News feeds

Bloglines, Google Reader, My MSN, Netvibes, Newsburst
Newsgator, Odeo, Podnova, Rojo, My Yahoo!, Desktop Reader

•  Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Update for January 31st – February 2nd, 2012 03 Feb 2012, 17:21

  (This post is by Christine McCann)

  Here’s the latest of our news bulletins from the ongoing crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

  State of Nuclear Politics in Japan

  Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that his country’s dependence on nuclear power should be reduced to the “maximum extent.” Noda made the remarks during a policy address to the Diet last week.
  
  Japan has approved a bill to create a new government entity, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA), which will oversee nuclear power, manage nuclear disasters, and monitor the health of those affected by radiation from said disasters. The new agency will absorb the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). The new law is expected to go into effect in April. The Cabinet also approved a second bill, which will limit the life of reactors to 40 years, although operators can apply for 20-year extensions.
  
  Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have endorsed stress tests conducted by NISA on reactors #3 and #4 at Kansai Electric’s Oi plant in Fukui prefecture. However, the IAEA team made several suggestions for improvement in NISA’s process, including communicating more effectively with local residents, establishing a safety margin, and addressing severe nuclear accidents “more comprehensively.” IAEA spokesman Greg Webb noted that the IAEA inspection does not guarantee reactor safety: “Nuclear safety is a national responsibility in any country. No country has asked the IAEA to be a safety watchdog. We don’t conduct nuclear safety inspections.”
   
  NISA has proposed a new set of 30 safety guidelines for nuclear plants. If approved, operators would be required to provide backup sources of power, waterproof cooling facilities, upgrade communication systems, and separate ventilation piping from other equipment, among other safeguards. The newly created Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA) would oversee the process.
   
  Vitrification tests at the Rokkasho nuclear reprocessing plant in Aomori Prefecture failed this week, dealing a serious blow to Japan’s nuclear fuel cycle policy. Vitrification involves mixing molten glass with highly radioactive liquid nuclear waste, in order to store it more effectively. However, tests resulted in a blocked furnace at the plant, as well as the unexpected production of unidentified black particles. Rokkasho officials have no prospect of immediately fixing the malfunction. The plant has continued to encounter problems since testing began there in 2008, and this most recent issue is expected to spur a review of Japan’s nuclear policy.
   
  Wolfgang Weiss, the Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said that massive evacuations and the fact that 80% of the nuclear fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster landed in the ocean have contributed to lower radiation impact on human health. Weiss did not address the impact of radiation on seafood and possible effects on the food chain, nor did he discuss long-term effects of low-level radiation, which are still being studied. The group will publish a preliminary report in May, and a final report in 2013.
  
  The IAEA said it is still considering whether to open an office in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture, contradicting earlier reports that its Director General, Yukiya Amano, said that the Agency would establish an office there.
  
  Meanwhile, Japan has reportedly asked the IAEA’s Response and Assistance Network to add a new assistance category, which would cover bringing nuclear disasters under control.
  
  TEPCO
  

  TEPCO President Toshio Nishizawa said the utility will reconsider a planned 17% rate hike for businesses, after government officials and business leaders pressured the utility to do so—but any reduction in the new fee is expected to be very small. The company is also pushing for a 10% rate increase for residential users, but by law, the government is required to approve such a change.
  
  Reactor Status
  

  TEPCO has admitted yet another leak of radioactive water at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, after announcing 16 additional leaks earlier this week. Officials initially said that 6 liters of water had leaked from reactor 4, but later conceded that the amount was actually more than 8 tons. The water’s radiation level was measured at 35,500 Bq/liter. TEPCO is unclear about whether the leak was a result of cracks in piping from recent cold weather or from hydrogen explosions that occurred last March.
   
  NISA officials have discovered that pipes and other structures at reactor 5 at the Fukushima Daiichi plant do not meet seismic safety standards established in 2006. Although visible damage from the March earthquake is not evident, NISA plans to conduct more extensive inspections. Officials are trying to determine the extent of earthquake damage to reactors 1 - 3, but first checked 5 because radiation levels are lower there, and it’s more accessible. TEPCO continues to insist that the reactors suffered no damage from the earthquake, and the tsunami was the cause of the meltdowns.
   
  Contamination (Includes Economic Impact and Human Exposure)
  

  The Japan Dairy Industry Association said that it will publicize results of radiation tests on milk and milk products from 17 prefectures at the end of February. Dairy producers Meiji Co., Megmilk Snow Brand, and Morinaga are members of the association and will participate in the tests, which are designed to reassure the public of product safety.
  
  Decontamination
  

  Farmers in Fukushima Prefecture are criticizing a decision by the Environment Ministry to only extend decontamination subsidies if at least 30 cm of surface soil is replaced with subsoil and plowed by special large machines. Farmers say that many rice paddies are too small to accommodate the huge equipment. Fukushima government officials will petition the Ministry to underwrite the costs of zeolite, a substance that absorbs radioactivity, even if the large equipment is not used.
  
  The Environment Ministry will conduct pilot decontamination tests over the next several months on a highway running through the no-entry zone in Fukushima Prefecture. Radiation measurements on the highway vary from low-level to more than 50 millisieverts per year. Effectiveness of the decontamination methods will be assessed in July.
  
  Other Nuclear News
  

  The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said new seismic studies reveal that 96 nuclear plants in the eastern and central United States may be at risk from earthquakes exceeding their design capacity, based on previously uncataloged data. The discovery, which was prompted by the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant after last year’s massive earthquake and tsunami, could result in major and costly upgrades to the nation’s plants. The NRC is allowing nuclear plant operators four years to assess whether or not their reactors can withstand earthquakes based on the new data; presumably, even more time will then be allotted for upgrades. Experts, who say the delay is too long and could put the country at risk for a massive nuclear disaster, are harshly criticizing the decision. Dave Lochbaum, Director of Nuclear Safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists said, “The NRC does not need a new model; it needs a new spine.”
  
  Significant amounts of unusual wear have been discovered on tubes that carry radioactive water at Unit 2 of Southern California Edison’s San Onofre nuclear plant. The reactor was shut down earlier this week when one of the tubes was discovered to be leaking radiation, and plant officials admitted that a small amount might have escaped into the atmosphere. Some tube walls were eroded by as much as 30%. The erosion is significant because the tubes, which are manufactured by Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy, were just replaced in 2009. Former NRC engineer Joram Hopenfeld, who is now retired, said, “The safety implications could be very, very severe.” Officials at Southern California Edison are still trying to determine the cause of the problem.
  
  France’s Court of Audit has declared that the country must extend the lifespan of its already aging reactors, because failure to invest in new reactors or alternate forms of energy has threatened the country’s power supply. Sophia Majnoni, Nuclear Campaigner at Greenpeace France, criticized the move, which could put the population’s safety at risk. The country’s Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) “is the only authority entitled to decide whether to extend the lifespan of reactors,” Majnoni added. France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear power, more than any other country.

  

  

•  Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Mixed Bag 03 Feb 2012, 16:03

  

  With this year’s United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development meeting – also known as “Rio+20” – fast approaching, Greenpeace senior political advisor Pat Lerner takes an in-depth look at the UNSG’s High Level Panel report on Global Sustainability "Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing": 

  It had been billed ahead of time as “a second Brundtland Report [1]”, designed to be visionary and describe a future 20 years from now, “a future worth choosing.” Its mandate was clearly recognized: “efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other social and economic targets are hampered by the inability to agree on decisive and coordinated action in national and multilateral fora.”   Yet in the end the politicians did what they always do – they kicked the tough issues down the road for someone else to deal with and bowed to what they thought could get agreed.  No wonder there’s a leadership vacuum.

  Don’t get me wrong.  There are some good ideas in the recently released report by the UNSG’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability “Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing”.  But it’s clear the usual sort of unseemly dickering and trade-offs we are familiar with in climate negotiations took place among the Panel, as those involved headed towards compromises.  They heard us calling for greater urgency so the words are there, but the recommendations have been watered down with dates that clearly don’t reflect the urgency merited by our oceans, forests and climate.  But then we shouldn’t be surprised as it’s the very same individuals negotiating our planet’s fate.

  The Resilient People report and its recommendations are a bit of a mixed bag.  Bravo for calling to “phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse subsidies by 2020”. The G20 pledged to do so in October 2009, as did APEC a month later – that’s 53 countries.  More recently, the IEA warned of the dangers of further delay, saying in effect that we could finally have a level playing field for alternatives to fossil fuels if the $400 billion per year of hand outs were phased out.  You would think this would be a “no brainer” for leaders said to be obsessed with eliminating public deficits.  First rule of thumb when you’re in a hole – stop digging!  So what, and who, is holding them back?  You heard us say it in Durban and you’ll hear us say it in Rio – “listen to the people, not the polluters!”

  We are pleased the Panel sees oceans as “crucial for humanity’s future”, because of the contributions they make to livelihoods, food security and the environmental services they provide.  The report highlights the decline of marine environment, particularly over the past two decades.  It is clear that a radical overhaul is needed for that management of our oceans; we simply can’t continue with a business-as-usual approach that will surely lead to a social, economic and environmental disaster.  So why such weak recommendations, which fail to address the issue of overcapacity in the fisheries sector, as well as the simple reality of too many big boats chasing too few fish? There is no sense of urgency for action; we cannot agree to an approach that merely tinkers at the margins and signs a death warrant for the oceans.  Fortunately, the zero draft of the Rio outcome is spot-on in calling for a new UN implementing agreement that would give a clearer framework for cooperation on marine conservation and sustainable management. Conserving 20-30% of the global oceans in marine protected areas could create a million jobs, and avoid the destruction of the livelihoods of the millions of people who depend on marine resources.

  The Resilient People report is somewhat contradictory on food and agriculture and some of its recommendations run the risk of being counter-productive.  The call for an “ever-green revolution in agriculture” brings back memories of the first green revolution, which was based on intensive use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, hybrid seeds and irrigation water, with disastrous results for diversity of native crop varieties, soil health, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions and long-term food security.  Governments must be clear about what is needed; not simply greater resource use efficiency, but a dramatic reorientation of agricultural systems away from chemical farming and towards low external input, ecological farming methods which work with, not against nature.

  Speaking of biodiversity, where, oh where are forests and biodiversity in the Resilient People report?  We need commitment by all countries and companies to immediately eliminate the subsidies and industrial demand-side drivers of deforestation and forest degradation so we can achieve zero deforestation by 2020. The world completely missed the biodiversity target agreed to in 2002, “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss.”   I guess the Panel didn’t want to dwell on targets missed when voluntary, bottom-up approaches are still thought useful.  The real question is whether those approaches remain sufficient for the scale of the challenges we face.  The Panel’s recommendation for Governments to adopt “whole-of-government approaches to sustainable development issues, under the leadership of the Head of State or Government” suggests they understand the crisis dimensions of the planet’s future as this approach is typically used in conflict and post-conflict situations.  But this is easier said than done, and it’s hard to see how the issues will really surface to the top of the pile, unless strengthening UNEP really means giving it specialized agency status.

  In terms of what needs to be done to catalyse a socially just, green economy, the Resilient People report is correct in calling on Governments, international financial institutions, major companies and small and medium enterprises to do their parts in mandating, incentivizing, adopting and diffusing sustainable business practices, which move beyond the short-term and embrace longer term investment horizons. The toolbox includes mechanisms that can be implemented right away, such as removal of dirty subsidies and redirecting those revenues for sustainable investments; establishing full-cost pricing for negative externalities like taxes or emission trading schemes for fossil fuels; reviewing investors’ fiduciary responsibilities which prevent many large investors from longer-term thinking and sustainable investments; and building investor confidence through stable long-term policy frameworks, such as renewable energy targets, and through public financing instruments, risk-sharing, and advance purchase commitments (such as feed-in tariffs) to bridge the viability gap in funding. These are all recommendations governments should take on board for immediate implementation.  That said, the panel wimps out when it comes to corporate accountability. While mandatory sustainability reporting would provide investors, policymakers and citizens with improved information, and would represent a step forward from the current state of pure voluntarism, it simply isn’t enough. We need governments to fulfill the promise they made in Johannesburg ten years ago and deliver clear and binding rules on global corporations. Governments must establish full accountability and liability for any social or environmental damage caused by multinational corporations.

  The Panel recommends that “Governments should agree to develop a set of key universal sustainable development goals, covering all three dimensions of sustainable development as well as their interconnections. “ We welcome this recommendation, but think the timeline needs to be accelerated. The responses to sustainability must reflect at least the same level of urgency and seriousness as the responses to the economic and financial crises.  Agreeing on aspirational, long-term SDGs by 2015, which are set for 2030, would simply not achieve this response. The focus needs to be on the next ten years, as choices made within this period will be crucial for preventing catastrophic climate change, saving our oceans and protecting remaining natural forests -- all of which are fundamental for human development and well-being. The time-horizon for SDGs should be no longer than two election periods at most, 2020, to ensure immediate implementation and avoid gaps in political commitment. The SDG process must guarantee the full implementation and follow-up of the MDGs.

  The Resilient People report suggests “to achieve sustainability, a transformation of the global economy is required.  Tinkering at the edges will not do the job.”  We agree, but find the report' unconvincing in its recommendations.  It’s as though the authors lost the courage of their convictions somewhere along the way.  The upshot looks like “tinkering at the edges”, which simply isn’t enough to save the only planet we call home.

  Read more: The "Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing" report

  Pat Lerner is a senior political advisor for Greenpeace International. Written with input from Nathalie Rey, Susanne Breitkopf, Julian Oram, Kaisa Kosonen, Sofia Tsenikli, Sebastian Losada, Mario Ferro and Roman Czebiniak

  Notes:

  [1] Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was published in 1987. Its targets were multilateralism and interdependence of nations in the search for a sustainable development path. The report sought to recapture the spirit of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment - the Stockholm Conference - which had introduced environmental concerns to the formal political development sphere. Our Common Future placed environmental issues firmly on the political agenda; it aimed to discuss the environment and development as one single issue.

  The publication of Our Common Future and the work of the World Commission on Environment and Development laid the groundwork for the convening of the 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration and to the establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

  An oft-quoted definition of sustainable development is defined in the report as:

  "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

  In addition, key contributions of Our Common Future to the concept of sustainable development include the recognition that the many crises facing the planet are interlocking crises that are elements of a single crisis of the whole ^[1] and of the vital need for the active participation of all sectors of society in consultation and decisions relating to sustainable development.

  Our Common Future is also known as the Brundtland Report in recognition of Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland’s  role as Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development.

  [2] 2010 estimate, from the World Energy Outlook

  

  

•  Brazilian forest code: the battle continues 03 Feb 2012, 15:00

  

  At the end of 2011, before government officials closed up shop for the holidays, President Dilma demanded final approval on the new Forest Code in Brazil. This new proposal condemns the Brazilian forests and is a deal between government and agribusiness that was made in back rooms and secret meetings. But strong public pressure against the dangerous new code and a lack of consensus inside the Congress prevailed and the final vote was left to 2012.

  The Brazilian Congress returned to work yesterday, and the stage is set for the battle for the Amazon to resume.

  Please take action: Tell Dilma to stop the new Forest Code 

  Raw HTML.. 

  The new Code is on the agenda of the Chamber of Deputies to be voted on March 6th, but it could be delayed again, because some deputies are not happy with the text approved by the Senate, as it reduces the benefits earned by ruralists, including the powerful agribusiness sector. The deputies have the last say in the voting before the new law goes to President Dilma's signature and will probably propose a new version of the Forest Code that better fits their needs.

  Unfortunately, this outcome would mean that the new Forest Code proposal finally approved by the Senate could get even worse.

  But that isn’t everything; the Brazilian Congress is under serious pressure to vote on the new Code as soon as possible to avoid the world’s gaze as the debate moves closer to the upcoming UN conference on Sustainable Development in Rio this June. If the vote is delayed again, it could mean that President Dilma will be caught passing a law dismantling forest protection just as she is inviting world leaders to Brazil under the guise of saving the planet.
  At this point, only President Dilma can put a stop to the proposed law - the new Forest Code - that could destroy the Amazon.

  Tatiana Carvalho is a Greenpeace Amazon Campaigner. Photo: Greenpeace activists at the COP 17 in Durban, dressed as trees protesting the proposed Brazilian Forest Code.

  

  

•  Davos failed to address fundamentals – will the next Earth Summit in Rio? 02 Feb 2012, 18:17

  

  At the World Economics Forum in Davos last week, no one was denying that we face serious economic, social and environmental crises. When even the Financial Times runs a series of articles on "Capitalism in crisis", it´s obvious that it’s not just the "Occupy WEF" protesters, who I joined in their igloos outside the meeting, that are asking fundamental questions about how we do business.

  What Davos failed to do, however, is provide adequate answers. The talk was mainly about symptoms, not the core of the problem. No question, issues such as the size of the Euro firewall or bankers’ bonuses are important. But if we are to deliver an economy that brings prosperity for all - without destroying the planet, we need to achieve a much more fundamental change than putting together few hundred extra millions for a firewall, or a little less greed by the 1%. When I suggested fundamental changes, such as making corporations liable for their impacts on society and the environment, the reaction was often a nervous laugh. 

  While I was freezing in snowy Davos, the Brazilian President Dilma was at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre calling for the fostering of  "new model" of development that can be discussed at this June´s Rio Earth Summit. Greenpeace has some concrete proposals on how governments could use the Rio meeting to change course and not simply acknowledge the crises we face, as is happening in Davos. The Earth Summit should, for example, agree on strong regulation of financial markets, including a Financial Transaction Tax, agree the end of environmentally and socially harmful subsidies, and commit to sustainable energy for all and zero deforestation by 2020.

  But if President Dilma wants to lead the world in a great transformation, she first has to put her own house in order. Unless she vetoes it, Brazil will soon adopt changes to its the Forest Code, the main law in Brazil that protects the forests, that would allow an amnesty for past forest crimes and lead to an increase in deforestation. This is unacceptable. If Brazil wants to credibly discuss “new models” of development at the Earth Summit in June, it must urgently commit to a new model of sustainable prosperity based on zero deforestation. It can be done. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has declined year on year and in 2011 reached its lowest ever level. But unless Dilma acts, Brazil will be the nation that showed that deforestation could be halted, but failed to do so, in order to cater to short-term special interests. Unless she vetos the Forest Code changes, President Dilma will have as little credibility to talk of fundamental change as the “Davos Man” come June.

  The warm climate of Rio will certainly suit me better than the mountains of snow in Davos. But will I leave Rio with more hope that the fundamental changes we need can finally be implemented?

  Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International

  Photograph courtesy of Occupy WorldEconomicForum 

  

  

•  End of the road for dirty biofuels 02 Feb 2012, 16:57

  
  "Palm oil-diesel. Extinction and climate disaster."

  It’s been a bad few weeks for biofuels produced from food crops: first, the US Environmental Protection Agency said that biodiesel made from palm oil will not count towards the country’s renewable fuels mandate because they are damaging to the climate. Rainforest is destroyed and carbon-rich peatland drained in the production of palm oil and this destruction is a large source of greenhouse gas emissions which cause climate change. In the same week, figures from the EU were leaked showing that greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels produced from palm oil, soybean and rapeseed are higher than those for conventional fossil fuels, like oil, when their indirect effects are taken into account.

  According to the EU study, the CO2 emissions of these biofuels could even be compared to those derived from Canada’s tar sands, usually referred to as the world’s dirtiest fuel. In 2009, the EU ruled that renewable energy sources such as biofuels should make up 10% of Europe’s transportation energy mix by 2020. But the legislation failed to take into account the indirect land use changes which are caused by biofuels: when existing agricultural land is taken up to produce crops for biofuels, then more land is needed to produce food or animal feed, causing environmental destruction such as deforestation.

  This spring will be decisive for the future of biofuels: will the EU and the US choose a truly sustainable path for the transport sector or will they continue to support dirty biofuels that actually make things worse? Take soy, which has turned large swathes of Argentina into one vast monoculture, causing deforestation, displacement of people and pollution of water resources because of the intensive use of herbicides. In spite of this, Argentinian soy is still accepted by the EU as a ‘climate-saving’ biofuel. Indonesia and Malaysia are also preparing major expansions of palm oil plantations in order to cater for increasing EU biofuel demand. And in 2011, Finnish energy company Neste Oil opened its latest massive biodiesel refineries, in Rotterdam, Netherlands - which makes the company potentially the biggest palm oil buyer in the world. Neste Oil won the Public Eye Award as the worst company of 2011 for its production of biodiesel from palm oil that comes from destroyed rainforest in Southeast Asia.
  

  We have precious little time left to save the world from a climate crisis. EU and US policymakers have lost time by promoting unsustainable biofuels. Policymakers over-estimated the contribution of biofuels in the fight against climate change in order to support their powerful agri-business lobbies.

  As a result we risk being locked into an infrastructure and the corresponding economic and lobby power of an unsustainable biofuels sector. With mounting evidence of the disastrous environmental and social impact of dirty biofuels, governments must recognise that they were wrong to put all their eggs in one basket – and take action.

  Priority should be given to energy saving measures: supporting the production of lighter and smaller cars with more efficient engines, developing public transport and rail transport  (powered with renewables) and reducing overall transport demand. Investments should go into truly sustainable biofuels, such as those produced from waste, which do not require the use of land. Greenpeace will continue to fight for sustainable climate policies, which do not come at the expense of tropical forests and support sustainable agricultural practices.

  Kees is a forest campaigner at Greenpeace Netherlands – follow him on Twitter @keeskodde_GP