EU can do better

“What we are presenting today is both ambitious and something that we can afford” President Barroso stated while presenting the European Commission’s proposal on climate change for the EU by 2030.

Its main target is to reduce EU Carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030. Also two previous cases regarding renewable energy and energy efficiency are not legislated at present. When comparing that to Stockholm’s current 50% slash since 2007 it is absurd to call a 40% reduce in emissions over the next 16 years as “ambitious”

The criticisms from environmental organizations have come in thick and fast.  Both Stefan Löfven (S), and Asa Romson (MP) have demanded in an article that all three goals should be mandatory not a “goal”.

There is every reason to be crital of the EU Commission’s lack of ambition. In the struggle to save the climate, it is not clear that the three goals are better than one.

We must look to be critical and push for more, as the more we do now the better infrastructure we will have to tackle climate change in the future.
 

How can we over achieve?
Renewable energy and energy efficiency is really the only means to achieve the main goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. With a functioning emissions offset trading system combined with a carbon tax. We will increase the amount of renewable energy and therefore energy efficiency will take off simply because it will be more profitable to do so. On the contrary, the more goals there are to fulfill. It will make it more expensive and more difficult than necessary to achieve the goal of reducing emissions,

The real scandal of the EU Commission’s proposal is rather than accepting the goal of limiting global temperature increase to two degrees is unattainable and creating a new achievable programme based on three point five global temperature increase. Environmental experts now say that it means that the EU now don’t actually stand behind their goal of limiting global temperature rise to two degrees and are looking into other less relevant methods.

Environment Minister Lena Ek, (C) claims (C) Are washing their hands of their responsibilities and she had a tougher global temperature increase target. However Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said that no country raised any such requirements.

EU Commission’s proposal will now be discussed by the Government and the European Parliament. But the situation is indeed grim. A few years ago Barroso spoke with a strong voice on the EU to take on a leading role in climate change. Now it has died down in favor of defensive talk that Europe takes its share of responsibility. But it is only reasonable that the EU with its developed countries take the lead and provide more time for poor countries to adjust.

Although there are no guarantees that the big emitters like China would follow Europe if we embarked on a more ambitious climate path.  Are we really left with an alternative?

With climate threat hanging over us, we can hardly afford not to be ambitious.

expressen.se

BBC comments – Cameron urges fracking opponents to ‘get on board’

13 January 2014
BBC comments  –  Cameron urges fracking opponents to ‘get on board’

Councils that back fracking will get to keep more money in tax revenue, David Cameron has said as he urged opponents to “get on board”.

Comments

  •  Mrs Vee
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:35

    If fracking was the right thing to do Cameron wouldn’t need to offer tax bribes, would he?

  •  Remus
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:32

    Bedrock that has taken millions of years to form – destroyed in moments for a quick profit. And the irony is that some fracking will be done by companies from countries where the practice is banned. We need more research before taking this irreversible step.

  •   AMc
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 12:17

    What concerns me is the blatent ignorance around this whole subject. Just look at all the comments on this posting. I’m neither for nor against as no one has actually properly explained the pros & cons. But we can’t all keep saying to No Nuclear, No Windfarms, No burning of coal, No Solar Farms, No fracking, we need proper debate and leadership based on facts not emotion.

  •  reenie
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:30

    Total is investing in u.k. franking because France has rejected it outright. What does that tell you !!

  •  Megan
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:27

    This is a flagrant abuse of the taxation system. A council’s obligations & duty of care to those living in its area won’t change, so altering its funding on such a flimsy pretext is outrageous – whatever you think about fracking!

  •  Lai
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:31

    David Cameron is a threat to the British public.

  •  Simon Johnson
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 11:22

    It seems clear that we do not know what irreversible damage fracking might cause. If multinational corporations, and a Conservative government, were not promoting it, we might be able to believe what the scientists say. As it is, we can’t. This is short-term profit and long-term risk. If it were about fuel security, we would be exploiting sustainable resources. Shale gas is not sustainable.

  •  stokiemart
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:37

    In addition to the obvious conflict of interests this corrupt government is engendering one notes that Total cannot destroy the French environment as fracking in illegal there. But hey, come over to the UK, the Tories will sell anything they can get away with and will help you profit at the expense of the British people and environment. You live in a corporatocracy dressed as a liberal democracy.

  •  Spycatcher
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:28

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules.

  •  BDS Now
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 11:48

    Lets all club together to get a licenses to frack in Chipping Norton, near Chequers, Windsor and Sandringham. If they are rejected … then we know for sure / conclusively that there is something wrong with fracking.

  •  Mark
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:46

    Fracking in the USA has resulted in gagging orders.
    This in itself is an infringement on freedom of speach.
    If fracking companies had nothing to hide, then why the gagging orders?

    The French have banned fracking.

    Pumping carsagenic chemicals into the ground will seep into the water table.

    Councils of the UK. Beware the poisoned apple you being offered.

  •  Mark
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:30

    Is this just not bribery?

    Council funds cut by reduced parking charges and austerity measures will need to fill the gap.
    tempting them with revenue from fracking is perverse to say the least.

  •  flipmode
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:28

    Let’s hope the local council leaders take the correct advise from specialists rather than seeing ‘££££’ signs appearing infront of their eyes.

    As most councils are short of money this could be an easy way out without looking into all apsects of fracking

  •  Sixp
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:46

    62. RonnieP

    The sooner the left wing open toed sandal brigade understand this, the better.

    ==
    Just grow up.

    There’s a pile of evidence to illustrate environmental concerns over fracking and a proper debate is needed.

    You may not care a less about the environment, others do.

  • Davertheraver 

    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:38

    All our energy needs could met and then some, by investing in insulation, solar panels on virtually every roof, more off shore wind, tidal power, combined heat and power… the solutions are all there. But the ruling class wouldn’t tolerate the people being dependent from the state-corporate alliance for energy, it’s far more profitable to give the Earth an enema and continue ‘business as usual’

  •  Nemesis
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:50

    Blackmail & corruption is truly wonderful isn’t it?

  •  They would turn in their graves
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:42

    Once they’ve dug these fracking wells, they turn their drills horizontally and can drill for 2-3 miles in every direction, blasting rock with high pressure mains water(expect water prices to increase and become scarce). They could be drilling right under your house and you don’t even know it! Or under an entire town!
    Water gets everywhere, just ask a plumber, and this is HIGHLY TOXIC water.

  •  JayTime
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:36

    Cracking is a terrible idea. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that pumping large quantities of water and chemicals into the ground is going to cause problems.

    Another case of short term financial gain setting the stage.

  •  Cheddy
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 10:48

    The downside of 5-year gov is no one wants to care beyond the 5-year mark. Fracking creates jobs, but at what cost? Smoking create jobs too – look where that got us. Legalising drugs will also create jobs.
    The gov hires PR companies to look at which short term plan the people are more likely to swallow and then jump on it.
    When it goes wrong, we won’t get the truth – just years of finger pointing.

  •  dmcc
    13TH JANUARY 2014 – 11:21

    1. Bribery, pure and simple. I bet that councils which refuse get their grants cut.

    2. So much for the “greenest government ever”.

    3. I note it’s Total, a French company. Fracking is banned in France.
    Funny, that.

    Source: bbc

facebook – Climate Change Centre Reading (CCCRdg)

CCCRdg has just launched a new facebook page. This is a test to see how many likes we can receive 2014 locally from our businesses, the community, the Government, local government and education.

The purpose with this is as always to increase our contact area and to flag the green card.

Please “Like” us by visiting our facebook page https://www.facebook.com/CCCRdg
(Our milestone target is 3000 “Likes” for Berkshire, keep track on us)

All your connections are welcome to join the LinkedIn group – Climate Change Centre Reading

/CO2-VisionNilEmission

“Consider Climate Change in every action”~Climate Change Centre Reading
Team CCCRdg

Le syndrome du Titanic

Hello, the very point is that we have passed the tipping point… consumption has finally taken us to a Point of No Return. Beyond the point of no return, it´s all about damage control – The Titanic sequel consequences – Why was the Titanic disaster an extinction? Mayabe, if we do as we should.. ..need 2 STOP all counterproductive activities now!

Check out this documentary

The Titanic Syndrome is a documentary film made in 2008 by Nicolas Hulot and Jean-Albert Hare, released on 7 October 2009. It follows the eponymous book published in 2004: The Titanic Syndrome

The logic step is to deal with, accept and agree on the above the sooner, the better!
/CCCRdg

Why can´t communities in the U.K. adapt from a Western unsustainable lifestyle to a ‘zero waste’ lifestyle?!

A World Without Landfills? It’s Closer than You Think | Nation of Change

GlobalEnrichmentPrize042013

There is a growing global movement to significantly reduce the amount of trash we produce as communities, cities, countries and even regions. It’s called the zero-waste movement, and it received a major boost this week as two of its leaders were awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize.

Nohra Padilla and Rossano Ercolini are two of the winners of this year’s Goldman Prize, which awards $150,000 to each of six grassroots environmentalists who have achieved great impact, often against great odds. On the surface, Padilla and Ercolini seem to have little in common. Padilla is a grassroots recycler—also known as a waste picker—from the embattled city of Bogotá, Colombia. Ercolini is an elementary school teacher from the rustic farmlands of Capannori, Italy.

Though their experiences are different, they share a common cause: organizing to reduce the amount of trash—everything from cans and bottles to cell phones and apple cores—that ends up buried in landfills or burned in incinerators.

What is zero waste?

Here in the United States zero waste is often thought of as a lifestyle choice, if it’s thought of at all. Blogs like Zero Waste Home and The Clean Bin Project attract a readership of thousands through tips on how to buy less, reuse more, and recycle and compost in the home. The popularity of these projects, along with the success of Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff, show a growing interest in reducing what we throw into dumpsters.

Padilla and Ercolini’s stories show that zero waste is not only a personal choice, but also an organized system that works at multiple levels including the community, municipality, nation, and region. Zero waste systems include:

composting, recycling, reuse, and education on how to separate materials into these categories;

door-to-door collection of recyclable and compostable stuff; swap meets, flea markets or freecycle websites to exchange reuseable goods and encourage people to buy less;

policy change, including bans on incineration and single-use plastic bags, and subsidies and incentives for recycling;

regulation of corporations to require them to buy back and recycle their products once they are used by consumers (glass soda bottles and tires are examples of products subject to this regulation in some countries).

Zero waste systems are designed with the goal of eliminating the practice of sending trash to landfills and incinerators. Not only is this possible, it’s already beginning to happen. Ercolini’s hometown of Capannori, Italy, has already achieved 82 percent recycling and reuse and is on track to bring that figure to 100 percent by 2020.

Taking on Europe’s incineration industry

Rossano Ercolini is an elementary school teacher. He began organizing against incinerators in the 1970s, when he learned of a plan to build one in Capannori. Concerned for the health of his students, Ercolini began a campaign to educate his community on the dangers of incineration, including how the burning of garbage releases particulates linked to asthma and other respiratory problems.

Over the course of the next 30 years, Ercolini led a David-versus-Goliath struggle, with education as his slingshot. In the 1990s, waste incineration was embraced by the Italian government as well as by big environmental organizations, all of whom bought into the premise that it was a safe and effective technology. Big business and the mafia also supported incineration because of the 20- to 30-year lucrative contracts and large government investments it involved.

The conjunction of economic and political interests behind incineration left citizens alone, not only to fight against incineration but also to develop sustainable alternatives. Ercolini worked for several years as a grassroots educator, inviting scientists and waste experts to give workshops to residents on the health effects of incineration and potential alternatives.

As a result, when the residents of Capannori succeeded in defeating the incinerator proposal, they also had gained the knowledge necessary to develop a better way of handling garbage. Ercolini himself was tapped to lead a local, publicly owned waste management company and began implementing a door-to-door waste collection system that maximized the quantity and quality of the recyclable materials recovered.

Soon after, Capannori became the first Italian municipality to declare a zero waste goal for 2020. Since then, Ercolini has helped to defeat 50 proposed incinerators and has also helped the zero waste movement to spread across Italy. Thanks to the Italian network Legge Rifiuti Zero, or the Zero Waste Alliance, and with the support of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, there are now 117 zero waste municipalities in Italy, with a population of about 3 million people.

“Incineration is no longer wanted or needed in these areas,” Ercolini says. “Instead, they have established comprehensive recycling and composting systems guided by zero waste goals. This has helped improve community health and has sparked strong collaborations between communities and local governments.”

Grassroots recyclers unite

Nohra Padilla is a third generation recycler. For decades her family has survived by salvaging plastic bottles, aluminum cans, paper scraps, and the like from dumps, curbside trash cans, and collection centers. They made a living by reselling these materials to junk shops and also to businesses, which used them as raw material to create new products ranging from blue jeans to paper.

In the 1980s, Padilla began organizing her fellow recycling workers, creating the first grassroots recycler cooperative in Bogotá. Since then she has helped to form the Asociación de Recicladores de Bogotá, or Bogotá Recyclers Association, where she now serves as executive director. The association includes 24 cooperatives representing 3,000 people. She also played an important role in forming and leading Colombia’s National Recyclers Association.

“Grassroots recycling is a key component of a zero waste system,” Padilla says. Through their network of cooperatives, grassroots recyclers in Bogotá recover 20 to 25 percent of all material thrown away by city residents. This amounts to about 100 times more recyclable material than is collected by the city’s large private recycling companies.

In March the association won a milestone victory: Grassroots recyclers are now city employees. They will be paid $48 per ton of material they deliver to collection centers, and will be eligible for government pensions and health coverage.

“After years of battling for recognition from the Bogotá government, we will finally be treated as dignified workers and paid just like any large company would be,” Padilla says. “I believe this is a victory that can be replicated across Latin America.”

Padilla has achieved this success in the face of powerful political opponents, a violent environment for worker organizing, and climate subsidies that cut recyclers out of the picture. In 2009, for example, the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism awarded carbon credits to the Doña Juana landfill gas project. This project threatened the livelihoods of Bogotá’s 21,000 informal recyclers by making it more profitable to landfill waste than to recycle it, and by limiting access to recyclable materials.

Padilla and the Grassroots Recyclers Association worked to mitigate the impact of the project, but faced many challenges in making sure that their community benefits agreement was implemented. In contrast to large landfills like Doña Juana, Padilla and the association have created infrastructure to recycle waste instead of bury it. They raised nearly two million dollars, about 75 percent from outside funds and 25 percent co-financed by the association, to build the biggest grassroots-run recycling center in Latin America.

A FUTURE WITHOUT LANDFILLS

The stories of these two organizers show how zero waste movements from around the world share common problems and goals, as well as a need to confront powerful opponents with a vested interest in the business of trash.

Both stories also demonstrate the potential of zero waste organizing to bring people together across issues and sectors. For example, Ercolini has organized at the intersection of food sovereignty and trash reduction, advocating for a “Zero Miles, Zero Waste” approach to promoting local food. Meanwhile, Padilla has shown how zero waste approaches, and recycling in particular, can incorporate previously excluded workers into unionized labor, with a clear agenda to reduce trash and carbon emissions.

Padilla and Ercolini’s work has created a model for building viable zero waste alternatives to landfills and incinerators. The struggles of the Colombian recyclers’ movement, and the Bogotá Recyclers Association in particular, serve as an inspiration to recyclers throughout Latin America and beyond.

Meanwhile, the example of the Zero Waste network in Italy is being copied in many other places in Europe, decreasing the popularity of and need for incineration and sparking the creation of a continent-wide organization that advocates for zero waste.

 

via A World Without Landfills? It’s Closer than You Think | NationofChange.

“We Have to Consume Less”: Scientists Call For Radical Economic Overhaul to Avert Climate Crisis

A pair of climate scientists are calling for what some may view as a shocking solution to the global warming crisis: a rethinking of the economic order in the United States and other industrialized nations. Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows-Larkin of the influential Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in England say many of the solutions proposed by world leaders to prevent “runaway global warming” will not be enough..

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/21/we_have_to_consume_less_scientists

UK´s first Olympic legacy tennis courts open in East Park Farm

‘Combating Climate Change through Placemaking’

This is one way to interpret and understand how a local tennis club used Placemaking guidelines when the public courts were designed to be a part of “Future of Places“. Healty creative activities endorse value.

Togethernessship – All about Placemaking to be truly inclusive and Safeguarding the future;

Habitat III in 2016, which will have the overall aim of contributing to a New Urban / Rural Agenda designed for people and places.

Placemaking can be an excellent entry point to dealing with climate change.

The Sonning Parish Magazine
The-Parish-Magazine

The Parish Magazine

“Placemaking is a multi-faceted approach to the planning, design and management of public spaces. Placemaking capitalizes on a local community’s assets, inspiration, and potential, ultimately creating good public spaces that promote people’s health, happiness, and well being. Placemaking is both a process and a philosophy.”

Source: Wikipedia

5 ways for companies to improve their energy efficiency

The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) has come out with report on ” An energy efficient Sweden ” , which proposes ways to improve their environmental performance . The advice is aimed at both the public and politicians. It emphasizes the practical work of improving energy efficiency in Sweden is worse than it should be, then we have good conditions for such work.

For businesses , the following advice:

Show leadership, set goals and follow up . Without management support and follow-up are not prioritized energy efficiency. Sufficient resources in terms of time and qualified staff to work in a structured and systematic manner absent.

Knowledgeable and dedicated employees needed. To succeed in the practical implementation needed people in your own organization who have knowledge and expertise on both energy use and operational processes and systems.

Create structure and systematize . Management often fulfill a vital function in many companies to structure and systematize the work on energy efficiency and maintain management’s commitment and priority.

Act proactively and dismissal capital. Often a certain energy efficiency is achieved without large investments. As the question made ??visible and prioritized investment funds can be allocated as necessary to ensure profitable operations are carried out. To consider investing in a life cycle perspective is necessary .

Creating sustainable vision for the future and look beyond their own operations. A company’s vision for the future should also include energy use. Energy efficiency is created not only in their own operations. To focus on how products and services can help increase energy efficiency in the next stage is equally important.

China to ease one-child policy – Xinhua

China to ease one-child policy

Top Chinese leaders Xi Jinping (C), Li Keqiang (3rd R), Zhang Dejiang (3th L), Yu Zhengsheng (2nd R), Liu Yunshan (2nd L), Wang Qishan (1st R), Zhang Gaoli (1st L) attend the third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee in Beijing, capital of China, Nov. 12, 2013. The session lasted from Nov. 9 to 12. (Xinhua/Lan Hongguang)

BEIJING, Nov. 15 (Xinhua) — China will loosen its decades-long one-child population policy, allowing couples to have two children if one of them is an only child, according to a key decision issued on Friday by the Communist Party of China (CPC).

China will implement this new policy while adhering to the basic state policy of family planning, according to the decision on major issues concerning comprehensively deepening reforms, which was approved at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee held from Nov. 9 to 12 in Beijing.

The birth policy will be adjusted and improved step by step to promote “long-term balanced development of the population in China,” it said.

Relaxing the policy will keep China’s birth rate at a stable level, said Guo Zhenwei, a family-planning official with the National Health and Family Planning Commission.

To ensure coordinated economic and social development, the population size for China should be kept at about 1.5 billion, said Guo, citing the results of a study sponsored by the State Council, China’s cabinet.

China should keep its total fertility rate at around 1.8, and the current rate is between 1.5 to 1.6, allowing the country to maneuver its population policy, according to Guo.

Wu Cangping, an adviser with the China Population Association, believed the change in China’s family planning policy will unlikely lead to a baby boom because of Chinese parents’ traditional preference for more children has changed due to rapid social progress in the country.

The change in policy was met with a warm response.

Many Internet users welcomed the change while others said they would have a second thought when giving birth to a second child because of high living costs.

An Internet user identified herself as “Hikaruhuang” hailed the reform as “very good.” She said her child would have a companion and less pressure in elder care.

China’s family planning policy was first introduced in the late 1970s to rein in the surging population by limiting most urban couples to one child and most rural couples to two children, if the first child born was a girl.

One-child families are entitled to bonuses and other benefits. Official statistics show such families account for 37.5 percent of China’s more than 1.3 billion population.

The policy was later relaxed, with its current form stipulating that both parents must be only children if they are to have a second child.

Since its implementation, it is estimated the policy has resulted in a reduction of some 400 million people in China.

However, the policy has also been blamed for generating a number of social problems.

China’s labor force, at about 940 million, decreased by 3.45 million year on year in 2012, marking the first “absolute decrease.” The labor force is estimated to decrease by about 29 million over the current decade.

Meanwhile, the country’s growing elderly population aged 60 and over, which accounted for 14.3 percent of the total currently, is forecast to exceed one third of the population in 2050.

Gender imbalance is another side effect of the one-child policy. Chinese parents’ preference for sons led to the abortion of female foetuses due to the policy.

About 118 boys are born for every 100 girls in 2012, higher than the normal ratio of 103 to 107 boys for every 100 girls. Millions of Chinese men will be unable to find wives in 2030.

Economists say the one-child policy is also a cause for the high savings rate among Chinese people.

“The change in the family planning policy will certainly affect China’s one-child generation — some of whom have already become parents. It will help them enjoy a better future,” wrote an Internet user called herself “shanma123.”

via China to ease one-child policy – Xinhua | English.news.cn.

Why it is likely that global temperatures will rise by 10 degrees in 10 to 20 years

6 reasons why the global temperature is rising

1. The rate at which the ice poles are melting is increasing. ( There is nothing that we can do about this. )

2. The melting of the ice poles releases enormous amounts of methane from the sea bed. ( There is nothing that we can do about this. )

3. The increased use of fossil fuels for energy.

4. Bush and forest fires contribute to more heat, and also to less material for the binding of greenhouse gases. ( Unfortunately fires destroy vegetation and ecosystems faster than new ones can be created. )

5. The amount of water in the ground, water reserves and watercourses is being reduced, and will eventually disappear. (This will create enormous problems for an increasing world population. )

6. Factor X – We are in the process of learning the effects of climate change, and a hot future will tell….

A 10 degree rise in temperature will ruin our basic crops and cause food shortages.

In order to STOP the next climate change disaster, we should have a one year amnesty, where Climate Change counter-productive activities are replaced with eco-friendly activities until late 2014.