Urban Development: 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of subsidy beneficiaries

Lets get something straight about the USA subsidies to farmers. It is another example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. First, what is the premise for subsidies? In 1949, the farm policy “is based on the premise that a surplus of crops has lowered crop prices too far and farmers need subsidies to recover lost income. However, the federal government’s remedy is to offer subsidies that increase as a farmer plants more crops. This creates greater crop surpluses, driving prices down even further and spurring demands for even greater subsidies.”(Source: Heritage Foundation) Lets not forget that when Bush took office, subsidies for millionaires rose 28% and 400% across the board. The subsidies is going to the large industrial farms, 60% of small farmers businesses are not eligible and they are the ones that need it most. Farm policy as is, encourages overproduction through increasing the use of pesticides and fertilizers which has led to the demise of several ecosystems. According to 1998 EPA data, agricultural pollution is the leading cause of water quality impairment in lakes, streams and rivers. Agricultural pollution is the fifth leading cause of water quality impairment in estuaries. Small farmers are actually doing more for the environment, “In the United States, small farmers devote 17 percent of their area to woodlands, compared to only five percent on large farms, and keep nearly twice as much of their land in ‘soil improving uses,’ including cover crops and green manures.”
(Source: U.S. EPA brochure – PDF) The Wall Street Journal cleverly stated, “Senate and House conferees this week unveiled their final farm bill, a 10-year, $173.5 billion bucket of slop that has even Washington agog….Where, we wonder, is the adult supervision?” In 2002, 78 farms, none small or struggling, each received over a million dollars in subsidies. The bottom 80 percent of recipients average only $846 per year. So, who is getting subsidies? (these companies look familiar?)
• Examples of who is currently getting farm subsidies:
• Archer Daniels Midland $36,305
• Boise Cascade Corporation $11,024
• Caterpillar $171,698
• Chevron $260,223
• Deere & Company $12,875
• DuPont $188,732
• Georgia Pacific $37,156
• International Paper $375,393
• John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance $125,975
• Mead Corp $15,115
• Westvaco Corp $268,740
Others receiving subsidies: Eli Lilly Co, Kimberly-Clark, Navistar, Pfizer, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.
65% of Americans disapprove of subsidies. Subsidies are another corruption that needs to be stopped.

Comments Off on Urban Development: 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of subsidy beneficiaries / 30 Jan 2012 por Lauren Musiello
IMSD /

Davos Forum, concern about world hunger…or just business?

In Davos (Switzerland) the bankers are discussing world hunger in these days.

The representative of Unilever said,

“Every six seconds a child dies of hunger. The number of people suffering from hunger has increased after the crisis, in the last three years.”

But who is responsible?

The spread? CDS*? Derivatives? Fate? Or the companies that produce genetically modified seeds and enslave entire populations with their products? Or the states that sell weapons to the poorest nations in exchange for their wealth?    Or the industries that turn corn into bio-fuel? Or the countries that buy agricultural land in the developing countries, to make them grow native to “steal” huge quantities of food? Or companies that destroy the climate and desertification of the earth? Or the conversion of agricultural land in farms for meat? Or the reckless cementation of the land? Or the hypocrisy of those who give a dollar to charity, and throw in the trash 10euros uneaten food?
India has the largest number of people who suffer from hunger. What should be the solution? Monsanto GMO seeds? More production, full stomachs. Again, the hungriest country in the world, have had the strength to say no. The government has done a moratorium on the introduction of the GMO in agriculture ”There isn’t a urgent need to introduce the GMO under the pretext of lack of food,”¹ said the Indian Minister of Rural Development Jairam Raimesh.

Large companies such as Unilever, Nestle and PepsiCo are helping the development of agriculture in the world with microfinance, seeds and fertilizers. But for What? And what is going to do the UN on this field?
The business of hunger is one of the most profitable and safe for the foreseeable future. In fact, by 2050 the world population will increase by another two billion. Quote 9 billion.

A huge market for companies producing GMOs. Strange a world that cares about the spread, but ignores the starvation of five million children every year.

*CDS= Credit default swap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap)

Sources:

¹http://www.indianexpress.com/news/–Food-security-needs-to-be-addressed-on-priority–/722495

Comments Off on Davos Forum, concern about world hunger…or just business? / 30 Jan 2012 por Luca Palma
IMSD /

Climate Change | Identification of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in India

India´s Initial National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change submitted in June 2004. (The inventory is prepared for the base year 1994 as stipulated).

The 1994 inventory of greenhouse gases for India provides us an estimation of emissions by sources and removals by sinks of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. In 1994, 1,228,540 Gg of CO 2-eq of anthropogenic greenhouse gases were emitted from India resulting in a per capita emission of 1.3 tons.

65%- CO2

31%-CH4

4%-N 2O

In relation to GHG emissions by sector, of the total CO 2-eq emissions , the largest share of 61 per cent was contributed by the energy sector, followed by the agriculture sector at 28 per cent, industrial process at 8 per cent, waste at 2 per cent and land use, land use change and forestry at 1 per cent (see Figure 1b).

• The total net emission of CO 2 from all the abovementioned sectors was 793,490 Gg of CO2 (65 per cent of total GHG).CO2 emissions were contributed by activities in the energy sector (85 per cent), industrial processes (13 per cent), and land use, land use change and forestry (2 per cent).

• Total national CH 4 emission in the year 1994 was 18,583 Gg. Of this amount the share of agriculture sector was 78 per cent, 16 per cent of the total CH 4 emissions came from energy sources. In addition, waste disposal activities contributed about 6 percent.

• Total N 2O emission was 178 Gg contributing 4 per cent of the total GHG emissions. Significant emission was from the agriculture sector (84 per cent), fuel combustion (7 per cent); industrial processes (5 per cent) and waste (4 per cent).

To conclude, the climate change impact analysis on energy infrastructure indicates that a rise in average temperature increases the need for space cooling for buildings and transport sectors. The variability in precipitation can also impact the irrigation needs and consequent demand for energy. These would increase electricity demand, and consequently result in the need for higherpower capacity. The demand for air- conditioned transport and their increased use may result in lower fuel efficiency, increasing petroleum product consumption. The increased energy demand will result in higher emissions. The assessment for India suggests an increase of around one per cent annually, which though not substantial, is still significant for examining the reverse links and feedback with climate change countries.

 

Bibliography

Forests, M. o. (2004). India´s Initial National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New Delhi: Government of India.

 

 

Comments Off on Climate Change | Identification of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in India / 30 Jan 2012 por Tatiana Casquero Rodriguez
Uncategorized /

Climate Change: United Kingdom Greenhouse Gas Emissions

First of all I am going to do a little introduction of the most important results related with the area of greenhouse gas emissions in UK. I have chosen to do this little report information of the year 2009 because the data available was in final figures. In order to achieve the Kyoto Protocol according with the National Statistics made by the Department of Energy & Climate Change of UK the emissions of this country are decreasing in all possible sectors in fact this was 8,7 lower than the year 2008. It is important to mention that the GHG with a higher percentage of GHG emission is the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) with a 84%.

The overall decrease that I mentioned before has three main factors which are the fall in energy consumption across al sectors, an increase in the use of nuclear power rather than coal and natural gas for electricity generation. The total GHG emissions of UK in million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent are 566,3. In accordance with international reporting and carbon trading protocols, each of these gases is weighted by its global warming potential (GWP), so that total greenhouse gas emissions can be reported on a consistent basis.

 

Lets focused on the topic that I am covering today which is the GHG emissions divided into different sectors. It is shown in the different graphs.

As we can see in the following table since 1990 the emissions (MtCO2e) from the energy supply sector and from business have reduced by 28 per cent and 24 per cent respectively however it is and significant figure from my point of view which is the slightly  reduce of just a 3% in terms of residential emissions. I know that it is not the sector that release more GHG emissions however for me it is hard to see that in 20 years the behavior of the consumers does not have change.

 

Comments Off on Climate Change: United Kingdom Greenhouse Gas Emissions / 30 Jan 2012 por Antonio Calixto Moreno Zarco
IMSD /

Climate Change: Costa Rica GHG Emissions

According to a report from the United States Administration of Energy Information Costa Rica ranks place 114 among 218 in emissions, emitting 68000 metric tons of Carbon dioxide (CO2). This figure decreased 4,2% from 2008 to 2009. However Costa Rica has set an ambitious goal four years ago when it declared its plan of becoming Carbon Neutral for 2021. Costa Rican authorities believe this goal is achievable because already 95% of Costa Rica’s energy comes from renewable non pollutant sources.

According to the National Inventory on Green Houses Gases (ghg) and Carbon Absorption in 2000 and 2005 the main sources of emissions are:

1. Mobil Combustion (Transportation)
2. Cattle
3. Agricultural Soils
4. Disposal of Solid Waste
5. Manufacturing Industry and Construction
6. Stationary Combustion
7. Cement Production
8. Others: Agriculture/fisheries/forest
9. Rice  Production

10.   Nitric Acid Production

 

As we can see the major cause of ghg is transportation. In Great Metropolitan Area Which is constituted by the Capital San Jose and part of three other provinces where the most concentration of the population and industry are only 7% of emissions are Anthropogenic. Of these anthropogenic emissions 56% are attributed to transport sources, 21% to fixed sources and 23% to aerial sources (these are sources that are too disperse to be assigned to an specific source) and the main type of emission is CO being accountable for 41% of the pollutants emitted followed by COV (volatile organic) with 20%, SO2 with 18,44%, and NOX with 15,05%.

 

Comments Off on Climate Change: Costa Rica GHG Emissions / 29 Jan 2012 por Javier Solano Palacios
IMSD /

Climate change: GHG emissions in Mexico

CO2 Emissions: 492,862.2 Gg. It contributes 69.5% to the total GHG. It has increased 27% since 1990.

The sectors with the highest percentage contribution of CO2 emissions in 2006 are: transport with 27.2%, 22.8% power generation, manufacturing and construction 11.5%, power consumption of the energy industry with 7.4%, 7.3% agricultural land and others (residential, commercial and agricultural) with 6.2%.

CH4 emissions: 8828.1 Gg. It represents an increase of 73.7% since 1990.

The sectors with the highest percentage contribution of CH4 emissions in 2006 are: solid waste disposal in soil with 27.6%, management and treatment of wastewater with 24.9%, fugitive emissions from oil and gas with 24.3% and 20.1% with enteric fermentation.

N2O emissions: 66.2 Gg. This represents an increase of 86.7% over 1990.

The main contribution comes from the transport 49.5%, 34% agricultural soils, and management and wastewater treatment with 10% collectively account for 93.5% of N2Oemissions in 2006.

HFCs, PFCs and SF6 emissions:

HFCs: 9586.4 Gg CO2 equivalent units, representing an increase of 1.236% compared to 1990. Their emissions are from the refrigeration and air conditioning to replace CFCs controlled by the Montreal Protocol.

PFCs: 161.3 Gg CO2 equivalent units in 2003. The main contribution comes from the aluminum production classified in the category Industrial Processes. The last plant was closed in 2004 and thereby fails to produce aluminum in the country.

SF6: 654.1 Gg CO2 equivalent units in 2006, representing an increase of 90% compared to 1990 emissions. Potential emissions originate as equipment and electrical circuits.

 

Comments Off on Climate change: GHG emissions in Mexico / 29 Jan 2012 por Aitana Leret Garcia
Uncategorized /

#Climate Change#: GHG Emissions in South Africa

According to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), the latest data available for South African emissions of GHG (Greenhouse Gases) refers to the year 2000. The total emissions were estimated to be 461 million tones CO₂e. Following the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) 2006 methodology for GHG inventories, the most significant sector contributing to South African emissions is the energetic one, which accounts for 83% of the total. This value excludes emissions and accumulation of GHG due to land use, land use change and forestry. The net impact of these emissions is a reduction of about 18 million tones CO₂e, meaning that more GHG were sunk by forests and crop lands than emitted by those activities. In the graphs above we can see the summary of the information provided.

Figure 1: Total greenhouse gas emissions by sector in South Africa, without land use, land use change, and forestry

 

Figure 2: Total greenhouse gas emissions by sector in South Africa, including land use, land use change, and forestry

Source: South Africa’s Second National Communication under the UNFCCC – november/2011

The relevant contribution of the energy sector to the total emissions stems from the intensive carbon energy matrix, particularly coal, which is easily founded within the country. This mineral provides more than 70% of primary energy and more than 85% of the electricity in South Africa. Among many measures that local government is trying to promote, the use of renewable sources of energy is the one that stands out regarding potential to reduce GHG emissions.

Finally, it’s important to highlight that as most of developing countries, particularly the so called BRICs, South Africa increased relevantly its emissions from 1990 to 2000. The total increase was of about 33%, impacted especially by emissions from the energy sector, which rose 46% during this period. Waste and agriculture sector reduced their emissions in 38% and 4%, respectively.

 

Comments Off on #Climate Change#: GHG Emissions in South Africa / 29 Jan 2012 por Fabio Pinto Almeida
IMSD /

Climate Change: GHG Emissions in Malaysia

According to Malaysia’s Second National Communication to the UNFCC (also known as NC2), Malaysia’s Green House Gas (GHG) emissions in 2000 amounts to 222,99 Mt CO2 eq. This is a 55% increase compared to the emissions recorded in the First National Communication (INC) of 1994. However, the report indicates that Malaysia is a net sink due to a removal of 249,78 Mt CO2 eq, which was recorded from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Hence, after accounting for the removal, Malaysia’s net emission based on the expanded calculation is actually -26.79 Mt CO2 eq.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions amounted to about 75% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, which has increased compared to 69% that was reported from INC in 1994. A large portion of Malaysia’s GHG emissions (66%) comes from the Energy sector, which is dominated by the power and auto producers that use fuel in their business activities. While emissions from the Energy, LULUCF, and Waste sectors have increased, the emissions from the Agriculture sector have decreased slightly, due to a change in assumptions and guidelines.

In analysing the NC2 report, and taking into consideration the fact that Malaysia is rapidly developing, it can be assumed that GHG emissions are most likely to increase in the future. However, the Government has prepared mitigation plans, which includes reducing GHG emission intensity of GDP by up to 40% of 2005 levels by 2020 (as announced by the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister at Copenhagen during COP15). Hence, there is still hope for the country to keep its rate of GHG emissions under control if policies are implemented successfully, for Malaysia to reach the goals of its Vision 2020 in a sustainable manner.

Comments Off on Climate Change: GHG Emissions in Malaysia / 29 Jan 2012 por Syafrina Sharif
IMSD /

The main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Germany #Climate Change

In the Kyoto Protocol Germany committed to reduce the emissions of all six Kyoto gases¹ by 21 % compared to the base year (1990 or 1995) by 2012. In 2007 Germany reduced its emissions by 22.4 % compared to the corresponding level. Some main causes for the reductions are an economical reorganization in the first years of the eastern states of Germany with the reduced use of brown coal and the reinforced development of renewable energies. Furthermore the government conducts an active climate protection policy and implemented long term laws to reduce emissions of Kyoto gases.

CO₂ was accountable for 87.9 % of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2007 and therefore the main greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted by Germany. The second largest emitted share with 5.8 % is nitrous oxide. Methane amounts to 4.4 % and the other Kyoto gases come to a total of 1.8 % of all emitted GHGs by Germany. The following figure illustrated the successful progress of Germany’s reduction of GHGs from 1990 to 2007, at the same time growing its economy by 41.7 % and its population by 3.1 %.

The main sources of GHG emissions in Germany in 2007 were the Energy Industries which emitted 388.13 million of tons of CO₂ equivalent, followed by Transport with 154.30 and Manufacturing Industries and Construction with 121.44 million of tons of CO₂ equivalent. The following graph illustrates the distribution of the total emissions of 979.87 million of tons of CO₂ equivalent:

Interesting are the various assumed climate and energy policies for the forecasts of the emissions in the Fifth National Report of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany like:

• Increased share of electricity production from renewable energies;
• changes in the EU emissions trading scheme, like including industrial N₂0 emissions within the trading scheme;
• additional requirements for fuels;
• less electricity consumption due to more energy effective measures; and
• Governmental support for CO₂-oriented building-remediation.

¹The Kyoto gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

Resources, last accessed 28.01.2012:

European Environment Agency (2011) EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer, click here to see the predefined views, http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer

Umweltbundesamt (2011) Thema: Klimaänderungen, http://www.umweltbundesamt-daten-zur-umwelt.de/umweltdaten/public/theme.do?nodeIdent=2842

United Nations (2010) Fifth National Report of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/deu_nc5_resubmit.pdf

United Nations (without year) Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), http://unfccc.int/methods_and_science/lulucf/items/3060.php

Comments Off on The main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Germany #Climate Change / 28 Jan 2012 por Marie Glück
IMSD /

Climate Change 1: Colombia GHG Emissions

In 2010 Colombia presented its second National Communication of Climate Change to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC. Besides other issues, the Report contains the last (2004) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

Colombia contributes with the 0.37% (180,010 Gg) of the total worldwide emissions of greenhouses gases (49 GT). The per capita amount emitted is below the global average and very far below values recorded by Europe, North America, and Western Asia.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) represents the 50% of the total greenhouses gas emissions, flowed by methane (CH4) with the 30% and nitrous oxide (N2O) with the 19%. The remaining 1% corresponds to other gases, which are not in the Montreal Protocol, such as HFCs, CFCs, and halocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride. . Those gases are cause by air conditioners, refrigeration and spry cans, and the can cause the ozone hole.

Colombia has a sectoral distribution in which the agriculture activities emit 38% of the total GHG, energy 37% (including transport), land use change and forestry 14%, solid waste 4% and industrial process 5%. It is important to point out that 52% of the total emissions are related to the agricultural (rural) sector in general. Damages on the ecosystems, deforestation, and extensive farming are the main causes for this.

Regarding to the energy sector, transport and energy industries are the main activities that contributes with emissions (both share 56%).

This inventory was an important tool not only to identify opportunities to effectively reduce emissions, but mainly to address the Climate Change policies and plans towards specific productive sectors.

Source:

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial: “Segunda Comunicación Nacional ante la Conveción Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático”. IDEAM. República de Colombia, 2010.

2 comentarios / 28 Jan 2012 por Diana Patricia Sanchez Barajas
IMSD /