A match made in heaven it surely isn’t, but global warming has definitely played its part in the recent tragic events hitting California. The wildfires sweeping across parts of California have forced half a million to flee their homes, left 400,000 acres of land a charred ruin, and reduced some 1,300 homes to rubble.

The terrifying part — if we hadn’t already seen it — is the prediction that firestorms (or bushfires) like these could very well become part of the norm for areas like California, according to Ronald Neilson, a professor at Oregon State University and bioclimatologist with the USDA Forest Service.

The catastrophic fires are in line with what climate change models have been predicting for the past several years. Sadly, the predictions also suggest that these fires may just be the beginning to a new way of life.

"This is exactly what we’ve been projecting to happen, both in short-term fire forecasts for this year and the longer term patterns that can be linked to global climate change," said Neilson. Thankfully, for all of us out there who do see the damage, he prefaced his comments by saying that "You can’t look at one event such as this and say with certainty that it was caused by a changing climate…"

"But things just like this are consistent with what the latest modeling shows," Neilson continued, "and may be another piece of evidence that climate change is a reality, one with serious effects."

Many North Americans will be aware of the drought inland, and the increased rainfall along the coast. This is a trend that is mirrored in Africa, and is identified as the biggest global warming threat affecting the earth in a recent report. Coastal regions would find themselves encountering higher rainfalls, whereas inland areas would see an increase in drought-like conditions.

Neilson’s studies add more information to these reports. With increased global warming, the seas are naturally going to be evaporating a little bit quicker. More water will be harvested within the clouds, with only one way to go. These periods of increased rainfall will be followed by periods of drought: a yin and yang of the earth’s climate.

The problem behind the California fires — and the predictions that more will follow — is in the fact that the water will create a boon of vegetation. The increased density of vegetation will, naturally, be the proverbial tinder-box during a drought period. All of that wonderful growth of flora will go up in smoke, creating fires that will increase in intensity through each cycle.

"As the planet warms, more water is getting evaporated from the oceans and all that water has to come down somewhere as precipitation," said Neilson. "That can lead, at times, to heavier vegetation loads popping up and creation of a tremendous fuel load. But the warmth and other climatic forces are also going to create periodic droughts. If you get an ignition source during these periods, the fires can just become explosive."

Current studies show that there is a La Niña event occurring, which is believed to be compounding the Californian fires. When it swings back around in 2 to 4 years, the rain will sweep the coast, and revitalize the regrowth.

Neilson’s research group at Oregon State, in partnership with the Forest Service, have been using models combined to predict weather and fire patterns. Using these models, they accurately predicted the Californian fires, as well as the drought that has recently hit parts of the Southeast, including Georgia and Florida.

Studies that were released 5 years ago by Neilson and other OSU researchers, predicted that the American West could very likely become both wetter and warmer over the following century. These are conditions that, as laid out above, would lead to repeated catastrophic fires. Fires that would be larger than any in recent history, including the current firestorm sweeping the landscape.

The Arctic polar ice is melting, the Southwest of America is burning, and my home country is thirsty. For god’s sake, how is there not more action being taken!

Authors Note - As an aside, I have just written a paralell blog post at my website here, expanding on what I’ve said above. I felt the need to clarify the facts, and I wanted to show people the video I’ll be looking at in my next post.

Science Daily — Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say

CNN: California Wildfires Coverage

ENN — Australian farmers face bankruptcy from drought

The world of journalistic reporting is a funny one, with revisions and corrections sometimes making a lot of work moot. According to Apple, this may be the case for a piece I wrote on the iPhone taking a beating from Greenpeace. So, in an effort to keep our reporting fair and balanced (oh gosh, now I sound like I work for Fox) here’s the other side to that article.

The article in question concerned a report that Greenpeace made about the latest gadget that everyone has to have: the iPhone. Apparently, in short, it was a danger to the environment as a result of its materials, and its lack of recyclability.

Their Rebuttal

The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF) has swung back at Greenpeace, condemning their report as nothing more than a scandalous and hyped attack.

The international organization of the bromine chemical industry pointed out that none of the substances Greenpeace attacked Apple for using were banned under existing environmental laws. In fact, according to the BSEF, all the substances that were criticized by Greenpeace "…are approved for use, and provide critical performance and safety functions in a wide range of electronic products."

They went on to say that the brominated flame retardants that are used in the construction of the iPhone are all common ingredients in a wide variety of currently stocked products. The retardants provide a high level of fire safety, the Forum said, "essential in an age in which computer batteries randomly catch fire."

"The Greenpeace report does not say which brominated flame retardants are present in the iPhone because it does not know. Therefore, the report speculates about what substances might be present, and raises an alarm without any basis for doing so."

Apple also had something to say about the allegations brought against them.

"Like all Apple products worldwide, iPhone complies with RoHS [Restriction of Hazardous Substances], the world’s toughest restrictions on toxic substances in electronics," an Apple spokesperson, told Macworld. "As we have said, Apple will voluntarily eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs by the end of 2008."

My Rebuttal

So yes, in reality, the iPhone manages to stay within the rules. But the facts remain, that the tests commissioned by Greenpeace found problems.

Chemicals that, among others, include phthalates, were found in the vinyl plastic earphone wiring that were above levels deemed safe for children San Francisco and the European Union (EU). These levels were prohibited for children’s toys in both locations.

The Center for Environmental Health, basing their decisions on the report conducted, gave Apple 60-days legal notice (lawyer speak for "we’re about to sue you!").

What really gets me is the way in which the BSEF responded. Two things primarily:

• They said that the chemicals found in the iPhone are available in a wide variety of products. Doesn’t that just mean that there are a whole heap of products out there that shouldn’t be using this stuff?
• And apparently, according to the BSEF, every other computer battery is catching fire. Sadly for them, this is far from the truth. How many stories have we seen over the past year or so about exploding batteries in laptops and iPods? Well, yeah, there have been a dozen or so!

But compare that to how many were sold, and it is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total sold. We are not entering an "age" where everything goes kablooie at the drop of a hat. To throw that in as if their intervention is the only thing saving us from a veritable palooza of pants on fire is ridiculous, and sensationalism at its best!

The End

The news is fair and balanced. Apple will be moving to change their manufacturing standards by the end of next year! Their products aren’t above the law, but nor do they need to be, as they fit within the law. And no, they’re not going to be sending our world further in to a cataclysmic spiral any time soon.

But is that the justification you want to use? That they won’t kill us anytime soon?

Network World - Bromine group slams Greenpeace iPhone report

Network World - Apple says iPhone complies with eco standards

More from GO

Apple iPhone Takes a Greenpeace Beating

Under the watchful eye of the Nature Conservancy, Costa Rica and America have brokered the largest ever debt-for-nature swap in history. The deal, worth $26 million of Costa Rica’s US debt, will go to help revitalize some of the world’s richest natural treasures.

To be enacted on over the next 16 years, the US, in conjunction with Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy, will pool together to forgive $26 million of debt.

"This debt swap is unique in that it utilizes scientific analysis to determine the sites towards which the funds will be directed,” says Zdenka Piskulich, program director for the Conservancy in Costa Rica.

A debt swap is simply the forgiving of debts for a developing nation by one of its creditors. In exchange, along with any other agreements emplaced – in Costa Rica’s case, they must cooperate with Washington with counterterrorism and drug-enforcement – they must redirect what would have been debt payments towards environmental goals.

Though a small country in size its contents makes Costa Rica one of the most important environmental nations on the planet. It is home to some of the largest areas of concentrated biodiversity on the planet, including tropical forests, jaguars, quetzals, scarlet macaws, howler monkeys, tree frogs and much more.

The jaguar is considered near-threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, and is already on the US Endangered Species Act. Its population is in decline, and despite the subsequent stoppage of shooting the animal for its pelt, its natural habitat has slowly been eked away by land developers.

Logging, development, agricultural expansion, gold mining, overfishing and unregulated tourism are just a few of the dangers being placed upon Costa Rica’s natural habitats.

"The funding that is a result of this debt swap will also allow local communities, 80 percent of which live in The Amistad Region, to pursue sustainable and economically viable livelihoods, thus improving their lives and sustaining the biodiverse resources on which they depend," said Piskulich.

The $26 million is already designated to six areas of the country, chosen from a blueprint of conservation gaps that the Conservancy helped create for Costa Rica. These areas are the Osa Peninsula, Tortuguero, La Amistad, Maquenque, Zona Norte del Rincón de la Vieja and the Nicoya Peninsula,

These regions are specifically targeted to help endangered species and to halt the encroachment that is being made on the lush rainforests. The Osa Peninsula is where rain forest meets sea in the Southwest corner of Costa Rica and The Amistad region contains the largest untouched tract of rainforest in Costa Rica. Both regions are also home to animals such as the Baird’s tapir, Scarlet Macaw, the ocelot, and more than 500 species of bird.

“There’s a double benefit for these countries,” Claudia A. McMurray, assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science, said in a telephone interview. “They get some or all of their debt wiped out, and they get help in preserving an important natural resource.”

Costa Rica is known as a success story in Central America when it comes to environmental management, after the country’s deforestation stripped it of almost 80% of its forest cover. The country has made big steps towards replanting, and environmental groups are right behind them.

New York Times - U.S. Forgives Costa Rican Debt to Help Environment

Nature Conservancy

USAID - Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA)

Image courtesy of Nature Conservancy

The Apple iPhone — the geeks very own messiah — has been the hot topic of conversation the world over. Geeks and lay men and women have all been gathering around the proverbial water-cooler with one thing on their mind (two if you include Britney Spears). But the water-cooler at Greenpeace has not been yielding the same happy vibes as Apple would have hoped.

September of 2006 saw Greenpeace launch the Green My Apple website. Rather than asking for green iPods, they were asking for "green" iPods. The question they asked was this: why do Macs, iPods, iBooks and the rest of their product range contain hazardous substances that other companies have agreed to abandon?

May of this year saw Steve Jobs — the Apple god, if you will — announce to the world that "Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors" on environmental issues. But with the release of the iPhone in June in America, Greenpeace was left alone in the cold. Apple seemingly had just talked the talk, and sat at home on their couch.

So Greenpeace set out to see just what the iPhone was made of, literally. Purchasing an iPhone, and sending it to their UK labs, they found that the iPhone contained "toxic brominated compounds (indicating the prescence of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)) and hazardous PVC."

"Steve Jobs has missed the call on making the iPhone his first step towards greening Apple’s products," said Zeina Alhajj, Greenpeace International toxics campaigner. "It seems that Apple is far from leading the way for a green electronics industry as competitors, like Nokia, already sell mobile phones free of PVC."

Now, this may seem like just an attack at Apple, but the reality is far from it. Greenpeace has previously run similar campaigns that have led to companies such as Dell and Lenovo phasing out the worst toxic substances from their product ranges. In fact, Dell has turned a literal 180, and has become a leading force in the big-business charge towards a greener future.

Closer to the iPhone home, companies such as Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Motorola have all bent to the pressure placed on them by environmental groups such as Greenpeace. Nokia is totally PVC free, and the other two already have released products with BFR-free components.

In addition, Nokia and Sony Ericsson have a global take-back policy for phones that have been manufactured by them. They accept responsibility for the reuse and recycling of their own phones. This is one of those really awesome measures taken by some companies. Unlike the once-off manufacturing changes that, in reality, will save the companies money, a take-back policy forces the company to fork out cash to keep the world clean. Instead of landfills piling up with millions of cell-phones each year, they are recycled at the behest of the manufacturing company.

I doubt I need to say that Apple are yet to implement any such plan, leaving the fate of some 10 million iPhones hoped to be sold this year well up in the air.

The Apple Iphone may very well be the second coming of the technological revolution, but it ain’t doing much for the good of the planet.

Disclaimer: I own Apple products, including a fifth generation iPod. I am a big fan of Apple, and have written about them at Daily Galaxy favorably. This bites!

Greenpeace - Missed call: the iPhone’s hazardous chemicals

Greenpeace - Green my Apple bears fruit

Green My Apple

In a fight where political gain is seen as the prime motivator, and any actual fact seems to be spun out to support such a theory, Al Gore has been the voice for real climate change. It is a tough fight, and he’s been at it for a while, too. Attacked from the right for political bias, attacked from the critics for supporting a supposedly unproved theory, Al Gore now has reason to smile.

It’s been all across the news, and we won’t attempt to re-inform you on Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize win this past week. But we at Green Options do want to take this moment to congratulate the man who has done so much for the global warming cause (yes, I mean the cause against it …).

In addition, we want to offer our congratulations and heartfelt thanks to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for almost two decades of hard unthankful work and their co-win with Gore.

Our congratulations aside, though, what is the future looking like now?

Our Environmental Future

"We have to quickly find a way to change the world’s consciousness about exactly what we’re facing," Gore told reporters at a press conference. It was nine hours after the award announcement, and he appeared with his wife Tipper. He took no questions, especially none on running for President in the United States’ 2008 election.

And that is the most immediate question that is playing across everyone’s mind. Will Al Gore run for US President? Again?

If you were to shake the eight ball right now, it would say that "all signs point to no."

Michael Feldman, an advisor to Al Gore, backed up my magic eight ball. "He’s not planning a campaign for president,” he said. “What you saw today is a guy fully focused on the issue he’s been working on for 30 years. He’s trying to figure out a way to solve the climate crisis."

And in all reality, why would he run for president?

I’m a nerd at heart, and I’ve watched the Justice League cartoons many times. Lex Luthor — who is running for president in the series — said something that I believe really matches with Gore at the moment; “Do you know how much power I would have to give up to become president?”

And that is exactly the case. If Gore were to become president, he wouldn’t be able to take out the compost without it appearing to be a political maneuver. He would face restrictions as to where he could go, where he could speak and what he could do.

"He’s making no moves and no sounds to indicate to me that he’s going to run," said another Gore adviser, Carter Eskew.

And no bloody wonder! Who’d want to be the US president, when you’re actually liked?

Climate Change and Peace

A spokesman for Czech President Vaclav Klaus has said that the president was "somewhat surprised that Al Gore got the Peace Prize, because the relation between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct."

This is one of those moments you just need a moment of silence to shake your head. Has no one heard of the fights for water across the Middle East and parts of Africa? Can these critics not see the future of embattled nations fighting over the regions last underwater lake or other precious natural resource? Are they not willing to see the potential in bringing the world together in at least one endeavor?

"The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has today made it clear that combating climate change is a central peace and security policy for the 21st century," said Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program.

And that is indeed the case. To believe otherwise is a naïve approach to a world that is — regardless of who caused it — sinking further in to a climate spiral every year.

An Inconvenient Truth indeed…

I mentioned earlier the point that "political gain is seen as the prime motivator." My bafflement aside, Al Gore’s win has sparked a renewed attack, especially on his Academy Award-winning movie An Inconvenient Truth.

According to British judge High Court Judge Michael Burton, the movie contains nine scientific errors or omissions. He added in his statement regarding a ruling made last month that Gore’s film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact. Albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political program."

Can someone please let me know what political program there is being pushed in this movie? I’ve watched it, and I loved it! And I’m dead set sure that unless Mother Nature is soon to be running for US President — and she’d know better than that — An Inconvenient Truth has no political agenda whatsoever. It is about what we have done to the earth, and what is happening to the earth.

The judge described some of the scientific theories in the movie as "alarmist." In addition, Burton said that there was insufficient data to support the claims that Hurricane Katrina, the evaporation of most of Lake Chad, and the melting of the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro were caused by global warming.

There’s insufficient data to conclude that we built the pyramids too, but that’s pretty much the general consensus nowadays (unless you are a fervent supporter of the alien theories, in which case, meet me later). In fact, in all of the sciences, "evidence" is a truly subjective word.

Even now, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity and his Theory of Relativity are coming under threat. These are theories that have stood up against the tests of almost a century. Nothing is ever ultimately certain in science anymore.

The simple fact is that, even if you do not want to believe you had anything to do with it, global warming is happening.

Gore named his movie correctly. The politics that people see in the movie is actually scientific fact that they are unwilling to believe; it is, at its heart, an inconvenient truth.

They call it political, because the biggest advocates are "Democrats" or "liberal." In reality, it is what the Americans love to call a "bipartisan" problem, and held up on both sides of the aisle. How can the scientific theories held by both liberals and conservatives be political?

As for the errors and omissions that Burton spoke of? Let us let Kalee Kreider, spokeswoman for the former U.S. vice president answer that one.

"The ruling upheld fundamental pieces of the film and the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activities," she said. "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."

Back to Work!

Gore finished his press conference by saying that he was "…going back to work right now. This is just the beginning." And it is just that: the beginning! Everything up until this point has been research before the debate, the calm before the storm, and the prelude to the book. Climate change and global warming are now issues linked to peace by the preeminent group that is the Nobel awards committee. From here on in, and starting with the Bali summit this December, everyone has to step up to the plate.

ENN - Nobel Peace Prize ups pressure for climate action

MSNBC - Gore, U.N. climate panel win Nobel Peace Prize

ENN - Will Nobel mean Gore will run for president?

MSNBC - U.K. judge: Gore’s climate film has 9 problems

Cycling is definitely becoming the new green mode of transportation for the new millennium. The Prius may be all right in Hollywood, but all across America, and for that matter, the world, cyclists are taking to the streets in droves.

Of course with the increased two-wheel traffic, the need for further safety measures has arisen. But all across the world, residents and leaders are endeavoring to make their cities the safest and friendliest for cyclists, which also results in a cleaner city. Bike racks are replacing car parking spaces, and cities are installing more and more bike paths and lanes to keep the cyclists and motorists separate.

The League of American Bicyclists has just awarded their national prizes for Bike Friendliness, and, surprisingly, New York City has been awarded a bronze medal. The platinum, gold, silver and bronze awards are presented twice a year.

New York’s win can likely be attributed to current mayor Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to promote cycling across the city by installing 400 to 500 bike racks a year. He’s also set a goal of setting aside 400 miles of bike lanes by 2009. Currently, New York can boast 1 mile of bike lanes to every 15 for cars, but by 2009, they hope to bring that down to a 1 to 10 ratio. Already, other cities like San Francisco have breached a ratio of 1 to 7.

"The way we think about transportation and how we use our limited street space is changing," said Janette Sadik-Khan, New York City’s transportation commissioner.

Many believe that New York’s shift of focus towards the two-wheeled transport is due to a recent study conducted last year by the city health and transportation departments. The report found that some 3,500 cyclists were injured by cars between 1996 and 2003, leaving 225 fatally injured.

The report forced the city to announce a $1 million public service ad campaign that started last month, addressing the issue and warning drivers and cyclists to be aware of each other on the road.

On the other hand, Davis, California once again rode away (sorry about that one…) with the League of American Bicyclists Platinum award. It was the second time that the university town took the award.

For an avid cyclist like me, a town like Davis which is is literally filled with two-wheeled pedal pushers seems like a dream home. But according to locals, the town is enduring a change.

"Newcomers are not as tied into the bike culture here," says David Takemoto-Weerts, UC Davis’ bicycle program coordinator.

The newcomers are generally car commuters to Sacramento and the Bay Area. This characteristic, along with the overall rise in population, means that the situation will soon need to be readdressed so that the bike friendly town doesn’t become a death trap for cyclists.

So, as I finish this article, let me point out to you all that cycling is one of those things that you can do for the environment. Even if it’s simply slipping on a backpack and going to get your milk rather than driving up to get it, that’s something. But good exercise plus clean transportation… really, can you ask for anything better?

Philadelphia Bicycle News - League of American Bicyclists Announce Bicycle Friendly Communities

AP - Cycling Gains Ground in NYC

Sacbee.com - Raising bar on biking

Photo - Simon Abrams, Brooklyn, New York - Bike New York Photo Contest

In a step away from my usual doom and gloom/global warming articles, I’ve decided to expand my focus. Thankfully, the news is as always willing to satiate my various whims and needs, and with a topic that is dear to my heart as well. And though it may not sound glamorous or sexy, you better believe it’s important.

A meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) has improved the hopes of the cod and local cold-water corals off of the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador.

See, not very sexy!

But the fact is that as it stands at the moment, the amount of cod swimming around in our oceans are stacking up at 6% of their historical abundance. And it’s a figure that will no doubt be replicated across the world with continued over-fishing.

So it’s heartening and thrilling to see that there are people out there who are taking this seriously, and people with influence to boot. WWF is as excited as I am as well.

"For some time NAFO has been talking about protecting habitats and recovering depleted stocks," said Dr Robert Rangeley, WWF-Canada’s Vice President for the Atlantic. "Today, NAFO has begun to move from words to action by committing to conservation measures that, when implemented, will make a real difference on the water."

The single greatest challenge to the recovery of cod stocks is the unintentional harvesting of non-target species, in this instance cod (this is also known as bycatch). NAFO countries commitment to a southern Grand Banks cod recovery strategy includes immediately reducing bycatch up up to 40%.

On top of this, the countries involved in NAFO (see below) have agreed to an immediate ban on all bottom-fishing activities taking place on the southwest slope of the Grand Banks, in depths between 800 and 2000 meters. This area is part of a coral hotspot that has been identified by a report authored by scientists at Memorial University of Newfoundland for WWF-Canada.

This closure on bottom-fishing is a step towards detection and protection of vulnerable habitats.

"We are very encouraged with the measures undertaken this week as they have met most of our pre-meeting conservation expectations," continued Rangeley. "Canada, in particular, should be noted for its leadership in proposing measures to protect both cod and coral and working to see them adopted. These are critically important steps that will take hard work and goodwill in order to succeed."

Further measures that are expected and hoped for are likely to be implemented a year from now, in the next meeting in Spain.

Current member states of the NAFO include Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark (in respect of Faroe Islands and Greenland), the European Union, France (in respect of Saint Pierre and Miquelon), Iceland, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Russia, Ukraine, and the US.

ENN - Protecting cod and coral off eastern Canada

Oslo, October 12, 2007, could see the Nobel Peace Prize – sometimes noted as the highest accolade on Earth – awarded to campaigners against climate change. In line for this according to Nobel experts are Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier.

The winner for the Nobel Peace Prize carries away $1.5 million, but more than that, if a climate change advocate succeeds in winning, it could further shift the momentum towards actual climate change; especially in light of the UN Climate Summit being held in Bali this December.

Stein Toennesson, director of Oslo’s International Peace Research Institute (PRIO) and a Nobel Peace Prize expert believes that the North American pair are likely candidates.

"It will certainly be tempting to the committee to have two North Americans,” said Toennesson, “one the activist that personifies the struggle against climate change, raising awareness, and the other who represents some of the victims of climate change."

Al Gore is an obvious candidate, author of the bestselling book and Oscar award winning movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian born Inuit activist, is in the running for her work in illuminating the effects that climate change is having on the Arctic people. The pair was nominated to share the prize by two Norwegian parliamentarians.

Jan Egeland, head of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, believes that if this pair was to win the award, it would also establish a link between peace work and the importance of the environment. A link that has not been as direct. A previous winner, Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai, has begun such a shift of thinking.

"I think the whole issue of climate change and the environment will come at some point and reflect in the prize," Egeland told reporters last week.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee will not disclose names of nominees in advance of the awards, but names tend to leak out. And while there is the possibility that Al Gore would be too much of a political choice for the award, the general consensus seems to be that the award will go to Gore.

ENN - Climate Campaigners Tipped for Nobel Peace Prize

In my continuing series on "Stories that don’t make you want to cry", I have found once again the universe lining up to help me. This time though, it’s more than just a step in the right direction, it’s a step away from the brink.

According to Greenpeace, Indonesia had the fastest pace of deforestation in the world between 2000 and 2005, with an area of forest equivalent to 300 soccer pitches disappearing each hour.

But they’re looking to turn things around and, in all reality, on their heads!

Ahead of the U.N. climate change summit being held in their native Bali this December, the Indonesian people – from the lowest to the highest in status, including the President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono – will be planting a total of 79 million trees in one day!

Scheduled for November 28th, the tree planting will be part of a global initiative launched at U.N. climate change talks in Nairobi last year. The Plant for the Planet: Billion Tree Campaign has so far planted 346,469,727 trees, with a total pledge of 1,130,983,692 trees. 79 million is definitely going to help matters!

"Everybody, residents and officials from the lowest unit of the government to the president, will take part in this movement," said Ahmad Fauzi Masud, spokesman for the Indonesian forestry ministry. "It will be a national record and, possibly, a world record."

Indonesia is listed as Southeast Asia’s biggest economy – not surprising when you’re home to Bali – but sadly, they are also one of the world’s three biggest greenhouse gas emitters, along with the U.S., China and Brazil. This comes as a result of its massive deforestation, in conjunction with peatland degradation and forest fires, according to a recent report sponsored by the World Bank and Britain’s development arm.

Additionally, environmental groups are worried that the continued and rapid growth of palm oil plantations throughout Indonesia are damaging the countries rainforests. Despite the fact that many of these plantations are out to fuel (haha, get it, “fuel”?) new plans for biofuels, the damage to the rainforests may be a greater threat.

Participants from 189 countries will be gathering in Bali this December to discuss a new deal to fight global warming. With the Kyoto Protocol running out in 2012, and in the wake of earlier talks between envoys from participating countries, the talks will hopefully bring about a new goal that countries like the U.S.,, Australia, China and India will all be able to agree too.

ENN - Indonesia to Plant 79 Million Trees in One Day

Plant for the Planet: Billion Tree Campaign

Photo © UNEP

When you look at our planet today and search for two of the biggest influencers in the world, China and the US spring to the top of most people’s lists. No doubt there are other countries that people would argue for, but the simple fact is that America is the current dominant force and China is the rising economic force. As such, one of them is going to have to make a move to spur genuine international action on climate change.

David Hawkins, a climate expert of the environmental group the National Resources Defense Council, believes that China is only going to make a move once America does.

"My impression is that the national government — top level ministry officials — in China regard the threats of global warming to their country with a much higher level of seriousness than their counterparts do here in the United States," he said.

The theory is that because China sees environmental problems as current and major problems that need to be dealt with now, they will be more likely to follow in America’s footsteps when they make a move. Sadly, he doesn’t think that they’re alone in waiting for US leadership.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke this past week at a special UN conference on climate change in New York, indicating that the US may be willing to move soon. This after George Bush — at his own climate change conference last week — lamely announced that voluntary measures to tackle global warming was a possible idea for the future.

"It is striking that the administration at the moment in the international conversation seems to be pretty isolated," said John Ashton, Britain’s climate envoy, in response to Bush’s ideas. "I think that the argument that we can do this through voluntary approaches is now pretty much discredited internationally."

So when Condoleezza Rice spoke, her words brought a little more hope to some of us. "Ultimately, we must develop and bring to market new energy technologies that transcend the current system of fossil fuels, carbon emissions and economic activity. Put simply, the world needs a technological revolution."

This is a type of message we like to hear, especially considering how important new technologies — especially when partnered with renewable energies such as solar and wind — will be to our future.

Hawkins also believes that technological advance is going to be the draw card for China to get in on the game.

"The biggest carrot is to have the U.S. to take a leadership role," he said. "Then countries like China are going to say, ‘What does the United States know that we don’t know?’ and agree to their own cuts," said Hawkins.

So hopefully, when America gets tough on emissions both by regulation and through development of new technology, China will step in to the arena as well. And as the most polluted country in the world, there can only be one way to go: up!

For a related article, check out Maria’s US, China Partner on Efficiency – Can It Make a Difference?

ENN - Expert says China would follow U.S. lead on climate