This weekend was abuzz with talks of a looming Durban Mandate that would be crystallised as one of the outcomes of the Climate talks.  As delegates try to make sense of the unfolding drama there are strong indications that the talks will end with a political declaration that would essentially lock the world into inaction over the next decade.

It was for precisely this reason that more than ten thousand people took to the streets of Durban on Saturday, 3 December 2011, to demonstrate civil society’s determination for a common goal: climate justice. Protesters from across the world marched, sang, danced and displayed disdain towards the polluters’ unwillingness to recognise that there is no “planet B.”

One of the groups that stood out in the march was the Waste Pickers Association. They see themselves as key actors in the fight against global warming as they engage in rubbish sorting, recycling and reuse. Their clarion call was that their towns should not be incinerated, a direct reflection of their demand for the halting of polluting rubbish incineration. They are  a growing workforce with full official recognition in South Africa.

During a stop on the march outside the climate talks venue, the president of the Conference of Parties (COP), Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, was addressed by representatives from various groups including Friends of Earth International.

Speakers  made strong calls for negotiators and governments to realise that the COP was not meant to be a Conference of Polluters but one to take real action to combat a planetary crisis.   I spoke on behalf of African civil society and  underscored the fact that Africa was a crime scene and it would be unacceptable for politicians meeting in Africa would agree on a deal that would cook the continent.

The COP president assured the marchers that she will ensure that talks are transparent and inclusive and that the voices of the people would be heard. That promise however, did not align with information emanating from the meeting halls as well as ongoing private consultations.

Since the second week of the talks began, ministers of environment are arriving and the politics of climate change get thicker. Indications are that developed nations are still unwilling to commit to anything that requires compliance in terms of emissions reduction and will make sure that Durban’s outcome will practically be hollow and devoid of substance.  At the same time, the climate politicians are keen on spinning that outcome as progress in the right direction.

The substance of any truly progressive outcome would have to acknowledge the Kyoto Protocol, pledge to work on it and promise a binding agreement for another commitment period by say 2020.

Meanwhile, the inadequate system of voluntary and non-binding pledges cooked up at the two previous round of UN talks – Copenhagen and Cancún – is likely to take over.

Analysts believe that the pledges made by the developed polluting countries since the Cancún summit would place the world on the road to a 5ºC temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. If that happens, Africa will experience a temperature rise of between 7ºC and 8ºC.

Analysts have also shown that developing countries have made higher pledges than developed nations, those responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions historically and thus the most responsible for climate change.

However, developed nations in Durban insist that ‘growing economies’ – particularly Brazil, South Africa, India and China – are not doing enough.

The Unites States –the largest historical contributor of greenhouse gases – is one of the countries flying this kite while not making any real commitment to cut its emissions.

The alarm bells are already ringing on the continent of Africa and the Small Island States.  Experts believe that even a two degrees temperature rise Africa would face cataclysmic impacts in terms of water stress, desertification, droughts, floods, coastal erosion and major crop failures. With already visible impacts on the continent, Africa is becoming a climate crime scene.

Agreeing to a so-called Durban Mandate will negate years of negotiations, avoid reaching agreement on a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and will launch these negotiators into a new round of dithering and fiddling while the planet burns.

The Law of Ukraine “On the management of spent nuclear fuel” was adopted by Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy in the first hearing.

Pavlo Khazan

Pavlo Khazan, vice chair of the Green Party of Ukraine, commenting of new plans of Ukrainian government said: “The Green Party of Ukraine is strongly against the construction of nuclear storage in Kyiv region and considers unacceptable the fact that all required accompanying notes to the law are missing. We sure that functioning of the nuclear waste repository won’t improve the radiological situation in the exclusion zone of Chernobyl NPP. Any activity, if it doesn’t ensure the regime of radiation safety, is prohibited in this zone. Moreover construction of storage needs the demolition of 8.6 hectares of pines in the exclusion zone. All health experts show, that the rate of leukemia and cancer among people, who live near the nuclear objects, are 3 times higher, than on the other territories. Scientists predict that in one year cancer will be the main death cause through the whole world. According to the official data annually almost 165 thousand cases of cancer are registered in Ukraine. Doctors predict that by 2020 the number of cases annually will increase to 200 thousand.”

Green politician warning that the question of nuclear waste handling is incredible important. Now it is solved hidden, without a public discussion organized and obligatory state ecological expertise, without proper technical conclusions and analysis of possible consequences. Also there is no information about feasibility study, state expertise conclusions and report on repository’s impact on the neighbouring countries.

“I would like to remind to MPs, President and Prime-minister that we always have been protesting the usage of the nuclear power all over the world. We already protested in 2009 and 2010 against the bill 5050 which was scheduled for 17 December 2010. We have sent 450 letter to deputies, we organised direct actions at the Parliament. I would like to remind to Ukrainian governmental top-managers that Ukrainians suffered a lot after the Chernobyl disaster. According to our figures, about 900 000 people died from the explosion and the disaster affected more than 5 million people. We stress on the need to provide energy needs through sustainable energy usage and energy saving. Building of new nuclear power facilities should be stopped. Energy supply should be based on alternative, environmentally friendly and non-nuclear plants. Construction of spent nuclear fuel storage will have complicated social and economic, environmental consequences and will not solve the problem. Moreover the cost will be only doubled. In 50 years period the contents of spent fuel assembly in these containers might be re-disposed, their reprocessing is very expensive and dangerous. We are strongly against the construction of this nuclear storage and will fight against as we can. Don’t allow build nuclear burial ground in Ukraine!”, – said Pavlo Khazan.

Rebecca Harms

Commenting on the ruling against former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko,Greens/EFA  co-president Rebecca Harms and Green MEP Werner Schulz said:

Werner Schulz

“This politically-motivated ruling is a backwards step for the rule of law in the Ukraine and a blow to EU-Ukraine rapprochement. Nobody should be under any illusions that this court case was designed to scupper the prospects of the political opposition in the Ukraine ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections. Even if the ruling is subsequently overturned, this episode has damaged the credibility of the Ukrainian government.

While the Greens are in favour of concluding an EU-Ukraine association agreement, guaranteeing the rule of law and making democratic progress is

a recondition for this. Today’s ruling is clearly a blow to this end.”

Pavlo Khazan

Pavlo Khazan, vice chair of the Green Party of Ukraine commenting of the courts decision said:

“The courts decision was made despite the enormous pressure by European politicians put on Ukrainian government, parliament and the president. It was clear that a prison sentence for former prime-minister would give them big troubles to Ukraine’s aspirations to get closer to the EU, in particular to sign a free-trade and association agreement with the EU later this year.

Unfortunately we see that the Ukrainian president, government and the Parliament are ruled by the Party of Regions with the majority in legislative and executive bodies and courts. They cannot give guarantee to Ukrainians of defence their constitutional rights. That is why the state politics depends on personal ambitions of Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians more and more and becomes no longer constitutional.”

This article originally appeared on the BSR Blog.

The reaction to Steve Jobs’ death on Twitter last night was fast and furious. So much has already been written about his vision, his genius, and the way he changed how we all think about interacting through devices designed in a simple, elegant style.

The world is undoubtedly worse off without his ideas, but the spirit he generated — at Apple, NeXT, Pixar, and beyond — is strong and will likely lead us forward, expecting new and better things from our technology companies every day.

Watching the dialogue evolve online, the Twittersphere — no doubt dominated by technophiles — responded with shock, then appreciation, a heartfelt outpouring for the wife and children he leaves behind, and a review of his legacy.

As Dave Roberts (@drgrist) alluded to with this tweet, “Jobs perfected front-end design. Now we need designers to work on the back end, the substrate, the supply chain, the hidden,” there has been a deeper, on-going conversation of late about the sustainability of technology products that are such a big part of our lives.

The recent public dialogue about technology manufacturing has shed some light on the complexities of making the beautiful, ever-changing, and innovative technologies we all want — while striving to maintain a price that is considered “affordable.” It has also highlighted the need for more sustainable solutions to combat the rapid obsolescence of the technologies developed.

I’ve spent time in China at the Foxconn facility, and with many electronics companies, active NGOs, and my colleagues at BSR as we have dissected the ICT supply chain and looked for ways to collaborate, influence, and change what is a complex set of demands, expectations, and cultural differences in the creation of many products. This ever-evolving conversation and commitment to incremental improvement is challenging but incredibly necessary to generate new ideas around responsible practices — both in how business operates but also what consumers want, expect, and most importantly, purchase.

Steve Jobs is often quoted as saying “stay hungry, stay foolish,” which, in his original Stanford commencement speech, is interestingly enough attributed to a quote he saw on the back of a Whole Earth Catalog.

But he also said in that same speech, “Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.”

If, in respecting his legacy, we take that advice and apply it to our conversations on supply chain, workers’ rights, and business impacts globally — for the electronics industry or any industry that impacts communities — we will all be better off.

It is not news that the manufacturing of our beloved devices (“i-” or otherwise) come with complications and questions. These tools also keep us connected and increased the speed of information, and, in a sense, shortened the real and proverbial distance between the workers who manufacture and the users.

Working on the substrate is not the sexy work of design but could serve to change the fundamentals of our experience as users and consumers of technology. At BSR, we work with companies who are able to sail fearlessly into the future, tackling unanticipated challenges and engaging broadly where no solutions exist today.

Jobs was a master at this, creating and fulfilling needs we did not even know we had. The possibilities presented by harnessing this type of power and intellect inspired by him — and directing it toward a sustainable future — are endless. Let us be inspired to apply the fantastic creative thinking on innovation and design that he championed to the sustainability challenges we see, inevitably creating a more elegant — and equitable — world.

Image courtesy of Apple.

YOUR ELECTRIC CAR: GREEN EMERGENCY POWER?
by Bruce Mulliken, Green Energy News

Here are some quick questions perhaps some economists can answer. How much personal or business income is lost, and not recovered, each year because of bad weather? How much business productivity is lost when inclement weather keeps employees at home instead of work? How much money do businesses lose each year when the weather-related events, such as power outages, keep doors closed.

In the tens of billions of dollars? More?

The loss of electricity is probably high on the list of reasons people can’t get to work and businesses can’t open their doors. It seems ridiculous that there should be disruptions to peoples’ lives and the operations of businesses because nature, or man, has caused the lights to go out.

Everyone could use some kind of back-up or emergency power. The choices now are minimal: fossil fuel powered generators or big battery packs are about it. But now in new car showrooms there’s a new possibility: Electric vehicles. The battery pack of an electric car or plug-in hybrid, or the power generating capability of an extended range electric car could be a source of emergency power.

I’m not going to count the kilowatts and kilowatt hours for this story to illustrate that this idea is feasible. A refrigerator, for instance, requires a fraction of electricity each hour compared with the electricity needed to propel an electric car for an hour. There’s plenty of power stored in a battery electric Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus Electric, Ford Transit Connect Electric etc, etc, to provide the necessary power for an average home or micro-business for many, many hours. (Necessary power might mean running the fridge and some lights.)

While a fully-charged battery electric car would be a GOOD source of emergency electricity, an extend range electric vehicle, such as the Chevy Volt, would be GREAT source of emergency power. With the Voltec drivetrain technology, the Volt with its built-in gasoline-powered generator (its genset) has enough power generating capacity to power a cluster of homes or small businesses for many hours, and with refueling, provide power indefinitely. The battery pack in the car would provide a long period of emission free electricity as well.

Consider this to illustrate the electricity generating capacity of the Volt: A typical gasoline generator with an output of 5500 watts employed to run some lights, a sump pump and a refrigerator might have a gasoline motor of 8 -13 horsepower. The Volt has a gasoline motor of 74 horsepower driving its genset.

Currently, NO car manufacturer has suggested that their electrically-driven cars could be used for emergency or back-up power. Yet some vehicle manufacturers in the recent past have worked with some power companies in real world vehicle-to-grid (V2G) studies to prove that electric and hybrid vehicle batteries can store energy for use on the grid. So, if electricity from a big battery pack can flow to the power grid, it could certainly flow directly to a home or business.

Some modifications might have to made to both vehicle and home or business to allow the vehicle to be this source of power. For instance on the building side of the electrical connection a modification of the home or business’s electrical panel box would have to be made to be able to switch between car-power and grid power. Pure battery electric vehicles might also need some kind of limiter to control the amount of electricity drawn from the vehicle so as not to draw too much power from the battery and damage it. In the case of the extended range electric vehicle, such as the Volt, some device would also have to be developed to prevent the vehicle from being tapped for electricity while parked in a garage. Because of the exhaust from the running genset, the car would have to parked far away from the house or building connected to it. (Carbon monoxide from the car could kill if it’s run in a closed area.)

As in the vehicle-to-grid studies, the connection from car to building could be through the charging outlet on the car and charging station planted in the building. Electric vehicle owners would have to vigilant about keeping the car fully charge if bad weather is forecast.

More than home or business owners wanting emergency power, there would some support for the development of this technology from insurance companies that pay claims on damage resulting from natural disaster-related power outages.

The ability to provide ample stored electricity to a home or business might be a good reason for many to make the switch to electric drive.

New markets electrically driven vehicles might also develop if the power on board could be tapped for other purposes. As a source of emergency mobile electricity the cars might be popular with law enforcement agencies, fire departments or first responders who need to bring onsite power to emergencies.

Having plenty power available when the grid is down can’t help but peoples’ economies in a country that relies so much on the flow of energy.

http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2011/20110067.html