UN Headquarters from northwest on 1st Avenue - taken on April 20, 1956. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)
In December, in Copenhagen, nations around
the world are all supposed to sign a treaty to
reduce the greenhouse gases causing global
warming. But negotiations are going slowly.
Lester Graham reports the Secretary General
of the United Nations is stepping in:
Transcript
In December, in Copenhagen, nations around
the world are all supposed to sign a treaty to
reduce the greenhouse gases causing global
warming. But negotiations are going slowly.
Lester Graham reports the Secretary General
of the United Nations is stepping in:
Tomorrow, the UN Secretary General is holding a summit of the heads of state.
Janos Pasztor is the Director of the Secretary General’s Climate Change Support Team. He says, although the world’s leaders won’t be directly involved in the negotiations, its’ good for them to spend a day talking about the broader political implications of global warming.
“What we expect is, at the summit, heads of states will consider those broad political issues and give—not just impetus that they need to be fixed, but even give some direction, some vision on how they can be fixed without actually getting into the negotiation itself.”
Pasztor adds it might even be a good thing if the U.S. does not pass a climate change bill before Copengagen. That gives the U.S. some room to negotiate instead of showing up and saying ‘There it is. Take it or leave it.
President Barack Obama addresses the opening session of the first U.S.-China Strategic and Economic
Dialogue. Listening at left are Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan, center, and Chinese State
Councilor Dai Bingguo, left. (Photo by Chuck Kennedy, courtesy of the White House)
The Chinese are in Washington in high-level talks with the Obama administration about – among other things – energy and the environment. Lester Graham has more on that:
Transcript
The Chinese are in Washington in high-level talks with the Obama administration about – among other things – energy and the environment. Lester Graham has more on that:
Opponents of the climate change bill in the U.S. like to remind us that China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. China likes to point out the U.S. didn’t even sign the Kyoto Protocol.
“We’ve been each other’s biggest excuse for the past five, eight years about not acting on international commitments.”
That’s Jennifer Turner. She’s Director of the China Environment Forum at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Turner says things are changing.
Recently China and the U.S. started talking about how they can help each other. And, she says, while China’s not talking about climate change a lot, it is talking about energy efficiency.
“China has actually been doing a lot over the past eight years on lowering their CO2 emissions, pushing energy efficiency more, for trying to ensure their own energy security and to lessen the health impacts of pollution.”
While the U.S. has been stressing climate change.
The governments have figured out they’re working on the same problem, just looking at it a little differently.
President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign documents on nuclear arms reduction
before their news conference at the Kremlin in Moscow Monday, July 6, 2009.
(Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
President Obama has reached what he’s calling a “joint understanding” with Russia on reducing the number of nuclear arms. But as Mark Brush reports this agreement doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll be dismantling a lot more nuclear weapons:
Transcript
President Obama has reached what he’s calling a “joint understanding” with Russia on reducing the number of nuclear arms. But as Mark Brush reports this agreement doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll be dismantling a lot more nuclear weapons:
As it stands now, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia will take warheads off of a delivery system, like a missile.
So, unless things go farther with this treaty, the warheads will still be kept in storage. And as it turns out, there are already thousands of these warheads kept in both countries.
Hans Kristensen is the Director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists.
He says even if the warheads get dismantled, there’s still the sticky issue of what to do with all that radioactive plutonium.
“The plutonium cores of those weapons, most of them, are still stored. We have something in the order of 15,000 warhead cores. An enormous amount of plutonium.”
The radioactive plutonium can be reprocessed and used in nuclear power plants.
Kristensen says the U.S. bought plutonium from old Soviet warheads – and that fuel is used nuclear power plants here in the U.S.
Dennis Macray of Starbucks speaks about the coffee company’s social and environmental efforts. He was the keynote speaker for the annual George McGovern lecture for United Nations’ employees. (Photo by Nancy Greenleese)
People who work to help people in poor countries have always had big hearts. Some of
those helping these days have fat wallets as well. Multinational corporations are helping
the people who grow raw materials for those companies. They’re protecting the
environment, building schools, trying to improve living conditions – just like charities.
Nancy Greenleese reports there’s controversy over the businesses’ motives. But there’s
no denying they’re changing how help is given in poor countries:
Transcript
People who work to help people in poor countries have always had big hearts. Some of
those helping these days have fat wallets as well. Multinational corporations are helping
the people who grow raw materials for those companies. They’re protecting the
environment, building schools, trying to improve living conditions – just like charities.
Nancy Greenleese reports there’s controversy over the businesses’ motives. But there’s
no denying they’re changing how help is given in poor countries:
(sound of steaming milk and cups clanking)
At a Starbucks in Germany, customers are clamoring for their daily fix of caffeine.
“My name is Ellen Sycorder and I’m from Bonn. And I’m drinking a black coffee.”
What she doesn’t realize is that it’s coffee with a conscience.
Starbucks buys the bulk of its coffee from farmers in its program called Coffee And
Farmer Equity or CAFÉ. The farmers agree to grow quality coffee without jeopardizing
the environment. They pledge to take care of their workers and pay them fairly. Ellen
can drink to that.
“I think the idea is positive and I think I would drink more coffee here than somewhere
else.”
That’s exactly what Starbucks ordered a decade ago when it teamed up with the
environmental group Conservation International. They started by helping farmers in
Chiapas Mexico grow premium beans while protecting the region’s famous cloud forest.
CAFÉ practices grew from there. Starbucks and its non-profit partners are working with
farmers now from Costa Rica to East Timor.
Dennis Macray of Starbucks says the environmental advice is paying off.
“We’ve had farmers come to us and say these practices helped me weather a hurricane
for example, where neighboring farms had mudslides.”
Starbucks’ director of global responsibility says the company sometimes even
discourages farmers from growing beans. That might seem like a grande step backwards.
But Macray says keeping the farmers in business is the goal and sometimes that means
diversifying.
He recently found out how well it was working when he visited the mud hut of a Kenyan
farmer .
“In this case, the farmer was really proud of all the fruit and other vegetables that he had
on his farm. So he walked around and showed us how interspersed in-between the coffee
and providing shade for the coffee which is very important were a number of other crops
and fruits and things that he could either sell or his family could feed itself.”
Starbucks is among a growing list of multinational companies that are pouring money
into the developing world. Veteran international aid worker Carl Hammerdorfer says
working with big corporations made him pause at first.
“I’m a pretty skeptical, maybe even cynical, person about the motives of business. I
would have said 5 years ago that these Fortune 500 companies are only talking about
environmental and social concerns for marketing purposes, so they would improve their
image and sell more product.”
But he says global climate change prompted the companies to take their mission more
seriously. Any changes to the climate that shrink the rain forest, parch or flood land
would drastically affect their supplies of raw materials.
The former Peace Corps country director says his views have changed as he’s watched
companies such as McDonalds help farmers build more stable businesses.
“The evolution of their consciousness about social and environmental bottom lines is all
good. It’s a net gain for all of us who care about these enduring gaps.”
But there are concerns that the collapse of the economy will make the companies’
generosity shrivel up. There’s not a lot of evidence of that so far. While Starbucks is
closing 900 stores, the CAFÉ program is expanding. The company says it’s vital to its
long-term success to keep grinding on.
Mother-calf pair of "Type C" orcas in the Ross Sea. (Photo by Robert Pitman, NOAA)
Japan kills more whales than any other country in the world. A new proposal would allow Japanese whalers to hunt off their county’s coasts. Mark Brush reports – some think opening up these waters to whale hunts is a bad idea:
Transcript
Japan kills more whales than any other country in the world. A new proposal would allow Japanese whalers to hunt off their county’s coasts. Mark Brush reports – some think opening up these waters to whale hunts is a bad idea:
The International Whaling Commission passed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. But it allowed some countries to kill whales for what it calls scientific study.
Japanese boats kill hundreds of minke whales in the southern ocean under this designation. Critics say there’s nothing scientific about these hunts.
Now, the Commission wants to stop Japan from killing whales in the southern ocean. Phasing out these so-called scientific whale hunts. But in exchange, they might let the country openly hunt whales off its own coasts.
Jonathan Stern is with the American Cetacean Society. He says whale populations could take a hit, if Japan is allowed to start hunting in these waters:
“I’m just afraid once their fleet starts operating. They’re going to want to take more whales and more different species of whales.”
Japan has long maintained that these hunts are part of their cultural heritage. The International Whaling Commission will meet next month to decide the issue.
Countries are getting bad grades because there’s a lot of over-fishing going
on.
(Photo by Stephen Ausmus, courtesy of the USDA)
A new study out in the journal Nature grades countries on their ocean
fishing practices. Rebecca Williams reports even the top countries are not
getting a passing grade:
Transcript
A new study out in the journal Nature grades countries on their ocean
fishing practices. Rebecca Williams reports even the top countries are not
getting a passing grade:
The US, Canada, and Norway are some of the countries doing the best job.
That means they’re fishing in a responsible way.
But they all come in at 60%. That’d be a D, maybe a D-plus.
Tony Pitcher is the main author of the study.
“Wasn’t very encouraging actually that even the top scoring countries were
not really that good. So it wasn’t anything to write home about – we were
at the top but it wasn’t a great field. At the bottom end some countries
were just disastrous. More than half the countries didn’t even pass the
40%.”
Countries are getting bad grades because there’s a lot of over-fishing going
on. There’s illegal fishing. And there’s a big problem with nets and traps
getting lost. They can snare marine mammals, birds and fish.
Tony Pitcher says it’s not always easy to know where your fish came from.
But he says you can look for a blue and white label when you’re shopping.
It’ll say Marine Stewardship Council on it.
Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)
Delegates from 190 countries are
meeting in Poznan, Poland for the The
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Lester Graham reports
the delegates are concerned about the
economic costs of reducing the greenhouse
gases that cause climate change:
Transcript
Delegates from 190 countries are
meeting in Poznan, Poland for the The
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Lester Graham reports
the delegates are concerned about the
economic costs of reducing the greenhouse
gases that cause climate change:
With the world in an economic slump, it might be difficult to come to a new climate
change agreement.
But, Yvo de Boer, who’s the Executive Secretary for the convention says, you think
this is bad, wait ‘til you see what happens if nothing is done about global warming.
“This result in an economic failure on the scale of two world wars and the great
depression combined.”
Most countries are looking to see what the U.S. will do.
Angela Anderson is with the Pew Charitable Trusts Environment Group and a
speaker at the climate change convention. She says there’s talk about what the
Obama administration might do.
“There has been a discussion of the ‘Obama Buzz’ as it’s being called here in
Poznan. And you do hear lots of people in the corridors speculating on what the
negotiations will be like next year.”
This time next year is the deadline for an agreement to replace the expiring Kyoto
protocol.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)
The leader of a key panel on climate
change says upcoming international meetings
will have a lot at stake. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
Transcript
The leader of a key panel on climate
change says upcoming international meetings
will have a lot at stake. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
The UN intergovernmental panel on climate change has developed a road map for holding down
emissions that contribute to global warming.
The panel will be part of meetings in Poland this December and in Denmark next year.
R.K. Pachauri chairs the panel. He says negotiators must build on progress made so far.
“And if we miss this out, then I think all the momentum that’s been generated would be lost and
essentially we’d be starting from scratch and we know what that means. It means several years
of delay.”
Pachauri says he’s worried that the current global economic problems will hurt efforts to protect
the earth against climate change. He says things like sea levels, weather patterns, crop
production, and the health of some kinds of animals hang in the balance.
A new report on pollution in the Great Lakes basin aims to spur U-S and Canadian governments to get tougher on dirty factories. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
A new report on pollution in the Great Lakes basin aims to spur U.S. and
Canadian governments to get tougher on dirty factories. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
This year, the United States and Canada will formally review the
decades-old treaty called the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Environmental groups are hoping the review will lead to tougher
pollution regulations in both countries, and they say a new report proves
there’s still a huge problem with dirty air, water and land.
The report finds that even after 30 years of environmental cleanup
efforts, factories in the region are still releasing 1.3 billion pounds of
toxins a year.
Paul Muldoon is with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
“Although there’s been much improvement, this is a challenge to both
governments to really set targets and challenge industry to do better.”
The report finds that Canadian factories emit 73 percent more air
pollution per facility than their U.S. counterparts.
The Great Lakes is the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world. Preservation and usage of the Lakes is a hot issue for 2005. (Photo courtesy of michigan.gov)
This coming year will likely see some major policy decisions regarding the Great Lakes. Because the lakes stretch out along eight states in the U.S. and two provinces in Canada, getting all the governments to agree on issues is a long and sometimes trying process. But… those involved think 2005 will be the year that some real progress on Great Lakes issues will be made. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham recently talked with the Chair of the U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission, Dennis Schornack. The IJC deals with disputes and advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on issues regarding the Great Lakes:
Transcript
This coming year likely will see some major policy decisions regarding the Great Lakes. Because the Lakes stretch out along eight states in the U.S. and two provinces in Canada, getting all the governments to agree on issues is a long and sometimes trying process. But those involved think 2005 will be the year that some real progress on Great Lakes issues will be made. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham recently talked with the chair of the U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission, Dennis Schornack. The IJC deals with disputes and advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on issues regarding the Great Lakes:
The International Joint Commission and the Government Accountability Office both have been critical of the U.S. government for not finding clear leadership on Great Lakes issues. Different agencies sometimes find their efforts overlap or conflict with others. At times, it seems there’s no organized effort to restore the health of the Great Lakes. Dennis Schornack says he thinks things were starting to get better because recently appointed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt took a real interest in the Great Lakes. But now Leavitt is leaving to become the new Health and Human Services chief.
“It’s going to be hard to beat the enthusiasm of Mike Leavitt. He spent literally about fifty percent of his time as EPA Administrator in the Great Lakes throughout. He was everywhere this past summer. But it does fall to the new administrator, whomever he or she may be; but in the meantime, the governors and mayors are proceeding forward on the priorities that they set over a year ago, and fleshing those out into very tight kinds of recommendations.”
Countless studies and reports on the Great Lakes point out one of the biggest threats to the lakes is invasive species. Those are foreign critters such as zebra mussels and round gobies that hitchhike in the ballast water of cargo ships, or are introduced unintentionally. Often the invasives damage the native fish, plants, and ecosystems of the Great Lakes. Nothing has been done to effectively stop importing the invasives, and some have gone so far as to suggest that the St. Lawrence Seaway connecting the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean should be closed. The IJC’s Dennis Schornack says he’s hopeful that we’ll soon see laws that will do more to help prevent invasive species from getting into the Lakes.
“In the United States, at least, there is pending legislation that has been pending for over two years now called the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. This legislation is overdue. It’s time for Congress to act on it. And in the ’05 legislative Congressional year, it’s time for them to act. And that’s the place where the standards get set, the authority gets established and where all of the rubber really hits the road. Now, that’s just in the United States. Bi-nationally, because the Great Lakes are a shared resource, the IJC, that I’m the chair of the U.S. section, has continued to advocate cooperation and collaboration between the two countries in terms of at least setting a common standard, a common rule, common regulation on the Great Lakes. Because, obviously, setting it on one side of the boundary line doesn’t do any good if the other side doesn’t follow.”
Another issue that’s recieved a lot of attention in the Great Lakes region recently is water diversion. A document called Annex 2001 tackles the issue of how much water can be used or withdrawn from the Lakes. The various state governors and province premiers put together draft agreements for public comment. Schornack says there’s been a huge response, and a lot of it hasn’t been positive.
“They recieved, I think, over ten-thousand public comments. And there is differing viewpoint, a growing difference between the view taken in Canada and the view taken in the United States on this effort. Canada, the province of Ontario, has come out and point-blank opposed the existing documents. There are concerns in Canada that this is just some kind of a ruse to somehow allow diversions of the Great Lakes waters to occur. I’m not part of that viewpoint, to tell you the truth. What’s being done right now and what will happen in 2005 is that the comments are being digested, we’ll see new draft documents come out from the governors and premiers and hopefully begin the process making those agreements stick.”
Schornack says 2005 will also see some important reports on the economic costs of invasive species. Studies on the logistics of shipping, cargo ship traffic and alternative freight haulers and design plans that look at the total cost of shipping – including the infrastructure costs and the environmental damage caused by invasive species. It should be an interesting year for the Great Lake if Congress moves on key issues, and then finds money to make the Great Lakes more sound.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
UN Headquarters from northwest on 1st Avenue - taken on April 20, 1956. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)
