sexta-feira, 26 de março de 2010
How to Manifest Your Desires With the Power of Thought
By PL Chang on February 05th, 2010
Thought is a subtle conscious energy that is more powerful than even the strongest nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapon is created by the use of subtle energy within the atoms. This atomic energy is very small and subtle but has the potential to destroy a planet. This is how powerful subtle energy is and thought is the building block of this energy. Thought is so powerful that physicists believed it can influence the outcome of an experiment. This has been proven by experiments, such as the random number generator. Because thought is so powerful, it is the very essence of Creation. It is one of the most basic processes used for manifesting energy into matter. One of the most important aspects of thought is that it has the potential of thinking within and upon itself. In simpler term, this is what we called freewill. It is also important to know that thought is very intelligent. The fundamental definition of intelligence is nothing more than thought thinking within itself and observing itself.
In order for the manifestation process to begin there must first exist something to draw energy into focus. That something is thought. Although, thought alone doesn’t bring forth true manifestation. Thought needs certain forces to help change it from thought into expressions. One of these forces is emotion. Having the emotional desire along with focused thought is the key to manifesting your desires. This process draws in energy, and as the energy coagulates, manifestation begins. Physical manifestation is nothing more than an end result of focused thought. Is this hard for you to believe? If it is, then you may want to read this article before proceeding. If you study the atomic structure deep enough, you may realize that atoms are mostly empty space. In fact, physicists found out that atoms, the so called building block of matter, are 99.99999 percent empty space. Atoms exist because they are held together with focused thought. If this thought ever loses its focus, atoms and molecules would simply fly apart. Therefore, our bodies and surroundings would cease to exist.
In the third dimension of experience there is the illusion of linear time. This illusion makes it harder for instant manifestation to occur. Imagine holding an intended thought with the desire to focus it into existence without seeing physical proof. How long can you hold this thought before you lose focus of your desired experience? Once you lose focus of your desired experience for a certain amount of time, its manifestation is in danger of being lost. Once it is lost, you deny yourself the experience. This is why it is hard to manifest your thoughts into reality when living in a realm that is bound to linear time. To increase your success rate for manifesting your desires, reduce distraction as much as possible, discipline your mind, increase your emotional desire toward the desired experience and think about it on a regular basis. One important thing to consider when manifesting your desires is to make sure your thoughts are specific. For example, if what you want is change, make sure your thoughts are focus toward a specific change. Otherwise you may attract too many changes which will make your life chaotic. Another thing to consider is that your desires must be within the Law of Creation. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to manifest your desires through thought alone.
To truly utilize the power of thought you will need to understand who you truly are. In truth, you are a spiritual being embraced in a physical body. The essence of who you are is your soul which has infinite potential and is eternal. The simplest definition of the human soul is a projection of thought. In other words, each of us is a thought that thinks; therefore, it is self-aware. Remember, your thought is the most powerful force that you have. Use it wisely and your desires will manifest beyond your wildest imagination.
Related Posts:
WHO’S WINNING THE CLEAN ENERGY RACE? Growth, Competition and Opportunity in the World’s Largest Economies
Executive Summary
This report documents the dawning of a new worldwide industry—clean energy—which has experienced investment growth of 230 percent since 2005. Demonstrating its strength, the clean energy sector declined only 6.6 percent in 2009 despite the worst financial downturn in over half a century. In 2009, $162 billion was invested in clean energy around the world. Rebounding from a sharp downturn in the last quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009, clean energy investments in the G-20 averaged a robust $32 billion in each of the last three quarters of 2009. In an encouraging sign for the future, many governments prioritized clean energy within economic recovery funding, the bulk of which will reach innovators, businesses and installers in 2010 and 2011. Clean energy investments are forecast to grow by 25 percent to $200 billion in 2010.
Accounting for more than 90 percent of worldwide finance and investment, G-20 countries dominate the clean energy landscape. As the country profiles in this report demonstrate, virtually all G-20 countries have seen investments grow by more than 50 percent over the last five years. Within the G-20, our research finds that domestic policy decisions impact the competitive positions of member countries. Those nations—such as China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain—with strong, national policies aimed at reducing global warming pollution and incentivizing the use of renewable energy are establishing stronger competitive positions in the clean energy economy. Nations seeking to compete effectively for clean energy jobs and manufacturing would do well to evaluate the array of policy mechanisms that can be employed to stimulate clean energy investment. China, for example, has set ambitious targets for wind, biomass and solar energy and, for the first time, took the top spot within the G-20 and globally for overall clean energy finance and investment in 2009. The United States slipped to
second place.
There are reasons to be concerned about America’s competitive position in the clean energy marketplace. Relative to the size of its economy, the United States’ clean energy finance and investments lag behind many of its G-20 partners. For example, in relative terms, Spain invested five times more than the United States last year, and China, Brazil and the United Kingdom invested three times more. In all, 10 G-20 members devoted a greater percentage of gross domestic product to clean energy than the United States in 2009. Finally, the Unites States is on the verge of losing its leadership position in installed renewable energy capacity, with China surging in the last several years to a virtual tie. The U.S. policy framework for reducing global warming pollution and promoting renewable energy remains uncertain, with comprehensive legislation stalled in Congress. On the other hand, America’s entrepreneurial traditions and strengths in innovation—especially its leadership in venture capital investing—are considerable, giving it the potential to recoup leadership and market share in the future.
Policy, investment and business experts alike have noted that the clean energy economy is emerging as one of the great global economic and environmental opportunities of the 21st century. Local, state and national leaders in the United States and around the world increasingly recognize that safe, reliable, clean energy—solar, wind, bioenergy and energy efficiency—can be harnessed to create jobs and businesses, reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, enhance national security and reduce global warming pollution. Nations seeking to compete effectively for clean energy jobs and manufacturing would do well to evaluate the array of policy mechanisms that can be employed to stimulate clean energy investment. This is especially true for policymakers in the United States, which is at risk of falling further behind its G-20 competitors in the coming years unless it adopts a strong national policy framework to spur more robust clean energy investment.
G-20 CLEAN ENERGY FACTBOOK
This report documents the dawning of a new worldwide industry—clean energy—which has experienced investment growth of 230 percent since 2005. Demonstrating its strength, the clean energy sector declined only 6.6 percent in 2009 despite the worst financial downturn in over half a century. In 2009, $162 billion was invested in clean energy around the world. Rebounding from a sharp downturn in the last quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009, clean energy investments in the G-20 averaged a robust $32 billion in each of the last three quarters of 2009. In an encouraging sign for the future, many governments prioritized clean energy within economic recovery funding, the bulk of which will reach innovators, businesses and installers in 2010 and 2011. Clean energy investments are forecast to grow by 25 percent to $200 billion in 2010.
Accounting for more than 90 percent of worldwide finance and investment, G-20 countries dominate the clean energy landscape. As the country profiles in this report demonstrate, virtually all G-20 countries have seen investments grow by more than 50 percent over the last five years. Within the G-20, our research finds that domestic policy decisions impact the competitive positions of member countries. Those nations—such as China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain—with strong, national policies aimed at reducing global warming pollution and incentivizing the use of renewable energy are establishing stronger competitive positions in the clean energy economy. Nations seeking to compete effectively for clean energy jobs and manufacturing would do well to evaluate the array of policy mechanisms that can be employed to stimulate clean energy investment. China, for example, has set ambitious targets for wind, biomass and solar energy and, for the first time, took the top spot within the G-20 and globally for overall clean energy finance and investment in 2009. The United States slipped to
second place.
There are reasons to be concerned about America’s competitive position in the clean energy marketplace. Relative to the size of its economy, the United States’ clean energy finance and investments lag behind many of its G-20 partners. For example, in relative terms, Spain invested five times more than the United States last year, and China, Brazil and the United Kingdom invested three times more. In all, 10 G-20 members devoted a greater percentage of gross domestic product to clean energy than the United States in 2009. Finally, the Unites States is on the verge of losing its leadership position in installed renewable energy capacity, with China surging in the last several years to a virtual tie. The U.S. policy framework for reducing global warming pollution and promoting renewable energy remains uncertain, with comprehensive legislation stalled in Congress. On the other hand, America’s entrepreneurial traditions and strengths in innovation—especially its leadership in venture capital investing—are considerable, giving it the potential to recoup leadership and market share in the future.
Policy, investment and business experts alike have noted that the clean energy economy is emerging as one of the great global economic and environmental opportunities of the 21st century. Local, state and national leaders in the United States and around the world increasingly recognize that safe, reliable, clean energy—solar, wind, bioenergy and energy efficiency—can be harnessed to create jobs and businesses, reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, enhance national security and reduce global warming pollution. Nations seeking to compete effectively for clean energy jobs and manufacturing would do well to evaluate the array of policy mechanisms that can be employed to stimulate clean energy investment. This is especially true for policymakers in the United States, which is at risk of falling further behind its G-20 competitors in the coming years unless it adopts a strong national policy framework to spur more robust clean energy investment.
G-20 CLEAN ENERGY FACTBOOK
terça-feira, 23 de março de 2010
Bolivia creates a new opportunity for climate talks that failed at Copenhagen
(The Guardian) Bolivia will host an international meeting on climate change next month because it is not prepared to ‘betray its people’
By Pablo Solón Romero
In the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, those who defended the widely condemned outcome tended to talk about it as a “step in the right direction”. This was always a tendentious argument, given that tackling climate change can not be addressed by half measures. We can’t make compromises with nature.Bolivia, however, believed that Copenhagen marked a backwards step, undoing the work built on since the climate talks in Kyoto. That is why, against strong pressure from industrialised countries, we and other developing nations refused to sign the Copenhagen accord and why we are hosting an international meeting on climate change next month. In the words of the Tuvalu negotiator, we were not prepared to “betray our people for 30 pieces of silver”.
Our position was strongly criticised by several industrialised countries, who did their brazen best to blame the victims of climate change for their own unwillingness to act. However, recent communications by the European Commission have confirmed why we were right to oppose the Copenhagen accord.
In a report called International climate policy post-Copenhagen (pdf), the commission confirmed that the pledges by developed countries are equal to between 13.2% and 17.8% in emissions reductions by 2020 – far below the required 40%-plus reductions needed to keep global temperature rise to less than 2C degrees.
The situation is even worse once you take into account what are called “banking of surplus emission budgets” and “accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry”. The Copenhagen accord would actually allow for an increase in developed country emissions of 2.6% above 1990 levels. This is hardly a forward step.
This is not just about gravely inadequate commitments, it is also about process. Whereas before, under the Kyoto protocol, developed countries were legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage, now countries can submit whatever targets they want without a binding commitment.
This dangerous approach to climate negotiations is like building a dam where everyone contributes as many bricks as they want regardless of whether it stops the river.
The Copenhagen accord opens the dam and condemns millions. Various estimates suggest that the commitments made under the accord would lead to increases of between three to four degrees celsius – a level that many scientists consider disastrous for human life and our ecosystems.
For Bolivia, the disastrous outcome of Copenhagen was further proof that climate change is not the central issue in negotiations. For rich countries, the key issues in negotiations were finance, carbon markets, competitiveness of countries and corporations, business opportunities along with discussions about the political makeup of the US Senate. There was surprisingly little focus on effective solutions for reducing carbon emissions.
President Evo Morales of Bolivia observed that the best way to put climate change solutions at the heart of the talks was to involve the people. In contrast to much of the official talks, the hundreds of civil society organisations, communities, scientists and faith leaders present in Copenhagen clearly prioritised the search for effective, just solutions to climate change against narrow economic interests.
To advance an agenda based on effective just solutions, Bolivia is therefore hosting a Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April, and inviting everyone to participate. Unlike Copenhagen, there will be no secret discussions behind closed doors. Moreover the debate and proposals will be led by communities on the frontlines of climate change and by organisations and individuals dedicated to tackling the climate crisis. All 192 governments in the UN have also been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society and together develop common proposals.
We hope that this unique format will help shift power back to the people, which is where it needs to be on this critical issue for all humanity. We don’t expect agreement on everything, but at least we can start to discuss openly and sincerely in a way that didn’t happen in Copenhagen.
• Pablo Solón is Ambassador to the UN for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. He is a sociologist and economist, was active in Bolivia’s social movements before entering government, and is an expert on issues of trade, integration, natural resources and water.
domingo, 21 de março de 2010
Green Heroes 2009, Hylton Murray-Philipson
The former banker using the markets to help safeguard the rainforests
No more business as usual. These 30 entrepreneurs are already building the low-carbon post-recession economy
Deforestation is responsible for 20% of the world’s carbon emissions, roughly the same amount as the United States or China, the world’s largest polluters. Yet all three sources – approximately two-thirds of global emissions – are missed by the current Kyoto Protocol. For every hectare of forest burned, 400 tonnes of CO2 is released into the atmosphere – and sometimes up to ten times more due to the exposure of underground peat reserves.
This situation forced Philipson to completely rethink his career and act. An ex-investment banker, he realised that the financial pressures on the emerging markets where most rainforests are situated are such that it is usually more profitable to cut them down than leave them standing. Unless this changes, deforestation will continue unchecked.
Philipson’s goal is to counter the pressures of globalisation that are driving deforestation by developing a new capital market to value standing forests. Specifically, this will include the launch of an Ecosystem Service Certificate attached to an €80m, 10-year tradable bond, the interest from which will pay for the protection and maintenance of 350,000 hectares of the Guyana rainforest. The deal will be launched this year and is being conducted through a partnership with the Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation & Development in Guyana.
But Philipson is not stopping with Guyana. He wants to design a comprehensive, global trading model for rainforest protection. Ultimately, he wants to create a Forest Index so that investors can treat forest as a legitimate asset class alongside other renewables such as wind, biomass and solar. “Fundamentally, this is about the global management of global carbon stocks, part of which must preserve biodiversity levels, indigenous cultures, and the monitoring and governance of the rainforest.”
Philipson established for-profit company Canopy Capital in December 2007. The Global Canopy Programme, a UK charity dedicated to the research and preservation of the tropical rainforest, holds a 20% stake in the company, with the remaining 80% owned by a dozen investors.
Philipson also heads up Wingate Ventures, which he established in 1990 to provide corporate finance to businesses making a positive contribution to the environment. As special advisor to The Prince’s Rainforest Project (set up by the UK’s Prince of Wales), Philipson also works with governments, businesses and NGOs to seek solutions to the destruction of tropical forests around the world.
In Philipson’s view, forests are an investment hedge against government failure to deliver emissions reduction targets by reducing society’s dependence on fossil fuels and encouraging renewables.
“The rules of the game we inherited from our forefathers are no longer fit for purpose. With global population going from 1.5 billion in 1900 to 6.7 billion today, the relationship between man and the planet is reaching crisis point. Sustainability needs to be at the heart of everything we do.”
quinta-feira, 11 de março de 2010
Climate debate: opinion vs evidence
What exactly is "balance"? Our society rightly strives for balance, and many issues are deservedly considered by presenting a balanced set of opinions.
There are however clear cases in which the only balance that matters is the balance of evidence rather than of opinion: Serial killer Ivan Milat's protestations of innocence should not — and did not — balance the evidence arrayed against him. The desire to cure AIDS with garlic and beetroot does not balance the medical consensus that the disease is caused by HIV and can only be beaten by retroviral drugs. And the current wave of sensationalism and distortion cannot balance the scientific consensus that climate change is real and is caused by human emissions.
The current descent of the climate debate into a cauldron of misrepresentations that are at odds with scientific reality must therefore be of concern.
It must be of concern that climate scientists can be publicly accused of having vested financial interests in their research, when in fact Australian research grants cannot be used to top up a researcher's salary.
It must be of concern when segments of the national media frequently distort and misrepresent scientific articles and scientists' statements in complete departure from accepted standards of journalistic honesty and decency.
It must be of concern when segments of the media echo the meme that "global warming stopped in 1998" when in fact all years since 2000 — that is 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 — are among the 10 hottest years ever recorded since 1880. The probability of this happening by chance is small.
It must be of concern that the current Leader of the Opposition has publicly dismissed climate science and instead cosily chats with a visiting British aristocrat who is a serial fabricator — an individual who has publicly misrepresented himself as a member of the House of Lords when he is not; who claims to have cured influenza as well as AIDS; who claims to have won the Falkland War by means of biological weapons; who accuses NASA of blowing up their own research satellites; and whose latest pseudo-mathematical pronouncements about climate change are at odds with past ice age cycles.
It must be of grave concern when the opinions of the same conspiracy theorists who believe that Prince Phillip runs the world's drug trade are given credence by the media when it comes to climate change.
No, balance in media coverage does not arise from adding a falsehood to the truth and dividing by two. Balanced media coverage of science requires recognition of the balance of evidence.
What then is the true balance of evidence on climate change?
Fact is that the most recent survey of thousands of Earth scientists around the world revealed a 97 per cent agreement with the proposition that human activity is a contributor to climate change. This peer-reviewed study clarifies that the present "debate" about climate change is not actually a debate within the relevant scientific community.
Fact is that a recent analysis of nearly 1,000 peer reviewed publications by a prominent historian of science revealed no disagreement with the view that climate change is happening and is caused by human CO2 emissions. If each of those publications were presented on a poster, as is common at scientific conferences, the line of posters would stretch across the Sydney Harbour Bridge and back again. Yes, there are a few dissenting papers that have appeared in refereed journals — but to date none have withstood subsequent scrutiny.
Fact is that there is a strong scientific consensus on climate change and its human-made causes that is exhaustively summarised in the nearly 3,000 pages of the most recent IPCC report that draws on more than 18,000 sources. Tellingly, the lone error about Himalayan glaciers on page 493 of the contribution from Working Group 2 was brought to the public's attention by … an IPCC lead author!
Anyone can experience this scientific consensus hands-on in a few seconds: Google "climate change" and you get nearly 60 million hits. Now go to the menu labelled "more" at the top, pull it down and choose the "scholar" option. 58 million hits disappear. The remaining scientific information will get you in touch with the reality on this planet, in the same way that applying the "scholar" filter after googling "sex" eliminates 500 million porn sites and leaves you with civilised discourse about sexuality.
Does this indubitable scientific consensus guarantee that the evidence concerning climate change is necessarily irrefutable?
No.
As with any other scientific fact, new evidence may come to light that can overturn established theories. Two core principles of science are scepticism and falsifiability — that is, scientific facts must be subject to sceptical examination and they must be refutable in principle. New evidence may overturn the current view that HIV causes AIDS, and new evidence may revise our expectation that gravity will have adverse consequences for those who jump off the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Likewise, new evidence may force a revision of our understanding of climate change.
It is however utterly inconceivable that the current scientific consensus about climate change will be overturned by conspiracy theories that are inversions of reality.
It is utterly inconceivable that the consensus on climate change will be weakened by mendacious misrepresentations in the media that fail to accurately represent the strength of scientific evidence.
It is utterly inconceivable that all the arguments against climate change that have been falsified multiple times will rise from the dead and overturn scientific knowledge.
Instead, the very fact that many of the roughly 100 falsified "sceptic" talking points are continually reiterated in public draws a clear dividing line between healthy scepticism and arrogant denialism.
Sceptics seek answers and scrutinise arguments before accepting the current state of scientific knowledge as fact. Denialists dismiss sound arguments, solid data, and experimental evidence in favour of propositions that have long been shown to be flawed.
The world's pre-eminent scientific journal, Nature, therefore refers to those who cling to long-debunked pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories while dismissing the findings of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by their true label — denialists.
The potentially devastating consequences of denialism are brought into sharp focus by the sad history of South Africa's AIDS policies. Despite having one of the world's highest rates of HIV infections, the government of President Thabo Mbeki went against consensus scientific opinion 10 years ago and declined anti-retroviral drugs, preferring instead to treat AIDS with garlic and beetroot. Politicians even accused a leading South African immunologist of defending Western science and its "racist ideas" for his insistence on scientific treatment methods. According to a recent peer-reviewed Harvard study, this denialism cost the lives of more than 330,000 South Africans.
For that, President Mbeki and his associates are now held in richly deserved contempt around the world.
Precisely the same fate awaits denialists of climate change.
The laws of physics will relentlessly assert themselves, unswayed by public opinion, political shenanigans, or elections. Ultimately, the laws of physics will speak so loudly that no amount of wishful thinking can prevent them from being heard; but because any delay in taking action against climate change will increase the human and financial burden on future generations, it is our responsibility now to cease tolerating lies, misrepresentations, puerile accusations, and conspiracy theories that are unworthy of public discourse in a mature democracy.
Many spirited conversations about climate change can be had that examine the likely consequences for Australia and evaluate the best course of action — but those conversations must be firmly rooted in the core scientific principles of scepticism and falsifiability and they must not be contaminated by ignorance and denialism.
Stephan Lewandowsky is a Winthrop Professor and an Australian Professorial Fellow at the University of Western Australia.
sábado, 27 de fevereiro de 2010
Rainforest revival: has Brazil turned the tide on deforestation?
After years of seemingly unstoppable destruction, Brazil appears to be winning some ground on the Amazon frontier. Is this just a recession-induced calm before the storm, asks Martin Wright – or the start of a rainforest revival?
In Europe, it’s rare to be able to drive for an hour through solid, unbroken forest. In the deep countryside of northern Sweden, perhaps, or on a particularly slow and winding road through the Carpathians.
In Brazil, by contrast, 747s fly for at least that time above an apparently endless sea of forest. If you’re lucky enough to have a window seat, you can look down and see a solid slab of green, from horizon to horizon. A green cut only by the winding loops of vast rivers, and the occasional tiny circular clearings, with no roads leading to or from them, which mark the Amerindian villages.
Until you reach the forest fringes, where the roads, and the fires, begin. Through the haze of smoke, you can see how the forest is being steadily frayed, torn into patches, and eventually destroyed altogether, apart from the odd remnant strip running along a gully.
The sheer visible scale of both the destruction, and of what remains, is breathtaking. It’s one of Brazil’s greatest hopes, and greatest challenges.
Roberto Smeraldi, Founder of Amigos da Terra – Brazilian Amazonia, and one of the most influential of the country’s environmentalists, sums it up: “Brazil ranks third in the list of global contributors to climate change – and two-thirds of its greenhouse gas emissions over the last five years result from land use changes – principally deforestation.”
The simplest cut
After energy, the destruction of tropical forests is by far the largest contributor to climate change – emitting ten times as much as aviation. As has been pointed out elsewhere in Green Futures, (see 'Can finance save forests?') produces a particularly nasty ‘double whammy’ of warming. As they burn, they send vast swathes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And once they’re gone, they can’t soak up the carbon emitted from other sources, like industry, cars and power plants.
The other side of the coin, though, is that conserving forests is one of our most effective tools for staving off runaway climate change. And, since it doesn’t involve making major cuts in industrial or transport emissions, it can be one of the simplest, too. In Brazil’s case, says Smeraldi: “This means that our past and current emission record is not strongly associated with activities which are essential for jobs and economic growth – at least in comparison to the other ‘greenhouse gas superpowers’. This is excellent news for anybody struggling [to mitigate] climate change, since it might prove cheaper for us to engage in radical emission reductions [than it will for other countries].” Some specific good news came with the announcement in November 2009 that Brazil had cut deforestation to its lowest level in more than two decades. Just 2,705 square miles of the Amazon were lost between August 2008 and July 2009, almost half that of the previous 12 months, and the lowest annual total since reliable records started being kept in 1988. Among the factors behind the success, officials said, was the 2004 decision to make the Government as a whole responsible for enforcing forest laws, rather than it being ‘ghettoised’ in the Environment Ministry alone. This led to dramatic improvements in real-time satellite monitoring, which allows forestry police to respond immediately to evidence of logging or burning.
Significant swathes of Amazonia are coming under official federal protection. In the four years to 2008, some 50 million hectares were turned into forest reserves or national parks, and another ten million became indigenous reservations for Amerindian communities.
The news was welcomed by environmentalists. “We have to recognise the great efforts of the federal government, together with state governments, that brought about this drop in deforestation”, said Cláudio Maretti, Head of Conservation at WWF-Brasil. But he warned that there was still a pressing need to firm up the enforcement of forest conservation laws – and to expand other government programmes aimed at offering those living near the forest viable economic alternatives to forest clearance. “That is essential if Brazil is to assume clear commitments in relation to carbon emissions, and if we are really going to take a leadership role in the new green economy.”
Economic factors may well have played a role in the dramatic drop, says his WWF-Brasil colleague, Conservation Director Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza. “We have to recognise that it’s related to the [global recession], particularly to the reduction in demand for commodities, which has meant there is less pressure” on standing forest. As that demand picks up, it will test the Government’s commitment to make further reductions, he warns.
A vital step now, say environmentalists, is for the Government to properly apply – and strengthen – the Forest Code, which dictates that landowners must preserve as forest 80% of any Amazon land they hold. The law is notoriously poorly enforced, and hopes were depressed when the Government recently delayed until 2011 a plan to start prosecutions of those not complying with the law. Conveniently perhaps, this transfers responsibility to President Lula’s successor, who will take office in January of that year.
Tasso Azevedo, Senior Adviser to the Minister of the Environment on Forest and Climate Change, agrees that the hard work lies ahead. “We have actually done most of the cheapest and straightforward things – basic law enforcement, restructuring of the monitoring system, and so forth… Now we’re onto the second level – placing constraints and disincentives in the way of any investment which involve deforestation.”
Some action is underway here, too. The Government has invested in sustainable logging initiatives, and some states are even paying people a small stipend to keep their land forested. And there’s noticeably less reticence on the part of the federal government to getting stuck in at the local level. In a new initiative called Mutirão Arco Verde, Brasilia sent hundreds of officials to the 43 municipalities responsible for more than half the region’s deforestation, to help farmers and authorities there “better understand” and comply with environmental legislation. While this may not have exactly been welcome intervention (shades of “I’m from head office – I’m here to help!”), the Government insisted the aim was to help the municipalities plan for economic growth – albeit of a sustainable kind.
Consumer groups, too, are starting to ratchet up the pressure [see box, ‘Backing the backlash’]. But meanwhile, there’s growing focus on the Cerrado – the vast swathe of savannah-woodland that borders the jungle to the east and south. Deforestation there is increasing, and is thought to be running at twice the rate of that in the Amazon. According to Smeraldi, it’s accounting for around 30% of the emissions resulting from all Brazilian forest destruction, so “it needs to be better measured and taken into account”. Scaramuzza agrees: “The Cerrado is actually much more endangered than Amazonia, because [it’s the focus of] a huge expansion of soya, corn and other commodities”.Setting tough targets for one while ignoring the other could make matters worse, says Smeraldi. “It could create perverse incentives, encouraging developers to switch their destructive activities to the Cerrado.”
Incentives of a positive kind are increasingly seen as the key to forest preservation. Andrew Mitchell, Founder of the Global Canopy Programme and one of the world’s most experienced forest policy thinkers, summed up the challenge when he spoke to Green Futures in 2009 (see 'Can finance save forests?') “At the moment, you can only make money out of forests when you convert them to something else – timber or beef, soy or palm oil... So in global markets, forests are worth more dead than alive. This is what we need to turn around. Philanthropy and governments won’t do it. You have to look to markets to overturn what is in fact a market failure… What we’ve got for free, we don’t pay for.”
As Azevedo put it, unless you pay people not to do something, they’ll carry on doing it. “Say you want to close down an illegal logging site. You can do so in 15 minutes. You just send in the police or the army and lock everything down. But 50 people will lose their jobs.” And unless you create better paid alternatives, they’ll soon be back cutting trees, there or elsewhere. “We have to put something else in place to keep the money flowing and to create a new economy.”
He believes that sustainable forest management – in which timber concessions are awarded and renewed on the basis solely of social and environmental good practice, rather than money – could be at its heart. In Acre state, WWF is working with local communities to implement such a scheme. It would allow the harvest not only of carefully selected, high-value timber, but other products such as Brazil nuts, rubber and essential oils – so long as it could demonstrate that the overall forest remained in good health.
All such schemes, of course, are potentially eligible for carbon funding, too – hence Brazil’s growing enthusiasm for international agreement on the issue. And there may also be ways in which the other huge regional benefits of standing forests, particularly sustaining the water cycle on which so much of Latin American agriculture depends, can be ‘monetised’. (see 'Can finance save forests?')
Azevedo advocates a simple system in which areas which reduced their rates of deforestation would be rewarded on a ‘payment by results’ basis. Brazil could use international carbon funding to invest in a whole range of initiatives to help forest preservation, and he’s particularly excited by the potential of satellite monitoring. This is fast reaching such a level of sophistication that someone with a laptop or even an iPhone could use a Google Earth-style tool to get detailed images of forest cover down to as little as half a hectare. Radar will help ‘see’ beneath cloud cover, so overcoming one of the obstacles to effective monitoring. The results, he promises, “will be totally publicly available. People will be able to download the information”.
None of this will succeed, though, cautions Smeraldi, without successfully engaging those on whom the forest most depends to survive: the people who make a living from it, and live within it. “This is especially true here in Brazil, given the very limited governance in forest areas and on their fringes”, he says, and he identifies two key challenges. First, set up practical financial mechanisms for rewarding local stakeholders directly. Second, sort out the tangle of land titles – or in many cases, lack of them. It won’t be straightforward. “In those cases where you have a clear legitimacy (i.e. legally established indigenous land, extractive reserves and so on) there is usually political reluctance, if not outright resistance, to remunerating local communities. Where you have ranchers and settlers with strong political support, it’s rare to have established land rights.”
Smeraldi acknowledges the recent progress that has been made on curbing Amazon deforestation, but warns that overall it remains fragile. And in terms of Brazil’s performance on climate change more generally, it could still be undercut by the recent oil discoveries [see ‘Oiling the future’]. “We need to keep a close eye on the overall consistency of national policies”, he says – and that means setting clear caps for total carbon emissions. “São Paulo state has set a positive example here, with its goal of a 20% cut in total emissions by 2020.”
For his part, Scaramuzza is cautiously optimistic that Brazil might indeed have pulled its vast forests back from the brink of destruction– and he thinks politics has played its part. “The Government wants to take a strong leadership position; it wants to really establish itself as a major player in the UN. [So President] Lula is assuming a lot of public commitment on this area – we already have a national climate change policy which includes an 80% reduction in deforestation as a target.”
Tasso Azevedo, too, thinks a corner has been turned. “I think that in Brazil, people are finally waking up.”
Cattle crunch
Intensive farming may have a bad press in Europe, but in Brazil, it could be key to saving swathes of forest. Intensive in relative terms, that is. As Roberto Smeraldi points out, “in the Amazon, we have 71 million heads of cattle on 74 million hectares of pasture” – over one hectare per cow, in other words. Increasing stockage rates to three hectares per cow would still provide ample grazing land, while taking pressure off the forest.
Smeraldi argues that “investments in increased yield productivity should be matched by investment in forest restoration”. Carbon finance could play a role here, he says, helping fund agricultural intensification which, by allowing the forest to recover, would indirectly result in increased carbon sequestration.
Products such as beef or leather which were produced from such ‘intensified’ ranches could be certified as such, he suggests. This would give them a market advantage among purchasers who are increasingly seeking to avoid products associated with rainforest destruction.
Intensive farming may have a bad press in Europe, but in Brazil, it could be key to saving swathes of forest. Intensive in relative terms, that is. As Roberto Smeraldi points out, “in the Amazon, we have 71 million heads of cattle on 74 million hectares of pasture” – over one hectare per cow, in other words. Increasing stockage rates to three hectares per cow would still provide ample grazing land, while taking pressure off the forest.
Smeraldi argues that “investments in increased yield productivity should be matched by investment in forest restoration”. Carbon finance could play a role here, he says, helping fund agricultural intensification which, by allowing the forest to recover, would indirectly result in increased carbon sequestration.
Products such as beef or leather which were produced from such ‘intensified’ ranches could be certified as such, he suggests. This would give them a market advantage among purchasers who are increasingly seeking to avoid products associated with rainforest destruction.
Backing the backlash
Consumer power is starting to slow forest destruction. Environmental groups led by Greenpeace have carried out damaging campaigns against major soy bean, beef and leather producers. Under an agreement signed in 2006 by Abiove, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries, and several environmental groups, major soy bean traders – including food giants such as Cargill – agreed not to purchase soya from areas inside the Amazon Biome deforested after July that year.
WWF is working with these and other companies on a monitoring system to ensure they can live up to their commitments. “It’s been a really positive outcome, building new relationships between NGOs and the private sector”, says Scaramuzza. But he warns that a focus on ‘Amazon-free soya’ might be helping drive destruction in the Cerrado. “It was relatively easy for companies to make this commitment, because only 8% of soya comes from Amazonia”, he says. “So now it’s time for them to raise the bar: to show the same commitment for other regions that they have for the Amazon.”
Meanwhile, the ‘soy moratorium’, which has been extended until at least July 2010, is being held up as a possible template for the beef sector. It’s the combination of the demand for Brazilian beef, soy beans and ethanol, say campaigners, which is behind much of the country’s deforestation. Cattle farmers sell land in the south to soy and sugar cane growers, and use the money to buy cheaper land in the Amazon which they then cut down for cattle pasture.
A Greenpeace study released in June 2009 claimed companies including Wal-Mart, Carrefour, Nike, Adidas, Clarks and Tesco bought beef and leather from Brazilian firms that raised cattle on deforested land. On occasion, it said, forced labour was even involved. The report caused a furor, and wary of a consumer backlash, those and other blue chip firms gave their suppliers until 2010 to implement a serious traceability system that enables them to identify where their beef and leather is coming from.
Just how effective the boycott will be is questionable. There are an estimated five million cattle ranchers in Brazil, and only a tiny percentage have any reliable traceability systems in place. Experts estimate it will take two years just to set up proper monitoring systems for beef. For leather, the issue is even more complex, as it is sold on the open commodities market and so is much harder to track. Nevertheless, the so-called beef moratorium is being heralded as another step in the right direction. “These companies are committing by telling their suppliers they expect to see zero deforestation or they will stop buying from them,” said Tatiana Carvalho, Greenpeace’s Amazon campaigner. “That is a big leap forward.” “The beef sector had been very resistant to change”, says Scaramuzza, “but now they are starting to come to the table.” WWF is working with a sustainable cattle-ranching group – a phrase that would have been an oxymoron just a few years ago. “There is a lot or room for improvement, but they’re starting to recognise the problem – and they want to be part of the solution.” – Andrew Downie / Martin Wright
Atlantic ambition
Not all business waits for a backlash before taking action. On the eastern coast, several companies, including Michelin and Veracel, are taking action to preserve and expand the last remnants of the Atlantic Forest, home to the golden lion tamarin (pictured). They are combining sustainable plantations of eucalyptus, rubber and cocoa trees with ecological corridors linking surviving fragments of woodland. The once vast Atlantic Forest has shrunk to 10% of its original area, but has an unrivalled capacity for regeneration. So projects such as these can make a real difference, say experts.
Consumer power is starting to slow forest destruction. Environmental groups led by Greenpeace have carried out damaging campaigns against major soy bean, beef and leather producers. Under an agreement signed in 2006 by Abiove, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries, and several environmental groups, major soy bean traders – including food giants such as Cargill – agreed not to purchase soya from areas inside the Amazon Biome deforested after July that year.
WWF is working with these and other companies on a monitoring system to ensure they can live up to their commitments. “It’s been a really positive outcome, building new relationships between NGOs and the private sector”, says Scaramuzza. But he warns that a focus on ‘Amazon-free soya’ might be helping drive destruction in the Cerrado. “It was relatively easy for companies to make this commitment, because only 8% of soya comes from Amazonia”, he says. “So now it’s time for them to raise the bar: to show the same commitment for other regions that they have for the Amazon.”
Meanwhile, the ‘soy moratorium’, which has been extended until at least July 2010, is being held up as a possible template for the beef sector. It’s the combination of the demand for Brazilian beef, soy beans and ethanol, say campaigners, which is behind much of the country’s deforestation. Cattle farmers sell land in the south to soy and sugar cane growers, and use the money to buy cheaper land in the Amazon which they then cut down for cattle pasture.
A Greenpeace study released in June 2009 claimed companies including Wal-Mart, Carrefour, Nike, Adidas, Clarks and Tesco bought beef and leather from Brazilian firms that raised cattle on deforested land. On occasion, it said, forced labour was even involved. The report caused a furor, and wary of a consumer backlash, those and other blue chip firms gave their suppliers until 2010 to implement a serious traceability system that enables them to identify where their beef and leather is coming from.
Just how effective the boycott will be is questionable. There are an estimated five million cattle ranchers in Brazil, and only a tiny percentage have any reliable traceability systems in place. Experts estimate it will take two years just to set up proper monitoring systems for beef. For leather, the issue is even more complex, as it is sold on the open commodities market and so is much harder to track. Nevertheless, the so-called beef moratorium is being heralded as another step in the right direction. “These companies are committing by telling their suppliers they expect to see zero deforestation or they will stop buying from them,” said Tatiana Carvalho, Greenpeace’s Amazon campaigner. “That is a big leap forward.” “The beef sector had been very resistant to change”, says Scaramuzza, “but now they are starting to come to the table.” WWF is working with a sustainable cattle-ranching group – a phrase that would have been an oxymoron just a few years ago. “There is a lot or room for improvement, but they’re starting to recognise the problem – and they want to be part of the solution.” – Andrew Downie / Martin Wright
Atlantic ambition
Not all business waits for a backlash before taking action. On the eastern coast, several companies, including Michelin and Veracel, are taking action to preserve and expand the last remnants of the Atlantic Forest, home to the golden lion tamarin (pictured). They are combining sustainable plantations of eucalyptus, rubber and cocoa trees with ecological corridors linking surviving fragments of woodland. The once vast Atlantic Forest has shrunk to 10% of its original area, but has an unrivalled capacity for regeneration. So projects such as these can make a real difference, say experts.
Martin Wright is Editor in Chief of Green Futures. Additional reporting by Andrew Downie.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)