26 abril 2007

Eu Prometo!

Já viram essa? Abaixo a explicação do autor:


Diga ao Mundo: "Eu farei, mas só se vocês me ajudarem nisso"
Em vez disso, V. pode ouvir um MP3 (versão em português*).

Olá! Sou Tom Steinberg, o diretor da mySociety, grupo filantrópico que está construindo o EuPrometo. Tomei a iniciativa pouco usual de gravar esta introdução porque o EuPrometo também é uma idéia diferente. Descobri que explicar de viva voz geralmente funciona melhor do que por meio de um texto.
Todos sabemos como é se sentir impotente, que nossas ações não conseguem mudar as coisas como queremos. O EuPrometo veio vencer esse sentimento. Ele conecta V. com outros que também buscam a transformação, mas sem correr o risco de serem as únicas a doar dez reais para uma causa que de fato precisa é de cem reais.
O funcionamento é simples. Você cria uma promessa dizendo basicamente 'Farei tal coisa, mas só se outras pessoas também fizerem o mesmo'. Por exemplo: se sempre quis cobrar promessas dos políticos, V. cria uma promessa dizendo 'Eu escreverei cem cartas, mas só se outras três pessoas fizerem o mesmo.'
São ilimitadas as aplicações do EuPrometo. Pode-se prometer 'Farei uma festinha numa creche, mas só se outras 5 pessoas fizerem o mesmo'. Ou então 'Ensinarei origami para crianças hospitalizadas, mas só se outras duas pessoas forem comigo'.

O EuPrometo já passou sua fase de teste e agora tem muitas promessas cumpridas, algumas delas indo bem além do que pensávamos ser a a utilidade deste site. Na Inglaterra, alguém reuniu 20 outros fãs de um programa para conseguir que a BBC lançasse um CD. Outro atraiu 8 pessoas até então desconhecidas para a tarefa de enterrar baldes nos seus jardins a fim de proporcionar abrigo para besouros ameaçados de extinção. E um membro duma comunidade online disse que organizaria uma comemoração de 5º aniversário e conseguiu apoio de 30 outros membros para realizá-la.

O EuPrometo não se limita a pessoas que usam muito a Internet. Você pode apoiar uma promessa teclando apenas duas palavras em mensagem tipo torpedo no seu celular (só no o Reino Unido). É ideal para engajar seus amigos das baladas, pessoas da sua rua, e assim por diante.


O EuPrometo é grátis, fácil de usar, e precisa da sua participação. Assim, se há algo que V. gostaria de fazer acontecer em sua comunidade, seu local de trabalho, sua escola, entre seus amigos ou vizinhos, dê uma olhada neste EuPrometo.org e crie logo uma promessa. Obrigado!
* Na voz brasileira de Alexandre Salvador, voluntário da Enfoque Cívico. Clique aqui para ouvir a voz original, de Tom Steinberg, em inglês.
Ir à página inicial do EuPrometo

21 abril 2007

We, the Undersigned, endorse the following petition:
Pledge to Live a One Planet Life!
Target: You!Sponsor: Care2

If everyone consumed as much as North Americans, we would need five planets to sustain our high-waste, high-pollution habits. Each of us can make a difference. By learning more about our individual impact, we can significantly reduce the amount of pollution and waste we produce as a whole. It can start with something as simple as buying fewer pieces of clothing or driving one less day per week. Please watch the video, and show your commitment to decreasing your impact on our One Planet by signing this pledge and learning more from the resources provided by Care2.



20 abril 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 19, 2007
10:04 AM


CONTACT: Seventhe Generation
Jessica Root, Contest Coordinator
TreeHugger.com
347-374-8215

Convenient Answers to an Inconvenient Truth
Video Contest Endorsed By Al Gore Celebrates Earth Day with Solutions to Global Warming


BROOKLYN, N.Y.--TreeHugger.com, the leading pure environmental website, in its ongoing effort to celebrate everyday as Earth Day, along with Seventh Generation (www.inspiredprotagonist.com), the leading eco-friendly home products company, are thrilled to announce that celebrity guest judge, Ed Begley, Jr. has chosen the winners of Convenient Truths video contest (www.truths.treehugger.com). As a follow-up to Al Gore's Oscar winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, the mission of the contest was to empower "ordinary" people to create videos that demonstrate simple and effective solutions to reducing carbon emissions.

The former Vice President, Al Gore, "applauds TreeHugger's efforts" calling the contest "a great way to spread the word and bring the issue into our daily lives."

Now that the Convenient Truths contest is over, the videos submissions will keep citizens motivated to take action. This Earth Day (and everyday) viewers have access to over one-hundred and thirty, 1-2 minute video submissions addressing everyday solutions to climate change. Topics range from solar energy to public transportation to composting and more. The videos are smart, slick, upbeat, and energetic.

The winning videos have been chosen by a combination of web viewers and expert judges including Ed Begley Jr., Actor and Environmentalist; Laurie David, Founder of stopglobalwarming.org; and Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert, The Weather Channel. (To see the full list go here.) The winners will receive close to $30,000 in sustainable prizes. Videos are served by blip.tv (www.blip.tv) and will be broadcast on various outlets including One Degree, a broadband site dedicated to climate change developed by The Weather Channel Interactive (TWCI) and distributed on DVD by Ironweed Films.

The Top 10 winners include:

GRAND PRIZE - Little Guy (Make A Start) Video by Jon Forsyth,
Westford, MA

2ND PRIZE - Bear Necessities by Mark Dixon, Pittsburgh, PA

3RD PRIZE - Change A Lightbulb by Pete Land, Burlington, VT

Chickens Enlighten, Humans Change, World Improves by Scott Price,
Seattle, WA

I Am A Climate Activist by Phil Mitchell, Seattle, WA

Reality In The Self Checkout Lane by Tanya Roche, Beltsville, MD

Cool Notebooks For a Hot Planet by Eli Zigas, Walla Walla, WA

Better Late Than Never by Jennifer Cipperly, Jacksonville, NY

Footprints by Kimberly O'Connor, Redwood City, CA

Families Fight Back by Austin Haeberle, Maplewood, NJ


CONVENIENT TRUTHS is a carbon-neutral contest. All emissions generated will be offset by the non-profit organization DriveNeutral. All of the contest submissions are property of contest sponsors TreeHugger.com and Seventh Generation and are available to view on www.truths.treehugger.com.

About TreeHugger.com:

TreeHugger is the leading online media company dedicated to everything modern yet environmentally responsible. Their leadership has been recognized by the Bloggies, the Webbies, the Vloggies as well as Vanity Fair, The New York Times, Time, Domino, The Oprah Winfrey Show and many others. Offering environmental news, information, and tools to help people green their lives, TreeHugger brings sustainability into the mainstream.

About Seventh Generation:

Seventh Generation is committed to becoming the world's most trusted brand of authentic, safe, and environmentally responsible products for a healthy home. For 18 years, the closely held Burlington, Vermont company has been at the forefront of a cultural change in consumer behavior and business ethics. One of the country's first self-declared "socially responsible" companies, Seventh Generation is a business that operates according to a new and different set of principles and values that in many ways are a marked departure from those long considered "traditional." Its business practice is focused on offering people avenues to express their idealism, passion, and commitment to causes larger than themselves at every point along its supply chain -- from suppliers and partners to shareholders, customers and its own staff.

The company derives its name from the Great Law of the Iroquois that states, In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations. For more information, visit www.seventhgeneration.com or the company's blog www.inspiredprotagonist.com

Contact Jessica Root, Contest Coordinator at 347.374.8215.

MULTIMEDIA AVAILABLE:
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=5380370

19 abril 2007

Construção ecológica em alta

Por Diego Cevallos*

Os edifícios da América do Norte liberam em abundância gases causadores do efeito estufa, esgoto e lixo, enquanto desponta a construção ecológica no México, com cinco mil casas populares erguidas.

MÉXICO, 2 de abril (IPS/IFEJ) – O tipo de edifício onde vivemos ou trabalhamos e o uso que lhe é dado geram boa parte das mudanças climáticas que preocupam os cientistas. A energia consumida nesses locais se traduz em gases poluentes, desperdício de água e materiais de construção no lixo. Na América do Norte, entre 11% e 30% da emissão de gases que causam o efeito estufa, responsáveis pelo aquecimento global, é gerada pelas edificações, que gastam grande parte da eletricidade disponível, água e matérias-primas, entre elas madeiras preciosas extraídas muitas vezes de maneira ilegal, e compostos plásticos como o policloreto de vinila (PVC), prejudiciais à saúde.

Somente nos Estados Unidos, gerador de quase um terço dos gases que provocam o efeito estufa no mundo, as edificações consomem cerca de 65% de toda a eletricidade, 40% das matérias-primas e 12% do abastecimento de água. No México, que emite 2% desses gases, os edifícios gastam 20% da eletricidade, da qual 80% produzidos por queima de combustíveis. Esses dois países, que junto com o Canadá integram a Comissão de Cooperação Ambiental da América do Norte (CCA), procuram reduzir o impacto deste setor na mudança climática, que, segundo a maioria dos cientistas, acontece pelo acúmulo na atmosfera de gases procedentes sobretudo da queima de combustíveis fósseis.

Especialistas dos três países analisam o assunto desde o começo do ano, e prometem para setembro um amplo informe que incluirá recomendações aos governos. O objetivo é diminuir as construções poluentes e dar prosseguimento às sustentáveis, que se integram ao meio ambiente de forma amigável, consomem pouca eletricidade e, idealmente, processam a água e o lixo, além de propiciar particular conforto aos seus habitantes. Porém, a meta está mais próxima, ladeira acima. “O desenvolvimento da construção verde é incipiente e não existe uma política-eixo dos governos na matéria”, disse David Morillón, especialista da Universidade Nacional Autônoma do México e um dos que redigiram o informe final da CCA.

Entretanto, já existem alguns planos em andamento, e dezenas de arquitetos, engenheiros e pesquisadores das Américas do Norte e do Sul trocam informações por meio da Internet, às vezes organizando seminários sobre construção “verde”. Nos últimos seis anos, Canadá e Estados Unidos desenvolveram novas normas ambientais para as construções, firmas privadas criaram certificados para as construtoras de edifícios sustentáveis e surgiu um serviço marginal de hipotecas “verdes”, que empresta dinheiro sob condições ambientais. Mesmo assim, a porcentagem de prédios ecológicos nesses países não passa dos 10% do total.

No México, o governo patrocina um plano de construção sustentável para setores de baixa renda, gerido pelo setor privado. Assim, foram construídas cerca de cinco mil casas, na maioria entre 40 e 70 metros quadrados, e já quase prontas. Para um país onde a demanda habitacional supera o milhão de unidades por ano –embora somente nos últimos seis tenham sido construídas 500 mil ao ano– o projeto é apenas um pequeno passo. As construções mexicanas devem especialmente reduzir o consumo de eletricidade e água, mas não incluem equipamentos de energia solar nem de tratamento de esgoto, que são os ideais para esse tipo de construção.

“Este é um passo experimental” e visa gerar informação e fatos comprováveis para que seja o mercado “a, finalmente, impor a necessidade de caminhar para as construções sustentáveis”, afirmou Evangelina Hirata, diretora da estatal Comissão Nacional de Fomento à Habitação. Contudo, não é possível garantir que em mais seis anos o México construa todas as casas com características sustentáveis, “o que agora não acontece em nenhuma parte do mundo”, acrescentou.

No dia 29 de março, entrou em vigor na Espanha o Código Técnico de Edificação, que obriga todos os edifícios, que começarem a ser construídos ou reformados a partir dessa data, a incluírem fontes renováveis de energia para o fornecimento de água quente e eletricidade. Pela nova norma, haverá limites para o consumo energético dos prédios em função de suas características, haverá melhor rendimento dos sistemas térmicos e de iluminação e será imposta uma porcentagem obrigatória de fontes limpas: energia solar direta e painéis solares.

Enquanto isso, no México está se plantando uma semente. “Espero que em um ano o sistema financeiro mexicano comece a oferecer hipotecas verdes”, após comprovar que, “de longe”, qualquer construção sustentável é mais barata e benéfica para usuário e comunidade, argumentou Hirata.

Segundo Morillón, construir um prédio sustentável pode chegar a custar de 3% a 20% mais caro do que um edifício tradicional. Mas acredita que o mercado faça baixar os preços quando generalizarem. Isso pode demorar muitos anos, e o tempo é urgente, lamentou. No México, as construções tradicionais têm vida útil de 30 a 40 anos, mas em dez ou 12 anos mais o país pode ficar sem petróleo, o que dificultaria a oferta de energia elétrica para essas edificações.

O tempo também pressiona pelo lado da mudança climática. Se o consumo de combustíveis fósseis e o processo de deterioração ambiental continuarem como estão agora, no final do século a temperatura média do planeta poderá aumentar entre 1,8 e 6,4 graus e o nível do mar subir entre 18 e 59 centímetros, segundo diversas previsões.


* Este artigo é parte de uma série sobre desenvolvimento sustentável produzida em conjunto pela IPS (Inter Press Service) e a IFEJ (Federação Internacional de Jornalistas Ambientais).

......

Nota do editor:

Exemplos nacionais como a SustentaX começam a chamar a arenção: "Os projetos verdes podem ter o mesmo preço de uma construção convencional”, afirma Paola Figueiredo, diretora da Sustentax Engenharia de Sustentabilidade. Ela explica que o gasto com materiais mais caros pode ser reduzido com sistemas de iluminação natural e reaproveitamento de água, que têm custos de manutenção de 30% a 50% menores.

“Hoje, as grandes são líderes na procura, já que a construção verde materializa o discurso de responsabilidade social corporativa”, conta a diretora da Sustentax, que coordena hoje oito empreendimentos verdes, de empresas dos segmentos hoteleiro, médico, varejista e imobiliário.

11 abril 2007

CONSUMO SUSTENTÁVEL

24 de Janeiro de 2007

Preocupação social nas compras
Pesquisa mostra que questões socioambientais pesam na decisão de 51% dos consumidores

As empresas de comércio e serviços preocupadas em ter uma boa imagem junto ao consumidor precisam investir mais em responsabilidade social. Um estudo feito pelo instituto de pesquisas TNS/ InterScience revela que para 51% dos entrevistados , as ações de responsabilidade socioambiental são consideradas itens muito importantes na hora de decidir uma compra.

E esse percentual aumenta junto ao público de maior poder aquisitivo: a responsabilidade social é mencionada por 72% do público de classe A como um item muito importante.

Na pesquisa anterior, de 2005, a responsabilidade social havia sido mencionada por 44% dos entrevistados. "A qualidade dos produtos e o preço continuam sendo diferenciais no momento de decisão de compra, mas outros atributos pesam cada vez mais na imagem da empresa", diz a diretora de Planejamento da TNS/ InterScience, Stella Kochen.

A percepção do consumidor, diz Stella, vem mudando. Atributos que valorizavam a imagem de uma empresa, como atendimento, responsabilidade social e o monitoramento da satisfação do cliente hoje são considerados básicos e imprescindíveis no momento de compra.

A pesquisa com o tema "Empresas que respeitam o consumidor" teve uma amostra de mil entrevistados em São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Recife e Porto Alegre e foi feita para a revista Consumidor Moderno.

O atributo responsabilidade social cresceu em citações como muito importante em relação ao levantamento anterior em todas as cidades pesquisadas, com exceção do Rio, onde registrou queda. No painel geral da pesquisa, a qualidade foi o primeiro atributo mencionado por 61% dos entrevistados, seguido pelo atendimento, com 58% das citações. Entre os entrevistados, 46% consideram o preço muito importante e 45% a propaganda ética, séria e comprometida.

Para Cláudio Felisoni, professor da USP e especialista em varejo, é notório que os consumidores já têm uma percepção mais apurada sobre a responsabilidade social das empresas. "À medida que temos uma sociedade mais bem informada e uma economia relativamente estável, essas preocupações tendem a crescer", avalia. No entanto, Felisoni acredita que esse é um movimento ainda incipiente e que nem sempre se manifesta em mudanças de atitude. "As preocupações mais utilitárias, como preço, acabam pesando mais na hora da compra", diz. "Mas o aumento da percepção deixa para as empresas a mensagem que a responsabilidade social será estratégica."

Marketing
No levantamento também foram mencionadas as empresas em vários setores que se destacam por respeitar o consumidor. "As mais lembradas foram as que investem em publicidade e marketing , já que a avaliação foi com base na imagem que o consumidor tem da empresa e não na sua experiência de compra", diz Stella Kochen.

A Casas Bahia, por exemplo, um grande anunciante, foi lembrada por 66% dos entrevistados na lista de empresas que mais respeitam o consumidor na área de varejo eletrodoméstico. Na área financeira, o Bradesco saiu na frente, apontado por 38% dos entrevistados. "O Bradesco esteve muito presente na mídia com uma campanha forte como patrocinador do Cirque du Soleil, mas também se destacou com uma publicidade voltada para a responsabilidade socioambiental", diz Stella.

Algumas empresas com ações de responsabilidade social e que divulgam intensamente sua participação nessa área ganham destaque na pesquisa, como é o caso da Natura, mencionada por 30% dos entrevistados no segmento de higiene pessoal. Quem freqüentemente faz campanhas ressaltando a importância do consumidor para a companhia também foi lembrado na pesquisa. É o caso da Nestlé, com 24% das citações na lista de empresas que mais respeitam o consumidor.

(Fonte: O Estado de S. Paulo, por Vera Dantas e Andrea Vialli)

Para não dizer que não avisei...

Empresas que ainda não perceberam a revolução do Google, Wikipedia, Web 2.0 e do htmlx que se cuidem. Agora é muito mais fácil, acessível e rápido destruir a imagem de produto e até de uma marca.

02 abril 2007

Organic Food: The Farmer's Conundrum

On a recent trip to Austin, I visited the flagship Whole Foods -- a vast space where people gather en masse to render financial sacrifice to that new god, organic food. From the depths of the parking lot, as you make your way up to the store, you're urged again and again by a sign that simply says, "Love where you shop." From the doe-eyed look of the supplicants making their way up, and the glazed-eyed look of those carrying their treasure down, most clearly do.

While few Whole Foods stores have the buzz of the Austin flagship, that veritable cathedral of gustatory virtue is emblematic of organic food's rising social status. According to the Organic Trade Association's most current figures [PDF], consumer demand for it leapt 16 percent in 2005.

That's a little lower than the 20 percent figure commonly bandied about to describe the market's growth, but it's by no means shabby, considering that the overall U.S. food market grows by just 2 percent to 4 percent per year. It turns out that the $34 billion the food industry drops on marketing every year doesn't inspire people to eat more -- it just gets them to shift around their food dollars from one product to another.

No wonder corporate giants from Wal-Mart to McDonald's are groping for a slice of the organic pie. Generating 16 percent annual growth for a given product normally requires a massive marketing budget; organic foods fly off the shelf just by being labeled as such.

But if consumers are snapping up organics and corporations are scrambling to give them what they want -- if not always exactly what they want -- a funny thing is happening down on the farm: growth in organic acreage isn't coming even close to keeping up with retail-sales growth. That is, existing farms aren't transitioning acres to organic -- and new farms aren't being rolled out -- at nearly the growth rate of organic-food demand.
This is an important point. One of the great motivations of "buying organic" is protecting the land, water, and air from the cascades of poison sprays and artificial fertilizers dumped on farmland each year. Shouldn't booming demand for organic food translate to a proportionate boom in organic land under cultivation?

California Dreams ... and Realities
In the U.S., organic food accounts for [PDF] about 2.5 percent of all food sales. But out in the field, just 0.2 percent of farmland is under organic production. In Europe, by contrast, organic food accounts for a just-higher percentage of all food sales than in the U.S., but organic agriculture is more pervasive -- E.U.-wide, it occupies nearly 4 percent of farmland.

Indeed, New Farm reports that Italy alone, not quite as large in size as New Mexico, has more land in organic agriculture than the entire United States!

Why is organic a more popular concept on our supermarket shelves than in our farm fields? The California Institute for Rural Studies released a study [PDF] recently addressing that very question. It raises some bracing facts. If any state would be expected to boast a bounty of land under organic cultivation, it's California, the nation's fruit and vegetable basket and source of 40 percent of all farm-level U.S. organic produce sales.

But even in California, organic ag represents just 0.63 percent of farmland. Organic acreage did double between 1998 and 2003, but growth has leveled off and acreage now just holds steady. Total acres transitioning into organic are now nearly balanced by the acres transitioning out. Evidently, many farmers aren't making enough money growing organically to remain certified, despite the booming retail market.

One reason could be an import boom. The USDA reports [PDF] that although the U.S. was until recently a net exporter of organic food, "the value of U.S. imports now exceeds exports by a ratio of approximately 8 to 1." The USDA reckoned in 2002 that the country imports between $1 billion and $1.5 billion worth of organics each year. Taking the higher number -- since the willingness to import organic has presumably increased after Wal-Mart jumped into the market -- imports represent a little over 10 percent of total U.S. sales. That's about a dime of every dollar you spend on organic food.

It's not inconceivable that all of that organic streaming in from Mexico and China is lowering organic prices at the farm level, making the transition into organic -- and the prospect of maintaining certification -- less attractive.
Another possible explanation for the dearth of organic acreage arises from looking more closely at how the retail market is growing. Yes, it's growing at a robust 16 percent annual clip overall. But some segments of the market are growing more briskly than others. The Organic Trade Association, breaking down [PDF] the growth rates for each segment of the organic market in 2005, found that growth rates for highly processed foods like "sauces/condiments" (24.2 percent growth) and packaged/prepared foods (19.4 percent) far outstripped the rate for homely old fresh fruits and vegetables (10.9 percent).

What does that tell us? Well, the big processors like Kraft -- which are barreling into organics both by snapping up small independent health-food companies and by rolling out organic versions of established products like ketchup -- wield a lot of clout when it comes to negotiating prices with suppliers. Farmers make a lot more money per pound by selling organic tomatoes at a farmers' market than they can by selling them to Heinz for organic ketchup. But the prospect of big payoffs from grabbing high-volume corporate accounts has inspired many organic farmers to scale up and industrialize as much as possible -- sacrificing some of organic ag's core principles in the process.

The California Institute for Rural Studies documents that trend: California's organic farmers are steadily getting bigger. But that's a losing game. As growth in the fresh-produce market cools and the processed market heats up, the big players will gain more pricing leverage, squeezing organic farming's already razor-thin profit margins. Seen from that view, it's no wonder imports are booming and domestic acreage has leveled off.

The Answer is Growing in the Wind
What, then, is the answer? How can consumers leverage their rising willingness to buy organic to significantly decrease the amount of poisons used in growing food?

One way, of course, is to buy whole food from nearby farmers whose practices you know and trust. A fraction of the cash you drop on organic mac 'n' cheese goes into supporting a conscientious farmer, as opposed to nearly all of the money you spend at the farmers' market or in a community-supported agriculture program.
As for the policy level, consider this: According to the USDA, the U.S. spends about $7 million annually supporting organic agriculture -- and that encompasses research, support for transition, everything. Compare that to the research budget alone for chemical-intensive farming, which stands at over $1 billion per year, to say nothing of the $20 billion or so per year going into commodity supports.

In Europe, the USDA reports, the public sector supports organic farming to the tune of 70 million to 80 million euros per year. If the U.S. wants to make organic agriculture a real environmental asset, not just a marketing tool for corporations, it might have to be more like the Europeans.

Grist staff writer Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina.

Carbon Trading Won’t Work
Published on Sunday, April 1, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times

Experiments with the Market Scheme Favored By Schwarzenegger Shows Trading Favors Big Polluters Without Curbing Global Warming Gases.
by Michael K. Dorsey

Economists, some environmentalists and a growing gaggle of politicians are pushing a grand strategy that a market mechanism — known as “carbon cap and trade” — can rescue us fastest from a climate catastrophe. But early evidence suggests that such a
scheme may be a Faustian bargain.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of the chief proponents of the market view. He has joined the governors of Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona to create the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, which “sets the stage for a regional cap-and-trade program” that he hopes will serve as a model for a national program. The Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect in early 2005 (but which the United States has not signed), also endorses this approach.

Carbon cap and trade works this way: A group of nations (signatories to the Kyoto Protocol) or a group of states (the five Western states in Schwarzenegger’s plan) cap their carbon emissions at a certain level. Then a government agency, such as the European Union or the California Environmental Protection Agency, issues permits to polluting industries that tell them how much carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit over a certain time.

Companies unable to stay under their cap can either buy permits, or “emission credits,” on a trading exchange, which allows them to pollute more, or they will face heavy fines for exceeding their carbon dioxide targets. Firms that are able to come in under their caps can sell their excess credits on the exchange. Thus the right to pollute is a commodity bought and sold in a market.

The idea of trading pollution rights was part of the reauthorized 1990 Clean Air Act. The program successfully reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions, which cause acid rain, largely because the sources were few enough (about 2,000 smokestacks in the Midwest) that they could be monitored effectively and because there was a national system, administered by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, to enforce the legally required limits, or caps.
Carbon trading on a global scale, however, amounts to an untested economic experiment. The most ambitious carbon-trading experiment to date began in the European Union in 2003. About 9,400 large factories and power stations in 21 member states were targeted, and the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme was established to trade pollution rights.

In January 2005, the EU governments distributed carbon credits — permits to pollute — to the companies and power plants. The credits were based in large part on what the firms estimated their annual carbon dioxide emissions would be. Because these credits were given out, not auctioned off, the firms did not pay for their pollution. Yet they stood to make money by selling them.

The EU’s official accounting of the companies’ emissions, released in April 2006, revealed that the companies’ and power plants’ actual emissions came in below estimates. Some said the firms had inflated their earlier emissions estimates, and thus all had credits to sell. This situation produced a surplus.

Once it was known that the number of available permits exceeded demand, prices slumped. Indeed, fear that there are too many permits for sale (combined with concerns about the EU’s regulatory shortcomings) have effectively collapsed the market. A March 2007 report from Deutsche Bank Research noted that “many EU nations are still a long way from delivering on their Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”

Researchers at Open Europe, an economics think tank in Britain, recently issued a report on the experiment. They concluded that the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme represents “botched central planning rather than a real market.” As a result, the report said, carbon trading has not resulted in an overall decline of the EU’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Worse, the early evidence suggested that the trading scheme financially rewarded companies — mainly petroleum, natural gas and electricity generators — that disproportionately emit carbon dioxide. The pollution credits given to the companies by their respective governments were booked as assets to be valued at market prices. After the EU carbon market collapsed, accusations of profiteering were widespread. In fall 2006, a Citigroup report concluded that the continent’s biggest polluters had been the winners, with consumers the losers.

Larry Lohmann, who works with the Corner House, a research organization in Britain, argues that carbon trading is little more than a license for big polluters to carry on business as usual. For instance, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme was further weakened by provisions that allowed big polluters to buy cheap “offset” credits from abroad. A British cement firm or oil company that lacked enough EU permits to keep on polluting could make up the shortfall by buying credits from, say, a wind farm in India or a project to burn landfill gas to generate electricity in Brazil. “Such projects,” Lohmann said, “are merely supplementing fossil fuel … not replacing it.”

These problems may soon infect the cap-and-trade system of the five Western U.S. states. In July 2006, Schwarzenegger and British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced their intention to join together to address global warming, possibly by linking emerging markets for pollution credits in the U.S. with established ones in Europe.

U.S. industry and environmental leaders recently joined together under the catchy name USCAP, for U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Among the participants are Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, General Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The group called for some form of carbon cap and trade, but its reduction targets, in effect, would keep atmospheric carbon dioxide at roughly current levels over the next five years.

The EU experience doesn’t augur well for the effectiveness of a global carbon-cap-and-trade scheme in a world characterized by growing economic inequality and enormous differences in governmental capacity to provide oversight, let alone regulation. The risk is that by the time it’s apparent such a scheme is not working, extreme climate change will already be wreaking havoc.
Michael K. Dorsey is assistant professor on Dartmouth College’s faculty of science, teaches in the environmental studies program.

Climate Report Maps Out ‘Highway to Extinction’

April 1, 2007 at the Associated Press

by Seth Borenstein
WASHINGTON-A key element of the second major report on climate change being released Friday in Belgium is a chart that maps out the effects of global warming, most of them bad, with every degree of temperature rise.There’s one bright spot: A minimal heat rise means more food production in northern regions of the world.

However, the number of species going extinct rises with the heat, as does the number of people who may starve, or face water shortages, or floods, according to the projections in the draft report obtained by The Associated Press

Some scientists are calling this degree-by-degree projection a “highway to extinction.”
It’s likely to be the source of sharp closed-door debate, some scientists say, along with a multitude of other issues in the 20-chapter draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While the wording in the draft is almost guaranteed to change at this week’s meeting in Brussels, several scientists say the focus won’t.

The final document will be the product of a United Nations network of 2,000 scientists as authors and reviewers, along with representatives of more than 120 governments as last-minute editors. It will be the second volume of a four-volume authoritative assessment of the Earth’s climate being released this year. The last such effort was in 2001.

Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist with the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said the chart of results from various temperature levels is “a highway to extinction, but on this highway there are many turnoffs. This is showing you where the road is heading. The road is heading toward extinction.”

Weaver is one of the lead authors of the first report, issued in February.
While humanity will survive, hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people may not, according to the chart - if the worst scenarios happen.

The report says global warming has already degraded conditions for many species, coastal areas and poor people. With a more than 90 per cent level of confidence, the scientists in the draft report say man-made global warming “over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems.”

But as the world’s average temperature warms from 1990 levels, the projections get more dire. Add 1C and between 400 million and 1.7 billion extra people can’t get enough water, some infectious diseases and allergenic pollens rise, and some amphibians go extinct. But the world’s food supply, especially in northern areas, could increase. That’s the likely outcome around 2020, according to the draft.

Add another 1.8 degrees and as many as 2 billion people could be without water and about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the world’s species near extinction. Also, more people start dying because of malnutrition, disease, heat waves, floods and droughts - all caused by global warming. That would happen around 2050, depending on the level of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

At the extreme end of the projections, a 7- to 9-degree average temperature increase, the chart predicts: “Up to one-fifth of the world population affected by increased flood events” … “1.1 to 3.2 billion people with increased water scarcity” … “major extinctions around the globe.”
Despite that dire outlook, several scientists involved in the process say they are optimistic that such a drastic temperature rise won’t happen because people will reduce carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

“The worst stuff is not going to happen because we can’t be that stupid,” said Harvard University oceanographer James McCarthy, who was a top author of the 2001 version of this report.