WWF - Media releases - Climate

Climate change most visible through freshwater lens

2010-09-07

Stockholm, Sweden: The impacts of climate change are most visible in the dramatic changes occurring to the planet’s freshwater resources, says a new report written by WWF for the World Bank.

The report, Flowing Forward, finds both “visible” water such as rivers, lakes, precipitation, glaciers and snowpack, and water used for crops and livestock, health and sanitation services, hydroelectric and nuclear power as well as manufacturing and business are heavily influenced by climate change.

“The very language of climate change — droughts, floods, desertification, famines, tropical cyclones — is the language of water,” says WWF-US CEO Carter Roberts. “Flowing Forward defines the methodologies that are necessary to sustain healthy economies and healthy ecosystems through water. Water is what unites us. And good water management is the tool we need to sustain development in the face of climate change.”

Effective water resource management is central to adapting our economies and societies to emerging climate conditions. But the uncertainty surrounding our future climate poses a major challenge to engineers and policymakers, especially when developing long-term water infrastructure development strategies. Flowing Forward marks the first comprehensive set of tools to achieve climate-sustainable water management.

“We can’t wait another 30 years for predictions to tell us how climate change is affecting freshwater resources. The threats are being felt now. The World Bank needs climate adaptation decision-making techniques, and it needs them now,” says Julia Bucknall, Manager for the World Bank’s Energy, Transport and Water Department.

Flowing Forward recognizes that sustainability in water management has become a moving target, and this is now the biggest obstacle to implementing solutions to the impacts of climate change.

“We can no longer assume that what is sustainable now will remain sustainable in 10 years, much less 50. So a shifting climate means that the rules for water management must change too. Our current model of ‘sustainable development’ is threatened by climate change. Engineers, policymakers and resource managers need new tools to prepare for more extreme floods and droughts, and we believe that ecosystems are the best scorecard to see how our cities farms, and economies are adapting to climate change.” says co-author John Matthews of WWF-US.

“We need to design and operate dams, irrigation systems and energy production grids in ways that will help people and ecosystems adjust to emerging climate conditions together,” he adds.

But report co-author Tom Le Quesne from WWF-UK says the report’s most critical finding is that water managers and policymakers already have most of the important tools to cope with climate change in hand:

“The existing library of methods to manage river basins and water resources will go a long way in creating the conditions that will make our lakes, rivers and groundwater more sustainable. Our goal now is to help the water sector deploy tools that they already know work: environmental flows, Integrated Water Resource Management and the creation of monitoring networks.”

Critically endangered whales flee Russian oil, gas boom

2010-09-07

Gland, Switzerland: Russian oil and gas company Rosneft is conducting oil and gas exploration work that may have caused the critically endangered western gray whale to flee its main feeding ground.

Tests and offshore installment of equipment by Rosneft for a major seismic survey began in late August, despite repeated calls from 12 governments, NGOs, scientists and the public to postpone the survey because of potential risks to the whales.

Rosneft started preparations for the survey last month near Sakhalin Island even though a small number of western gray whales mothers and calves were feeding in the area. Only an estimated 130 western North Pacific grey whales are left in the world, with around 30 breeding females.

Seismic surveys are done by blasting the water with acoustic noise to detect oil and gas deposits under the ocean floor.

Observers from WWF and other NGOs began monitoring Rosneft’s activities and the whales in mid-July. It appears that as of Aug. 20, only weeks after Rosneft’s activities started, whales feeding in the area had already been affected.

Before those activities began, observers registered 10 to 15 of the whales feeding in the area. Now whales have only been seen migrating across the area – not feeding.

“This is a critical problem as the whales have only a short time in which to consume enough food to last them through the year when they migrate to their breeding and calving grounds,” said Wendy Elliott, WWF’s whale expert.

The company also has twice conducted seismic surveys at night, which is in violation of international standards, and even Rosnefts’ own guidelines.

On August 23, WWF-Russia issued a letter of concern to Russian environmental authorities, requesting an immediate stop to Rosneft’s testing.

As part of a WWF initiative, more than 10,000 people have sent Rosneft emails requesting that the surveys be postponed. However, Rosneft continues to shut out public opposition to its actions with

some WWF members reporting that their emails to Rosneft's outgoing President Sergei Bogdanchikov had been blocked.

Scientists from the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel (WGWAP), a group of eminent whale scientists, have also repeatedly asked the company to postpone the surveys until the whales have left the area. A letter sent from 12 governments to the Russian government asking them to make Rosneft postpone the survey also went unheeded.

"Rosneft is irresponsibly insisting on conducting this survey when they could easily postpone the survey until next year and hold it before the whales arrive," said Aleksey Knizhnikov, Oil & Gas Environmental Policy officer, WWF Russia. "Rosneft may be ignoring public outcry but their negligent behavior will not be forgotten, and they will have to be held responsible for any harm that comes to the whales as a result of these surveys."

Postponing the surveys would also enable Rosneft to develop the precautionary monitoring and mitigation measures that are essential to minimize the impact of the seismic survey on the whales. Monitoring and mitigation measures have already been developed by the WGWAP, and are being used by another company in the same area.

WWF and other NGOs have dozens of observers and boats on Sakhalin Island this year and will be monitoring the test and how it affects the feeding whales.

In addition, WWF is planning this week to approach Rosneft's new president, who started today, about postponing the seismic surveys.

Research finds Government draft energy strategy at odds with majority of New Zealanders

2010-08-29

The Government's draft energy strategy does not deliver the plan to invest in public transport that the majority of New Zealanders want in order to head off the impacts of future oil price rises, according to research released today (Monday 30 August) commissioned by WWF.

The ShapeNZ research found only 9% of New Zealanders were in favour of the Government's current plan in its draft energy strategy of leaving it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high.

The research found 81% preferred Government action to help prepare for the increased costs to exporters and households from oil price rises in the future: 19% want more investment in rail, 9% want more investment in other public transport, and 53% want investment in both.

"The research shows that the Government's draft energy strategy doesn't deliver investment in alternative transport in preparation for oil price rises that the majority of New Zealanders want," said WWF Climate Change Campaigner Peter Hardstaff.

"The Government in its draft strategy acknowledges that oil prices are likely to rise in future, and its plan to deal with this is to have no plan and hope for the best. This research shows eight in ten New Zealanders believe that's not good enough, and that the Government's job is to plan ahead for oil price rises by taking action now."

The Ministry for Economic Development is calling for public submissions on the draft energy strategy, closing at 5pm, Thursday 2 September. WWF-New Zealand has strongly criticised the draft strategy and is encouraging people to make submissions. For more information see wwf.org.nz.

WWF's Peter Hardstaff continued: "The right decisions now are important so we can continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and keep the cost of electricity and fuel manageable for New Zealanders and for our export earning producers," he stated. "The draft energy strategy is an opportunity for New Zealand to protect our environment and our economy. It's a chance to get on the right track to a decent public transport system, and we encourage all New Zealanders who want that to happen to make a submission to the Government."

"We are advocating for the Government to set out a clear strategy to transition away from New Zealand's current heavy reliance on oil for moving people and goods," said WWF's Peter Hardstaff.

The ShapeNZ survey informed respondents that the Government expects oil prices to rise steadily in the future as cheaper, easy-to-reach oil supplies decline around the world, and that increasing oil prices will increase costs for New Zealand exporters reliant on freight and for households reliant on cars.

It asked if respondents thought the government should:

1) Invest more in improving and expanding the rail network
2) Invest more in expanding other public transport
3) Both
4) Leave it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high

The survey found:
Total survey respondents say the Government should:
. 19% Invest more in improving and expanding the rail network
. 9% Invest more in expanding other public transport
. 53% Both
. 9% Leave it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high
. 8% don't know

Results split by party vote for the two main political parties are as follows (note, results may not total 100% due to rounding):

Those who voted National in 2008 (33% of respondents) say the Government should:
. 24% Invest more in improving and expanding the rail network
. 9% Invest more in expanding other public transport
. 51% Both
. 10% Leave it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high
. 7% don't know

Those who voted Labour in 2008 (25% of respondents) say the Government should:
. 19% Invest more in improving and expanding the rail network
. 8% Invest more in expanding other public transport
. 56% Both
. 9% Leave it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high
. 9% don't know

Ends

Notes to editors

. The research was conducted using ShapeNZ's online survey of 2159 New Zealanders aged 18 and over. The survey was conducted from 24 to 27 August, 2010. The results are post-weighted by age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, income and party vote 2008 to reflect the national population. The maximum margin of error on the national sample is +/- 2%.

. For WWF-New Zealand's press release analysing the draft energy strategy, see: http://www.wwf.org.nz/media_centre/?4840/Draft-energy-strategy-riddled-with-holes

. On oil prices, the Government's draft energy strategy states:
"Even with local discovery or production of liquid fuels, the price to New Zealanders will remain in line with international oil prices. We anticipate that oil prices will remain volatile but on an upward path over the coming decades." Source: p. 12 at: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73919/Developing%20Our%20Energy%20Potential%20July%202010.pdf

. On the development of alternatives to oil, the Government's draft energy strategy states:
"The Government will not pick winners: ultimately uptake of new energy sources and technologies will depend on the decisions made by consumers as they respond to oil prices."
Source: p.13 http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73919/Developing%20Our%20Energy%20Potential%20July%202010.pdf

The regional results of the survey are as follows (please note that sub sample results for regional areas are subject to higher margins of error and should only be regarded as indicative. Results may not total 100% due to rounding):

Auckland City: (14% of respondents)
13% Invest more in improving and expanding the rail network
11% Invest more in expanding other public transport
54% Both
9% Leave it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high
14% don't know

Wellington City: (6% of respondents)
17% Invest more in improving and expanding the rail network
10% Invest more in expanding other public transport
63% Both
4% Leave it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high
5% don't know

Kapiti: (2% of respondents)
18% Invest more in improving and expanding the rail network
0% Invest more in expanding other public transport
82% Both
0% Leave it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high
1% don't know

Christchurch: (7% of respondents)
16% Invest more in improving and expanding the rail network
9% Invest more in expanding other public transport
60% Both
8% Leave it for consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high
7% don't know

Media contacts: Jenny Riches WWF Marketing & Communications Manager, tel: 04 4714288 / 0274477158

About WWF
WWF-New Zealand is part of the WWF International Network, the world's largest and most experienced independent conservation organisation. It has close to five million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries. WWF's mission is to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature. This is achieved by working on the ground with local communities, and in partnership with government and industry, using the best possible science to advocate change and effective conservation policy.

Seven out of ten Kiwis want Govt to prepare for peak oil

2010-08-26

Research from Colmar Brunton released today finds the Government’s draft energy strategy does not deliver the action that the majority of New Zealanders want for securing access to affordable alternatives to petrol and diesel in the future, as cheaper, easy-to-reach oil supplies decline around the world and oil prices rise.

“The research shows the Government’s draft energy strategy simply does not deliver what New Zealanders want,” said WWF Climate Change Campaigner, Peter Hardstaff. “Seven out of ten believe it’s the Government’s task to plan ahead, and invest now in public transport and alternative fuels before the price of oil rises.”

He continued: “The Government acknowledges oil prices will increase in future, yet the strategy offers no protection against this. Its plan is to have no plan and hope for the best. As the research shows, the majority of New Zealanders don’t believe that is good enough.

“The right decisions now are important so we can continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and keep the cost of electricity and fuel manageable for New Zealanders and for our export earning producers,” he stated. “We are advocating for the Government to set out a clear strategy to transition away from New Zealand’s current heavy reliance on oil for moving people and goods.

“This is an opportunity for New Zealand to protect our environment and our economy. For example, the strategy could seek to build on New Zealand’s significant potential for the development and use of home-grown biofuels and other new clean technologies.”

As part of Colmar Brunton’s omnibus poll in August, New Zealanders were informed that the Government expects oil prices to rise steadily in the future as cheaper, easy-to-reach oil supplies decline around the world, and that increased oil production in New Zealand will have no impact on this trend because the price is fixed to international oil prices. They were asked if they thought the government should:

1) Invest now in developing public transport and alternatives to petrol and diesel for New Zealand

2) Or allow consumers and companies to find or develop their own alternative transport methods and fuels when they consider petrol and diesel prices have become too high

Seven out of ten - 72% - said the Government should invest now in alternatives, whilst 24% said the Government should let consumers or companies find their own alternative. The remaining 4% said they don't know.

WWF is urging New Zealanders to make a submission on the draft energy strategy. Submissions close 5pm 2 September. For more information on how to make a submission, see: wwf.org.nz

Ends

Notes to editors

•    The research was conducted using Colmar Brunton's telephone omnibus, a survey of 500 New Zealanders aged 18 and over. Interviewing was conducted from 10 to 16 August, 2010. The results are post-weighted to reflect New Zealand population statistics in terms of gender, age and region, and have a maximum margin of error of +/-4.4%. The research is available online at www.wwf.org.nz

•    For WWF-NZ’s press release criticising the draft energy strategy, see: http://www.wwf.org.nz/media_centre/?4840/Draft-energy-strategy-riddled-with-holes

•    On oil prices, the Government’s draft energy strategy states:
“Even with local discovery or production of liquid fuels, the price to New Zealanders will remain in line with international oil prices. We anticipate that oil prices will remain volatile but on an upward path over the coming decades.” Source: p. 12 at: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73919/Developing%20Our%20Energy%20Potential%20July%202010.pdf

•    On the development of alternatives to oil, the Government’s draft energy strategy states:
“The Government will not pick winners: ultimately uptake of new energy sources and technologies will depend on the decisions made by consumers as they respond to oil prices.”
Source: p.13 http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73919/Developing%20Our%20Energy%20Potential%20July%202010.pdf

Media contacts: Jenny Riches WWF Marketing & Communications Manager, tel: 04 4714288 / 0274477158

About WWF
WWF-New Zealand is part of the WWF International Network, the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organisation. It has close to five million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature. This is achieved by working on the ground with local communities, and in partnership with government and industry, using the best possible science to advocate change and effective conservation policy.

Government needs to put more energy into strategy

2010-08-25

I’m sure I’m like most New Zealanders when it comes to switching on the lights or the television: it doesn’t cross my mind that there won’t be enough electricity to make them work. Power shortages are something we read about in Fiji or Zimbabwe, not New Zealand. And yet, as recently as 2008, the government was urging people to take shorter showers, switch off towel rails and wash their dishes by hand.

The reality is that there have been serious electricity shortages in New Zealand, most recently in 1992 when businesses had to use liquid petroleum gas and diesel to generate electricity, street lights were turned off and the supply to household hot water tanks was rationed. Many New Zealand houses still have “ripple” meters, which allow the electricity company to send a signal down the power supply, turning off power to the hot water tank.

New Zealand’s heavy reliance on hydro schemes to generate electricity means that in low rainfall years there can be shortages. As well as in 2008, New Zealanders were asked to save power in 2001, 2003 and 2006 because of low hydro lake levels, but each time sufficient rain came in time to avoid forced power cuts.

Unless serious action is taken on energy efficiency, there is no doubt that New Zealand’s energy needs will continue to rise. The government’s own projections show substantial increases in demand for all types of energy by 2030.

Alongside the electricity that powers our homes and workplaces, the other big demand for energy in New Zealand is fuel for transport the demand for which, too, will rise substantially without action to improve efficiency and develop alternatives.

Clearly any responsible government needs a sound strategy to address future energy needs. And, any responsible government would, in its energy strategy, take into account issues such as the likely peak in conventional oil supplies in the next decade or two, our remote location, our abundance of options for renewable energy generation, the need to minimise our greenhouse gas emissions, and come up with a robust, environment-friendly approach to meeting our energy needs.

You might expect, then, that this government’s draft energy strategy would focus on low or no carbon energy development, proposing investment in renewable electricity generation, research into clean fuels, development of extensive public transport systems and investment in developing alternatives to diesel and petrol for road and rail transport. And this would not be pie-in-the-sky – New Zealand has more than enough potential to meet its energy needs without depending on fossil fuels.

However, the government’s draft strategy does none of this. Not only does it focus on increasing oil and coal extraction, presumably mainly for export, it has no coherent approach to transport and is woefully short of real targets and timeframes. The one target is does contain – achieving 90% renewable electricity generation by 2025 – is not backed up by a credible strategy of how we are going to get there.

The way New Zealand deals with its future energy needs is critical to our way of life, our international reputation and our impact on the environment. It is very important that all New Zealanders who care about our future have a say on the strategy. You can go to http://wwf.org.nz/take_action/draft_energy_strategy__have_your_say/ for help on how to do this.

Power shortages have happened before, and they can happen again, but it would be negligent of the government to pursue an energy strategy that ignores our abundant renewable resources and focuses on environmentally damaging and increasingly costly fossil fuels.

Living more sustainably: some fundamentals

2010-08-04

One of my favourite cartoons is pinned to the wall in our WWF offices. It shows a couple of scientific-looking people crouching down and peering at the ground and saying “There must be a source of energy down there somewhere.” Meanwhile the sun beats down on them from a cloudless sky.

90% of the species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. So extinction is the norm. Some of these species lived for tens of millions of years or more, making them a success by any measure. In contrast, modern humans have existed for a few hundreds of thousands of years at most.

Species have gone extinct for a wide variety of reasons. Changes in the Earth’s climate, the evolution of new predators, and even asteroid impacts have all been attributed as the cause for extinctions. It is also almost certainly true that species in the past modified their environments sufficiently to a point where those environments could no longer support them.

What seems quite clear is that modern humans have an attribute that is comparable to no other species that has ever lived: our ability to think, analyse and make decisions based on information about our environment. It’s why the scientific name for our species is Homo sapiens sapiens: literally “thinking man.” That is what makes our current behaviour so perplexing on the one hand, and so expected on the other.

We should be able to think our way out of the threat of extinction like no other species ever has; but we seem to be following the path towards extinction just like most of the species that have ever lived. Our addiction to what we might loosely call non-renewable resources displays clearly our inability to use our intelligence effectively. The sun is an endless source of unlimited energy. But our brightest and most creative brains choose to spend their time and effort working out quicker and faster ways to extract coal and oil from under the ground, and burn it very inefficiently. Most internal combustion engines use a mere 10-20% of the energy available in the fuel they burn, and the fuel itself is a finite resource.

Another example is the way we construct our buildings. Very few buildings are constructed in a way which allows their easy deconstruction. We’ve all seen the TV images of hotels in Las Vegas and tower blocks in East London being blown up spectacularly once they’ve reached the end of their useful lives. But imagine a scenario where they were simply deconstructed, and the components re-used in a new, different building somewhere else. Imagine a very large set of components for buildings that could be used and re-used, traded or given away, that reduced significantly our demand for new materials but allowed infinite creativity by architects and designers. And then imagine a world where we no longer have to constantly mine and dredge and dig for ever more supplies of raw materials.

The point is that as humans and thinkers we have the ability to change the way we are living, unlike the majority of species that have ever lived, so that extinction – the norm – is avoided. The question is: why aren’t we? Why aren’t all the engineers and scientists employed by BP, Total, Shell and Exxon to prospect for and extract minerals, at a huge cost economically and environmentally, instead employed to develop highly efficient systems and products for renewable energy generation, distribution and use? Why aren’t the world’s leading architects and engineers working on developing infinitely re-usable building components? Why does the New Zealand Government’s draft energy strategy, released yesterday (Thursday 22 July) for consultation, go into significant depth on extracting fossil fuels to power New Zealand’s economy yet is more or less mute on plans to encourage renewable energy?

The amount of energy available from the sun is staggering. It delivers up to 1000 watts of energy per square metre. That’s enough to power 10 100 watt lightbulbs, 24 hours a day, indefinitely, for every square metre of the earth’s surface. What if BP, today, re-allocated its 80,000 employees to efficiently capture and distribute just a fraction of that energy.

What has happened is that, as individuals and as a species, we have made some choices about how we live, what we have applied our intelligence to, and how we use our resources. Those decisions seem to be placing us as just another normal species, like the majority of species that have lived on earth, heading towards extinction.

I believe WWF’s role is to do our best to make sure that we are not just another normal species. We need substantial and fundamental shifts in the way we live. If we look around at the astonishing array of intelligence, creativity and imagination that has gone into creating the world we see today, I simply refuse to believe that we can’t harness that same intelligence, creativity and imagination to create a different world where we end up, by choice, in the 10% of species that do not become extinct.

Draft energy strategy ‘riddled with holes’

2010-07-23

The Government’s draft energy strategy released yesterday for consultation has been criticised by WWF-New Zealand as being ‘riddled with holes and dangerously biased towards mineral extraction’.

“The Government’s draft energy strategy clearly prioritises unsustainable fossil fuel extraction over policies to drive down greenhouse gas emission or stimulate alternative technologies,” said Peter Hardstaff, WWF-New Zealand Climate Change Campaigner.

In the draft document, the government has proposed to reaffirm the target that 90 per cent of electricity generation will be from renewable energy sources by 2025, yet fails to come up with a convincing strategy for how this will be achieved. Similarly, the government envisions a long term future where transport emissions have halved, but presents no strategy to achieve this target.

“It is riddled with holes. There is significant depth and detail on plans for fossil fuel extraction, and a gaping chasm between the long-term future for alternative energy that the strategy describes, and the strategies and actions the government intends to follow in order to get there,” said WWF’s Peter Hardstaff.

“When it comes to developing new energy sources, the government says it “will not pick winners” and will wait to see what happens when oil prices rise. When it comes to existing energy sources, the government is happy to ‘pick winners’ and provide the support the oil and coal industry demands,” he said.

“The Government’s task is to provide New Zealanders with an energy strategy to secure access to safe, renewable energy as prices of oil rise, and to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. In its current form, it fails to deliver,” he said. “We encourage New Zealanders to make submissions to the Government to call for a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages alternative energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.”

Feedback on the draft strategies closes at 5.00pm on Thursday, 2 September 2010

Have your say and make a submission based on WWF's analysis here
The draft strategies and more information on the submissions process is available at www.med.govt.nz/energystrategy

New bill to slash Amazon protection passes crucial vote

2010-07-07

Brasilia, Brazil - Amendments to Brazil's Forest Code that could sanction dramatic increases in deforestation passed a crucial vote in the Congress's Special Committee on Forest Law Changes last night, an outcome lamented by scientists, environmental and social NGOs and indigenous groups.

Gradual strengthening of the Forest Code and more recent improvements in enforcement have been credited with playing a major role in Brazil's success in winding back horrifying levels of deforestation in the Amazon and other areas over recent years.

However, the new alternate bill threatens to open up an additional 85 million hectares for legal clearing in the Amazon, reduce the level of forest cover protecting river and stream banks and steep slopes, and pass much of the control of landclearing into the hands of regional and local authorities much more under the influence of large landowners and agribusiness interests.

The bill also proposes amnesties on existing fines for illegal clearing, a measure some associate with the January establishmnet of an improved land registry that in combination with satellite imagery is making enforcement more effective. Research presented at a seminar in May by scientists and NGOs including WWF showed clearing exceeding the legal requirements by over 40 per cent.

The bill now goes to the Congress generally where it is expected to pass, following which it will be subject to Presidential assent or veto. When this happens will largely be influenced by Brazil's elections, due in October. While the bill threatens an informal understanding that controversial legislation generally takes a back seat in the immediate run-up to elections, there is also a tradition of sometimes outlandish legislative proposals being pushed through as the old parliament continues to sit for the remainder of the year.

In WWF-Brazil's opinion, the changes were hardly debated and, if the bill is passed by the Lower House as is, it will nullify all the efforts that the Brazilian Government has been making to conserve Brazil's forests.

While detractors of the Forest Law argue that the existing legislation is outdated, WWF-Brazil's Conservation Director Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza underscores that this is a forward-looking law insofar as the existing Forest Law protects Brazil's agricultural production and huge biodiversity against the impacts of climate change by means of the ecological services provided by the so-called permanent protection areas (APPs) and legal reserves (RL).

"The existing law not only seeks to ensure natural resources, fertile lands and high-quality, abundant water are available, but also to reduce risks associated with climate changes and the resulting increase in extreme climate events. Compliance with the Forest Law staves off soil erosion and landslides, and protects sources and rivers, which are vital for agriculture," said Carlos Alberto Mattos Scaramuzza, WWF-Brazil's Conservation Director.

WWF-Brazil stressed that more adequate alternatives for balancing environment and development have been put forward by researchers, civil society, and the Ministério Público (Office of the Public Prosecutor), but a choice was made for a backward option without any consideration of the consequences.

"It is up to WWF-Brazil to call on Brazilian Congressmen, NGOs, researchers, and farmers so that the very imperfections and redundancies in the alternate bill do not translate into real obstacles to Brazil's economic and social development as a result of degraded soils, water resources and natural resources," Scaramuzza said.

Also under threat are Brazil's impressive commitments on climate change which mainly relay on continued reductions in deforestation, responsible for about 75 per cent of the country's emissions.

A setback in Brazil's environmental legislation

2010-07-07

WWF-Brazil described the approval of an alternate bill for the Forest Law submitted by Representative Aldo Rebelo as a setback. In WWF-Brazil's opinion, the changes were hardly debated and, if the bill is passed by the Lower House as is, it will nullify all the efforts that the Brazilian Government has been making to conserve Brazil's forests.

WWF-Brazil stressed that more adequate alternatives have been put forward by researchers, civil society, and the Ministério Público (Office of the Public Prosecutor), but a choice was made for a backward option without any consideration of the consequences.

The NGO pointed out that the proposed measures weaken the deforestation targets to reduce greenhouse effect gases proposed by Brazil at COP-15, which are included in Federal Law no. 12.187/2009.

While detractors of the Forest Law argue that the existing legislation is outdated, WWF-Brazil's Conservation Director Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza underscores that this is a forward-looking law insofar as the existing Forest Law protects Brazil's agricultural production and huge biodiversity against the impacts of climate change by means of the ecological services provided by the so-called permanent protection areas (APPs) and legal reserves (RL).

"The existing law not only seeks to ensure natural resources, fertile lands and high-quality, abundant water are available, but also to reduce risks associated with climate changes and the resulting increase in extreme climate events. Compliance with the Forest Law staves off soil erosion and landslides, and protects sources and rivers, which are vital for agriculture," said Carlos Alberto Mattos Scaramuzza.

For WWF-Brazil's Conservation Director, "it is up to WWF-Brazil to call on Brazilian Congressmen, NGOs, researchers, and farmers so that the very imperfections and redundancies in the alternate bill do not translate into real obstacles to Brazil's economic and social development as a result of degraded soils, water resources and natural resources."

Russia to create new national parks and reserves almost size of Switzerland

2010-07-06

Moscow – Polar bears, walruses, sea otters, and other endangered species are all set to benefit from a Russian decision to boost its national protected areas to nearly 3 percent of its territory by 2020, a move which helps the country to meet its international obligations to protect biodiversity.

The Russian government’s decision establishes 9 new nature reserves and 13 national parks covering a total area of over 3.8 million ha by 2020. Russia is also introducing marine buffer zones of over 1 million ha.
“For the first time, development of protected areas in Russia will be based on the analysis of all available data on biological diversity of Russia”, said Vladimir Krever, WWF-Russia biodiversity coordinator.
“The creation of protected areas is crucial to save Russia’s diverse and unique biodiversity,” he added.
An existing 9 reserves and 1 national park will see their areas increased by 500 thousand ha.

The decision was based on an analysis of WWF in cooperation with The Nature Coservancy and MAVA Foundation, carried out between 2006-2008, and is aimed at fulfilling Russia’s commitment under the Convention on Biodiversity to establish effective protected area systems that safeguard biodiversity.
The UN has declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity, culminating in October at the 10th Conference of the Parties in Nagoya. WWF is calling on governments in Nagoya to adopt a clear roadmap and allocate additional financing to halt biodiversity loss by 2020.

Stopping the loss of the planet’s biodiversity should be given the highest priority by governments because it is the foundation for human life providing food, medicine and clean water as well as reducing the impact of natural disasters and climate change. Natural habitats and species underpin the global economy and directly supports billions of people who dependant on forests, fisheries and wetlands for their livelihoods.
In 2002 governments pledged to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 but despite individual conservation successes, such as in Russia, governments have not met their commitment and biodiversity continues to be lost at alarming rates, international studies show.

“We need to understand that protecting biodiversity means not only protecting nature but also our economy and wellbeing. “ By allowing biodiversity loss to continue we are undermining our future ,” said Rold Hogan, Biodiversity Manager at WWF International .

Over 300 experts provided original data for the analysis and took part in the discussion. On the basis of this data WWF assessed representativeness of the existing system of federal protected areas and worked out a framework for its further development.

As a result, WWF recommended the creation of 70 extra nature reserves and 71 national parks in Russia. Experience has shown that creating more than 2 federal protected areas a year is difficult, so implementation of WWF recommendations will be extended over a few decades. WWF through its members and corporate partners will raise funds to help the Ministry implement the framework.

Spotlight on planned double subsidies for Spanish coal

2010-07-06

Brussels, Belgium – WWF has today lodged a formal complaint with the European Commission concerning a new regulation passed by the Spanish government to provide state aid to power stations that burn domestically produced coal. The organisation says that the scheme, if approved, would be additional to existing subsidies already given to Spanish coal mines for the same coal.

Earlier this year, the Spanish government adopted a Royal Decree to fix prices and prioritise dispatch at ten Spanish coal-fired power stations using domestic coal . The plan, which would cost an estimated €800M over three years according to the Spanish energy regulator, aims to help clear a backlog of stockpiled coal caused by the combination of lower electricity demand due to the economic downturn and an increase in the share of electricity generated from renewable energy sources. Implementation of the plan has been delayed pending its clearance by the Spanish EU competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia.

‘Faced with a recession, state aids for renewable energy growth and green jobs are the most sustainable option for meeting climate targets and developing a vibrant economy. Yet the Spanish government is going backwards by supporting new coal subsidies,’ said Mar Asunción, Head of Climate Change of WWF Spain.

In addition, Spain is one of a handful of EU states pressing the European Commission to prolong subsidies for coal mining. The current 8-year derogation expires at the end of this year. Current annual aid levels are highest in Germany and Spain, €2bn and €1bn respectively. The Commission could propose a new coal derogation later this month.

‘Any subsidies that artificially boost the use of coal are incomprehensible. But double subsidies are just farcical. The European Commission must act decisively to ensure Spanish coal aid is phased out; Spain’s plans must not become a precedent for other EU member states,’ said Mark Johnston, Senior Policy Adviser at WWF in Brussels.

Spain is already not meeting its greenhouse gas emission targets. According to the European Environment Agency's latest annual inventory, emissions in the country in 2008 were 40 percent, or 116 million tonnes CO2 equivalent, above its Kyoto base year and 22 percent, or 73 million tonnes CO2 equivalent, above its 2012 compliance target.

G20: long on platitudes, short on delivery

2010-06-27

Toronto, Canada - Sustainable economic recovery will need more than brief platitudes about green recovery, WWF warned today as the G20 concluded without significant commitments on climate change, climate finance or even the G20-nominated issue of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

“The world leaders are still painting the economy in black and white. But the 21st century economy must include green,” said Kim Carstensen, the leader of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative.

“The greenest thing about the G20 is its ability to reuse and recycle earlier commitments. This summit could have been the beginning of real action towards a clean, efficient and resilient economy but all we got is some nice words about green economy and a recycled statement on fossil fuel subsidies”

At the 2009 Pittsburgh G20 summit leaders committed to “Rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption”.

“This year’s G20 Statement repeats this commitment, and leaders “...encourage continued and full implementation of country-specific strategies and will continue to review progress towards this commitment.”

Carstensen said, “Reforming fossil fuel subsidies is an obvious win-win solution for the environment and the economy, and it is encouraging that the issue will remain on the G20 agenda. But in Canada the leaders failed to take the next step to indicate their global level of ambition and agree a clear timeline to achieve what they promise.”

However, one bright spot was India this week translating talk into action, announcing a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies on petrol and reviewing subsidies on diesel and other fossil fuels.

This week India’s example shows that there is surely a will in a number of countries, but to push the global agenda, we still need a stronger ambition and deadlines on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies which account for more than US$500 billion a year globally.”

On another note, the G20 did not agree any initiatives that could help provide funds to meet the cost of climate change action in the poorest countries. The move by German Chancellor Merkel and French President Sarkozy to advance the discussion on financial transaction taxes (FTT) was shoved aside by the G20. If FTTs were adopted globally, they would have the potential to generate much needed finance for development and environmental issues while forking out for the economy.

“G20 leaders say that they are the premier forum for international economic cooperation.
If they are serious about this, they need to also discuss how to generate the funds urgently needed to help vulnerable countries cope with climate change.”

Canada has played a highly unhelpful role as hosts of the summit, consistently ignoring calls from world leaders to allocate time for meaningful discussion of climate change.

“Canada did not succeed in keeping climate change off the G20 agenda but as host, they must be seen as the major reason why it has not been possible to move beyond repetition of last year’s agreements,” said Zoë Caron, Climate Policy and Advocacy Specialist, WWF Canada.

The G20 missed an opportunity to become a relevant global player on climate and energy. South Korea has a big gap to fill at the next G20 summit in November.

Politics of climate change transformed as leader dumped for not acting

2010-06-24

Gland, Switzerland: In what may come to be seen as a pivotal moment in the global politics of climate change, members of Australia’s ruling Labor Party today dumped Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in favour of his deputy, Julia Gillard.

The basis of the sudden and largely unexpected coup was a slide in polls which many commentators attributed to Rudd’s March decision to abandon efforts to push a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) through a hostile Senate.

A poll commissioned by WWF Australia which showed collapsing government support and a soaring Green Party vote in key marginal seats may also have contributed to Rudd's ousting. He's been replaced by Julia Gillard - Australia's first woman prime-minister.

Leading national daily newspaper, The Australian, made reference to “voter anger at the Prime Minister's decision to delay the emissions trading scheme (ETS)”, reporting that nearly two thirds of voters in the marginals surveyed supported an ETS while only a quarter opposed it – and nearly two thirds said it would affect the way they vote.

"We believe the Labor Party's backflip on the emissions trading scheme and its associated decline in the polls is a key reason we now have a new leader," said WWF-Australia CEO Greg Bourne.

"It is not surprising that support for an emissions trading scheme is still a key factor in voters minds, given it was a major platform for both major parties at the last election and both have since backflipped," said Kellie Caught, WWF-Australia's Climate Change Policy Manager

"What this poll makes clear is that taking serious action to reduce Australia's carbon pollution is a vote winner."

While Australians may have acted first, indications are that they are not alone. Two weeks ago, Stanford University released research showing a large majority of US citizens supported action on climate change, reinforcing similar findings from the UK.

Said Stanford Professor of communication, political science and psychology Jon A. Krosnick, who lead the research, “a huge majority shares a common vision of climate change”.

“This creates a unique opportunity for elected representatives to satisfy a lot of voters,” he concluded.

Australia’s new Prime Minister said after her election that she would make a priority of establishing a “community consensus for action”. If re-elected at the forthcoming elections, she said “ . . . I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad”.

WWF today congratulated Julia Gillard on becoming the next Prime Minister of Australia and urged the new leader to recommit to an emissions trading scheme by, 2011.

“The party backflipped and now it is up to the new leader to right the wrongs and commit to an emissions trading scheme by 2011" , Mr Bourne said.

"Any attempt to just tinker around the edges with piecemeal action will not satisfy the Australian people that real action is being taken.

‘Amazongate’ evaporates as newspaper apologises over story

2010-06-22

London, UK: A key element of the concerted attack on climate science earlier this year collapsed yesterday, with The Sunday Times apologizing for and withdrawing an article alleging that estimates of climate change risks to the Amazon were based on an “unsubstantiated claim” in a WWF report.

The apology, coming almost five months after the article was published, followed complaints to the UK Press Complaints Commission from leading tropical forest ecologist Dr Simon Lewis, who was interviewed for the article and WWF report authors Andy Rowell and Dr Peter Moore.

The Sunday Times accepted that assessments of risk to the Amazon in both the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and a WWF/International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) report on forest fires were not unsubstantiated, but based on peer-reviewed science.

The article did not give a “fair or accurate account” of the views of Dr Lewis and was inconsistent with the research literature he had provided.

Nor were the authors of the 2000 WWF/IUCN global report on forest fires “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise”. The paper said “We also now understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary”.

"This retraction hopefully indicates that after a period of some hysteria, balance and consideration is being restored to the media's reporting of climate science,” said WWF-UK’s head of climate change, Keith Allott.

“Earlier this year we witnessed a concerted attempt to discredit both the IPCC and the whole body of climate science - and too often certain media seemed to write the headline first and then construct a story to fit it. The media are right to challenge and to hold all claims to account, but in this case their story was just not fair or true."

"As we said in a letter published by The Sunday Times at the time, misleading coverage in respected media outlets can serve to undermine public confidence in the credibility of climate science.

“The reality is that we are running out of time to head off the huge risks that climate change poses, not just to the Amazon but to the rest of the world."

Recent Stanford University research found a majority of US and UK citizens solidly behind action on climate change, with views little affected by the now rapidly unraveling spate of attacks on climate science.

The correction published by the Sunday Times reads:

The Sunday Times and the IPCC: Correction

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News,
Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) report had included an "unsubstantiated claim" that up to 40% of
the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall.
The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for WWF by Andrew
Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as "green
campaigners" with "little scientific expertise." The article also stated
that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that
dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed
scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in
error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected
Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the
impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell
is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an
expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the
contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by
Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of
Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that,
in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both
the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed
scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time,
including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does
not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’
statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to
droughts caused by climate change.

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’ concern at the IPCC’s use
of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of
those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis
holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of
non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and
unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s
understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article
that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing
and so “did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these
points. We apologise for this.

The original article to which this correction refers has been removed

Oil drilling suspension should top agenda at arctic emergencies meeting

2010-06-16

Vorkuta, Russia: As oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico from a sunken BP drilling rig, a key meeting of arctic countries starting today needs to push for a suspension of all arctic drilling until the region can deal with the risks, WWF said.

Greg Bourne, a former BP executive now with the global environment organisation, said imagining nations could deal with a drilling accident in the Arctic with current technology and resources would be “a triumph of hope over experience and reason”.

The Arctic Council recently updated and revised guidelines for offshore oil and gas drilling, but those guidelines, even if implemented, would not go far enough to prevent or contain catastrophic spills such as last year’s Timor Sea blowout which took 73 days to stop or the current Gulf of Mexico oil confirmed as the worst in US history and still unresolved.

WWF maintains that the revised guidelines do not go nearly far enough and the Arctic Council Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) Working Group needs to use the Vorkuta meeting commencing today to strongly urge the Council to impose a halt to drilling plans for this year over a wide spread of Arctic .

This year exploratory drilling is scheduled to occur off the west coast of Greenland. In Norway, the government is considering opening up areas of high ecological value outside of Lofoten and Vesterålen for oil exploration. In Russia, exploratory drilling is scheduled in the Kara Sea and the Ob river estuary near the Yamal Peninsula.

Nationally, no new drilling should occur until there is the capacity to rapidly and effectively respond to spills in arctic waters.

“It is time for the arctic states to recognize that offshore oil drilling with current technology and response capability poses unacceptable risks in the Arctic” says Aleksey Knizhnikov, Oil & Gas Environmental Policy Officer for WWF-Russia who is attending the Vorkuta meeting.

“Norway and the United States have already taken the first step, by putting off any further arctic offshore drilling until an investigation into the Gulf disaster is over. But we already know that whatever that investigation reveals, it will not diminish the risks of arctic drilling.”

Arctic offshore oil drilling is facing increasing opposition from local peoples. A recent poll commissioned by WWF-Norway indicated that almost one out of four Norwegians has become more negative to oil exploration in Lofoten and Vesterålen following the Gulf spill. In both Canada and Alaska, local Indigenous peoples are also opposing offshore oil development until or unless they can be assured that it can be done safely.

"The offshore exploration and production industry are pushing at the very limits of technology and the ability to safely handle and control that technology," says Greg Bourne, CEO of WWF-Australia, and formerly a Drilling Manager and Regional President with BP in Latin America and then Australasia.

"The Gulf of Mexico is the world's centre of drilling technology with thousands of engineers and immense resources in terms of boats, planes, control equipment and manufacturing facilities - and even here it is proving immensely difficult to handle the tragic event of the Gulf of Mexico blowout.

“To even conceive of being able to control a similar event in the Arctic would be a triumph of hope over experience and reason. The consequences of such an event in the cold climate would lead to a persistence of ecological damage over many decades," Bourne says.

WWF is currently updating a study of the oil spill response gap in the Arctic, showing that current technology is incapable of effectively cleaning up oil spills in ice covered waters.

World Environment Day, a time to consider - is the New Zealand Government living in a parallel universe?

2010-06-04

WWF climate change campaigner Peter Hardstaff blogs about the possibilities and realities of World Environment Day.

It sometimes feels like the current government has propelled New Zealand into a parallel universe where the normal rules, or common sense, get reversed. Black is white. Wrong is right. And tax breaks on 23 individual cars are a major contribution to tackling climate change.

Take the recent oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, where a pipe fault on a BP exploration rig causes an explosion and probably the worst single oil spill the US has ever seen. A couple of weeks and millions of litres of spilt oil later, while the rest of the world is reconsidering the wisdom of deep sea oil extraction, Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee announces a deep sea exploration permit for Brazilian company Petrobras.

This comes alongside the ongoing attempt to open up conservation areas for mining. But there’s no need for us to worry apparently, because the government has proposed to add some more areas to the conservation list to compensate. In fact ministries have gone out of their way to find areas with no minerals under them in order to stick them on the list of areas protected from mining.

Read that sentence again, and tell yourself you are not living in a parallel universe.

And of course, our government is firmly committed to keeping global warming below a 2 degrees centigrade increase in average global temperatures, but is not actually prepared to do much about it. We abandon common sense regulations like Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards - that would steadily raise the bar for all vehicles in the country – and instead provide a tax break for electric cars. Which applies to just 23 vehicles currently on the road in New Zealand, one of which is owned by our own Environment Minister, Dr. Nick Smith.

Still think you don’t live in a parallel universe?

It is of course true that New Zealand cannot prevent dangerous climate change on its own, so we also need action at the international level. While you could be forgiven for thinking that nothing is happening, the global climate negotiations did in fact kick off again in Bonn, Germany, last week.

These talks are as important as ever. With countries like New Zealand clinging to national interest, refusing to do anything unless others act first, and trying to create loopholes to ensure we won’t have to do a lot once the deal is done, the creation of an international treaty and the fine detail of this treaty is critical if we are to address global warming.

There’s a real opportunity, starting in Bonn, to nail down some important elements of the deal, such as ways to protect rainforests (important stores of carbon) and on creative mechanisms to help poor countries pay for low carbon development and adapt to climate change. Few people expect the next big UN summit – starting in Cancun, Mexico later this year – to deliver a final deal but several milestones are within reach if the negotiators and their political masters can get their act together.

The good news this World Environment Day is that whilst the Government is living in a parallel universe, New Zealanders are living in the real world. Greenpeace estimates around 50,000 New Zealanders took to Queen Street in the biggest protest march in living history, to make it clear that they believe mining conservation land is 100% pure stupidity. Over a million Kiwis were amongst hundreds of millions of people around the world showing support for action on climate change by taking part in WWF’s Earth Hour in March this year.

WWF will continue pressing our government to make a light speed jump from its parallel universe back into the real world where their constituents live; a world where a high-tech, low carbon clean, green economy is not achieved by deep sea oil drilling, nor is it achieved by digging up conservation land and implementing environmental policies that will help less than 0.001% of the population reduce their carbon emissions.

New round of UN Climate talks kick off in Bonn

2010-05-31

June will be a watershed month for global efforts towards a low-carbon and climate resilient future, says WWF.

UN climate talks in Bonn, which started yesterday, and the G8 and G20 summits later this month can create huge momentum towards a number of breakthroughs needed for a global climate agreement that would speed up the race to the low-carbon future.

“June is a turning point for climate politics after a period of confusion and soul-searching since Copenhagen,” said Kathrin Gutmann, Head of Climate Policy, WWF Global Climate Initiative.

“Copenhagen didn’t deliver the full treaty the world needs, but it brought us very close to agreement on a few crucial elements of the package, so Bonn is about picking things up where Copenhagen left them, for breakthroughs on these elements in Mexico later this year.”

In WWF’s view, negotiators in Bonn can push some important debates close to conclusion, e.g. on forest protection driven by carbon finance – the so called REDD+ agenda – and on creative financing for low-carbon action and climate resilience in developing countries.

“We are at the verge of agreeing to stop deforestation and to gear up for dealing with a changing climate through adaptation”, says Gutmann.

“Securing breakthroughs in these areas at the talks in Mexico this December would put the world in a good position to wrap such key elements into a global agreement at the next summit in South Africa in 2011, marking an important deadline as the Kyoto Protocol needs a new lease on life by 2012.”

WWF advocates a similar step by step approach to closing the gigatonne gap, a massive mismatch of emission reduction levels pledged by countries in the Copenhagen Accord and the levels that are actually needed to secure a climate resilient future.

“Countries will win the gigatonne challenge if they speed up the low-carbon transformation of their economies, close the loopholes that undermine their national action plans, and work together to extend their transformative efforts to new sources of pollution that haven’t been regulated so far”, says Gutmann.

A fiesta in Mexico to blow away the post-Copenhagen blues will also depend on climate finance, putting the upcoming G8 and G20 summits in Canada into the spotlight.

Heads of States there are scheduled to identify new sources of finance like taxes on financial transactions or levies on emissions from unregulated sectors like shipping and aviation, and to discuss the switching of subsidies from polluting fossil fuels to innovative energy technologies – in order to marry their economic and environmental agendas and add momentum to the race towards the low-carbon future.

“Using G8 and G20 to mobilize funds for clean development and the Bonn talks to sort out building blocks for a climate agreement will give the international community the important atmosphere of trust that got lost during the Danish disaster last December”, says Gutmann.

Keep up to date with news from Bonn - follow our climate blog

More information:
-    For more information on WWF’s climate policy visit: http://www.panda-org/climate
-    WWF’s analysis of the Copenhagen Accord: http://www.panda.org/climate/steppingstone

WWF activities in Bonn:
-    WWF will run the Climate Deal Oracle during the second week of the Bonn conference, a poll asking negotiators and observers when we should get and when we will get a global climate agreement.
-    Together with partner NGOs, WWF will close the Bonn climate talks with a visual action on 11 June outside the Maritim Hotel, involving a giant dice and world leaders gambling with the climate.
-    WWF hosts an official side-event to promote the concept of Zero Carbon Action Plans (ZCAPs), on the basis of a master-plan for decarbonizing the German economy, called Blueprint Germany.
-    WWF will launch various papers throughout the Bonn conference, e.g. on adaptation (2 June) and on measuring and verifying climate action (7 June).

US Government will not issue any permits for exploratory drilling in Arctic waters off Alaska until at least 2011.

2010-05-28

The US Government has announced that it will not be issuing any permits for exploratory drilling in Arctic waters off Alaska until at least 2011.

Carter Roberts, president and CEO of WWF-US says "This is an important victory for the fragile Arctic ecosystem, for the communities of Alaska's North Slope, and for sound science. It is clear that the US Minerals Management Service is a broken agency, one that has been guided not by science, but by a culture that has often put leasing revenues ahead of thorough environmental and safety review. As the events of the past month have demonstrated, we do not have the technology or capacity to adequately respond to a massive spill—in the gulf or anywhere. Halting all new off-shore drilling until our failed regulatory system is reformed and the American people are assured that drilling can be done safely is absolutely the right decision.

The administration's previously announced moves to overhaul MMS and commission an independent panel to investigate the BP spill are steps in the right direction. However, what is still missing is a solution to the underlying cause of the BP disaster -- our addiction to dirty, dangerous oil. It has never been more urgent to break oil's stranglehold on our economy and our environment. The catastrophe in the gulf should provide all the impetus needed for the President and Congress to finally pass a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill this year."

Shell Oil unable to assure safety of Arctic drilling; Proposal is "imagineering, not engineering," says former Shell official

2010-05-24

WASHINGTON, DC - Two engineers with extensive experience in the oil industry said on Capitol Hill today that Shell Oil's plans to begin drilling off the coast of Alaska in less than six weeks are fraught with risks that have not been adequately addressed by the company.

Dr. Robert Bea, a former Shell official, and Susan Harvey, who previously worked for British Petroleum, expressed serious concerns about Shell's drilling plans, noting that a spill in the Arctic could not be cleaned up. Those same concerns were detailed in a twelve-page letter that World Wildlife Fund submitted today to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, analyzing Shell's proposed safety procedures for drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

Dr. Bea, who now heads the Center for Catastrophic Risk Management at the University of California-Berkley, said he still considers Shell to be like "family," but nevertheless is concerned that the company's proposal does not provide an accurate assessment of the true risks of drilling in the Arctic. "This is imagineering, not engineering," Bea said.

Shell plans to begin drilling in the Beaufort Sea as soon as July 1 and expand drilling operations to the Chukchi Sea soon thereafter. The company's drilling vessel, the Frontier Discoverer, is expected to depart Subic Bay, in the Philippines, for the coast of Alaska within days. Nearly 700 leases have been sold in the Beaufort and Chukchi, setting the stage for what WWF officials have called an "Arctic oil rush." Photos taken last week of the Frontier Discoverer in Subic Bay are available here.

Harvey, who once headed the state agency in Alaska that oversees oil spill prevention and response, noted that the Alaskan North Slope is a particularly risky area to drill given its remoteness and lack of basic infrastructure needed to deploy oil spill response equipment. "All of that spill response infrastructure you see in the gulf right now, it doesn't exist in Alaska," she said.

Harvey explained that the freezing temperatures and icy waters of the Arctic render traditional response procedures inadequate and said oil trapped under ice would be unrecoverable for up to half a year. In that situation, she said, "The only thing you can do is wait six months for the ice to melt and by then [the oil] will have spread far and wide."

The only practical response procedure in the Arctic environment, Harvey said, would be burning off the oil, but she noted severe limitations in using that technique. She agreed with oil industry claims that it is technically possible to burn up to 90 percent of oil that is in a contained space, but said it would be nearly impossible to contain more than just a small fraction of the oil, given the limited number of vessels that would be able to help with containment and the vast size of the potential spill area. "It's like trying to mow a 100 acre lawn with one lawnmower," she said.

Bea and Harvey made their remarks at a Capitol Hill briefing that was co-hosted by WWF and moderated by WWF President and CEO Carter Roberts.

As the BP oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico continues to worsen, WWF has called upon President Obama and Secretary Salazar to halt Shell's planned drilling until the Deepwater Horizon disaster has been fully investigated and the technology and procedures have been put in place to respond to and clean up a spill in the harsh, remote waters of the American Arctic.

"We still don't have a full picture of what went wrong in the gulf and we need to make sure we don't sow the seeds of disaster in this very, very special place," said WWF-US President and CEO Carter Roberts, referring to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

In the May 20, 2010 letter to Secretary Salazar, WWF addressed Shell's proposal, point-by-point, illustrating how the technology and procedures have not yet been developed to adequately respond to a spill in Arctic waters. WWF's analysis noted that drilling in the harsh, remote environment of the Arctic is far more perilous than in the Gulf of Mexico and that the technology and logistical infrastructure does not exist to contain and clean up a spill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

For the native Alaskan communities along the North Slope, an oil spill could be devastating to their culture and way of life, which is entirely dependent on the sea for subsistence hunting and fishing. Several Native Alaskan leaders visited the gulf coast earlier this week to observe the unfolding disaster first-hand. They are now in Washington, D.C., urging federal leaders to prevent a similar catastrophe in their back yards by halting Shell's proposed drilling.

"What we saw [in the gulf] was very sad," said Martha Ipalook-Falk, Tribal Council Treasurer of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, who participated in the Capitol Hill briefing today. "These memories of black plumes will stay with us - especially imagining the contrast to the white of the Arctic that we see around us in our homes."

1.25 million Kiwis switched off for Earth Hour 2010

2010-05-07

WWF-New Zealand has announced that 1.25 million New Zealanders participated in Earth Hour in March, the global ‘lights out’ campaign for action on climate change – uniting with hundreds of millions of people around the world who also switched off.

Colmar Brunton polling revealed that 42 per cent of the adult population took part in the event by switching off their lights and/or unnecessary appliances for one hour on Saturday 27 March.

“The fact four out of ten Kiwis felt inspired to take part in Earth Hour is a fantastic result,” said Chris Howe, WWF-New Zealand’s Executive Director. “Earth Hour is a message of hope and action. The high level of participation this year clearly demonstrates that New Zealanders care about climate change, and are prepared to take personal action to get the message across.”

Starting in the Chatman Islands, at 8.30pm on 27 March the lights went out in domino effect from Asia Pacific to Europe and Africa to the Americas as people from across the world joined together in celebration and contemplation of the planet. New Zealand’s Sky Tower, the Beehive and local Kiwi icons including Te Puke’s giant kiwifruit joined Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe and Beijing's Forbidden City and more than 1500 famous landmarks worldwide that switched off to show their support.
A record 128 countries and territories joined the global display of action for Earth Hour 2010, making it the world's largest ever global climate change initiative

In New Zealand, Earth Hour was first celebrated in 2008 in the city of Christchurch. In 2009 the event went national, and polling results showed that 51 per cent of the adult population participated (Colmar Brunton, 2009).

Chris Howe commented: “Last year, Earth Hour was new to most Kiwis and a staggering half the population switched off. Although we recorded a small drop in participation levels this year, a pattern that has been witnessed in other countries running Earth Hour over successive years, the fact that 1.25 million New Zealanders came together in a single unified action is hugely impressive and sends a clear signal that as a nation we are committed to protecting our living planet.”

“Earth Hour is a community-led campaign and we would like to thank all our partners and the councils who really embraced the event and helped spread the message. It was everyone coming together that really made Earth Hour such a success.”

Earth Hour 2010 was supported by 47 councils across New Zealand, and TV3, MoreFM, Trade Me, Toyota and Powershop were official partners.

WWF-New Zealand is urging the Government to take note of the high levels of public commitment to action on climate change, and to do their bit by enacting climate-friendly policies, such as improving public transport and encouraging renewable energy generation.