An aricle for Indian environmental magazine Sustainable Environment World Environment Day
CO2 – Kick The Habit!
(Towards A Low Carbon Economy)
World Environment Day is a concept that should interest us all. The prognosis for the planet is dire in terms of our ability to maintain a standard of livability conducive to our communal enjoyment and utility of ever-dwindling resources. The time has come for remedial action on a global as well as a local level. The old adage “Think Global, Act Local” never rang as true as it does with World Environment Day 2008 so close at hand.
No better time than the present to begin improving our overall stewardship of the gifts nature has bequeathed us. This is a moment in world history that future generations will point to and ask “Where were you when this crisis evolved?” We can but hope our response will be sufficient to the potential enormity of that query.
“Addiction is a terrible thing,” UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon ominously intones at the opening of his official statement announcing this year’s WED celebration, set to open in Wellington, New Zealand on 5 June, 2008, comprising the theme “CO2 – Kick the Habit! (Towards a Low Carbon Economy).”
World Environment Day was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1972 to mark the opening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. Another resolution, adopted by the General Assembly the same day, led to the creation of UNEP (i.e., United Nations Environment Programme).
Later in this same statement, Ban Ki-moon puts it succinctly and well, saying “The cost will be borne by all.” Moreover, he urges individuals, cities, nations, organizations and businesses to reduce our collective carbon footprint. As the new Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon has demonstrated he will take environmental issues seriously and already has made significant progress in the area of educating others as to the challenges we as a world face.
Ban Ki-moon goes on to lament the reduction of valuable forestlands throughout the tropics, a diminution that not only releases vast amounts of CO2 but also destroys a valuable resource for absorbing atmospheric carbon, further contributing to climate change. In the past few decades WED has progressively attained world-wide recognition and status.
Sites of WED celebrations in the recent past include: 2007 - Tromsø, Norway, 2006 - Algiers, Algeria , 2005 - San Francisco, USA , 2004 - Barcelona, Spain, 2003 - Beirut, Lebanon , 2002 - Shenzhen, People's Republic of China , 2001 - Torino, Italy and Havana, Cuba and 2000 - Adelaide, Australia . This year’s WED celebration promises to be one of the best in recent memory with events planned across the globe in support of UNEP.
In her media statement, Environment Minister Trevor Mallard announced that Dr Rajendra Pachauri (UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Nobel laureate), President Tong of Kiribati and Achim Steiner (UNEP Executive Director) will be coming to New Zealand to help celebrate the internationally recognized World Environment Day. These and many other celebrated participants should make WED 2008 memorable indeed.
New Zealand, for its part, has been in the forefront of tackling global environmental concerns, making a pledge of a carbon-neutral future one of the hallmarks of its efforts as host of WED 2008. In a press release welcoming UNEP, Prime Minister Helen Clark said, "As part of New Zealand's drive for greater environmental sustainability, we've made a commitment to reduce our emissions. But to overcome the challenge of climate change, kicking the carbon habit must be a truly global goal.”
This declaration seems to get at the heart of this issue. Global problems demand global solutions as well as determined individual and national action. New Zealand appears to be committed on a national basis to doing its utmost in the fight against global warming in the form of a significant reduction of its national carbon footprint. It is time for others in the international community to follow suit and do their part as well. This may take some considerable effort but it is not beyond us by any means. All that is required is a concerted commitment to act.
From Austria to Zambia, numerous events are slated in commemoration of WED. Even the tiny island nations of Trinidad and Tobago are planning a beach clean-up to commemorate WED 2008. More ambitious events are planned in locales as diverse as Perth, Australia to Shrewsbury, United Kingdom.
While most of these events focus on raising public awareness as to the importance of identifying ways to reduce individual as well as community carbon footprints, some are decidedly more ambitious such as The Future Farmer Award, an initiative funded by the Elizabeth Murray Trust, which aims to promote practical ideas for improving sustainability of farming in Scotland.
Sustainability should be something we all aspire to in our work and home environment. We should all see WED as an opportunity to advance our individual home-life as well as our workplace efforts toward limiting our carbon footprints. WED 2008 affords these as well as other occasions throughout the year. We all should look to our own communities for ways in which we may play even a small part in larger efforts at reducing CO2 producing activities.
To illustrate the importance of individual effort, in another release, Ban Ki-moon states unequivocally:
"We will have time to reach the Millennium Development Goals – worldwide and in most, or even all, individual countries – but only if we break with business as usual. We cannot win overnight. Success will require sustained action across the entire decade between now and the deadline. It takes time to train the teachers, nurses and engineers; to build the roads, schools and hospitals; to grow the small and large businesses able to create the jobs and income needed. So we must start now. And we must more than double global development assistance over the next few years. Nothing less will help to achieve
the goals."
It is just this type of forward-thinking that will propel world opinion over the next decade if, in fact, we are to reach and sustain UNEP goals for the coming decades. As previously mentioned, Ban Ki-moon has exhibited the crucial leadership skills and foresight to lead the world community in these and other related endeavors.
© Stephen Alexander 2008|
Written by Fledermaus (3159 comments posted) 2nd May 2008 | Although I agree that care for the environment is a good thing, the CO2 debate seems strangely reminiscent of the actions of the late medieval church: This new CO2 'church' preaches doom and destruction, but people can buy a letter of indulgence and a place in heaven...
There is also pretty much evidence that in that same era (around 1100AD) the average temperature was 4 degrees higher than it is today.
I think they're playing a dangerous and expensive game, for instead of reducing fuel use and investing in crops and durable energy, they focus on this unproven CO2 problem and try to solve it with conferences and pop-concerts... Meanwhile the use of bio-fuel drives up food prices in the developing world and research at the most destructive of all possible fuels (nuclear fusion) is hailed as a solution (turning earth into a sun???). Windmills and solar cells are inefficient and hydro-energy dams require land to be flooded. Environmentally friendly? The only environmentally friendly thing humanity can do is use less energy...
I think CO2 emissions will become less once the developing world is through the industrial revolution fase and temperatures will rise and drop according to the natural cycle. Yet I do also think that unless humanity finds a way to limit it's hunger for fuel, there'll be big trouble ahead... | Take the time to actually read the piece
Written by sahewitt (17 comments posted) 2nd May 2008 | If you actually read my piece, particularly the quotes from Bab Ki-moon you would see he deplores the tearing up of tropical forests and the impact such action would have on the environment at-large. Too many read a piece with preconcieved notions of what will be found therein only to expose their own lack of understanding of the issues contained
Thanks, though, for reading |
Written by Fledermaus (3159 comments posted) 2nd May 2008 | " only to expose their own lack of understanding of the issues contained "
Ah yes, that other thing in which the CO2 lobby seems like the late medieval church: Anyone who disagrees is declared a heretic to be burned at the stake...  | heretic?
Written by sahewitt (17 comments posted) 2nd May 2008 | | Certainly no one is advocating the burning of those who are disinclined to believe the evidence before them...or have you failed to see footage of melting ice in the arctic...or is that merely the late medieval church blinding the faithful |
Written by Phil (6387 comments posted) 2nd May 2008 | Fledermaus makes a good point - there is a lot of religious type zeal surrounding environmentalism. In fact it's the best political point I've read in some while.
I've no idea whether humanity is to blame for global warming - I tend to think that probably, yes we are. However, according to most scientists who propound this theory, we've already passed the point of no return. The developed nations, and especially the US, will not relinquish their established way of life for the sake of the planet. To do so would be political suicide. New Zealand, carbon neutral Can't see it myself - only as a paper exercise. I heard on the radio the other week that Formula 1 racing is carbon neutral - you're telling me that the planet is no worse off in terms of carbon use for a whole season of racing and transporting cars and equipment around the world. Offsetting carbon use by planting a couple of trees in a third world country (probably for them to chop it down for firewood) is certainly not going to save the planet.
If global warming has a human factor, I reckon we're doomed. Unless of course, some large corporation finds a way of making money from carbon capture etc.
Your piece is interesting - but for me, raises more questions than it offers answers.
For the record, I try to do my bit. More out of duty than any hope it'll make any difference.
Phil
| Agree to disagree
Written by sahewitt (17 comments posted) 2nd May 2008 | | Enoug. I only wrote this piece in response to a solicitation from the aforementioned indian magazine. With a little research I came across the included quotes. I did notr expect such fevered responses since i receive so few for my other postings but this apparently touched a nerve and then some. Let's leave it at we agree to disagree. |
Written by mia_ms_kim (891 comments posted) 2nd May 2008 | I've heard both sides of the arguement, and frankly I'm not knowledgeable enough to make up my mind who is right and who is wrong. I'm more concerned about who might be deliberately distorting the truth or manipulating it for whatever gains they have in mind - from either side. (I've become cynical over the years, and I have read too many conspiracy theories!) I'm sort of resigned to living in the age of doom and gloom, environmental crisis, energy crisis, water crisis, food crisis, bird flu pandemic, WMD threats, natural disasters... I wonder what kind of a world my child will live in when he is an adult. I'm beginning to think all those Hollywood movies are prophetic. I sincerely hope we don't get hit by a comet.
Sorry, Stephen, for being gloomy. Ban Ki Moon is a Korean guy, and I hope he continues to do make progress. Saving the environment no matter what one believes, can only be a good thing. Oz is doing our bit, too, with our new PM in the forefront - now that is one bright thing I can smile happily about.
Mia  |
Written by Fledermaus (3159 comments posted) 2nd May 2008 | "Let's leave it at we agree to disagree."
A fair suggestion.
I agree with Mia, that saving the environment is a good thing, irrespective of the reasoning behind it, but I also think that by being so incredibly dogmatic, certain pressure groups alienate people (like me) from them.
It was not at all my intention to upset you, but rather to criticize the lack of debate within those high ranks. They took not yet fully proven scientific theories and turned them into political ideology.
Looking on this from the bright side: That you caused this response must indeed mean that your writing triggered a lot of reactions  | just to add
Written by jjimbopryde (17 comments posted) 3rd May 2008 | I know I shouldn’t but as this is a subject close to my heart I will.
Until the last ipcc report in 2007 there was very little governmental action regarding climate control or CO2 emissions.
Now we have the exact opposite, in some countries at least.
A case of swings and roundabouts.
If memory serves me right the 2001 report, which was slightly less of a doomsayer but carried the same conclusions but was called sensational.
We should do something instead of looking after our own best interests.
A well-written and researched piece (despite the controversy)
| Add 2
Written by sahewitt (17 comments posted) 4th May 2008 | Jim,
Thanks for your comments. I was going to say "reasoned commments" but fearing a reignited firestorm, I thought I'd best not. | must agree
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3136 comments posted) 5th May 2008 | I'm surprised such a reasoned and well argued and researched piece could provoke such controversy.It is,as Al gore says, an uncomfortable truth and if what you say makes people uncomfortable they will disagree, I suppose as your piece has proved.
Usually I find this sort of writing difficult to read and assimilate but your clear and measured style made it an engaging read. I feel a little better informed for it.
I will only add that human nature being what it is, means that we will only really tackle the subject when it becomes an urgent crisis.
cheers
Jane |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
