When I was in high school a few buddies and I finagled our way from Detroit to D.C. to represent Somalia at the Model United Nations. I won’t go into all the sordid details; it’s enough say that the trip is affectionately known in our historical canon as “Fear and Loathing in Washington.”

It was the Year of the Refugee, so we had scored big with our randomly assigned country as Somalia was the unfortunate host of millions of displaced persons. During the first day’s plenary session, we thought it would be a good idea to break the ice by sending a note via floor page to our nemesis, Ethiopia, a country we were at war with and in real life had severed all ties: “Party in our hotel room tonight! Go OAS!” Yes, that refers to the Organization of African States, and no, the hostile delegation did not think this funny.

Within moments of reading our missive, one of our adversaries rose to his feet shrieking to the Chairman: “Point of order! Calling for the immediate censure [or whatever] of Somalia for attempting to initiate contact!” Evidently, we were not allowed to even pass a note to our (c’mon, not really) enemy and we were embarrassingly taken to task in front of the session. We immediately struck back by pointing out to the same Chair the “Ethiopians” failure to wear neckties. This breach of decorum was, it turned out, as grave an error on their part as was our failure to not communicate. Needless to say, we Somalis learned our lesson and avoided our fellows from the Horn of Africa – and co-creators of the world’s largest refugee problem – for the rest of our time in Washington.

No meaningful resolutions were passed.

I recall this story in the light of WikiLeaks’ recent release (to five major news outlets) of a large number of United States diplomatic cables between the State Department and its operations around the world. The “leaks” are the beginning of the third in a series, following the exposure of Afghan War and Iraq War documents earlier this year. The incident has become a global sensation, bringing to light the way in which diplomatic activity is conducted – and calling into question the security of intra- and international communications surrounding that activity. (Adding to the drama was WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s recent surrender to British authorities as a result of a sexual assault investigation in Sweden.)

High school memories aside, I do recognize the gravity of the situation here, and I, for one, am as dazzled as anyone by the savage behind-the-scenes elicit interactions, horse trading, strong-arming and bribery that seems to be the norm when it comes to what our American delegations – from the United Nations in New York to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun – like to call “delicate negotiations” or “meetings of the minds.”

Of course, we at EcoSalon are concerned about the diplomacy around climate change negotiations – and as the data comes in regarding what went down in Copenhagen, for example, we’re seeing quite a troubling picture. By way of background, the accord, which allows each nation to choose a target for greenhouse gas cuts, was designed in part to make it easy to get countries likes China and rapidly developing nations on board, though many feel it falls way short of needed measures. Moreover, opponents said it would get in the way of extending the binding provisions of the Kyoto Protocol – placed on richer nations – and it was thus opposed by many poorer countries.

Here’s what we know from the Guardian (guardian.co.uk), one of the five news organizations that has access to the leaks: The United States began “a diplomatic offensive” to get the accord signed and cables show that the U.S. sought “dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming.” This included going after “human intelligence” from UN diplomats. One cable “names specific countries of interest, including China, France, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the European Union, and seeks biographical details of individuals such as credit card and frequent-flyer numbers. It also seeks compromising intelligence on the officials running the climate negotiations, such as ‘efforts by treaty secretariats to influence treaty negotiations or compliance.’”

Meanwhile, the “Basic” nations (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) mounted their opposition. Says another cable: “It is remarkable how closely coordinated the Basic group has become in international fora, taking turns to impede US/EU initiatives and playing the US and EU off against each other. Basic countries have widely differing interests, but have subordinated these to their common short-term goals.”

And then there was another huge player, Saudi Arabia. A cable from Ambassador James Smith says, interestingly, that officials from the oil-producing giant “have suggested that they need to find a way to climb down gracefully from the country’s tough negotiating position. … Saudi officials are very eager to obtain investment credits for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and other technology transfer projects.”

The bottom line is that everyone was maneuvering hard. Some nations were even willing to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

Ugly, huh?

But here’s the rub, and the question on the street in Cancun, where this year’s conference is currently underway. With the fear that back-room dealings might be exposed to the public – including the benign, the ugly muscling and the sometimes uglier beddings among those who don’t want anyone to know that they’re engaged in any contact – could progress be slowed to crawl, or even doomed?

What role could secret talks play in allowing an obstructionist country to “climb down gracefully,” or the U.S. and the E.U. to work together to prevent a China from killing a (more comprehensive than Copenhagen) deal? Or who’s to say that less-developed nations (perhaps even outwardly adversarial ones) ought not to be able to secretly gather in their own smoke-filled rooms to circumvent the agendas of richer nations? After all, from the Middle East to Middle America, anyone familiar with diplomatic negotiations knows that a lot of trees are often quietly felled in very private forests before breakthroughs occur.

This is not to say that exposure of dirty deals and powerful countries abusing less-powerful ones isn’t a good thing. In fact, the WikiLeaks witch-hunt and censorship effort is somewhere between abhorrent and Orwellian.  But some players would tell you this: If next year’s dealings in Durban – where real, binding breakthroughs are not out of the question – were to be conducted with the presumption of complete transparency, progress might be no more than an elusive dream.

So here is the essential quandary of the Wikileaks phenomenon. Says Julian Assange in yesterday’s The Australian: “The truth will always win.” Nice sentiment. Will it? So much of what has been revealed is opening the world’s eyes to the gruesome underbelly of how nations deal with each other to manipulate people and populations to the benefit of the greedy and the powerful. Yet the question remains, without the ability for nations to conduct business in private, would certain essential bridges never be built, subterranean ties never be made, diplomatic infrastructure never exist that could open doors to change and allow for conflict resolution?

There’s a lot of support for WikiLeaks out there. And there are a lot of critics. But there are a lot of mixed feelings, as well. “What ifs” are easy, but I have to ask these questions: If every Soviet constituency knew of Mikhail Gorbachev’s interactions with Washington, would he have made it to the finish line? If certain Republicans knew of Richard Nixon’s interactions with Mao Tse-Tung, would relations with China have opened? How much sooner might Anwar Sadat have been murdered had his back-room dealings with Menachem Begin been revealed? There are no easy answers, but there’s a lot to consider, as well as a lot of trust going on that publications like the The New York Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian will be making some wise decisions.

In the meantime, in the world’s diplomatic circles the question continues to be asked, often in secret: “Can we talk?” The answer:  “Maybe. Depends who’s listening.”

Image: p373

Though the it’s-too-late set seems to be growing, most scientists agree that when it comes to human-induced climate change, there are solutions. Most of these solutions are ambitious. Some, in fact, might be too ambitious – and perhaps too dangerous on a number of fronts.

Geoengineering is exactly what it says it is – engineering our geo. If you want to get a little more technical, here’s a definition from the National Academy of Sciences:  “Options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.”

This example has recently been discussed quite a bit: When the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it released about 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and decreased world temperatures by an average of half a degree. That’s a big drop and the kind of climate change that, as a global population, we might be very interested in. So here’s the geoengineering news: We now have the technology to get the same job done – without a volcano – using airplanes or blimps to inject sulfur dioxide directly into the stratosphere.

But wait, there’s more. If playing Volcano God doesn’t do it for you, how about:

• Spraying massive amounts of seawater mist at low-lying clouds to reflect sunlight.
• Launching sunlight-reflecting mirrors into the Earth’s orbit.
• Seeding the ocean with iron to boost phytoplankton growth. (“Plankton release a chemical called dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere which helps cloud droplets form. More droplets mean whiter clouds that bounce more solar energy away from Earth,” says New Scientist.)

In fact, there are all kinds of ways we can take the reins of our climate situation. Are they good ways to combat global warming? Maybe, but hey, perhaps it’s a good idea to set up some rules here.

Ever since the concept of geoengineering came on the scene, excitement around the scientific possibilities has been tempered by political and ethical (perhaps even more than practical) considerations at every turn. For example, with the potentially global impact of any effort, who gets to play? Anyone who wants to (read: has an interest and can afford to)? What would prevent the abuse of such high-impact, “planet-hacking” technologies? Say an arid country would like to wet its whistle a bit? What’s to stop it from doing a little more than praying for rain? Of course, there’s also the little problem of a hostile nation wanting to flood or dry out an adversary.

Enter the United Nations. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recently closed its 10th biennial meeting in Nagoya, Japan, with the implementation of “a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.”

This makes sense – making sure that geoengineering science is explored in the global light of day, with science and ethics awareness checks as research moves forward. Good intentions aside, the weaponization potential alone requires every effort to make sure the wrong people don’t get their ill-willed fingers on any climate triggers. As one astute writer at the guardian.co.uk recently put it, the current world of geoengineering “is eerily reminiscent of the race to develop nuclear weapons in the 1940s.”

But let’s look at one more angle on this debate. Are these scientifically grand and impressive approaches to global warming just easy (for rocket scientists, anyway) answers to a complicated problem? Might “the promise” of geoengineering encourage a form of laziness, giving us the illusion that we’re relieved of the burden we must ultimately carry if we’re going to better manage how we manage our world?

If we’re going to take on human-induced climate change, we’re going to have to do some heavy lifting. We’re going to have to make some fundamental changes to how we view, consume and burn energy. We’re going to have to quickly evolve our thinking regarding sustainability and obsolescence and resource usage. We going to have reinvent our relationship with the Earth and no amount of New Big Science is going to end-run this fact.

Image: ewen and donabel

Climate control freaks?

Geoengineering is exactly what it says it is – engineering our geo. But here’s a cooler definition from the National Academy of Sciences:  “Options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.” Consider this: when Mt. Pinatubo, in the Philippines erupted in 1991, its bad-ass belch of some 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide dropped world temperatures by an average of half a degree. Scientists now have the technology get the same job done without any help from the volcano gods; they can use airplanes to inject sulfur dioxide right into the stratosphere. One way to combat global warming? Maybe, but hey, maybe it’s a good idea to set up some rules here before we get all crazy, no?

Who’s upstairs?

There are lots of breakthroughs these days regarding our knowledge of what’s happening at the helm of our own personal wheelhouses. While we’re always going on about how we should all be thinking, buying and even voting green, how much control do we really have as to where our minds and dollars go? What we’re getting here is, do you know what the “neuromarkerters” are up to these daze? Do you know the role they played in this month’s election? Stay tuned in (if you can) for tales about who’s trying to take control of your controls.

Insides Out

While we’re looking at what’s under the hood, how about them stem cells? We’re all about sustainability here, right, and what could be more sustaining than potentially life-giving research opportunities? Well it depends on who you ask. What’s happening on the biotech ground – from university and corporate labs to the halls of the Hill – affect our current and future quality of life every day, and the latest rules and regs and funding issues are playing a major role in how we approach these issues as a society. Who are the players on these issues and what do they have cookin’ up in their petri dishes?

It’s in the air

Blown away by all the wind-generated energy hubbub? Swept up by the grand promises while suffering though the doldrums of slow-to-no progress? Well, we are too. With plans for massive “farming” projects everywhere from the Great Plains to off our coastlines, there are a lot of questions to explore about what’s the right way to go about an effective wind grabbing. What are the costs? What are the potential rewards? Who’s primed to make coin on these deals that could make large-scale engineering efforts like the Hoover Dam seem like specs in our collective rear view mirror? And as a nation, are we interested in taking the innovation lead?

What’s happening?

Save the date! Our global(ish) eco-social is coming up this month in sunny Cancun, Mexico, where the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is guaranteed to entertain. And who better to cover the red carpet happenings than EcoSalon? The background from the UN is this: “Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable. More recently, a number of nations approved an addition to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol, which has more powerful (and legally binding) measures.” Here’s the subtext for this 16th meeting: Might a new binding treaty emerge? Don’t hold you breath – or maybe hold it. In any case, we’ll be covering the event! (In fact, we should send a reporter, right? Um, editor at ecosalon dot com. Tell her Scott sent you.)

OMG! It’s getting warmer in here!

If you thought we were going to leave Rep. Shimkus alone (note our shot across the bow last week), you’re mistaken. Not that we’re not saying there’s anything wrong with a Godly approach to life, but if he is speaking to us at all, he’s probably saying “knock it off with the greenhouse gases!” Anyway, it’s not just Shimkus we’re worried about. We’ll be keeping our eye on the climate control-busting shenanigans class of 2011. No quarter here. That’s a promise.

Duck and cover

Picking up on the Shimkus wave, we’re here to remind you that the War on Science is alive and well – and well-funded. Science denial seems to reaching a crescendo these days, whether deniers are taking on Einstein or climate change, the span between what science is telling us and what we believe seems to be growing. What are the facts on this issue? Does anyone care? Who wants you not to know better?

Is this thing (still) on?

Do I really need a new laptop already? It seems like I just bought one. Well, surprise, surprise, my breakdown might have been planned to go down well before my box was boxed. Planned obsolescence is a story not only about marketing and corporate greed, but about product footprints, waste and and throwaway culture. As our pal Brian Clark Howard recently said over at The Daily Green, “The issue has big environmental implications, because our insatiable appetite for stuff drives carbon emissions and pollution.” Quick, before the warranty expires, let’s take a look at this issues, and why it’s not necessarily an all-bad phenomenon.

Okay, so there’s a little EcoSalon skin. Hot huh? We missing anything? Thoughts? Ramblings? Send us a note at contact at ecosalon dot com.

Images: World Economic Forum, flydime, Liberal Democrats, James & Vilija, , phault
World Economic Forum, danielfoster437, woodleywonderworks, m.gifford

When would you not want an upgrade? And when would a downgrade be a good thing? When it comes to endangered species and sites, the ability of a list to focus energy and dollars on those (un)lucky enough to make the cut render these questions quite tricky. The bottom line is coin, and sad designations can mean a world of difference.

UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee (WHC) held its 34th session in Brasília, Brazil, over the past week and, among other announcements, let the world know that while Florida’s Everglades has once again become a site worthy of its “In Danger” moniker, Equador’s Galapagos Islands no longer fits the bill.

This endangered list isn’t just any old endangered list. For starters, it’s a U.N. deal. Under the 1972 World Heritage Convention, the WHC (which names sites that are of “outstanding universal value”) can inscribe on its List of World Heritage in Danger “properties” whose nations have requested immediate assistance and for which protection had been deemed to require “major operations.” This pretty much means two things: money and dollars. First off, a site that makes the list qualifies for cash from the World Heritage Fund. It also gets what amounts to a giant – and we’re talking giant – shout out to the international conservation community to respond to specific needs asap. According to UNESCO, the “mere prospect of inscribing a site on this list often proves to be effective, and can incite rapid conservation action.”

The Everglades National Park was inscribed this time around at the request of the United States due to “serious and continuing degradation of its aquatic ecosystem.” It’s the second time the Everglades has made the list, its first time being in 1993 after Hurricane Andrew and “a marked deterioration in water flows and quality resulting from agricultural and urban development.” The site was removed from list in 2007, but now “water inflows have been reduced by up to 60 percent and nutrient pollution has increased to the point where the site is showing significant signs of eutrophication, loss of marine habitat and a subsequent decline in marine species.” The Everglades, says the WHC, has the largest mangrove in the western hemisphere, the largest continuous stand of sawgrass prairie and the most significant breeding ground for wading birds in North America.

Meanwhile, (mostly) south of the equator, the Galapagos Islands were taken off the list due to progress in protecting the archipelago, despite UNESCO itself objecting.

“The state of conservation report presented by UNESCO did not suggest that the site should be removed from the danger list, that was a decision the committee made,” UNESCO spokesperson Sue Williams tells OurAmazingPlanet. “They’re free to make up their own minds.”

OAP goes on to quote Johannah Barry, president of the Galapagos Conservancy, who acknowledges some “inroads” against the islands’ problems, but said he’s “concerned it might appear like everything’s all better now.” Aside from the continuing onslaught of tourism which has a negative impact on the site, Barry points to the influx of “alien plants, animals and diseases in recent years, from West Nile virus and parasitic flies that are killing off the islands’ finches, to domestic dogs and cats that maim and kill the archipelago’s marine iguanas.”

All told, the Galapagos retains its international panache when it comes to conservation efforts. “Just because it has come off the list doesn’t mean UNESCO doesn’t pay attention to it anymore,” OAP quotes Williams as saying. “If there’s a deterioration of the situation, it could very well be the site could be re-inscribed on the list.” Meanwhile the Everglades is getting a huge boost by regaining this unfortunate designation. Still, the musical chairs regarding various endangered lists is a high stakes game which conservation groups are rightly paying very close attention to. Out of site, out of mind (or out of pocketbook, as the case my be), could be a death knell to a site less well-known than, say, the Galapagos.

Images: michaelrperry, chaunceydavis

Understanding the threats that tourism poses to the environment and even cultures, the United Nations is launching a global initiative to make tourism worldwide more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. The Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism will be led initially by the French government and hosted by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

This global approach is a huge endeavor, but by highlighting the importance of sustainable tourism, the UN is encouraging countries around the world to think about how tourism works and how it can work better, and in a more sustainable fashion. The partnership is aiming high. The goal is to transform the way tourism operates around the world by seeking out and replicating successful, sustainable policies, projects, and investments,” said Achim Steiner, Under-Secretary General for the UN and Executive Director of UNEP.

Because tourism is such an all encompassing industry, and one that is responsible for about five percent of global GDP, the initiative will cover a variety of sectors:

• policy frameworks
• climate change
• environment and biodiversity
• poverty alleviation
• cultural and natural heritage
• private sector sustainable practices
• finance and investment

How will this affect how we travel? That remains to be seen, but with such a grandiose, international initiative we can most likely expect a larger discussion on what constitutes sustainable tourism and how we can all do our part to travel in a more conscious manner.

Image: Lee Coursey

In the worldwide struggle to get clean water to those in need, it’s people who are the biggest problem.

That’s the conclusion of the World Water Forum, which met this month in Istanbul to examine global water supply problems and offer suggestions to world governments. At the Forum, the United Nations published their summary of the state of world water supplies. In a word – mismanaged. The summary pointed toward the lack of international cooperation, the often unbalanced allocation between commercial, food-producing and domestic supplies and, in particular, the absence of economic development.

At a time when world economies need all the help they can get, it’s particularly damning that investment in water management can turn a tidy profit, paying back between 300% and 3,400% on the initial investment depending on location, according to the World Health Organization. Furthermore, poor water supplies can hobble a country’s GDP – for example, currently costing Africa an estimated $28 billion a year (PDF). Water isn’t just a life-saver – it’s a money-spinner as well.

“The green is being stressed but not the blue…“

- Angel Gurría, General Secretary, OECD

Water is being overlooked for many reasons. It’s easy to associate water supply problems with the most wartorn and socially depressed areas of the developing world, but one severe drought can topple the sturdiest-seeming water management system, as California is currently discovering. The only effective way forward has to be an interdependent one – where businesses and politicians work and legislate in favor of the big picture, not just their corner of it. And as a nice incentive, this appears to be where all the money is.

Image: bortescristian