As if the dire predictions about the sad state of the planet aren’t enough, we’re now being treated to gloomy forecasts about whether our leaders have the will to do anything about it.

At the Climate Summit at the United Nations in NYC observers had hoped for a breakthrough pledge or statement from either US President Barack Obama or China’s President Hu Jintao. But the event was long on rhetoric, short on serious commitment and left many advocates muttering their disappointment, mainly because the leaders of the two most polluting nations are still playing chess.

Catherine Brahic of New Scientist noted: “Obama said once again that the US could do nothing if developing nations didn’t take steps towards reducing their own emissions. Given hopes that the summit would break that deadlock, this was almost shocking.”

Jintao, meanwhile, spoke in terms of lowering China’s carbon pollution as a proportion of GDP units, which meant that China would try not to pollute as fast as it has been. He was silent on the topic of outright carbon reductions.

Neither leader’s remarks matched the urgency or eloquence of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the convener of the UN conference, who warned that the world has only 10 years to try to avert the worst-case climate change scenario predicted by scientists and told the 100 world leaders in attendance: “Now is your moment to act.”

Obama and Jintao seemed no where near acting, or perhaps they were being great actors, delivering well-crafted speeches. (And I mean that in the worst way.)

Other global leaders at least noticed the vacuum.

“What we lack today is confidence and determination,” said French President Nicholas Sarkozy. “The time has passed for diplomatic tinkering, for narrow bargaining. The time has come for courage, mobilization, and collective ambition.” (For the skinny on all the post-summit grumblings see this WorldWatch post-mortem.)

Everyone , it seems, is beginning to worry about the chances for a strong climate agreement at the December conference in Copenhagen. Some think it won’t matter much. Some think it would be devastating.

Will this become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Is Obama just too mired in the health care debates to be bothered with a melting planet — and recall his campaign promises to put global warming high on the priority list?

When will China get over its stubbornness about being a developing country in need of help and recognize that it is both a major carbon polluter and potential great green leader?

One might ask nearly the same about the US, a country willing to lead endless military excursions, but not yet firmly grasping that we need a “surge” to save Earth.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

This week brings a “Summit on Climate Change” at the United Nations in New York City. With so many summits, rallies and special days devoted to discussing climate change, the point of this summit might not be immediately obvious.

The first thing to know is that this is not a negotiating meeting as were the recent sessions in Bonn, Germany,  or like  the upcoming one in Bangkok will be.

Still it is a part of the run-up to the Copenhagen conference Dec. 7-18, where world leaders will try to reach a new global climate agreement holding all participating nations to specific reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

So the New York summit on Tuesday is like a  meet-and-greet, but at a critical time, coming as the clock is ticking down to the big event. In this case it brings together several world leaders, including US President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China, heads of the world’s most polluting nations, in hopes of advancing progress, and allowing everyone to mull matters in a non-binding setting.

The New York Times reports in an article Saturday that this summit presents an opportunity for someone, any head of state, to step up and take the leadership role in a process that looks dangerously leaderless.

“While virtually all of the largest developed and developing nations have made domestic commitments toward creating more efficient, renewable sources of energy to cut emissions, none wants to take the lead in fighting for significant international emissions reduction targets, lest they be accused at home of selling out future jobs and economic growth,” the article notes, pretty much hitting it on the money.

Real change requires departing from the status quo, and that is never easy. Turning on the green power and turning away from the fossil fuels will disrupt the marketplace, create discomfort and invite opposition — and that’s not politically fruitful. Yet, whomever can step up and help rally the nations that are ready to make real carbon commitments could become a hero for the ages.

Let’s hope someone seizes this opportunity. Otherwise, New York will be little more than a photo op.

For more on the reasons the world needs a strong, new climate agreement see “Why We Need to Seal the Deal,” a backgrounder by the UN.

On Earth Day, Farm Sanctuary wants people to “eat green” as well. Farm Sanctuary, the nation’s leading farm animal protection organization, encourages people to reduce or eliminate meat and other animal products from their diet by raising awareness about factory farming’s negative impact on the environment. The group believes that choosing a plant-based vegan diet is the most ecologically sustainable way for people to eat.

The group will be involved in nearly two dozen outreach and education events on Earth Day. At the different Earth Day festivals, volunteers will man tables and hand out leaflets documenting meat’s devastating impact on the environment. The group will also hand out literature promoting a healthy, sustainable vegan lifestyle.

“People need to know how their food choices impact the planet, so during Earth Day, Farm Sanctuary will be getting the word out, and promoting vegan lifestyles as a key part of the solution to our environmental crisis,” said Farm Sanctuary president and co-founder Gene Baur in a statement.

A 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report indicated that about 18% of total greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere are produced by modern animal agriculture. The report says the livestock sector is a major source of land and water degradation. The Farm Sanctuary says the animal agriculture industry consumes more than half the water and over one-third of the petroleum used in the United States.

The group also cites the large amount of pollution as another reason to start a vegan diet. According to EPA estimates, farm animal excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states.  Farm animals excrete half a billion tones of manure, which is three times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population according to Farm Sanctuary.

To find out more about their Earth Day events check out their website.

(Photo credit: Keith Weller USDA)

Copyright C 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

MORE FROM GRN

A group of pro-environment organizations is urging the U.S. to support a legally binding mercury treaty at a United Nations meeting next week in Nairobi, Kenya.

The coalition of green activists was scheduled to meet with U.S. state department officials today, at which they planned to present a letter signed by 50 U.S.-based groups and another 40 abroad, urging President Obama to support a mercury treaty.

Countries around the globe have been discussing options to control mercury pollution since 2001 and in 2003 agreed that enough was known to warrant immediate action to reduce global mercury pollution, according to the letter. Most countries now favor the negotiation of a legally binding international agreement as the most viable approach to deal with this problem, the activists say.

The primary concern of these groups are mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and other sources of unintentional emissions of mercury. But the groups also oppose other uses of mercury that pollute the environment, citing the use of over 1,000 tons of mercury each year in small scale gold mining that can pollute both the local and global environment.

Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin that can make its way up the food chain into humans, and poses an increased exposure risk to developing fetuses and young children, as well as to adults who are exposed to it.

The Bush administration had opposed a formal treaty, preferring to promote voluntary guidelines to reduce risks from mercury.

“The upcoming UNEP Governing Council meeting will provide the Obama administration with its first opportunity on the world stage to demonstrate a real change in the U.S. approach to international environmental issues,” Michael Bender, a drafter of the letter, and co-coordinator for the Zero Mercury Working Group, said in a statement.

Zero Mercury is a coalition of 75 groups around the world promoting mercury reduction.

Among the U.S. groups signing the letter are Physicians for Social Responsibility, American Nurses Association, Environment Illinois, NYPIRG, Clean Water Action, Greenpeace and Health Care Without Harm. International co-signers include World Wildlife Fund – Guianas, the International POPS Elimination Network, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, the Basel Action Network, Friends of the Earth Malaysia, Indonesia Toxics-Free Network, Toxics Link (India), Health & Environmental Network (EU) and Ban Toxics! (Philippines).

Photo: © Holger Gurski | Dreamstime.com

The well was dry beside the door,
And so we went with pail and can
Across the fields behind the house
To seek the brook, if still it ran; . . .

- Robert Frost’s “Going for Water”

Every year, more about the world’s worsening water crisis is revealed: Who has potable water, sanitation and fresh drinking water – and who doesn’t.

The statistics are foreboding: The United Nations, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the Global Water Trust, World Water Council, the Pacific Institute and other international organizations warn us that by 2025, two-thirds of the Earth’s population will live in water-strapped countries. By mid-century, they say, two out of three people around the globe may not have potable water, and by the end of this century, the number of people without access to fresh drinking water – just under a billion today – could double.

Water, water, they tell us, is not everywhere.

Water that humans can use, that is. The world’s population uses about 1 percent of all the water on Earth, according to U.S. Geological Survey charts. The remaining 99 percent of the planet’s water is salty or brackish, or it is trapped in glaciers and ice.

But if scientists have the technology to desalinate water, or to super clean storm-drainage water or contaminated groundwater, isn’t that reason for optimism? And if, according to these same global entities, the number of people who have fresh drinking water has actually increased in the past couple of years, isn’t that good news?

Yes, says Pasquale Steduto. He is an expert in water-use efficiency and productivity, and has spent the past 20 years working in agriculture-water related issues. Because of his skills, Steduto is the chief of Water Service for the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. The Rome-based water scientist spoke at length to Greenrightnow.com last week, offering a big-picture perspective on the state of the world’s water.

Careful not to paint too rosy a scenario, Steduto (pictured) expresses optimism: there is more access to fresh drinking water, and more cities and countries use new guidelines on water-system efficiency. Plus, more countries are acknowledging that all humans have a basic right to clean water (such as South Africa in a recent, unprecedented high court ruling).

Multinational corporations are at least attempting, Steduto says, to look at the water crisis from a humanitarian standpoint – such as in last year’s CEO Water Mandate.

The world’s perception of water – how we use it, how we take it for granted – is changing rapidly, experts say. Whether it is due to necessity or market forces, governments and individuals are changing how they use water and decide their water needs.

“There is a shift in a way, in lifestyle choices and behaviors, ” Steduto says. “The shift of the paradigm is, ‘O.K., we cannot really go too much toward increasing the supply. Are we in a position to reduce the demand, or no?’