When I started to be an environmental activist I just wanted to treat the environment with affection and care so it treats me the same way, not just treat it according to my interest and expect it to treat me in a good way. So I think it’s not logical to defend my personal interest in an environmental international conference because simply this conference was made to discuss the environment and how all the countries could cooperate to solve the environmental crisis. We need to think about how we can start a new page with environment so we can live together in peace without climate change impacts, islands sinking, higher temperatures or animals dying because of droughts that will make food and water unavailable.

I think if we really want to save OUR PLANET EARTH we should pay attention to the big problem and put our own arguments and problems aside because THERE IS NO PLANET B and there is a point of no return. We won’t have a fresh new chance. These long negotiations, slow discussions and the huge number of experts in fields not relevant to the climate are not solving the problem they are just raising the level of negative feeling and standing in the way of solving the problem. Also, in addition to this number of experts we see in the UNFCCC discussions, I don’t really see that negotiators are aware of the time passing and how urgent this issue is!!!

What I think is we should think about and discuss is the global climate issues as GLOBAL CITIZENS and if we understood the real meaning of global citizen we will have one interest one goal and will help each other because we believe in the same cause.

What I am really looking for is that negotiators present at these talks work on along this line towards Qatar and in Qatar at the end of this year.

Sincerely
A Global Citizen

photo by Glisglis (Flickr CC)

People love to gawk at exotic animals in zoos, aquariums and wildlife parks. Some self-important individuals even like to collect tigers, pythons and monkeys so they can show them off to friends or impress strangers.

Remember the private animal collector in Ohio who released his collection of 56 exotic animals – including tigers, bears, lions and a baboon – and then killed himself? The police ended up killing nearly all the animals. That was an extreme example of what can go wrong, but honest mistakes also happen with results ranging from tragic to amusing.

An escaped penguin swimming in Tokyo Bay, Japan is more of an example of the latter. The young Humbodlt penguin broke out of Tokyo Sea Life Park two months ago and was recently spotted (and filmed) in the bay apparently doing fine. Tokyo Bay sounds a bit dirty for a penguin, but I guess at least some other animals manage to survive in it, despite the pollution and radiation.

Read more about that and see the video in the Guardian.

In the ‘breaking news’ category, an emu has been spotted on a golf course in South Wales, UK. Locals were also spotted feeding the giant Australian bird with sandwiches. Welsh hospitality, eh?

Elsewhere in the UK, in Devon to be exact, a lemur escaped from Combe Martin Wildlife and Dinosaur Park. Lucky it wasn’t a dinosaur that escaped. Check out the pictures here.

More geographically close to their natural habitat, but still worlds away, two zebras escaped from a wild life park in Zimbabwe last week, resulting in confusion in the busy suburbs of Harare.

After a chaotic ordeal a group of locals caught one of the zebras and took it to a shopping center where it was eventually collected by park officials and brought back to the park with the other escaped zebra.

Let’s start by raising mitigation ambition. The UNFCCC re-ceived many submissions on raising ambition. 111 countries were represented in the sub-missions citing phasing out fossil fuel subsidies as a po-tential source of additional emission reductions repre-sent. And how often does that happen?

Perhaps all 111 countries saw the recent statements by the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, who said that phasing out fossil fuel subsidies could provide half of the emission reductions needed to stave off dangerous climate change between now and 2020. Now, because the devil is often in the details, phasing out these government handouts could go a substantial way in helping close the gigatonne gap. The ambition work programme under the ADP would be well-served to include this in its deliberations.

Now, on to finance. Recent estimates show that fossil fuel subsidies in rich countries could be in the tens of billions of US dollars, to perhaps as much as $100 billion. How about, instead, governments spend that money to support climate change fighting efforts? ECO encourages delegates to include this in discussions of both short-term and long-term finance.

While we’re at it, let’s all make sure we’re talking about the same stuff. The numbers quoted above are estimates, mainly because the data out there isn’t transparent enough to allow for more precise figures. But, wouldn’t you know, the UNFCCC could provide just the tools to increase transparency in this area through its national communications and biennial reports. And since so many UNFCCC parties want to remove these subsidies, why not report on their existence and efforts to remove them? Who doesn’t like taking credit for doing good things, after all?

ECO hopes parties here at the UNFCCC will take note of the multiple benefits of removing fossil fuel subsidies. ECO encourages delegates to speak to their colleagues in the G20 and Rio+20 negotiations as well, so that progress can be made wherever possible, in order to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2015.

Images: Friends Of the Earth and EcoWatch

Tim Flannery – Australian of the Year, Will Steffen – one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world, Gerry Hueston, and Veena Sahajwalla presented climate science and solutions to about 150 students from Western Sydney.

Tweet

We then followed it up with a workshop from our amazing volunteers Amy, Emma, Kat, and Sam. Students learnt about how they can build support for renewable energy in their communities by running Repower events, and had a very lively first planning session. Some great ideas came out of the brainstorms – from art competitions using only recycled objects, to trivia nights to raise money for skylights for the school hall, and so much more.

Later that night we headed to the Climate Commission’s public forum at Parramatta RSL.
We were very keen to ask the commissioners about their most recent report about the effects of climate change on Western Sydney, and what it meant for our generation.

Sam and Kat both asked questions, Kat even answered some questions from the audience and the commissioners about the positivity and power of youth getting involved with the AYCC and Repower!

We were also very inspired by one lady from Kiribati, a Pacific Island nation, who asked about the devastating effects of climate change and sea level rises on her country.

Our volunteers also spoke to the media including 2ue and local papers about Repower and the AYCC!

One of the highlights of the day was taking photos for “Hug a Climate Scientist Day” – we were all a little bit star-struck to be so close to such inspiring climate scientists and activists!

Written by AYCC NSW volunteer, Sam Cooper

Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media.png

This is a guest post authored by John Abraham, cross-posted with permission from the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media.

A recent posting on The Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media website linked to a very long piece regarding climate change by Christopher Monckton.

As a practicing scientist, I recognize and value the role that The Yale Forum plays in furthering civil discussion on this topic. As a society, we have too few venues of this type where ideas can be discussed, solutions proposed, and our preconceptions challenged.

Commentary

It is not difficult to appreciate the dilemma faced by editors of sites like The Yale Forum when submissions such as that cited are offered, particularly when, as here, the respondent is addressing an earlier posting in which he or she was specifically named.

On the one hand, sites such as this want to encourage vigorous and candid debate. On the other, they must be mindful of the very extreme views taken by some participants in this discussion. Inclusion of the most extreme views may not advance the purpose of the site.

So, how does Monckton’s post fit into the category of extreme views? That, really, is the easy part.

read more