Greenpeace International News

Paulo Adario, who heads up our Amazon campaign, may not be your archetypal hero (we?ve never seen him don tights), but we?re proud to announce that he has just been awarded the honour of ?Forest Hero? by the UN.  He?s not one to tout his own accomplishments, so we?re going to tell you more about Paulo?s work, as he receives his award today at the United Nations ceremony for the Year of the Forests in New York.

Paulo Adario?s career of Amazon protection is an inspiration to all of us and proof of what can happen when one person decides to take action.

His story in the Amazon began with his decision to move, in the mid-1990s, from Rio de Janeiro to Manaus ? the capital of Amazonas state. It was here he built, from scratch, the Greenpeace campaign to defend the Amazon Rainforest.

Leading a field team focused on research and investigation, Adario?s work exposed the timber industry as the first in a number of drivers of destruction in the Amazon rainforest.

In 2001, he led a skilled field team into the Amazon to assist the Deni tribe to demarcate and protect their own land, resulting in the official protection of 1,6 million hectares of pristine forest. Adario also introduced new concepts, such as the ?Green Wall? to describe the network of protected areas necessary to stop the northern encroachment of industrial development, and ?Zero Deforestation? ? a set of political, social and economic initiatives aimed at eliminating deforestation while ensuring the improvement of living conditions for people living in and from the forests.

Following a campaign on illegal logging, which led to a moratorium in 2003 on the international trade in Mahogany, the impacts of Paulo?s work attracted death threats from forest criminals across the Amazon.

Despite this, he persisted and went on to create bilateral agreements with international and industrial companies to halt the illegal destruction of the forests for soya crops and cattle ranching. The resulting Soya Moratorium and cattle industry agreements are still in place today.

Paulo has pioneered a campaign to protect the Amazon - from boardroom meetings with industry leaders to field expeditions deep into the Amazon, to the co-ordination of international public campaigns to expose forest destroyers and demand sustainable solutions.

These photos tell just a small part of Paulo Adario?s story in the Amazon and an important part of our story in Brazil over the last 20 years. Join the party- leave your congratulations in the comments section and I will make sure Paulo sees them all.

Join Paulo in taking action for the Amazon ? Tell Dilma to veto the new Forest Code!

Jess Miller is a communications coordinator for the Amazon campaign

Image Gallery..

2011 saw six of the world?s biggest clothing brands commit to the elimination of hazardous chemicals and begin to Detox - all thanks to the power of the people. Pressure is now mounting on those who have yet to commit; they must stop making excuses and start acting for change. To help, I?ve put together an easy-to-follow programme to help these companies cut their toxic addiction - and begin their journey to clean production.

Dear polluting clothing brands, 

It looks like 2012 is set to be remembered as the year when it will be no longer acceptable to continue with the ?business as usual? of our planet and millions of people suffer at the expense of your polluting behavior.

Six of you are already on the road to recovery; now it?s time to for the rest of you to come clean, and to help we have created a simple step-by-step guide to aid you in cutting your toxic addiction:

Step 1: Admit that you have a problem.

Just like any addict, the first step is admitting that you have an issue that you need to deal with and that your problem is impacting upon the lives of others. Talk to your CEO about it, and if you are the CEO, talk to the board and your employees. Tell them that this behavior has to stop.

Step 2: Go big or go home.

Commit to eliminating ALL hazardous chemicals used across your ENTIRE supply chain and in ALL your products by 2020 (those with a competitive streak can opt to commit to a date before 2020). Be sure to make your commitment public ? pop it on your website, put in your annual report and tell your customers too ? because if it?s public, then there is no going back.

Step 3: Be open about your progress.

You want to show your customers your progress, right? Demonstrate that your supply chain is releasing less and less pollution, that your products are becoming toxic free and that you are storming ahead of the competition?  Well then it that case you will need to be transparent about everything you are doing to come clean, release the data online in an easily understandable and searchable way for all to see, starting from day one.

Step 4: Tackle the obvious problems first

The textile industry uses a whole host of chemicals that need to be eliminated, some are already banned or regulated in certain regions and these should be the first to go (link). Such an approach will not only deal with the nastiest chemicals first, but it will also show your customers and your suppliers that you are really serious about kicking the habit and creating transformational change.

Step 5: Make your own action plan.

Now that you have committed to Detox, you need to look into details ? the necessary nitty-gritty. How you will manage your supply chain communication? What green chemical alternatives will you look into? Can you simply do without some of these chemicals? Creating the plan will help you establish the answers to these important questions and identify next steps, timelines and deadlines. Each company needs to make its own action plan, because each has its own unique set of challenges and opportunities.

Step 6: Join a support group

Feeling lonely? Join others. You do not have to, but several brands that are on the Detox programme already started a ?self-help? club. Not anonymous, not perfect, but helpful. They were asking others what they think about their plan to come clean and got some interesting comments.

Step 7: Make it happen

Most of all, this process is about turning words in action. It is about eliminating chemicals with toxic, hormone-disrupting properties from your supply chain and products and setting global standards across all your production facilities so that people around the world have access to clean, unpolluted water.

By taking these steps to Detox you are doing the right thing. So be bold, innovate and become a champion for a toxic-free future by abandoning your toxic past and embracing a new way of doing business that your employees, customers and fans can all be proud of.

The world is watching you.

Martin Hojsik is Head of the Detox Campaign at Greenpeace International - you can follow him at @mhojsik

 

The tussle for the top of our Cool IT Leaderboard has taken its latest twist, with Google grabbing the top spot ahead of 20 other tech companies, including Cisco and Ericsson.

 Pitching global IT companies against each other to find who comes out top in the fight to stop climate change, the 5^th edition of the Leaderboard compares the firms on their IT Climate Solutions, IT Energy Impact and Political Advocacy.

Google is way ahead on climate solutions and energy impacts, thanks to its disclosure of its energy footprint, and for providing its impressively detailed mitigation plan for achieving emissions reductions. On top of this, Google continues to speak up on important climate change policies, and make its voice heard on the immediate need for both US and EU governments to aggressively cut emissions.

Unfortunately though, there was a notable drop in scores on political advocacy across the industry. With the urgent need for cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions, tech firms are failing to speak up against that dirty energy companies guilty of stalling climate change policy debates at all levels of government. This is troubling; the IT industry is full of environmental rhetoric but simply doesn?t seem to be taking any real action. This is not tenable - the industry expanding too fast, and has too much potential for helping cut global emissions to just stand in the shadows. 

Several companies dropped points for pushing vague plans to mitigate their climate footprint, and for the lack of any plans for powering their future data centres with renewable energy. To remedy these problems, companies need to become more transparent on their investments into IT solutions that work to mitigate climate change and future emissions savings goals. 

However, with the possibility of introducing new climate clever solutions and expanding into emerging markets such as India, the tech business have an opportunity to create a greater demand for renewable energy that will ripple into other parts of the economy. The industry?s energy footprint is growing, and with so many new communities gaining access to mobile phones, tablets, and green building techniques that use innovative IT technology, it won?t be decreasing anytime soon. 

In fact, in the SMART 2020 report released nearly four years ago, it was projected that the Internet?s energy consumption will triple by 2020. But the sector can actually make a dent in global emission cuts in that same time frame by contributing to clever climate solutions by allowing people to measure their electricity consumption. While it is exciting to see the leadership by some of the companies on the Leaderboard, like Google, it is disappointing that the industry as a whole is failing to actualize its real potential.

Is this the kind of leadership we should expect from some of the world?s most inventive people?

See the Cool IT Leaderboard for yourself

 Gary Cook is an IT analyst for Greenpeace International 

(This post is by Christine McCann)

Here?s the latest of our news bulletins from the ongoing crisis at Japan?s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

State of Nuclear Politics in Japan

Japan will reportedly join the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC), an international pact designed to establish uniform standards for compensation in the event of a nuclear disaster. The convention grants ?exclusive jurisdiction? to the country where a disaster occurs, saving it from potentially exorbitant overseas litigation, and decrees that member states will share responsibility for any event for which liability exceeds $465 million. In addition, it guarantees ?exclusive liability of the operator,? meaning that only nuclear power companies will be held liable for a disaster, not manufacturers of reactors. The United States, Argentina, Morocco, and Romania have already signed the pact. Up until now, Japan has refused to participate in the belief that a nuclear disaster could never happen on its soil.

Records show that three members of the task force that is revising Japan?s nuclear energy policy have received over 18 million yen in donations from the nuclear power industry over a five-year span. Although the payments were not illegal, critics, including some fellow task force members, say that the men have been influenced by the donations. Hideyuki Ben, who sits on the task force and represents the Citizens? Nuclear Information Center noted, ?All three professors are experts on nuclear power, but they only made remarks in favor of nuclear power generation. It was as if no accident had occurred [at Fukushima.]?

In spite of Nuclear Crisis Minister Goshi Hosono?s promise late last month that employees who worked at Japan?s soon-to-be created Nuclear Regulatory Agency would not be allowed to later return to the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI), in order to prevent conflicts of interest, sources are now reporting that that rule will only apply to the top seven posts at the 485-person agency. Critics are expressing concern about a lack of independence and neutrality.
 
Japan Nuclear Fuel, Ltd., which operates the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in Aomori Prefecture, is delaying scheduled vitrification tests after similar tests failed last week, throwing a wrench into plans for the nation?s nuclear fuel cycle. Vitrification is the process of mixing molten glass with highly radioactive liquid nuclear waste, in order to store it more effectively. However, tests resulted in a blocked furnace at the plant, as well as the unexpected production of unidentified black particles. Rokkasho officials have no prospect of immediately fixing the malfunction. The plant has continued to encounter problems since testing began there in 2008, and this most recent issue is expected to spur a review of Japan?s nuclear policy.

A government investigation has revealed that METI intentionally concealed cost estimates of disposing of spent nuclear fuel in 2004, in order to promote Japan?s nuclear fuel cycle program?and that the cover-up was ordered by Masaya Yasui, who now serves as METI?s Deputy General for Nuclear Safety Regulation Reform. Critics, who say that the subsequent internal investigation was shoddy and incomplete, are calling for his removal.

An employment scandal involving contract workers at Kansai Electric?s Oi power plant in Fukui Prefecture reveals that illegal labor is a common occurrence in Japan?s nuclear industry, and in some instances, involves organized crime syndicates. Workers frequently receive only a small portion of what their contracts promised, with the excess being funneled to the crime syndicates; safety of the workers is often compromised. The Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) says that of the 83,000 nuclear power workers who were exposed to radiation in 2009, 90% were contract workers not directly employed by utilities.
 
Recently disclosed documents reveal that power companies paid local municipalities over $2 billion over the past 40 years to host nuclear plants. Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) alone paid over $460 million, and while it stopped making payments after the Fukushima disaster, other utilities have continued to do so. The money was used to pay for public facilities, sports arenas, scholarships, and to cover budget shortfalls. The costs for those payments were routinely passed along to consumers.
 
The city of Musashimurayama in Tokyo will obtain power from sources other than TEPCO for the majority of public entities in the city starting in April, in order to save money and reduce reliance on TEPCO, which has traditionally held a monopoly on electricity there. City officials estimate that the move will save approximately 14 million yen per year, and will support renewable energy firms, including those that produce wind and solar power.

South Korea is now competing with Japan to build nuclear reactors on Turkey?s Black Coast. Analysts believe that Turkey is intentionally promoting competition between the two nations, in order to get the best deal.
 
TEPCO

Japan?s Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund (NDF) has agreed to give TEPCO an additional 689.4 billion yen to cover compensation costs for victims of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, bringing the total amount of government compensation funds to 1.6 trillion yen. Yukio Edano, the head of METI, is expected to approve the fund transfer next week.
 
Reactor Status

TEPCO has begun injecting boric acid into reactor #2 in an effort to prevent recriticality, and has increased cooling water flow to 13.1 tons per hour, after one thermometer showed that the temperature there had increased more than 25 degrees in less than a week, from 45ºC to 70.1, down from an earlier high of 72.2. TEPCO officials believe that plumbing work conducted last week may have shifted the flow of water within the reactor, preventing that water from reaching part of the melted fuel.  The utility said that no xenon-135 has been detected, which could indicate recriticality. Haruki Madarame, Chairman of Japan?s Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC), criticized both the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and TEPCO for a lack of transparency about the incident.
 
Meanwhile, in accordance with Japanese law, NISA began a three-week long inspection at the Fukushima Daiichi plant this week, in order to confirm that the reactors there are still in a state of so-called cold-shutdown.

Contamination (Includes Economic Impact and Human Exposure)

Japan will measure aerial radiation over the 20 km no-entry zone surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant for the first time since March.  The government is considering revising the no-fly zone over the plant.

Other Nuclear News

A fire broke out this week at Russia?s Alikhanov Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow. The Institute is home to a 60-year-old reactor, which is no longer in use but contains large amounts of radioactive materials. Russian officials insisted that no radiation has leaked into the atmosphere, but details about the event conflicted repeatedly. Ivan Blokov of Greenpeace Russia said, ?This is extremely dangerous?it shows there has been a major failure in their operations.? During the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, Soviet officials did not inform the public about the meltdown for two days.

After last week?s reports of a radiation leak and severely worn tubes at its San Onofre reactor, Southern California Edison Power Company admitted that a worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool there. The utility said that the worker was not exposed to significant amounts of radiation. However, critics are questioning quality control procedures at the plant, and asking how so many incidents could take place in just a week. The San Onofre plant has a history of safety issues and other infractions.

(This post is by Christine McCann)

Here?s the latest of our news bulletins from the ongoing crisis at Japan?s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

State of Nuclear Politics in Japan

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that his country?s dependence on nuclear power should be reduced to the ?maximum extent.? Noda made the remarks during a policy address to the Diet last week.

Japan has approved a bill to create a new government entity, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA), which will oversee nuclear power, manage nuclear disasters, and monitor the health of those affected by radiation from said disasters. The new agency will absorb the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). The new law is expected to go into effect in April. The Cabinet also approved a second bill, which will limit the life of reactors to 40 years, although operators can apply for 20-year extensions.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have endorsed stress tests conducted by NISA on reactors #3 and #4 at Kansai Electric?s Oi plant in Fukui prefecture. However, the IAEA team made several suggestions for improvement in NISA?s process, including communicating more effectively with local residents, establishing a safety margin, and addressing severe nuclear accidents ?more comprehensively.? IAEA spokesman Greg Webb noted that the IAEA inspection does not guarantee reactor safety: ?Nuclear safety is a national responsibility in any country. No country has asked the IAEA to be a safety watchdog. We don?t conduct nuclear safety inspections.?
 
NISA has proposed a new set of 30 safety guidelines for nuclear plants. If approved, operators would be required to provide backup sources of power, waterproof cooling facilities, upgrade communication systems, and separate ventilation piping from other equipment, among other safeguards. The newly created Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA) would oversee the process.
 
Vitrification tests at the Rokkasho nuclear reprocessing plant in Aomori Prefecture failed this week, dealing a serious blow to Japan?s nuclear fuel cycle policy. Vitrification involves mixing molten glass with highly radioactive liquid nuclear waste, in order to store it more effectively. However, tests resulted in a blocked furnace at the plant, as well as the unexpected production of unidentified black particles. Rokkasho officials have no prospect of immediately fixing the malfunction. The plant has continued to encounter problems since testing began there in 2008, and this most recent issue is expected to spur a review of Japan?s nuclear policy.
 
Wolfgang Weiss, the Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said that massive evacuations and the fact that 80% of the nuclear fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster landed in the ocean have contributed to lower radiation impact on human health. Weiss did not address the impact of radiation on seafood and possible effects on the food chain, nor did he discuss long-term effects of low-level radiation, which are still being studied. The group will publish a preliminary report in May, and a final report in 2013.

The IAEA said it is still considering whether to open an office in Japan?s Fukushima Prefecture, contradicting earlier reports that its Director General, Yukiya Amano, said that the Agency would establish an office there.

Meanwhile, Japan has reportedly asked the IAEA?s Response and Assistance Network to add a new assistance category, which would cover bringing nuclear disasters under control.

TEPCO

TEPCO President Toshio Nishizawa said the utility will reconsider a planned 17% rate hike for businesses, after government officials and business leaders pressured the utility to do so?but any reduction in the new fee is expected to be very small. The company is also pushing for a 10% rate increase for residential users, but by law, the government is required to approve such a change.

Reactor Status

TEPCO has admitted yet another leak of radioactive water at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, after announcing 16 additional leaks earlier this week. Officials initially said that 6 liters of water had leaked from reactor 4, but later conceded that the amount was actually more than 8 tons. The water?s radiation level was measured at 35,500 Bq/liter. TEPCO is unclear about whether the leak was a result of cracks in piping from recent cold weather or from hydrogen explosions that occurred last March.
 
NISA officials have discovered that pipes and other structures at reactor 5 at the Fukushima Daiichi plant do not meet seismic safety standards established in 2006. Although visible damage from the March earthquake is not evident, NISA plans to conduct more extensive inspections. Officials are trying to determine the extent of earthquake damage to reactors 1 - 3, but first checked 5 because radiation levels are lower there, and it?s more accessible. TEPCO continues to insist that the reactors suffered no damage from the earthquake, and the tsunami was the cause of the meltdowns.
 
Contamination (Includes Economic Impact and Human Exposure)

The Japan Dairy Industry Association said that it will publicize results of radiation tests on milk and milk products from 17 prefectures at the end of February. Dairy producers Meiji Co., Megmilk Snow Brand, and Morinaga are members of the association and will participate in the tests, which are designed to reassure the public of product safety.

Decontamination

Farmers in Fukushima Prefecture are criticizing a decision by the Environment Ministry to only extend decontamination subsidies if at least 30 cm of surface soil is replaced with subsoil and plowed by special large machines. Farmers say that many rice paddies are too small to accommodate the huge equipment. Fukushima government officials will petition the Ministry to underwrite the costs of zeolite, a substance that absorbs radioactivity, even if the large equipment is not used.

The Environment Ministry will conduct pilot decontamination tests over the next several months on a highway running through the no-entry zone in Fukushima Prefecture. Radiation measurements on the highway vary from low-level to more than 50 millisieverts per year. Effectiveness of the decontamination methods will be assessed in July.

Other Nuclear News

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said new seismic studies reveal that 96 nuclear plants in the eastern and central United States may be at risk from earthquakes exceeding their design capacity, based on previously uncataloged data. The discovery, which was prompted by the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant after last year?s massive earthquake and tsunami, could result in major and costly upgrades to the nation?s plants. The NRC is allowing nuclear plant operators four years to assess whether or not their reactors can withstand earthquakes based on the new data; presumably, even more time will then be allotted for upgrades. Experts, who say the delay is too long and could put the country at risk for a massive nuclear disaster, are harshly criticizing the decision. Dave Lochbaum, Director of Nuclear Safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists said, ?The NRC does not need a new model; it needs a new spine.?

Significant amounts of unusual wear have been discovered on tubes that carry radioactive water at Unit 2 of Southern California Edison?s San Onofre nuclear plant. The reactor was shut down earlier this week when one of the tubes was discovered to be leaking radiation, and plant officials admitted that a small amount might have escaped into the atmosphere. Some tube walls were eroded by as much as 30%. The erosion is significant because the tubes, which are manufactured by Japan?s Mitsubishi Heavy, were just replaced in 2009. Former NRC engineer Joram Hopenfeld, who is now retired, said, ?The safety implications could be very, very severe.? Officials at Southern California Edison are still trying to determine the cause of the problem.

France?s Court of Audit has declared that the country must extend the lifespan of its already aging reactors, because failure to invest in new reactors or alternate forms of energy has threatened the country?s power supply. Sophia Majnoni, Nuclear Campaigner at Greenpeace France, criticized the move, which could put the population?s safety at risk. The country?s Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) ?is the only authority entitled to decide whether to extend the lifespan of reactors,? Majnoni added. France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear power, more than any other country.

With this year?s United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development meeting ? also known as ?Rio+20? ? fast approaching, Greenpeace senior political advisor Pat Lerner takes an in-depth look at the UNSG?s High Level Panel report on Global Sustainability "Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing": 

It had been billed ahead of time as ?a second Brundtland Report [1]?, designed to be visionary and describe a future 20 years from now, ?a future worth choosing.? Its mandate was clearly recognized: ?efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other social and economic targets are hampered by the inability to agree on decisive and coordinated action in national and multilateral fora.?   Yet in the end the politicians did what they always do ? they kicked the tough issues down the road for someone else to deal with and bowed to what they thought could get agreed.  No wonder there?s a leadership vacuum.

Don?t get me wrong.  There are some good ideas in the recently released report by the UNSG?s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability ?Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing?.  But it?s clear the usual sort of unseemly dickering and trade-offs we are familiar with in climate negotiations took place among the Panel, as those involved headed towards compromises.  They heard us calling for greater urgency so the words are there, but the recommendations have been watered down with dates that clearly don?t reflect the urgency merited by our oceans, forests and climate.  But then we shouldn?t be surprised as it?s the very same individuals negotiating our planet?s fate.

The Resilient People report and its recommendations are a bit of a mixed bag.  Bravo for calling to ?phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse subsidies by 2020?. The G20 pledged to do so in October 2009, as did APEC a month later ? that?s 53 countries.  More recently, the IEA warned of the dangers of further delay, saying in effect that we could finally have a level playing field for alternatives to fossil fuels if the $400 billion per year of hand outs were phased out.  You would think this would be a ?no brainer? for leaders said to be obsessed with eliminating public deficits.  First rule of thumb when you?re in a hole ? stop digging!  So what, and who, is holding them back?  You heard us say it in Durban and you?ll hear us say it in Rio ? ?listen to the people, not the polluters!?

We are pleased the Panel sees oceans as ?crucial for humanity?s future?, because of the contributions they make to livelihoods, food security and the environmental services they provide.  The report highlights the decline of marine environment, particularly over the past two decades.  It is clear that a radical overhaul is needed for that management of our oceans; we simply can?t continue with a business-as-usual approach that will surely lead to a social, economic and environmental disaster.  So why such weak recommendations, which fail to address the issue of overcapacity in the fisheries sector, as well as the simple reality of too many big boats chasing too few fish? There is no sense of urgency for action; we cannot agree to an approach that merely tinkers at the margins and signs a death warrant for the oceans.  Fortunately, the zero draft of the Rio outcome is spot-on in calling for a new UN implementing agreement that would give a clearer framework for cooperation on marine conservation and sustainable management. Conserving 20-30% of the global oceans in marine protected areas could create a million jobs, and avoid the destruction of the livelihoods of the millions of people who depend on marine resources.

The Resilient People report is somewhat contradictory on food and agriculture and some of its recommendations run the risk of being counter-productive.  The call for an ?ever-green revolution in agriculture? brings back memories of the first green revolution, which was based on intensive use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, hybrid seeds and irrigation water, with disastrous results for diversity of native crop varieties, soil health, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions and long-term food security.  Governments must be clear about what is needed; not simply greater resource use efficiency, but a dramatic reorientation of agricultural systems away from chemical farming and towards low external input, ecological farming methods which work with, not against nature.

Speaking of biodiversity, where, oh where are forests and biodiversity in the Resilient People report?  We need commitment by all countries and companies to immediately eliminate the subsidies and industrial demand-side drivers of deforestation and forest degradation so we can achieve zero deforestation by 2020. The world completely missed the biodiversity target agreed to in 2002, ?to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss.?   I guess the Panel didn?t want to dwell on targets missed when voluntary, bottom-up approaches are still thought useful.  The real question is whether those approaches remain sufficient for the scale of the challenges we face.  The Panel?s recommendation for Governments to adopt ?whole-of-government approaches to sustainable development issues, under the leadership of the Head of State or Government? suggests they understand the crisis dimensions of the planet?s future as this approach is typically used in conflict and post-conflict situations.  But this is easier said than done, and it?s hard to see how the issues will really surface to the top of the pile, unless strengthening UNEP really means giving it specialized agency status.

In terms of what needs to be done to catalyse a socially just, green economy, the Resilient People report is correct in calling on Governments, international financial institutions, major companies and small and medium enterprises to do their parts in mandating, incentivizing, adopting and diffusing sustainable business practices, which move beyond the short-term and embrace longer term investment horizons. The toolbox includes mechanisms that can be implemented right away, such as removal of dirty subsidies and redirecting those revenues for sustainable investments; establishing full-cost pricing for negative externalities like taxes or emission trading schemes for fossil fuels; reviewing investors? fiduciary responsibilities which prevent many large investors from longer-term thinking and sustainable investments; and building investor confidence through stable long-term policy frameworks, such as renewable energy targets, and through public financing instruments, risk-sharing, and advance purchase commitments (such as feed-in tariffs) to bridge the viability gap in funding. These are all recommendations governments should take on board for immediate implementation.  That said, the panel wimps out when it comes to corporate accountability. While mandatory sustainability reporting would provide investors, policymakers and citizens with improved information, and would represent a step forward from the current state of pure voluntarism, it simply isn?t enough. We need governments to fulfill the promise they made in Johannesburg ten years ago and deliver clear and binding rules on global corporations. Governments must establish full accountability and liability for any social or environmental damage caused by multinational corporations.

The Panel recommends that ?Governments should agree to develop a set of key universal sustainable development goals, covering all three dimensions of sustainable development as well as their interconnections. ? We welcome this recommendation, but think the timeline needs to be accelerated. The responses to sustainability must reflect at least the same level of urgency and seriousness as the responses to the economic and financial crises.  Agreeing on aspirational, long-term SDGs by 2015, which are set for 2030, would simply not achieve this response. The focus needs to be on the next ten years, as choices made within this period will be crucial for preventing catastrophic climate change, saving our oceans and protecting remaining natural forests -- all of which are fundamental for human development and well-being. The time-horizon for SDGs should be no longer than two election periods at most, 2020, to ensure immediate implementation and avoid gaps in political commitment. The SDG process must guarantee the full implementation and follow-up of the MDGs.

The Resilient People report suggests ?to achieve sustainability, a transformation of the global economy is required.  Tinkering at the edges will not do the job.?  We agree, but find the report' unconvincing in its recommendations.  It?s as though the authors lost the courage of their convictions somewhere along the way.  The upshot looks like ?tinkering at the edges?, which simply isn?t enough to save the only planet we call home.

Read more: The "Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing" report

Pat Lerner is a senior political advisor for Greenpeace International. Written with input from Nathalie Rey, Susanne Breitkopf, Julian Oram, Kaisa Kosonen, Sofia Tsenikli, Sebastian Losada, Mario Ferro and Roman Czebiniak

Notes:

[1] Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was published in 1987. Its targets were multilateralism and interdependence of nations in the search for a sustainable development path. The report sought to recapture the spirit of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment - the Stockholm Conference - which had introduced environmental concerns to the formal political development sphere. Our Common Future placed environmental issues firmly on the political agenda; it aimed to discuss the environment and development as one single issue.

The publication of Our Common Future and the work of the World Commission on Environment and Development laid the groundwork for the convening of the 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration and to the establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

An oft-quoted definition of sustainable development is defined in the report as:

"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

In addition, key contributions of Our Common Future to the concept of sustainable development include the recognition that the many crises facing the planet are interlocking crises that are elements of a single crisis of the whole ^[1] and of the vital need for the active participation of all sectors of society in consultation and decisions relating to sustainable development.

Our Common Future is also known as the Brundtland Report in recognition of Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland?s  role as Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development.

[2] 2010 estimate, from the World Energy Outlook

At the end of 2011, before government officials closed up shop for the holidays, President Dilma demanded final approval on the new Forest Code in Brazil. This new proposal condemns the Brazilian forests and is a deal between government and agribusiness that was made in back rooms and secret meetings. But strong public pressure against the dangerous new code and a lack of consensus inside the Congress prevailed and the final vote was left to 2012.

The Brazilian Congress returned to work yesterday, and the stage is set for the battle for the Amazon to resume.

Please take action: Tell Dilma to stop the new Forest Code 

Raw HTML.. 

The new Code is on the agenda of the Chamber of Deputies to be voted on March 6th, but it could be delayed again, because some deputies are not happy with the text approved by the Senate, as it reduces the benefits earned by ruralists, including the powerful agribusiness sector. The deputies have the last say in the voting before the new law goes to President Dilma's signature and will probably propose a new version of the Forest Code that better fits their needs.

Unfortunately, this outcome would mean that the new Forest Code proposal finally approved by the Senate could get even worse.

But that isn?t everything; the Brazilian Congress is under serious pressure to vote on the new Code as soon as possible to avoid the world?s gaze as the debate moves closer to the upcoming UN conference on Sustainable Development in Rio this June. If the vote is delayed again, it could mean that President Dilma will be caught passing a law dismantling forest protection just as she is inviting world leaders to Brazil under the guise of saving the planet.
At this point, only President Dilma can put a stop to the proposed law - the new Forest Code - that could destroy the Amazon.

Tatiana Carvalho is a Greenpeace Amazon Campaigner. Photo: Greenpeace activists at the COP 17 in Durban, dressed as trees protesting the proposed Brazilian Forest Code.

At the World Economics Forum in Davos last week, no one was denying that we face serious economic, social and environmental crises. When even the Financial Times runs a series of articles on "Capitalism in crisis", it´s obvious that it?s not just the "Occupy WEF" protesters, who I joined in their igloos outside the meeting, that are asking fundamental questions about how we do business.

What Davos failed to do, however, is provide adequate answers. The talk was mainly about symptoms, not the core of the problem. No question, issues such as the size of the Euro firewall or bankers? bonuses are important. But if we are to deliver an economy that brings prosperity for all - without destroying the planet, we need to achieve a much more fundamental change than putting together few hundred extra millions for a firewall, or a little less greed by the 1%. When I suggested fundamental changes, such as making corporations liable for their impacts on society and the environment, the reaction was often a nervous laugh. 

While I was freezing in snowy Davos, the Brazilian President Dilma was at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre calling for the fostering of  "new model" of development that can be discussed at this June´s Rio Earth Summit. Greenpeace has some concrete proposals on how governments could use the Rio meeting to change course and not simply acknowledge the crises we face, as is happening in Davos. The Earth Summit should, for example, agree on strong regulation of financial markets, including a Financial Transaction Tax, agree the end of environmentally and socially harmful subsidies, and commit to sustainable energy for all and zero deforestation by 2020.

But if President Dilma wants to lead the world in a great transformation, she first has to put her own house in order. Unless she vetoes it, Brazil will soon adopt changes to its the Forest Code, the main law in Brazil that protects the forests, that would allow an amnesty for past forest crimes and lead to an increase in deforestation. This is unacceptable. If Brazil wants to credibly discuss ?new models? of development at the Earth Summit in June, it must urgently commit to a new model of sustainable prosperity based on zero deforestation. It can be done. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has declined year on year and in 2011 reached its lowest ever level. But unless Dilma acts, Brazil will be the nation that showed that deforestation could be halted, but failed to do so, in order to cater to short-term special interests. Unless she vetos the Forest Code changes, President Dilma will have as little credibility to talk of fundamental change as the ?Davos Man? come June.

The warm climate of Rio will certainly suit me better than the mountains of snow in Davos. But will I leave Rio with more hope that the fundamental changes we need can finally be implemented?

Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International

Photograph courtesy of Occupy WorldEconomicForum 

Read our blog "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Mixed Bag" that dissects the recent report by the UNSG High Level Panel on Global Sustainability

"Palm oil-diesel. Extinction and climate disaster."

It?s been a bad few weeks for biofuels produced from food crops: first, the US Environmental Protection Agency said that biodiesel made from palm oil will not count towards the country?s renewable fuels mandate because they are damaging to the climate. Rainforest is destroyed and carbon-rich peatland drained in the production of palm oil and this destruction is a large source of greenhouse gas emissions which cause climate change. In the same week, figures from the EU were leaked showing that greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels produced from palm oil, soybean and rapeseed are higher than those for conventional fossil fuels, like oil, when their indirect effects are taken into account.

According to the EU study, the CO2 emissions of these biofuels could even be compared to those derived from Canada?s tar sands, usually referred to as the world?s dirtiest fuel. In 2009, the EU ruled that renewable energy sources such as biofuels should make up 10% of Europe?s transportation energy mix by 2020. But the legislation failed to take into account the indirect land use changes which are caused by biofuels: when existing agricultural land is taken up to produce crops for biofuels, then more land is needed to produce food or animal feed, causing environmental destruction such as deforestation.

This spring will be decisive for the future of biofuels: will the EU and the US choose a truly sustainable path for the transport sector or will they continue to support dirty biofuels that actually make things worse? Take soy, which has turned large swathes of Argentina into one vast monoculture, causing deforestation, displacement of people and pollution of water resources because of the intensive use of herbicides. In spite of this, Argentinian soy is still accepted by the EU as a ?climate-saving? biofuel. Indonesia and Malaysia are also preparing major expansions of palm oil plantations in order to cater for increasing EU biofuel demand. And in 2011, Finnish energy company Neste Oil opened its latest massive biodiesel refineries, in Rotterdam, Netherlands - which makes the company potentially the biggest palm oil buyer in the world. Neste Oil won the Public Eye Award as the worst company of 2011 for its production of biodiesel from palm oil that comes from destroyed rainforest in Southeast Asia.

We have precious little time left to save the world from a climate crisis. EU and US policymakers have lost time by promoting unsustainable biofuels. Policymakers over-estimated the contribution of biofuels in the fight against climate change in order to support their powerful agri-business lobbies.

As a result we risk being locked into an infrastructure and the corresponding economic and lobby power of an unsustainable biofuels sector. With mounting evidence of the disastrous environmental and social impact of dirty biofuels, governments must recognise that they were wrong to put all their eggs in one basket ? and take action.

Priority should be given to energy saving measures: supporting the production of lighter and smaller cars with more efficient engines, developing public transport and rail transport  (powered with renewables) and reducing overall transport demand. Investments should go into truly sustainable biofuels, such as those produced from waste, which do not require the use of land. Greenpeace will continue to fight for sustainable climate policies, which do not come at the expense of tropical forests and support sustainable agricultural practices.

Kees is a forest campaigner at Greenpeace Netherlands ? follow him on Twitter @keeskodde_GP

(This post is by Christine McCann)

Here?s the latest of our news bulletins from the ongoing crisis at Japan?s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

State of Nuclear Politics in Japan

In spite of warnings by the nuclear industry that Japan will experience blackouts if nuclear reactors are not restarted this summer, Yukio Edano, the head of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI), said he does not expect power outages even if all reactors in the country are shut down. Although Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has indicated he would like to restart reactors, local officials have shown strong resistance and said they will not approve the move.

Nuclear disaster simulation tests performed in Shiga Prefecture show that the proposed government expansion of the so-called Urgent Protective Action Planning Zone (UPZ), a 30 km zone within which residents would be advised to remain indoors or evacuate in case of a nuclear disaster, may not be large enough. The Shiga simulation, which considered radiation levels, weather patterns, and geographic variables, revealed that radiation plumes could extend as far as 42 km; this would increase the number of potential evacuees to 42,000, up from 13,000. The government is expected to announce the 30 km UPZ zone?which it is increasing from the current zone of 10 km?in April.

Some nuclear power experts are criticizing Japan?s stress tests (designed to evaluate nuclear plants? ability to withstand natural disasters, including earthquakes and tsunamis), asserting that the process has been rushed and it?s too soon to safely restart idled reactors. Masashi Goto, who formerly designed nuclear plants and now sits on the Advisory Panel to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), has criticized the way the tests are conducted. ?The reality is that inspectors only look at the reactors? design and then factor in possible problems such as earthquakes and tsunami?they do not take into account the various malfunctions that can result in a disaster, including human error and equipment failure.? Another advisory panel member, Hiromitsu Imo, Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, complained about collusion between the nuclear industry and advisors at NISA. ?The process of testing is exactly the same as it was before the March earthquake,? he said. ?Professors who conduct research and promote the nuclear industry are also acting as advisors to the nuclear safety agency. There is no independence.?

NISA officials have admitted that they failed to share a secret US emergency plan for dealing with power loss at nuclear plants, with power companies, the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, or the public. The plan, which was compiled after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and is referred to as B.5.b, was presented to Japanese officials in 2006 and 2008 and outlined contingency measures in case of complete loss of power. NISA now admits that sharing the information might have lessened the impact of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, because it could have saved precious time before the meltdowns occurred. However, the NISA officials believed that power loss was not a realistic concern, and shelved it.

A review of 15 government organizations that met to deal with the Fukushima nuclear disaster showed that 10 failed to compile minutes and/or meeting summaries, as required by Japanese law. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has apologized for the lack of transparency. Critics have complained that important lessons about the way the disaster was handled have been lost.

METI is encouraging nuclear activists to move tents from Ministry building grounds, but officials say that they will not force demonstrators to leave the premises. The activists, who are demanding that the government and nuclear power providers refrain from restarting offline reactors, have been protesting there since the six-month anniversary of the disaster, and say they will not leave until their demands are met. ?We will never voluntarily leave here unless the government pledges not to restart nuclear power plants,? one protester promised.

TEPCO

Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) was voted as the second worst company of the year in an internet poll sponsored by Greenpeace and the Berne Declaration, as part of the annual Public Eye Award. The annual award, which is held in conjunction with the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is designed to ?remind the corporate world that social and environmental misdeeds have consequences.? Eighty-eight thousand votes were cast in TEPCO?s favor, citing the company for ?grossly neglect[ing] the structural safety of its atomic power plants in order to cut costs,? a move that ultimately led to three nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
 
Several Japanese banks are considering finalizing loans to TEPCO, after officials there agreed to accept an injection of funds from the government. The utility is expected to request 1 trillion yen to cover higher costs for thermal power. Until now, banks have been hesitant to finance loans because TEPCO?s solvency was in question.
 
Japan?s Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund is criticizing TEPCO?s proposed 17% rate hike for businesses. Fund officials questioned the calculations TEPCO used to determine the increase, saying that the utility has not made adequate efforts to reduce costs before attempting to pass them along to consumers. Although the Fund has no legal control over TEPCO?s electricity rates, it does have the authority to oversee restructuring.

Government plans to split TEPCO?s power generation and transmission functions into two entities have come to a halt, as members of the Diet turn their attention to other pressing political issues, including a consumption-tax hike. Meanwhile, some officials from the Finance Ministry are questioning the wisdom of nationalizing TEPCO, saying that doing so would place the government?and ultimately, taxpayers?at even greater financial risk if another nuclear disaster occurs.

Reactor Status

TEPCO has discovered 16 new leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, after cold temperatures caused cracks in piping and valves connected to water purification equipment and cooling systems. Officials believe more than 7,800 liters of water were released. As a result, cooling functions at the spent fuel pool of reactor 4 were stopped for an hour and forty minutes, but the pool?s temperature remained stable. TEPCO said that because some of the leaked water had already been purified, overall radiation levels were low, and it does not believe the water has flowed into the sea. NISA has once again ordered the utility to fix the leaks and to prevent them from happening again. Junichi Matsumoto, a TEPCO official, has admitted that the company failed to take appropriate measures to protect the piping. This summer, a reporter who worked undercover at TEPCO warned that makeshift plastic piping would not survive cold winter temperatures.
 
TEPCO plans to install new water decontamination systems, in an effort to filter more radioactive substances from contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Officials hope that the new system, slated to be installed in March, will effectively remove most radioactive cesium, strontium, cobalt, and manganese, although not tritium. The current system only removes cesium. The decision to install new purification equipment, whose design has not yet been determined, was spurred December?s discovery in of high strontium levels in seawater near the plant.

Scientists at the Chiba Institute of Technology have developed new robots, named Quince II and Quince III, which they hope will explore the crippled reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Currently, TEPCO workers cannot enter the reactors because radiation levels remain dangerously high. The robots are named after another robot named Quince, which was sent into the reactor but became stuck. Each robot is equipped with wireless receivers, allowing one to rescue another if one gets stuck. In addition, the cable used to control them is approximately 400 meters long, compared to the original Quince?s cable, which was only 30 meters in length.

Contamination (Includes Economic Impact and Human Exposure)

Radiation testing centers in Fukushima Prefecture and surrounding areas have been flooded with requests to test gravel and stone, after recent revelations that radioactive gravel from Namie was shipped to over 200 construction firms. At a testing center in Koriyama, located approximately 60 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, orders have increased by 500% in just the past two weeks. A local association of gravel companies is urging the central government to provide radiation standards and guidelines. In spite of encountering previous scares with other building materials, Japan currently has no laws regulating radiation limits in gravel.

Japan?s Environment Ministry has launched a study of plants and wildlife located near the Fukushima Daiichi plant, in order to examine the effects of radiation on DNA and reproductive systems.  

Decontamination

Environment Minister Goshi Hosono has released a decontamination schedule for areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Hosono said that workers will first focus on areas where radiation levels are currently less than 20 millisieverts per year, with the goal of reducing annual levels to 10 millisieverts or less by December 2012. By 2014, they plan to reduce areas measuring less than 50 millisieverts per year to 20 millisieverts or less. However, the Ministry still has no concrete, long-term plans for dealing with those areas where annual readings are greater than 50 millisieverts.
 
Compensation

Mayors from Fukushima Prefecture who are frustrated with TEPCO?s slow response in paying reparation to victims of the Fukushima nuclear disaster met with Japan?s nuclear disaster compensation panel this week. The mayors requested that the utility make lump sum payments, rather than monthly ones, to those residents who may not be able to move back to their homes for many years, if ever. TEPCO only recently agreed to reimburse victims for homes that have been rendered uninhabitable, but continues to refuse to increase compensation for emotional suffering. The officials asked the panel to develop comprehensive guidelines dealing with the issue.

Other Nuclear News

The Blue Ribbon Commission on American?s Nuclear Future, which is studying nuclear waste disposal in the United States, said that the government must employ a ?consent-based approach? as it searches for a central waste storage location. The issue, which the commission called ?urgent?, has risen to the forefront since the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant highlighted the dangers of storing spent nuclear fuel near reactors. In addition, the commission is urging the government to create a new entity to oversee nuclear waste storage. Currently the Department of Energy oversees that function.