photo by Jayegirl99 (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Once considered a pest and hunted, the majestic whale sharks of Donsol in the Philippines are now a successful attraction for eco-tourists.

The whale shark is the world’s largest fish and can measure up to 20 meters in length. Used as a food source in some places of the world, whale shark meat is not cheap – especially the fins. This despite the fact that the World Conservation Union lists the whale shark as vulnerable to extinction.

But preserving and protecting the whale sharks of Donsol is far more appealing – and profitable – for the residents of this Philippine municipality, known as the ‘Whale Shark Capital of the World’. In fact, the fishing of whale sharks is banned by the government of the Philippines.

From a CNN eco-solutions report:

The attitude towards whale sharks here changed nearly overnight. Credited with helping to make that happen is Dave Duran, a charismatic, passionate cameraman turned diver. Twelve years ago he shot footage of the whale sharks and brought it to international spotlight, to the attention of the World Wildlife Fund, marine biologists and scientists.

Since the species is endangered, there is a movement for an international ban on the trade of their meat. An expedition recently traveled to Hong Kong with the aim of exposing the Chinese trade of whale shark.

From a special report by Australia’s Herald Sun:

Hunting the animals is legal in much of Asia, though investigators who were part of the expedition will now use the evidence from Hong Kong to pressure the Rudd Government to lobby for an international ban on trade in whale shark meat and fins.

Check out this video report from CNN eco solutions about how a simple change of attitude improved the lives of both the whale sharks and the people of Donsol.

‘Swimming with sharks saves lives’

by Graham Land

Additional resources:

whaleshark.org

Manila Bulletin – Mapping exercise to protect coral reefs

roo.jpg

This week and next week, prominent climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts is touring Australia to help promote the country’s newest political party, the Climate Sceptics party.  Single issue parties are not unusual in Australia, and the Sceptics have been working to create a “new centrist party” to push for a “truthful, common-sense approach to [climate change] and all issues.”

The Climate Sceptics turned heads in January when they had to beg their members for an extra $20,000 to pay Christopher Monckton’s stipend as part of $100,000 in tour fees.  This begs the question: where does the cash come from to pay for the speaking tours of Australia? 

DeSmogBlog asked the Australian Electoral Commission if the party had registered itself yet and reported on any income.  Unfortunately, as a new party, they do not need to file their finances until October.  Furthermore, the sceptics party website clearly lists all the rules about what donations need to be disclosed and which ones do not (donations less than $11,200 can be anonymous under Australian law.)

Watts’ tour is being billed as a tool to fight the Australian government’s weak and industry-friendly Emissions Trading Scheme, which it recently put on hold for about 3 years.  Leon Ashby, the president of the Sceptics party, says “these presentations will make you think hard about the gap between the facts, public perception and where our political leaders want to take us.”<!–break–>

For more information on the speakers of the tour and the history of climate change denial in Australia, check the report by Greenpeace Australia on prominent climate deniers down under.  Most of Watts’ speaking engagements are paired with Australian sceptics, many of whom have deep connections to Australian right-wing think tanks and pro-industry organizations. 

Joining Watts for some of the events is Bob Carter.  Carter edited Quadrant Online’s “ETS Forum” 77, in August 2009, whose list of contributors is a virtual who’s who of the denier movement in Australia today.  Carter has written articles for Tech Central Station, an organization that has received money from ExxonMobil. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Carter has published over 50 original research papers in peer-reviewed journals mainly in the area of stratigraphy, the study of rock layers and layering.

Also on the tour is David Archibald, who along with Bob Carter, is on the core scientific advisory panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition.  The ACSC is a project of the deceptively-named Australian Environment Foundation, which is in turn a front-group of the coal and oil-funded Institute of Public Affairs.  According to the Greenpeace report, these groups have a 20-year history of collobarating with the Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute and other US denier organizations.

Not to be left out, Australian Enivronment Foundation science coordinator Peter Ridd will contribute his expert opinion to one of the events.  The AEF, named deceptively to be easily confused with the Australian Conservation Foundation, was created in 2005 by the Institute for Public Affairs to create a “different kind of environment group“.  The AEF has claimed that the Great Barrier Reef is “in great shape” and heralded the shift by independent Senator Steve Fielding when he began questioning the climate science.

The tour is visiting mostly smaller venues throughout Australia, and has so far been generating virtually no media attention.  DeSmogBlog would appreciate tips on how the tour is going and what the speakers are talking about, please leave a comment below if you know anything.

photo by Steve Punter (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Last week Queensland Alumina Limited was fined $90 thousand Australian (78k USD/63k euros) for an industrial incident that released caustic vapors within 6 km of their Gladstone alumina refinery last year. The company pleaded guilty to the charge of causing serious environmental harm.

According to a report by ABC News Australia, the main section of the refinery had not been inspected or maintained for up to 30 years.

Another Australian aluminum facility, the Rio Tinto Alcan bauxite and alumina mine east of Darwin, is being investigated by the Northern Territory department of resources due to a fuel leak of 70,000 liters, according to a report by the International Business Times.

Since aluminum (or aluminium) isn’t found in nature in its pure form, it is usually mined in the form of a soft ore called bauxite. Once a very difficult and expensive process, aluminum refining is still very energy intensive, requiring lots of power and water. In fact, aluminum used to be more valuable than gold. Now in some places it’s just more valuable than human lives.

Australia is by far the largest producer of bauxite, followed by China, Brazil and India. But it is the last country that has the most controversial bauxite-mining project, located in the eastern state of Orissa.

Vedanta resources, an India-based, partly British-owned mining firm, has been developing bauxite mining projects on tribal lands and plans to establish a mine on a hill which is considered crucial to local ecology, as well as the cultural and physical survival of local tribes. Vedanta has been accused of poisoning the local environment and committing human rights abuses.

Indian and international activist groups, such as Amnesty International and Survival International, have joined the cause of the tribes. Pressure has resulted in the Church of England and the Norwegian state pension fund withdrawing their investments from Vedanta due to ethical concerns.

From an ANI report:

If mining at the hills start, then the water left in the Bauxite, it will not be there. The alumina and aluminium smelters will contaminate the water after their use and the water will get finished in Kalahandi and Orissa.

–Vandana Shiva, activist.

For a well-known activist’s account of the plight of the tribes of Orissa in their desperate struggle to keep their land in tact, read this article in the Guardian entitled ‘The battle for Niyamgiri’ by human rights campaigner Bianca Jagger.

by Graham Land

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons. By: Cornelia Oedekoven.

The whaling issue is creeping back into the news more often again and this article is no exception.

In recent news, Australia announced plans to take legal action against Japanese whaling, which includes the involvement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It has been known for a long time that Australia has an issue with Japan’s whaling, especially in the Southern Ocean and their decision comes after a series of rather critical events, including the Sea Shepherd incident, a 6-week scientific research study and countless failed negotiations through the IWC.

Speaking of the IWC, their much anticipated Morocco meeting is expected to happen this month. The main focus of this meeting is to agree on the terms that will delegate whaling in the future and hopefully settle a long-term dispute between pro-whaling and anti-whaling nations. Should it continue or should it be banned? If it continues, will stricter procedures suffice? Is there any middle ground that can be reached?

As for Sea Shepherd, Captain Peter Bethune is currently in trial in Japan for his actions during the last Southern Ocean campaign. While he has the support of Sea Shepherd during his legal battle, they have revoked formal association with him otherwise. This includes removing him from the crew and disallowing him on further campaign adventures. A Sea Shepherd spokesperson claims it is because Bethune brought a bow and arrows aboard the Ady Gil at the beginning of the campaign, but other crew members said it was no secret and the equipment was not intended for human harm, which makes one wonder why they would make an issue of it now.

Getting further into the thick of things, Japan is setting out for another whale hunt, but this time it’s in the Pacific Ocean. Their targets include: 100 Minke Whales, 100 Sei Whales, 50 Bryde’s Whales and 10 Sperm Whales. It should be noted that Sei Whales are an endangered species and it was meat from that very whale that resulted in the closing of a particular sushi restaurant in California (The Hump). Further studies of that meat linked its origins to Japan—and while they don’t hide the fact that a lot of the whale meat goes to restaurants and the like, there is something to be said about the distributing of meat or product from an endangered species.

This brings us to the final update, which is in regards to the awesome Tokyo Two. In 2008, this pair of Greenpeace-Japan activists stole a box of whale meat from a delivery service depot in Japan. The plan was to use the box (about 50 pounds!) as evidence that whale meat from state-funded hunts was being embezzled. Well, right now prosecutors are demanding these 2 should spend at least 18 months in jail for their theft and trespassing actions. However, Greenpeace responded by saying the demand was “severely disproportionate” and they also held a protest against the prosecution in Montreal. The protestors gathered signatures and are planning to send them to the Japanese government. Other similar protests can also be expected to happy in China, Germany, India, New Zealand, and the US.

That’s all the whaling updates for now, though I wouldn’t be surprised if more breached the media gap in the near future.

By Heidi Marshall

I’m still holding my breath – the positive mood here in Bonn seems to have continued over the past week.  What started as tiptoeing around issues, discussions limited to process, Parties sounding each other out after the mistrust injected into the negotiations in Copenhagen, has progressed to something quite different.  There’s a dance going on in the plenary rooms.  It isn’t an easy dance, not a flowing waltz, not a foxtrot of perfectly timed steps between two long-time partners.  But nevertheless, there is movement.

The negotiators are sharing ideas, exploring areas of mutual agreement, and still sometimes deciding to disagree.  As yet however, there is no real negotiating happening.  Instead, is an awkward show, with some trust returning, but a dance which is flirtatious and non-committal.  A kind of first date dance.

We’ve been enthused to see synchronised steps on financing to support developing countries tackle the impacts of climate change.  There is wide acceptance that financial support is urgently needed and that transparent reporting on any funding pledges made is vital.  The European Union set the tone at the end of last week with a well attended side event to freely discuss their pledges and intentions for immediate funds for developing countries.  We are now hoping that other donor countries will follow their lead, and quickly – and maybe even outdo the move. 

Yvo de Boer, the outgoing Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC said this week that little progress can be made toward an international treaty until wealthy industrialized nations commit to deliver the $30 billion pledged in Copenhagen to assist developing nations. We fully support Yvo that “Cancun will only deliver, if promises of help are kept.”  Christiana Figueres, due to take over Yvo’s role after this meeting, echoed this by declaring that “fast-start finance is the key to unlocking Cancun”.

The new text from the Chair of the Long-Term Cooperative Action track is due to appear tomorrow, which will include elements of climate financial support.  Unfortunately this will only be a ‘non-paper’.  A ‘non-paper’ is one in which Parties will talk about the issues, dance a few more steps, but will not be able to start real negotiations until at least the next meeting in at the beginning of August.  Despite the positive atmosphere, we must admit we are getting impatient again – are we moving fast enough?

First dates are fun but they can only last so long.  Time to ramp up and do away with the left feet.  Come on Figueres – bring on some Costa Rican Swing!

Image Source: Flickr. By: Michael Heilemann.

A surfer was attacked by a shark on Sunday—not once, but twice.

The attack happened to off Conspicuous Cliff Beach, located south of Perth, Australia. Surfer Michael Bedford, who was rescued by a friend and some fishermen, suffered deep gashes to his right leg, but fortunately he is in stable condition at a hospital.

Apparently, he caught a wave into the beach when the incident happened and his rescuers used the surfboard as a stretcher to carry him to safety. According to his friend, Lee Cummuskey, who saw the attack from the beach:

“[Michael] thought it was just going to go under him, but it suddenly came up and hit him … and I think that is when it bit him.” … “It hit him once and then came back a second time. He thought it was a white pointer, he is not totally sure, but he said it had a bloody big head on it.”

White Pointer is actually another name for a very well-known type of shark: the Great White Shark. The ferocity of this giant, carnivorous fish was blown out of proportion in the book and film series, Jaws. While there have been a number of Great White Shark attacks on humans, most of them have not been fatal and can be contributed to “test bites” or cases of mistaken identity.

By Heidi Marshall

Talks between the G77, China and a number of major developing countries were moving toward forcing countries to be transparent about their use of the loophole. And just yesterday, countries that form the Central Africa Forest Commission (COMIFAC) spoke out powerfully calling on the loopholes to be closed.

Check out the overview on the issue below:

The game, dealing with climate change:

If dealing with climate change was a game, to win we would have to reduce our emissions (like CO2) and protect the carbon sinks that keep greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere (like forests). Unfortunately, dealing with climate change is a game that we all win, or we all lose. Cheaters in this game mean we all lose.

The rules, LULU-what?

LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry — another terrible UN acronym) gives developed countries the ability to factor forest management and land use into their accounting for how much they’re contributing to climate change and whether they’re on track with promised pollution cuts.

Forest management and land use are the biggest areas of potential for mitigating climate change. So it’s no surprise that accounting for and encourage the protection of forests is a big deal in climate negotiations.

For developed countries that are part of this framework, UN climate talks have helped us come a long way toward protecting forests and other carbon sinks.

The cheat & the cheaters:

LULUCF contains loopholes that pose a serious threat to effective climate change mitigation. The loopholes in forest management accounting would allow developed countries to increase their annual emissions by approximately 400 Mt CO2 annually and not account for it. That’s a loophole big enough to hide all of the emissions from Spain in one year.

Countries exploiting this most are: Germany, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

The emissions loophole works by allowing countries to forecast an increase in emissions and use this higher level as a ‘projected reference level’ or baseline against which to measure their emission reductions.  The loophole is also being used to hide emissions from bio-energy.

What it means for the rest of us?

We all lose.  UN Climate Talks have come a long way to develop these rules; a 400 MT greenhouse gas pollution loophole is massive and completely inappropriate.  Without effective tools to protect our forests, dealing with climate change becomes near impossible.

How do we fix it?

The loopholes must be closed.  All developed countries must agree to two new guiding principles which are:

1. The rules being negotiated should result in an absolute reduction in net emissions;
2. Carbon reservoirs (forests etc.) in natural ecosystems should be protected.

For our part, follow progress on LULUCF by tracking our posts with this tag: LULUCF. We’re also watching the great reporting by Canadian Forests & Climate campaigner, Chris Henschel. Check out his daily updates here: Forests and Climate Change

Dear Brollies . . . You’re good at the 3 R’s (reading, [w]riting and [a]rithmetic), although you could improve on your maths.  But your marks are not adequate at all on avoiding dangerous climate change.  So this term, it’s time to focus on the 3 C’s – a Common Position leading to Common Rules and Strong Compliance.

You have often lamented in class that any consolidation of commitments cannot be based on a 1992 world.  Well, Brollies, it cuts both ways.  The regime cannot afford to be based on a pre-1997 version of industrialized country commitments, yet your Umbrella Group submission in the LCA contact group on the MRV of Non-Annex I mitigation actions seems to suggest just that.

Developed countries undertake commitments and they must be complied with.  That is what leadership looks like.  Merely reviewing progress toward a target isn’t sufficient.  Perhaps you should review the study plan for this term: Transparency in the developed country context isn’t just about building trust amongst Parties, but also to detect when they aren’t fulfilling their commitments.  It is clear that the current regime lacks a robust early warning system for non-compliance (Canada, please stop hiding behind the umbrella).

A policy review process could assist in enhancing the regime, but it can’t be the end of the story.  Strong compliance with legally binding commitments is crucial to building a regime for avoiding dangerous climate change. The question must be put: What happens if expert reviewers detect a problem?  (And the answer can’t be ‘nothing’!)

To assess compliance, common accounting and reporting standards are needed.  This applies just as much to calculating emissions reductions as it does to the support provided by industrialized countries.  It’s encouraging that you Brollies can come to a common position, so it shouldn’t be a big step to agree common rules.  There is plenty of material to draw from and improve upon (for example, look in your Kyoto lesson plan)!

If you are questioning the need for common accounting and reporting rules, please refer to the fast start financing reports published by the US (at the April MEF session) and the EU (both at and before this session).  While the depth and quality of reports are welcome, other Brollies must follow suit and report on the state of your fast-start financing.  This includes defining the terms and revising the relevant National Communication guidelines for reporting on financial, technological and capacity building support.

Remember, progress on MRV rules will be key to ensuring a successful outcome in Cancun.  However, this means detailed progress on all fronts: Annex I emission reduction commitments, Non-Annex I nationally appropriate mitigation actions and support for them provided by you and the non-Brollie Annex I countries.

You’re making some progress, but to pass this term, remember that your grade depends on all 3 Cs:  a Common Position leading to Common Rules and Strong Compliance.  The final exam is in Cancun, so don’t fall behind in your work going forward!

/signed/

Professor M.R.V.

International negotiations are truly crazy places. In between the ten page daily agenda which ranges from “Item 3 – a shared vision for long-term cooperative action” to “Conference and film festival: toward a new justice tryptch” (you can actually check that – that was the first and last item on the UN climate talks daily programme for 3 June) there are all sorts of personalities and zany ideas at play. For example, outgoing Executive-Secretary of the talks, Yvo De Boer, sparked controversy this week with a leaked memo calling the Copenhagen talks a ‘muffin’ instead of a ‘cake’ for their complete failure to address the climate crisis.

In a discussion about the role of NGOs in the negotiations yesterday, Yvo, as he’s universally known, recounted that he’d always appreciated the ‘fossil of the day’ award, which NGOs give out to highlight the most backward action in international climate policy each day. He particularly appreciated receiving it once when he was just a delegate for the Netherlands and he had the temerity to suggest that ‘the United States would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.’

That the US would not ratify Kyoto, the only international agreement on legally binding carbon emission reduction targets, is not such a zany idea – the US has a terrible history of agreeing to international standards on anything from the rights of women to the ‘oh so now’ law of the sea. That the US is now undermining the Kyoto Protocol, even though it is not a member, is not crazy but is very disappointing. What’s truly crazy is that in civilised Bonn, in the heart of the European Union, the EU, formerly the champion of both international law and environmental integrity would vacate the field on both fronts.

The two fronts (environmental integrity and legal integrity) converge in the contest between what type of international instrument should be used to reduce carbon emissions – that is to say, how countries will work together, or not, to fight this global problem. One option is a system where countries collectively set a total target that is science based and fair, then negotiate their specific reductions and under a system that makes e sure everybody lives up to their promises. The second option, rather less effectively, allows countries to merely announce on the international stage what they have already decided to do domestically, even if the total effort is woefully inadequate. . Option 1 is represented by the Kyoto Protocol and Bali Action Plan system and option 2 is the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ system.  The latter isn’t global cooperation; it’s a take it or leave it game of chicken that leaves the planet in peril and millions in danger.

On the environmental integrity front the Copenhagen Accord system has just taken a serious beating. The prestigious, peer-reviewed and respected scientific journal, Nature, published an article on the 22 April 2010, which used the very scientific term ‘paltry’ to describe the emission reduction pledges in the Copenhagen Accord. The article concludes those paltry pledges would give a greater than 50% chance that warming will exceed 3 degrees by 2100. 3 degrees is devastating, catastrophic, climate change. It’s the climate change that most people, plants and animals won’t survive. A greater than 50% chance. Would you get on a plane, with your daughter, your brother, your friend, your pet dog and your favourite plant if there was a greater than 50% chance of crashing? Didn’t think so.

But the EU is thinking about it. In negotiations here in Bonn, the EU refused to say whether it would commit to a second round of Kyoto Protocol emission reduction targets. This is despite the Group of 77, (deceptively a bloc of over 130 of the world’s poorest countries) telling the meeting that:

‘The continuity of the Kyoto Protocol is an essential element for the future of the climate regime…failure sends a negative signal [by rich countries] regarding their ambition and contribution to a strong climate regime’

The EU used to be characterised by its ‘ambition and contribution’ to a strong international climate regime, but here in Bonn they are showing a distinct lack of courage, and as the German’s say, when you lose your courage you lose everything (real German saying). Similarly, Australia, whose Prime Minister was elected just 3 years ago on the promise of ratifying Kyoto because it is such an important treaty, was even more direct than the EU in negotiations in indicating that Australia (for a group of developed countries) didn’t think science-based and legally enforceable targets were very important. That in effect, Australia would be complicit in killing Kyoto.

This division over direction in international climate policy is resting on a knife-edge. Just months ago the outgoing Labour Government in the UK announced it could support a second round of Kyoto. Mexico, the host of December’s UN Climate Conference, where the second round of Kyoto targets is supposed to be agreed made clear that despite imperfections, ‘the Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding agreement that we have.’ And Norway clearly indicated that it would sign on for a second round. If the EU were to take leadership again perhaps the world could get back on track to a sensible, science based climate policy instead of the crazy-talk coming from countries in Bonn right now.

For more detailed accounts of negotiations see The Third World Network’s daily reports.

You can follow Alex Rafalowicz at Bonn negotiations on twitter @climatedebtorg

Filed under: Australia, Climate Challenge, Climate Justice, Climate Policy, Climate Science, Europe, global warming, Government, International Affairs, Intersessional, United Nations, United States

Please do let Rachel know what you think!

- Cara & Phil (tracking from afar)

So here we find ourselves again in Bonn for the second round of climate change negotiations since Copenhagen. The end of day two. The first day of European Summer. The clouds have lifted, the rain of the past few days has ceased, the streets are filled with bicycles and people taking evening strolls. And as a colleague of mine reflected, there is a calm and gentle breeze a-blowing in Bonn this evening. Things seem, well, quietly positive.

Wise words from Albert Einstein, "Life is like riding a bicycle – in order to keep your balance, you must keep moving."

It was, however, a slow and dull start to the week on Monday. For most participants, this was the first time back to the UNFCCC scene since departing Copenhagen with heavy hearts and exhaustion. There should have been a buzz in the air to pick up where things left off and continue to strive for the global deal so urgently needed. But instead, the Hotel Maritim seemed filled with slow moving conversation, slow moving people, and significantly tempered expectations about what can be achieved in Bonn and for the remainder of the year. One Australian delegate commented ‘the mood here seems really flat, everybody just seems really tired’.

There was also a sense of an impending doom, with rumours flying a plenty that countries were not happy with the new negotiating text – that some didn’t like it because it used Copenhagen Accord language too much; others didn’t like it because used Copenhagen Accord language too little; that some were going to block working on the text and demand a new one. A sense of groundhog day lurked in the cobwebs of the Maritim.

However, on day two, it seemed that all this was pure speculation. Six hours of statements from most countries stretching late into the afternoon, and the feared explosion over the negotiating text did not eventuate. Most statements held a positive view of being able to work with the text and there was a certain sense of willingness to cooperate and move things along.

Yet, as negotiators sit in plenary in Bonn, things are happening across the rest of the world, starkly reminding us of the urgency with which countries need to reach a deal. The northern parts of India are suffering through a record heat wave pushing thermometers to nearly 50 degrees and setting new temperature records. Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Agatha has ravaged South America, forcing the evacuation of tens of thousands and taking over a hundred lives in flooding driven by heavy rains.

After this meeting in Bonn, there will be only two weeks of negotiations left before countries arrive in Cancun, Mexico in December. A gentle breeze today is nice, but will it be good enough to get us on track to curb emissions and respond to the challenges of climate change? For now we will savour the mood, but things must get moving. And here’s hoping the wind doesn’t change direction.

Stay connected with all the latest Australian news and actions on our sister site A Climate for Change.

Yours, Cara & Phil