exactly the opposite.

One of the keys to being innovation is science. Not only science in terms of technology developed, but also in applying the analytical skills necessary to innovate. However, at the same time that the talk about innovation has increased, science education has decreased. In some places, high school students do not have to take any science courses.

Not only science education, but is using the science in business/industry. When I used to teach engineering, half of my graduates were going into sales, because the companies would be using technology from other companies, often from other countries.

Some times those in authority sometimes push "innovation", but they push it in the wrong direction. For example, energy companies are not putting money in renewable energies but are putting money into being able to extract more oil, coal, etc. (Note the importance here is relative amount of money)

Being in higher education, I even see this trend in schools, especially in conservative (that is, traditional) ones. They mouth the words innovation, and even demand teachers do "innovative teaching", but their policies and practices actually discourage innovation.

What is also lacking are incentives, both inside organizations (companies, universities, etc.) and outside (mostly governmental). I have always found it amazing that organizations try to get employees to innovate and then try to claim that innovation as theirs. The company (and executives) make lots of money and the employees get nothing. What incentive is there for an employee to innovate?

As for outside organizations, innovation cannot continue to grow without patent and copyright reforms. The real problem here is that we are going backwards on this area, not forwards. Increasing use of digital rights management (DRM), secret trade deals, use of forced arbitration (bypassing the court system), extending publisher copyrights (but not the author), etc. has been the norm for the last twenty years or so.

One of the biggest problems when it comes to innovation is often the management. There seems to be an emphasis on everybody doing things the same way (for the reasons of ... blah, blah, blah, ...). But if everybody does things the same way how can there be any innovation?

Populism is not about being popular

2018-01-14T16:54:00.001+07:00

In the last year or so, everybody is talking about the new political "movement" -- Populism. Donald Trump's election, Brexit, the raise of right-wing nationalist parties in Europe (for example, in France, Hungary, Netherlands, Germany), return of neoliberals to parts of Latin America, anti-immigrant policies in Australia and Europe, etc.

I think all this talk about Populism is actually off the mark. Instead, I actually see a more worrying trend -- Corporatocracy.

The first worrying thing is that these "populist" politicians (and yes Trump is a politician -- you have to be to become a business tycoon) is the fact they are using the populist "movement" to hide their real motives. What they want is for businesses to be able to do what whatever the business like to do, and that these businesses will also be able to dictate all other government policy.

Look at almost all of the major populist movements today and there are some interesting similarities. First, they are almost all led by rich businessman or rich conservatives that claim to represent business.

Secondly, the corporatocracy movement is not actually interested in democracy. Understand that a corporation is not a democratic institution. CEO's control the organization with very little input from the workers (or anybody else). They are top down organizations with absolutely no responsibility to anybody. They, therefore, think that they should also dictate the policy for the country. (Interesting to note is how democratic countries often embrace capitalism - one of the most undemocratic systems there is.)

Thirdly, they use the tools of business to push their political agenda. These include slick marketing campaigns, using money and political connections to influence people, being sparse with the truth and hiding unwanted facts, etc. They also use the economic argument that increased "growth" will increase jobs, etc. (See this article for a rebuttal to this argument)

The corporations want to reduce regulations so they can make more money, even if those regulations are to protect workers, consumers, others' human rights (especially privacy), or competition.

This populism should be of serious concern. It wishes to erode basic human rights, privacy, labor laws, consumer protection, and most importantly environmental protections.

Rethink on renewable energy

2017-07-25T18:37:00.000+07:00

In the couple of years, two things have made me think that it is time to rethink how we teach energy, especially renewable energy. These are the annual environmental technology exhibition in Bangkok and the answers on my students' final exams.

The exhibition in the last two years has made me think that my students, along with the general public, do not realize the scale of the renewable energy industry today. At the exhibitions, it now appears that at least half the exhibits were on renewable energy. In fact, the organizers are now promoting it as "Asian Sustainable Energy Week", not as "Entech-Pollutec" as prior to 2016. (Entech-Pollutec is still used, but as a secondary name)

Importantly, we are now at the point where more than half of all new power generation is from renewable energy.

The other thing that made me think was the answers to the questions on the final exams. Most of the students seemed to be thinking in the past.

People still think that renewable energy is expensive. It is not! Yes, that was true as recently as ten years ago, but prices have decreased dramatically. A number of reports now show that renewable energy is cheaper than nonrenewable sources. I also keeping getting the answer that a problem with renewables is they are not efficient! What?!

People are also still thinking that solar and wind power are limited by the time of day and how much the wind blows. But in fact today that is not a major problem. If this was such a problem, then why are we now building large-scale solar power plants and wind farms?

The answer is to this is STORAGE. In my opinion, the biggest advances in energy from the last fifteen years or so has been in the field of storage. Not only batteries (in which there has been huge advances), but in other forms (for example, using molten salt).

Another "myth" often given is the hazards from wind energy due to bird strikes. Two recent studies, one from the USA and the other from the United Kingdom, have shown that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is very low (0.0001%). In fact, since using wind turbines reduces the use of fossil fuel, thereby reducing the amount of pollution -- which causes many more bird deaths, the net effect may be a decrease in the number of bird deaths. It is interesting that the Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds (RSPB) actually supports the development of wind power (provided proper siting studies are done).

On the other hand, there seems to be very little criticism of large-scale hydropower. They have been extremely damaging to ecosystems (among other environmental and social problems) and recently have been shown to be one of the major emitters of greenhouse gases in the form of methane. Another area in which almost all environmental activists have concerns is with biofuel crops - no major environmental organizations support them anymore - do to concerns about deforestation and problems with food crops. Note they still support biofuels produced from waste products.

The thing that people seem to be reluctant to talk about is fossil fuel subsidies. This despite the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [refs] have both said that fossil fuels subsidies are huge and must be eliminated. The biggest problems is that subsidies distort the markets and contribute to increased fossil fuel use and therefore increases global warming.

The following parts of energy education need to be changed:

1. Care needs to be taken to be sure the information is up to date, things are changing fast in the field of energy, especially renewable energy. Even textbooks are often out of date soon after being published.

2. We need to shift from just teaching simple energy conservation measures (turn of lights when not using, etc.) to including more large-scale solutions (larger-scale conservation in industry, better building design, electric cars, etc.)

3. More emphasis on the need to eliminate all fossil fuels. Not just reduce their usage. Subsidies must also be discussed.

4. Inclusion of the concept of distributed energy (micropower). This includes the need to change the current business model of electrical utility companies.

5. Improvement in how we teach renewable energy. Much of this is discussed above. It includes discussing current costs, energy storage, and major environmental concerns with big dams and first generation biofuels

Paris Agreement - Suprise!

2016-03-24T20:39:00.000+07:00

Well, a few months ago we recently finished the Paris talks on a climate change treaty (technically called COP-21). Now that all the hype has died down, let us take a look at it. Very surprisingly we got a good result, known as the Paris Agreement.

First, let me say my overall reactions to it. While not a perfect treaty (more on that in the points below), it was probably the best that we can hope for.

An important point is that the concept behind Paris is radically different from Kyoto (except for the goal of reducing greenhouse gases). The process behind the Paris agreement actually started in Durban.

The foundations on which the Paris agreement is based are the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) which each country must submit to the UNFCCC secretariat. These are declarations of how the country intends to reduce its carbon emissions. Note that while the content of the INDC is not legally binding, the fact they must submit one is.

These INDCs are both the good and bad parts of the agreement. The reason for changing to the INDCs was that the Kyoto Protocol did not work. So another solution was necessary. It also allows countries to choose their own approach to the problem. However, the INDCs are not binding; therefore, there is no enforcement mechanism. More importantly, there is no real mechanism to ensure that the sum of the INDC's will be enough so that global warming stays below the 1.5 degree target. Indeed, with the current INDC's the warming will be 2.6 degrees. Yes, the secretariat must report on the gaps between the total commitments and the overall target, but that will have no real effect.

I also find that the target of 1.5 degrees as specified in the Agreement to be shades of hypocrisy. Even though it sounds good, I think most of the countries have no intention of meeting it.

A highlight of the Agreement is that it places an equal footing adaption (reducing effect of global warming) and mitigation (reducing the greenhouse effect). This is an important step that countries such as small island nations (probably the countries with the biggest impacts) have been asking for a long time.

There is both good news and bad news about the topic known as "loss and damage". The good news is that at last the developed countries have accepted the concept. The bad news is that the Agreement specifically states that no country will be held legally liable or be made to pay composition. Another example of developed countries thinking they can do want they want and not give a shit about anybody else.

Then there is the finance, especially financing of adaptation. Many commentators are stating how great this part is, but I need to remind people (again!), that these are only pledges -- and countries are very bad at keeping their pledges.

Probably the second highlight was the important place for transparency in reporting of countries emissions. This ensures that countries do not try to fudge the numbers and make look like they are doing better than they really are.

In conclusion, this is an important step in reducing global warming, but it is only a step. Much more has to happen, especially at the national level. A lot of work is going to be necessary. Simply turning off the lights when not in the room is not enough.

Climate Change - COP-20, Bonn, ... Not Ready for Paris

2015-06-19T10:54:00.000+07:00

We just had an eleven days of talks about the future of climate change in Bonn, Germany. The results do not look good (surprise -- not!).

To begin with, remember the important thing to note is that at the end of 2015, in Paris at Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (COP-21), we are supposed to finalize a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Let us go back six months to the failed (again!) Conference of the Parties. In December 2014 it was the turn of Lima, Peru to host COP-20.

COP-20 was to be a major step toward the goal of having an agreement ready for Paris. In fact, COP-20 was nothing like that at all. What we got was a weak four page statement. Those four pages were indeed agreed on only after the conference went into overtime -- and addressed none of the major issues.

One thing that was "agreed" on at COP-20 was that countries would give to the UNFCCC secretariat stating their country's action plan. However, the plan is voluntary, not mandatory. The deadline was 31 March. But only 34 countries have given their action plan! That just shows how unimportant governments think about making any real impact.

However, just the individual contributions are not enough. The sum of all emissions cuts must be such that they keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.

Now what about Bonn? The biggest thing is that many important countries are refusing to discuss national contributions and how they would add together. Without this there is really no way that the goals of climate change could be met. The European Union (EU) and African countries want countries to face up to the fact that emission totals won't keep global warming below the 2 degree threshold. However, other countries - especially, China, India, and Brazil - do not want to discuss national contributions until Paris. This has effectively slowed the negotiations.

Instead, the negotiators spent almost all of the meeting discussing procedural issues for the Paris meeting. But even more importantly is the fact that the major issues (in addition to emission cuts) such as equity and finance for developing countries have yet to be addressed.

There was one piece of good news. That is, a draft agreement on technical aspects of the UN's REDD+ (Reductions of Emissions due to Deforestion and Degradation Plus reforestation) was agreed to.

So what will happen in Paris? I think that the countries will agree to will be a meaningless piece of paper. Then they will claim it to be the deal of the century. And global warming will continue to go on.

Brazil and good news on deforestation

2014-06-28T22:29:00.000+07:00

One of the hard things to make students understand is how to protect biodiversity. The usual answer we get is do not hunt endangered species, etc. What they fail to grasp is that the major way is to prevent habitat loss, especially by establishment of bioreserves and preventation of deforestation.

That is why I find this article to be interesting. It shows the effect of policies in Brazil in combating deforestation.

What has been happenning? In the last ten years, the amount of deforestation per year has been declining steadily. It is now only 70% of what it was in 2004.

The authors identify the following factors leading to this reduction: monitoring, frontier goverance, government policies, new protected areas, pressure from environmental groups, and macroeconomic trends. It points out that it was the combination of these things not any one specifically.

One interesting thing is that Brazil does not only establish national parks, but also has other "strict protection areas": sustainable use areas, indigenous territories (where large scale logging and plantations are not allowed), and agarian reform settlements.

One conclusion of the article is that in order to keep continuing this trend of reduced deforestation, farmers, ranchers, and other land users must be given further incentives.

This a good example of what is really neccessary for progress in reducing deforestation and therefore protecting biodiversity. Now if others would take this seriously.

COP-19 A Disaster

2014-03-16T15:28:00.001+07:00

I usually give a review of the big annual climate change conference - well here it is, albeit a couple of months late!

The 2013 edition was COP-19 held in Warsaw, Poland. The big news from COP-19 was the walk out by many activists from the meeting in protest of the slow pace of the negotiations.

The meeting came just after two major reports on global warming. The first was the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A new report comes out every 4 years, and it now states that there is a 95% probability that humans have caused global warming. The other was a report by the International Energy Agency which states that the current path would lead to an increase of global temperatures from between 3.6 and 5.3 degrees, far above often stated goal of 2 degrees.

The one thing that came out of the meeting were the bad actors, especially Poland (the hosts), Australia, Canada, and Japan. Poland had a meeting with coal industry representatives the same time that the COP meeting was going on. Poland (and Australia) have a big coal industry and therefore want to protect a dirty and corrupt industry. Australia had just elected a new government led by a prime minister who is a climate denialist and who has dismantled many environmental agencies. His government has also proposed a huge coal port in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef.

Canada also has big interest in dirty fossil fuels in the form of tar sands. Japan has announced that its carbon emissions will rise instead of falling (there original pledge was a 25% reduction over 1990, now they have announced a 3% increase over the same baseline)

All of these countries, and many others, have used the economics mantra as an excuse for having taken these positions. In reality it is because fossil fuel and other companies control the governments and are often the ones formulating policy.

Probably the best example of this is the so-called "loss and damage issue", discussed at COP-19. This is where developed countries would pay less developed countries for the losses due to damage from climate change. The developed countries, while agreeing to the concept, are not willing to give any money to it, citing the "recession". Yet these countries can give out huge subsidies to the fossil fuel industries.

Other issues where essential no progress was made include equity and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV).

The one good thing that did come out of the meeting was the continued commitment to REDD+ (reduction in emissions from deforestation and degradation plus reforestation). The program is designed to help countries keep their forests and therefore their stores of carbon. See this article by the World Resources Institute.

Finally, I also note that since COP-19, very little additional progress has been made. I new agreement to replace Kyoto is to be finished by next year, but I do not think that we will have anything but a watered-down agreement that will do nothing to stop global warming. We need to have global action to get athything done.

Must Read: Indian Floods

2013-09-13T18:09:00.001+07:00

This is a must read. This makes a good point about the floods that hit Northern India earlier this year. It shows how it was "runaway building projects, dams and official failures that made them catastrophic".

The last paragraph is also really telling: "The present EAC [Expert Appraisal Committee] has approved all 262 projects placed before it over six years, without seriously evaluating their impact or the rivers' carrying capacity."

In-fashion phrases (on the environment)

2013-07-18T00:55:00.001+07:00

Something that always bothers me is when my students are asked what should be done to save energy (or global warming, etc.) their answer is always the same - turn off the lights, turn off electronic equipment not being used, buy efficient equipment, blah, blah, ...

While these answers are good for themselves, I really wish they would consider the whole picture and think about what could be done to seriously help the environment.

Some examples:

Water How to conserve: "Don't run water when you brush your teeth". OK, but almost 80% of all water worldwide is used by agriculture. What we therefore need is a radical rethink of the way agriculture is done. Today's agriculture is mostly monoculture, highly irrigated, large-scale, corporate farms.

What we really need to look at is Water Security as the UN recently discussed.

Energy and Global Warming Turning off the lights is a good idea, but it does not address the large-scale inefficiencies of industry, utilities, etc. And to solve issues such as global warming we must phase out using fossil fuels as soon as possible. Other things include removing oil subsidies, improving power grids and using micropower instead of macropower.

Even though we try to push renewable energy the students still parrot the phrases such as "sun does not shine all the time" or "the wind does always blow", but ignore the developments in energy storage and distribution. On the other hand they seem not to understand that are some concerns about (first generation) biomass.

Solid Waste and Water Pollution "Don't throw trash in the water" (solves two things at once!). For water pollution this is a small part of the problem. Human waste (sewage) and effluents from factories are much more important. For solid waste it does not actually reduce the amount of waste generated and therefore does not solve the waste problem (it solves littering but that is another issue).

"Pass a law" - the cop out answer. I have seen it in everything from solid waste to air pollution to biodiversity. Of course my response is always what law should be passed, what specific aspects are to be regulated, enforcement, and numerous other issues.

My real goal is to make people understand the problem not simply give me memorized expressions that have no meaning.

Biodiversity - recent results

2013-05-11T00:03:00.000+07:00

Even though climate change has been the big thing in the media, biodiversity is also an extremely important issue. Of course, the two are linked, as evidenced by the important role biodiversity played in the World Bank's recent report on climate change.

Actually, quite a bit has happened with the last five six months on biodiversity.

In October, 2012, we had the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP-11) of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). At the Conference we had a presentation by the executive secretary of CBD stating the there is a lack of the data necessary to achieve the targets which where agreed to at COP-10. There was no world-wide monitoring of biodiversity (only monitoring in specific areas) and much of the data was not open access.

One item agreed was to have more science-based policies. As a part of that we had the first meeting in January of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which will collect and review scientific data on biodiversity. It is modelled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is great news as it will give campaign for biodiversity better science background. There was some problem in getting experts on a world-wide basis, but otherwise a good development.

At COP-11 we also had a directive telling countries to take a precautionary approach to topics such as synthetic biology and geoengineering. I feel this is especially important considering all of the hype (much generated by the media) we have had over these topics.

The developed countries at the meeting also pledged to double financial resources to protect biodiversity. This would mean they would meet 75% of their biodiversity targets by 2020. However, as I said a number of times, without any specific dollar amounts this can be a lot of hot air.

During the meeting (but not part of COP-11 proper) there was some good news in the announcement of an agreement between the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the CBD secretariat to work together on deforestation and biodiversity. This allows for a coordinated approach to these issues instead of either agency simply doing things on their own accord.

One part of the CBD that is less well known is the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. COP-11 voted to include socioeconomic effects on issues related to living modified organisms (LMOs). This is very important as often the problem with this and related technology it is often not just the science that is important, but how it is used.

Lastly, we had a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES) in Bangkok last month. Some very interesting and good desicions we made at that meeting. The most interesting is the desicion to add some shark species to CITIES, What is significant about this is really the first time that CITIES has addressed fisheries, an area that previous has been considered off-limits. They have also added some major hardwood timber species (such as ebony) to the list. Further expanding into forestry issues.

Also 47 freshwater turtle and tortoise species (44 are native to Asia) have been added. Over half of all freshwater turtles are endangered, many due to the trade in exotic pets. Interestingly, this was proposed jointly by the USA and China.

Why we need Labor Day?

2013-05-02T19:32:00.000+07:00

The recent tragedy in Bangladesh demonstrates the real need for international Labor Day, which was yesterday (May 1).

The event in Bangladesh is a good example of where the push for profits for a few has been detrimental to the well-being of the majority of the working class people. This report by Human Rights Watch demonstrates the whole problem.

In fact the need for the ideas behind labor day are more than ever. Businesses today are demanding that they have a right to do whatever they want with workers. They feel they have the right to fire people at will. They fight against minimum wages while giving huge salaries to top executives. They aer increasingly using temporary workers -- workers who have almost no benefits and little rights. And large companies are continuing to take over other companies. When these merges happen one of the first things that occurs is the laying off of workers.

Look at what is happenning in Greece and elsewhere in Europe. The greeks are being told they have to undergo "austerity cuts", that is, cuts in benefits which go to workers and their families and to those without work. All of this is being pushed by financial institutions, big business, and the the "markets".

A final note: It is interesting the difference in reaction to the events in Boston (terrorism) and Bangladesh (disaster). Many, many more people died in Bangladesh (400+ versus 3).

Stern, Climate Change, and the IMF

2013-04-16T14:49:00.000+07:00

Recently, there was an article by World Resources Institute (WRI) referring to a lecture given by Lord Nicholas Stern at a discussion between WRI and the IMF with the World Bank.

The economist Lord Stern is famous for his "Stern Review" outline the ecomonimc argument for climate change. At the meeting he said that his original report underestimated the effect of climate change. Lord Stern says that the obstacle to climate change is the lack of understanding in three areas: real risk of climate change, the benefits of an alternative pathway, and need for collaboration and mutual understanding.

Lord Stern is 100% right. But that is not the reason for this article. Rather, I object to the other participants -- the World Bank and especially the IMF. Yes the World Bank has made some progress recently, due in a large part to the new president of the bank who has come from the world of NGO's and not the financial world.

But the IMF! That is a joke. Just look at what they have been doing to Europe in the last six months. They have encouraged less control of the economy by the people and more toward big business without regards to the costs to the environment or to society (that is ordinary society, not the elite society).

For example, one item mentioned in the WRI article is that the IMF is opposed to oil subsidies. That is news to me! When the IMF discussed the poor US economy it made not one mention of the huge oil subsidies that the US spends. Nor has it made any mention of oil subsidies during the crisis in Europe. Indeed it seeems to support giving huge subsidies ("bailouts") to the banks which caused the problems in the first place.

Yes, I know that the IMF only gives loans to governments for building, "capital" and not for specific projects; however, it does require certain government policies. And as far as I know the IMF does not consider ennvironmental policy at all.

GMO - How They are Really Used

2013-03-10T22:43:00.002+07:00

Note: The following is a reprint of an article I originally wrote in 2007. I had to remove the old one because I was getting too many spammed comments. The issues still remain relevant to today.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) are big news today. For a quick refresher, GMO's involve replacing or adding genes from one organism to another in order to add a trait (such as drought resistance) or to to remove an undesirable trait.

Much has been written for and against GMO's and I won't repeat these arguments here. I personally have nothing against GMO's in terms of technology. However, my concern is with how GMO's are used.

The best way to show what I mean is by using some examples. Monsanto, the largest producer of GMO seeds, developed crops which were more tolerant of the herbicide Roundup (also made by Monsanto). After developing this, they then went to the EPA and asked that the legally allowed residual of Roundup on food crops be increased. What??? Did Roundup suddenly become less toxic?! No, they wanted to sell more Roundup.

A second example, is from Brazil. They have produced soybeans which can grow in more diverse environments. So now they are clearing parts of the Amazon basin to grow soybeans where previously they could not grow them.

But the most disturbing of all cases is what is being done to the seed market. For a farmer, you need seeds for your next crop. You basically have two options: use part of your previous crops as seed or buy seeds from a seed company. What the seed companies which sell GMO seed are doing is telling farmers that they cannot use their previous crop of GMO for seed. Some companies are going to the point of providing sterile seeds, which mean that the crops cannot be used for seed at all.

This means that (a) the farmers must buy seed rather than use their own costing them more money, and (b) that they must buy their seeds from one company reducing competition. Where this is very important is in developing countries, here the farmers really do not have the resources to continually purchase seed from big biotech companies.

A final point. GMO's have been mentioned as the second "green revolution". I highly doubt that. Just remember what happened with the first green revolution. Increased use of fertilizers and pesticides with a result of damage to the ecosystem (including the agricultural ecosystem) and increased risk to health.

Update (March 2013): An important court case relevant to the discussion above was just recently argued in front of the US Supreme Court last month. In it Monsanto sued a farmer for using seeds he took from his own crops. The decision will be given later this year.

Climate Talks at Doha

2013-01-22T22:32:00.000+07:00

As I have traditional done I will take a look at the most recent negotiations on climate change which took place in Doha, Qatar last month. This was the annually scheduled United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP).

Reminder: The Kyoto Protocol expired last month. Therefore, the last few years have been concerned with what to do next. Last year they went a long way to getting this done, but that was not enough.

If you listen to the media, you probably would have not even have known that there was a meeting, as there was very little coverage. I have heard some people say that climate change is finally getting the attention it deserves, but not from this showing.

Here are some highlights (but mostly lowlights):

At Doha, rich countries have pledged that they will pay poorer countries for "loss and damage due to climate change". However, no mechanism or funding has been agreed to. From the past experiences, without specific amounts often nothing actually happens except for words and hot air (pun intended).

In Durban (2011) there was an agreement to fund adaptation to climate change. But now the developed countries are complaining about the recession and are now giving no pledges of money through 2020. It is interesting that these same countries cannot give out funding for adaptation, yet can still give out huge subsidies to big oil and coal, the burning of which leads to the biggest generation of greenhouse gases.

At Durban, they agreed on negotations for a new treaty to start in 2020, but did not agree on anything for the interim period. In Doha, there was good news and bad news! The countries have agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol to 2020. However, only 15% of current greenhouse gases are covered since the US has not ratified Kyoto and some countries have announced they have no intention of adhering to the protocol (especially Canada, Japan, and Russia). Note also that the number 2 emitter (after the USA) of greenhouse gases is China, which is not required to reduce emissions under Kyoto.

Note that all of this comes after some very recent reports which show both the current and future problems. One was a report (pdf) by the World Bank (not usually an environmentally friendly group) warning that we are not doing enough and temperature rises could be as high as 4 degrees if things continue as currently. The other was a research report showing that sea levels are rising faster than that predicted by the IPCC.

World Food Day - Is anybody listening?

2012-10-24T03:07:00.000+07:00

October 14 was the annual World Food Day (an annual event I used to help organize). This year the big topic was world food prices.

A recent study showed that some of the poor spend as much as 70% of their income on food. Therefore, even a small increase in prices can affect people severely.

An often overlooked impact of food price increases is nutrition. The more food costs increase, the more people turn to cheap food which often has little nutrition.

I find it interesting is that while the governments in Europe are debating the "Eurocrisis" (more about that in a future post), they are completely ignoring the food price problem, which is a much more important issue.

Indeed, the main reason for the increase in food prices has been speculation on the agricultual markets. Many companies are trading on these markets who have no interests in the products, but are simply making money from buying and selling on the market. In fact, much of what is being done in Europe right now is only encouraging this practice (along with other market-based investment), by placing emphasis on business and investment banking instead of peoples livelihoods. These view is also supported by the IMF and other governments.

For more on agriculture, see my article Agriculture and Environment.

Land Grapping

2012-05-27T19:41:00.001+07:00

Last week saw the release of guidelines for access to lands for food security, produced by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

This received very little attention, but I think this is significant. The issue of land grabbing is becoming alarmingly big news in the last five years or so. For example, see this article from the BBC. In many countries large overseas companies are buying land to grow food and other crops and then sending that food, etc. back to their home countries. The first issue is that in most cases the food (or more correctly the land on which it grows) is necessary for feeding the local population.

But what is the real issue addressed by the guidelines, is that the land that is bought by the large companies, is not available to local farmers and in many cases, the original farmers are forced off the land. Hence, the term "land grap". The guidelines are how to protect the rights of the tenants.
Generally, I do not like voluntary standards, but this case is somewhat different. First, it is that it is simply important that the UN agencies are looking at the issue. Secondly, it is an international guideline, and therefore, would be very difficult to enforce.

With the emphasis on economic growth, there has been a major attack on rights of worker's and tenure rights. Corporations should not have the ability to set up work (including corporate farms) simply anywhere they want.
The overall problem is where this land grabbing does increase overall economic growth, it also decreases the economic of local people. It is the economic rights of these people which is most important.

Update 1: Here Fred Pearce, the author of the book Land Grabbers discusses the problem of land grabbing.

Update 2: There is an interesting article at World Resources Institute called Why land rights should be on Rio+20 agenda

Fossil Fuels, Big Oil, Jobs, ...

2012-05-17T03:20:00.001+07:00

Recently there was an interesting article on Grist titled Fossil-fuel subsidies are the real job killers. It raises so many questions I do not know where to start!

Let us start with subsidies. I do not know how many times I have heard about renewable energy: "But they would not exist with subsidies." What the people who say this do not realize is the amount of subsidies that the fossil fuel (especially oil and coal) industry get. For the US oil companies get US$12 billion per year in subsidies (compared to US$2 billion for renewables). Many other countries either directly or indirectly subsidize the industry.

And these companies are BIG. ExxonMobil is the largest company in the world. The four largest oil companies make a total of 546 billion US dollars in profits. Only about twenty countries have a GDP higher than this. And ExxonMobil pays no corporate tax at all (despite a nominal rate of 24%), do to large loopholes in the tax legislation.

The main thrust of the argument in the Grist article is that despite the large profits, the Big Oil companies actually reduced the number of people they employed.

I have always been skeptical of the idea that economic growth is how you increase the number of jobs -- just because a company increases its income does not automatically increase the number of jobs. In fact, the biggest expense for most companies is personnel. (And do not believe the lie that companies care about their workers)

Japanese Disaster vs. Haiti

2012-03-17T01:32:00.001+07:00

Everybody is talking right now about the one year anniversity of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. And I mean everybody -- the BBC, CNN, local media, all major newspapers, the internet newsites, etc.

But earlier this year, on January 12, was the one year anniversity of the earthquake in Haiti. That anniversity received very little press.

Well, the Japanese disaster was a tragedy - 15,000 died. But Haiti had over 200,000 dead, ten times the number in Japan, and 300,000 injured. And 1.5 million were displaced, -- more than ten percent of the entire population. And after one year, one-third of those (520,000) are still displaced. Haiti was also hit later last year by a hurricane which affected many of the same people as the earthquake. And they also had a chlorea outbreak.

A report just released shows that half of all the humanitarian disaster funding in 2011 went to Japan.

So while we are thinking about Japan, let us not forget others around the world.

Update: The UN just released and interesting report on the discrepancies in disaster funding.

Green Economy, Rio+20, and Greenwashing

2012-01-24T23:26:00.001+07:00

I just finished reading an excellent article entitled Rio+20 and the greenwashing of the global economy

The article explains how the business lobby has tried to influence the green economy concept of that the UN has introduced.

The green economy is a term used by the UN as part of the Green Economy Initiative. But as I said previously,

"... in that site I find no definition of the term, instead you see constant referral to "greening the economy". Those are not the same."

We need to have a real green economy, not a greenwashed economy.

Occupy Wall Street - what is it about?

2012-01-14T23:30:00.001+07:00

Recently, there has been a number of major protests in the US. The most noted of these is the Occupy Wall Street. But there has also been Occupy Seattle, Occupy Oakland, Occupy London, etc. The protests in Greece and Spain have a lot in common to the Occupy movement.

But what is all this about? I of course cannot speak for the protesters, but will give what I see as the reasonings behind it.

There are really two main themes that the protesters are really fighting for: real democracy and economic (and social) policies which address people's interests before considering business interests.

I have many times in this column talked about corporatocracy. The protesters want their voices heard. They want a government that listens to the people and not to where the money flows. I have already at length discussed the cause and effects of this and solutions in my article on Corporatocracy.

What I find disturbing is the reaction to the protests by the police and local governments. They have acted as bullies, not allowing the freedom of speech and assembly the protests are entitled to. This is being done with the encouragement of businesses who claim the protests are hurting there business. In reality the protests are hurting there political postition.

It is interesting to see the response of the US (both federal and state) to the Occupy movement. They applaud the protest movements in Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria as examples of people regaining power; but when the protests are in there own country, it is somehow wrong.

COP-17 -- good news, bad news

2011-12-16T23:27:00.001+07:00

Well, COP-17 meeting in Durban, S. Africa has just been completed with some good news and some bad news. Here is my take on the meeting.

The good news is they agreed to something (well almost -- Canada are acting as arrogant and selfish (1)), especially since little was expected from them. They basically agreed to begin negotiations on a legally binding (2) replacement treaty next year, with these negotiations ending in 2015 and provisions becoming due in 2020.

The fact that they agreed to a legally binding treaty (versus a voluntary one) is good; however, without an enforcement mechanism they do not have any real bite. For example, Kyoto is legally binding, but that did not prevent countries from completely ignoring it.

The biggest problem with the whole agreement is that it does not actually do anything. It will not reduce carbon dioxide (or any other greenhouse gases) for at least another nine years, when the problem needs urgent action. Remember that Kyoto ends in one year, we therefore will have no treaty at all for eight years.

A lot has been said about the Global Climate Fund, but that is really a lot about nothing. The Fund had already been agreed to last year and no agreement has been made on how to fund it. Considering their poor record on humanitarian aid, I do not have much hope.

The BBC has has good coverage of the meeting. The results are given in this article and here is reaction to it. See their other articles for more information.

A more technical description of the agreement can be found here.

Notes:

(1) This is toned down, my actual thoughts are not publishable :).

(2) Actually, they could be with "legal force" - but nobody knows what that means

Nuclear Lies

2011-11-19T14:44:00.001+07:00

Once in a while you find another blog which says exactly what you think. That is what I find with Greg Laden's recently blog Japan Nuclear Disaster Update # 40: Fukushima Plant is Still Producing Energy! (In a bad way).

The blog points out how the Nuclear Industry* continues to do an injustice to the truth, including changing definitions when it benefits them. One of the major reasons I oppose nuclear energy is for exactly that reason - the nuclear industry continues to mislead the public about itself.

Another interesting thing in the news items given in the blog is the request by TEPCO (the operator of Fukushima) for 12 billion US dollars from the government for business losses. Sorry, but I am sick and tired of business saying that they want no government interference and then go crying to that same government for money because that cannot manage their own risks. You cannot have the cake and eat it too.

*Note: the capitalization here is intentional.

Thailand's Massive Floods

2011-11-11T15:23:00.001+07:00

Thailand has been in the grips of a major flood, the worst it has seen in twenty years -- some say ever. But why has it happened and what has been the response?

First a little geography. The water from all of the Center and North (but not the Northeast) drains down the Chao Praya River, eventually funneling through Bangkok.

Of course, the immediate cause was a unusually large amount of rainfall in September (about twice the normal). And yes, it was magnified by lost of native forests. But the real tragedy was the lack of preparedness.

As in the field of safety, in disasters you must be ready before the disaster occurs. After it happens, there is simply to little time to react.

Amazingly, Thailand (and especially Bangkok) were not prepared. When the flooding started everybody in the government went into panic mode. Different agencies had different ideas, and politicians had their own ideas which were different still. It ended up with not much of anything happenning. Of course, the water did not care, it just kept flowing.

The government set up the Flood Response Operation Centre, composed of ministers with no experience in engineering, hydrology, etc. What you had was politicians telling experts what to do (instead of the other way around).

Thailand firstly should of had a clear command structure. The should of been a emergency plan that was enacted as soon as the situation became clear. This would include having procedures in place, such as what gates to open/close, where the water is directed to, etc.

The second part of the problem has been lack of zoning. A big issue is the flooding of some industrial estates. But many of these were told by the Royal Irrigation Department not to build in the areas they are now located. (And even more amazing is that the insurance companies did not tell them the same thing). And now the government is going to give these same companies a large amount of money for the loss of revenue due to the flood.

Why was this condition allowed to happen? To begin with politicians seem to only care about keeping power and with some mundane things.

Second is denial. It could never happen! That was exactly the attitude we saw before the tsunami happened in 2004. This is despite the fact that Thailand gets a lot of rain.

Lastly, the push for "economic growth" has encouraged businesses to do whatever they want. The government set up industrial estates with incentives to encourage businesses to move there. But as mentioned above, many of these were placed in areas susceptible to flooding. The environmental impact assessments are for individual companies and ignore the overall factors such as flooding.

These factors have led to little planning for such a massive disaster, and what little planning has been done is piecemeal and completely inadequate.

But the real losers are the people, especially those outside Bangkok. They have been promised very little government help when compared to the millions being already promised to businesses.

Corporate Social Responsibility is by any other name ...

2011-09-29T10:15:00.001+07:00

A number of articles in the last month question the whole idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The first, and biggest, of these was the extremely damning report by the UN on the oil industry and its environmental impacts on the Niger River delta in Nigeria. The report stated that "oil contamination in Ogoniland is widespread and severely impacting many components of the environment"(Executive Summary, p.9).(A long report, but read at least the executive summary -- it is fascinating)

Probably the biggest thing the report leads to is the Shell company's role in the whole mess. Shell has for a long time claimed that it has always acted responsibly in the Niger Delta (and elsewhere). Finally we now see that this was nothing more than propaganda.

Then I saw the report a few days ago that ExxonMobil was fined $126,000 by the US Occupational Health and Safety Agency for safety violations at an oil refinery. This is a company which has an annual profit of $40 billion (and yet pays no corporate tax). In other words the fine was the amount of profit made by Exxon every two minutes. And this is the company which supports climate change deniers by the millions (dollars that is).

Now the news is that the company behind the red sludge disaster in Hungary has been told by the Hungarian government that it will not be allowed to go under.

I will give two other examples. The Register has an interesting series about overpackaging. Giving a number of examples and ending up calling HP the world champion at overpackaging (The Register is an on-line IT magazine). It then notes that HP was given an Australian award as a good packager!

Finally, the example that pisses me off the most (well, after Shell that is). It is Chevron's ads about how it is socially responsible. Yet this is the same company who was sued by the government of Ecuador for leaving a mess in the Amazon and refuses to accept responsibility.

To be honest I am getting sick and tired of the bullshit of "corporate social responsibility" (aka CSR). It has become a meaningless phrase which is used only to make the company look better.

Update (16 Nov.): There is a new Amnesty International report about the Shell oil spills in the Niger Delta. Shell still shows denial.