PanGeoInvestment.com     

Brazil remains one of the top four emitters of greenhouse gases on Earth largely due to reckless, wholesale destruction of the Amazon Rainforest and cerrado. Brazil may still account for as much as one-half of global greenhouse gas emissions that arise from deforestation which would be 10% of the overall global total. This amount still only accounts for about three-quarters of emissions from Brazil. So its clearly time for action including a concerted crackdown; we already know that having 300 "environmental agents" covering the entire Brazilian Amazon proved to be wholly-inadequate.

The Brazilian government's current plan is to ensure more trees are planted than cut down in the Amazon by 2015. In our view, to merely cut the deforestation rate in half within a decade is totally inadequate, a nonstarter. Any thoughts of afforestation and reforestation? Over the past generation, Brazil's net loss of forest has been approximately 50 million hectares, an astronomical amount. Brazil aims to reduce the historic, prolific teardown rate of its forests by 70% before 2017 and 80% before 2020. This is calculated to cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 35%. Authorities in Brazil have said such a target equates to emissions reductions of about 20% versus that of 2005. If they do succeed in reaching this reduction target despite the added burden of emissions associated with mega-dam building, they will be back to their mid-nineties absolute levels of emissions which would be very substantial progress.

Special federal police and environmental agents have been sent in to try to stop illegal logging, land-clearing, sawmill operations and lighting of forest fires from escalating anew across this frontier. Authorities are apparently going after farmers and cattle ranchers that cut down trees, the industry responsible for about 80% of Amazon deforestation. Now, if you raise livestock on illegally-cleared land, your animals could be impounded. Yet, many Amazon natural resource harvesters are defiant and the rate of deforestation has so far continued to increase, wiping out huge new swathes of rainforest. We still have the Bom Futuro's and Tailandia's of the world with us.

Hydropower in Brazil accounts for about four-fifths of their electricity generation which is fine so long as Andean glaciers remain voluminous, not a given as we have pointed out. We generally do not support mega-hydropower projects. The ecological risks are too great from widespread flooding which will mean huge quantities of greenhouse gas emissions from land use changes, in particular, methane. Brazil should look to implement run-of-river micro-turbines and other modest and smaller-scale hydropower initiatives. Forget gray-banker-big hydropower, gorilla-sized mining and smelting operations and other resource extraction undertakings that disrupt so many natural things to an out-of-balance state. Such mega-projects are not likely to be coped with successfully in the Amazon Basin where living conditions are already very challenging. Upon this Earth, walk lightly. A million, piece-wise, geographically-scattered operations can accumulate to the same output as one gross, piggery of an operation. Small impacts and perturbations against nature can be coped with and adapted to much more successfully than the asteroid-style-impact of one convenient colossus such as the Belo Monte dam complex. There are now so many of us, and innumerable species, too that we have fiduciary responsibility towards. And an incredible number of species live in the Amazon so development must not go wildly off-kilter in this critical habitat where troubling issues brought-on by deforestation, drying-out and drought are already manifesting.

Coal use was once widespread then went into decline due to the historical rise of hydropower and, more recently, of sugar-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel sources. Already, about half of Brazil's transportation fuel is from green, clean sources of energy and we hope they can progress further from this feat. However, sizeable offshore hydrocarbon reserves are likely to light-up their fossil fuel consumption for the foreseeable future, adding significantly to their greenhouse gas totals. Brazil also now has in-place feed-in tariff incentives to spur the advent of more renewable sources of energy. They are also angling to further develop nuclear energy beyond its current single-digit share of the civilian power pie. 

As well in Brazil, we have the pervasive phenomena of methane bloating livestock offloading ammonia nitrogen oozing entrails. We have sooty, sulfurous tailpipe ejections from dirty-diesel-fueled vehicles that proliferate especially in metropolitan areas like Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Beyond petroleum-based diesel and compressed natural gas, sugar-based ethanol provides most transportation fuel. Unfortunately, we still have widespread application of the ancient technique of controlled burning of sugar cane fields to remove underbrush. The cost to life as we know it of this practice is symbolized by curtains of dark gray smoke that waft up into the air from the cane fields. Brazilians should utilize the fibrous parts of sugar cane as a second generation cellulosic bio-fuel. 

Sao Paulo is the conurbation likely to lead Brazil towards the future - this vast metropolitan area of more than 10 million people is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% relative to 2005 levels by 2012. That's an aggressive time-line and we like it a lot. Furthermore, by more-closely monitoring the origin of incoming construction materials, they hope to provide an economic disincentive by blocking those cutting down trees in the Amazon and supplying it to the Sao Paulo market. The state of Sao Paulo is looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% versus 2009 levels by 2020. We assume that includes emissions arising from land use changes.

Indubitably, Brazil is an agricultural powerhouse. It is another one that is very vulnerable to the effects of climate disruption. We also hope there is not an agricultural chemical-runoff pollution disaster looming on the horizon. This may be a consequence of prodigious quantities of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides applied to once-marginal cerrado land areas in an apparently-successful effort to enhance yields. Clearly, we are not dealing with quaint vegan family farmers here. Rather, we have mega-scale baron-like operators of agricultural complexes. Please appreciate that there are ways to cut release of nitrous oxide emissions simply by plowing fields less or engaging in no-till farming. 

Parched conditions mean these vast countries have trouble sustaining even relatively small populations. Cities including Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia and Almaty, Kazakhstan have serious pollution of the atmosphere. Kazakhstan historically has extensive windblown soil contamination much of that originating from many abandoned, toxic brown fields. Cyclically, yellowish gray dust storms and clouds waft up from Mongolian deserts adding to the toll of people gasping for oxygen as far east as South Korea and Japan.

Kazakhstan joined the Kyoto Protocol recently with an objective to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1992 levels by 2012. They also have a commitment for 2020 to reduce these emissions by 15%. In many ways, they have been living well-within the bounds of ecological survivability naturally-possible in their country. We think an environmental turnaround is in the offing in Kazakhstan. To achieve it, burning and smoldering fires set on agricultural lands will have to be curtailed sharply. Learn how to make and use biochar instead if you think carbon helps your soil and you want to use less chemical-based fertilizer. Biochar, produced through pyrolysis, helps improve the fertility, stability and moisture content in soil when its mixed in. Plus it sequesters carbon for very long periods of time, perhaps for many centuries, not just until vegetation dies and decays. Stopping reckless, polluting and wasteful flaring of gas in Kazakhstan is helpful for everyone, most notably to the people of Kazakhstan.

In Mongolia, their epic nomadic herders face ecological survivability pressures like never before. It is apparent that climate disruption is forcing them to change their livelihoods as water bodies dwindle to levels never known before. Many people flee to the cities. Many more start flailing around trying to adapt. This may be creating a follow-on problem - too many less mobile sheep and goats leading to overgrazing and further drying out in some areas of the countryside.

And just when it appears the jig is up, Mongolia is scheming to add significant solar power capacity in the Gobi Desert!

Malaysia has problems from forest fire haze. Much of it is a suffocating, morbid-yellowy-gray smoke from Indonesia. At times this haze is hard to distinguish from smoke and soot emanating from an overabundance of diesel-powered vehicles that eject plumes of noxious chemicals including aromatic hydrocarbons, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. We also have an engrained habit of smoking in Malaysia. But now, Malacca City is boldly rulemaking to curtail smoking in their historical city, a notable tourist destination. They aim to spur business and revitalization of its hotels, motels, campgrounds and restaurants (as opposed to planning for more hospitals and hospices to house people sick from environmental-related illnesses). Overall, things appear to be on the slow-grade up-and-up in Malaysia; how fast can they climb out of troubles arising from ecological breakdown, that's the question.

Turkey had double-digit growth of heat-altering emissions as recently as 2007 but emissions are still said to be down overall since 1990. There should not be free or even cheap coal! Coal is not cheap, neither is viscous home heating oil, GET it! To add to the health hazard due to the simple act of breathing, according to the World Health Organization, nearly half the population smokes.

Historically in Turkey, household chemicals and waste have been dumped mercilessly into waterways. Stream water is frequently gray, brown or even black not blue or green. Unchecked mining activity near watershed areas has taken its toll to the point where there are also unsafe levels of arsenic in the water supply of countless cities and towns. Specialized water treatment facilities are now being purpose-built to deal with the arsenic problem. Moreover, supply of water is a grim issue so hydroelectricity is no longer a viable option. Lake Tuz, once Turkey's second largest lake, has completely evaporated or been used up. The lakebed area is now so salty trees wilt. Surprisingly, more than one-quarter of Turks still do not have access to toilets and sewage facilities, a shortage of water being one good reason why. Turkey remains far behind any pretence of implementing and enforcing European environmental standards.

Turkey has been a laggard in developing renewable sources of energy. However, lately they have been pursuing wind and geothermal energy projects with determination. Turks have installed lots of solar water heaters but we think they should embark on many more solar power projects with considerably less reliance on hydropower and fossil fuels. The Turkish government aims for nuclear fission reactors to drive one-fifth of their electrical generation capacity by year-end 2029.

Forest cover is less than 10% of Armenia now. Armenia also has serious heavy metal pollution issues related to mining activity. Moldova has the historical problem of widespread soil erosion from stupid farming practices. In Azerbaijan, decades of heavy industry, in particular, oil drilling-related activity, petrochemicals, textiles, power utilities and serving as a hub for cargo shipping have contributed to the current dire state environmentally of Baku, Sumgayit and the Caspian Sea. Russia and Kazakhstan also have oil and gas activities and other resource extraction operations that have resulted in various industrial effluents being dumped into the Caspian Sea. Oil from spills and waste, industrial chemicals and metal contaminants such as lead and cadmium plus agricultural fertilizer, insecticide and pesticide run-off have added to water pollution woes. Many citizens' lives and well-being have been endangered or upset by pollution and shortages of drinking water. There are similar concerns for Turkmenistan and the eastern Caspian Sea area. The Black Sea is also badly polluted with various toxic chemicals as is the case with many inland bodies of water in Georgia and Armenia. The Black Sea has very high concentration of dissolved hydrogen sulfide gas and is pretty well devoid of life. Apparently, conditions have been created where there is a proliferation of comb jellyfish that thrive in the Black Sea environment even though it is hostile to most marine life. To add to the chaos, per capita greenhouse gas emissions have been relatively high in Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. Undaunted, unbowed, Azerbaijan wants to double their considerable oil production by 2014.

Further, Romania has had mining effluent contamination of water from seepages of cyanide and traces of heavy metal content that ended up in several rivers. Air quality is poor due especially to the environmental implications that eventually result from coal-production in Jiu Valley. Combustion of petroleum diesel fuel in vehicle engines and power generators has contributed significantly to the pall of particulate pollution especially evident in congested areas such as in Bucharest.

In Bulgaria, the sorry business of old mining and metallurgical operations is still widespread. Bulgaria is said to have the most polluted air in Europe right now. In relation to the environment, industrial cities like Pernik and Burgas are ghastly places. Happily, the EU is propelling Bulgaria along, to encourage them to get off the coal monkey, by mandating they derive about one-sixth of electrical generation capacity from renewable sources by 2020, including from harnessing hydro, biomass, wind and solar energy, too. Wind power has taken off which is promising if their resolve does not waver. Nuclear fission provides approximately one-third of grid-power now.

It's still early days as Romania and Bulgaria have only modest renewable power installed so far. Although wind power development has been gaining momentum, the electric grid in place may not be able to handle it without a major overhaul. Hungary is also way-too reliant on coal and other fossil fuels for energy, though they are scaling-up nuclear power development to provide between one-third and one-half of their electric grid energy. Macedonia is also overly-dependent on fossil fuels and has bad air pollution. We hope they all press ahead, looking to the sun, wind, rivers and biofuels to provide much clean energy. Ditch the historical inclination to rely on "cheap" fossil energy alternatives which prove not cheap in the end for the citizenry.

Nigeria also has legions of oily-fuel-driven moped-style motorbikes fouling the air. We are happy to change this to "had" since Nigeria has now banned ghastly two-stroke engines in the country. As well, all vehicles in Nigeria must have some sort of emissions reduction capability. In Lagos, there are problems with carbon monoxide, particulates, ozone and more. However, vehicle emissions tests which should result in sidelining many dirty, inefficient internal combustion engines on wheels. Lead-based household paint has been fingered as the primary culprit in widespread elevated-levels of lead in peoples' blood. Overexposure to lead was found to be especially prevalent in the bloodstream of too many children.

Nigeria is afflicted by soil erosion, dust and sand storms, acid rain, deforestation, desertification, drought and loss of biodiversity. Deforestation has been out of control, leaving only about 6% of the country as forested area today. Wanton burning of bush, brush and trees has to be stopped. There is precious little forest at all in northern Nigeria. Over the past generation, one third of their forest cover has been lost but Nigeria aims to rebound to at least the 10% level by 2015. For a faster comeback, experiment with planting bamboo trees, too.

Concerning desertification, the hour is late; an estimated one-third of previously arable land has already become desert. Further, borderline-dry agricultural lands are prone to be tipped into becoming barren, unproductive areas as a consequence of the rise of average ambient temperature associated with global warming. Agricultural productivity decline also affects still-arable land in the country. All told, the likelihood of there being a drop in domestic food production clearly has potential to wreak havoc with the populace. But now, enter the Sheda Science and Technology Complex of Nigeria with their heady work to improve agricultural productivity, especially in northern Nigeria. They have found that to help prevent the needed nitrogen content of typical chemical fertilizers from escaping (volatizing) into the atmosphere prematurely, dilute same in about a one to one volume ratio with stripped maize cobs and/or native moringa oleifera seeds mixed-in in a crushed, powdered form.

Further, the Nigerian government has implemented a massive afforestation seedling planting program involving millions of trees each year. Initially, this effort did not solve the problem, however, subsequent reforestation efforts with valuable fruit-bearing vines and trees is encouraging local people to maintain and nurture them to maturity. The Sahara Desert advances south by about half a kilometer or so each year but hopefully a green wall or corridor in the north of the country can eventually slow or stop further desertification there.

Nigeria has been moving in baby steps to enhance their capability in solar, wind, solid biomass and liquid bio-fuel endeavors. They are already a very significant palm-oil producer. There is an early inkling toward use of sweet sorghum as a base for producing bio-ethanol without unduly disrupting land area devoted to growing food. With their sunshine, Nigeria clearly could become a solar power (even hillbillies from Saskatchewan are wondering what they are waiting for)!

Throughout rural Nigeria, only about 15% of people have water suitable for drinking and cholera is still of near-epidemic proportions in most places. As if all this does not sound chaotic enough, Lagos, now home to 15 million people, is on average only several meters above sea level and much of it is below two meters elevation. Storm surges often involve waves up to three meters high, leaving a margin of (gulp!) minus one meter for about half the population of the metro area. Trouble potentially looms 24 hours a day for the parts of Lagos that lie below global mean sea level now or that are built above the water such as Makoko. As the useful land area to live on diminishes, one could perhaps pin hopes on people moving and the population declining. However, Nigeria demographically has one of the highest fertility rates of all countries, at about 5.4 children per woman and many new people are flowing in to Lagos. Want to see what's happening there for yourself? Witness this arresting, unsettling and entrancing short film production by Joe Loncraine at Al Jazeera: Street Life in Lagos

Beyond the excessive amounts they themselves generate and are responsible for, Chinese Taipei people also suffer from proximity to air and marine pollution generated by the Mainland part of China. Temperatures in the region have been rising anomalously even relative to the currently-observed, global average warming. Coral reefs are not in good shape either; much of this critical marine ecosystem is apparently disease-ridden but the nature of the affliction is presently poorly-understood.

Excessive land use changes and deforestation have created conditions where erosion and siltation of rivers have become concerns. Estuarine sediment load, coastal development and withdrawals of ground table water is resulting in the freaky phenomena of coastal subsidence. Better watch that one carefully. The ongoing Taiwanese endeavor to vigorously replant the terrain with copious numbers of deep-rooted, water-retention-tower type trees is a very good one. We believe such remedial actions will pay-off big, especially in the intermediate and long term. More fresh water will be a huge victory.

Taiwan are likely to lead in improvement of energy efficiency and conservation by electronic monitoring and metering of various appliances, application of temperature control systems and other electronic apparatus in homes, buildings, factories and warehouses.

Taiwan has a target that renewable energy sources comprise 15% of all electric power generation capacity by 2025, and 10% by 2020, especially from wind and solar power installations. By 2025, they seek to reduce greenhouse gases by 20% relative to 2006 levels. They have a pretty-soft-appearing goal of getting-back to their 2005 magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions before 2020. Furthermore, being 30% below business-as-usual levels of 2020 by 2020 appears weak to us. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 50% versus that of the year 2000 before 2050 is their current long term objective.

South Africa still relies on coal to power 90% of its electricity grid. Mining sucks up a lot of this power. In absolute terms, the country continues to ramp up coal use domestically and to expand exports of coking coal to grimy old cement and steel manufacturers. Being a top-five exporter of coal is nothing to be proud of. Projecting a business-as-usual approach to 2015 would result in about a four-fold increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the level South Africa is at now. Plus we have the impact of a variety of other pollutants being discharged in high volume such as mercury. The status quo is unworkable.

South Africa is redoubling their effort to go nuclear, apparently planning to rely on a series of smaller nuclear reactors such that nuclear would provide about one-seventh of their electric power before 2030. They need to move fast to reduce use of coal and accelerate development of renewable sources of energy. Still being one-half to two-thirds hooked on coal to fire their electricity grid come 2030 is not a pretty picture. It means coal burning activity is increasing by one-quarter to one-third during this timeframe. Their carbon tax to be levied against coal company deliveries is a jim-dandy of a way to make eco-friendly change happen faster, perhaps much faster. Countries that shy away from such resolute actions will have only themselves to blame in future, that's our view. South African companies are set to be able to reduce tax-owing by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

Not capping emissions before 2025 is questionable as is, or was, their objective to then only-level emissions for another decade before commencing a decline in absolute amount. Clearly, reacting to such enormous emissions levels and gushes of other pollutants by 2039 or 2049 is way too late. Reducing greenhouse gases absolutely by 42% of the current magnitude by 2025 would be a noble aim and a huge accomplishment. Whereas, aiming for a 34% reduction by 2020 and a 42% reduction by 2025 versus "business-as-usual" levels are, in our view, flakey objectives that have little credibility regardless of the particular jurisdiction that may be speaking in those terms. It's in the same category as committing only to reducing the intensity of pollutants per unit of output. That's a given; engineers everywhere should always have been preoccupied with constantly improving the efficiency of technical processes they are responsible for, including energy efficiency. Of course this is critically-important if it has not been done. It's plain vanilla stuff, it's part of the basic modus operandi. Unfortunately, there are absolute physical limitations associated with many substances, processes and apparatus that should relegate same to the scrap-heap of history because it will never be clean-green acceptable for the environment (no matter how long and hard you try).

South Africa now has a system of incentive payments to promote development and utilization of solar power. They have a feed-in tariff scheme. South Africa is planning for 15% of its electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020, and 20% by 2030, including a contribution from solar power for at least 10% of that. The time to go hard on solar power is now of course. South Africa is naturally-bestowed, prime territory for solar schemes. As green investors, advisors and banks continue to overtake gray ones and get them out of the way, there should be enough capital to finance all South Africa's dreams and goals for renewable power. South Africa may not believe it yet, but solar power initiatives compete against fossil fuel projects for share, not other renewable sources of energy, the market for which is also vast. Once subsidies and incentives encouraging widespread use of fossil fuels in various jurisdictions around the world are eliminated and demand for carbon-intensive fuels is clearly spiraling down, then competition among the various renewable options will intensify.

Poor to inadequate wastewater treatment infrastructure has been recognized. At one point, South Africa's environmental laws were set to become much tougher including the prospect of jail time for those that wantonly pollute. Recently, they have regressed further into accepting further installments of degenerative pollution as a means to more easily solve other socio-economic problems in the near term.

Even idyllic Cape Town is said to have more threatened species of plants than any other metropolis in the world. South Africa's bluebuck antelope is long gone. Try visiting Durban a mostly-ancient manufacturing hub where ghastly releases of chemicals from refineries including flaring, dumping and spillage of hydrocarbons have led to serious health problems for its citizens. Cancer cases are mounting and are increasingly being attributed to people routinely inhaling known carcinogens such as benzene, dioxins and mining and smelter byproducts such as mercury. The risk of erosion, inundation and progressive influx of salt due to rise in sea level along the coast here is also quite serious. Metal processing dust and effluents are also affecting human health in places such as Port Elizabeth. Drink the water or breathe the air there and you could well inhale or ingest a laundry list of metallic elements such as manganese, selenium, nickel, copper, zinc, mercury, thallium, chromium, rubber particulates from burnt tires and more.

In South Africa, there are innumerable dumps of eco-risk-ridden masses of mine tailings near old mining works. Such masses often harbor perilous concentrations of radioactive minerals and elements. Furthermore, mounds of tailings that dam water may not be stable. Widespread acid mine drainage (AMD) arises due to oxidation, leaching, dissolution and leaking from extensive metal mining and mineral lease areas, often involving historic mining operations. This still results in water flowing from there having various metal content and coal residues including too-high concentrations of radioactive isotopes of uranium, cobalt, etc. plus other constituents like iron, arsenic, sulphates, manganese, zinc, cadmium and other isotopes of cobalt and uranium. Acidic water also overflows from countless old mine workings, cavities and drill-holes. Often, the consequences of AMD are contaminated wetlands, waterways and groundwater. For example, the devastating effects of AMD can be seen by the dead fish, reptiles and other life-forms that once thrived in the Olifants, Sabie, Letaba and Wilge Rivers. The rivers are reddish in color from the onslaught of acids and pesticide residues. Clearly, planning more mines within river catchment areas is going to make things worse. The Vaal, Crocodile, Tweelopiespruit and Umgeni Rivers are also seriously polluted including being tainted with metallic particles, acids, salts and other noxious chemicals and residues. We wouldn't take the kiddies to Robert Lake for the weekend, either; sulfuric acid on skin is not a happy photo opportunity (see video near the top of this web page). There also exists significant contamination from nitrates in the vicinity of platinum mines. Johannesburg is one metropolis facing serious threat from AMD water rising-up towards them from the depths. 

On the west side of the country with river mouths near Cape Town, we have significant untreated sewage in the waterways spoiling the Soet and Diep Rivers. In general, there is an overprint of water contamination from an inadequately-maintained sewage pipeline and water treatment system. Across South Africa, the practice of releasing even semi-treated sewage wastewater into the waterways has also led to eutrophication of water bodies and the prevalence of dreadful blue-green algae, indicative of the presence of too much phosphorous and nitrogen in the water. Perhaps one-third of water is so degraded its listed as being "seriously impaired" by the government. How can people "stay away" from over half the country's water supply? That's one thing we would like to know.

One-sixth or so of the land area of Egypt, including Alexandria, Rashid, Damietta and Port Said, is at high risk of being submerged due to a sea level rise of no more than about one meter, a distinct possibility before 2050. This would likely involve transgression of the Mediterranean Sea across an average of about 65 kilometers of land parallel to the current coastline. Very little of Egypt's land is arable and most of that is near the Nile Delta which, according to the aforementioned scenario, would also be partially-submerged to the tune of perhaps 15% of its current extent. Salt influx, an insidious process driven by extra water pressure from global rise in mean sea level, adds immeasurably to the woes.

Egypt also has a challenging air pollution problem especially near metropolises. Mass transit in major cities would help immeasurably as would reducing a three-quarters share of fossil fuel use to power their production of electricity.  Renewable energy should be a big phenomenon here. Mere conversion of various plant and equipment to natural gas from higher carbon content fuels is not by itself going to resolve issues connected to, or impacts arising from, global climate disruption. We suggest the ancient agricultural practice of burning leftover rice straw following harvesting should instead be to gather up the remains for use as fertilizer or animal feed or as feedstock for production of a new bio-fuel. Civic garbage is routinely burned by residents and businesses. Cairo has an appalling problem with sunlight-dimming atmospheric brown clouds, ugly carcinogenic mixtures of soot, black carbon, brown carbon, lower stratosphere (bad) ozone, heavy metal particles, various inorganic, industrial dust and other particulate matter that persists. Air quality is said to be the worst of any city in Africa. We suggest Egypt not listen to "green" entrepreneurs and corporate salesmen types who are known to try to gain a commercial advantage by parading the idea that burning any kind of biomass, namely in open air because its easier and cheaper to do, is a practice good for the environment.

We are for accelerating the migration of millions of people from submerging island economies and very vulnerable, way-overpopulated countries such as Bangladesh to other richer, higher-elevation nations. There already exists migration pressure to places still having relatively abundant natural resources and potential for ecological survivability. People universally tend to want to leave behind unbearable threats and consequences arising from natural hazards, extreme weather, global warming, air, water and soil pollution loads.

In 2007, despite having in place an elaborate safety system including sirens and refuge towers, Bangladesh suffered a major cyclone that resulted in huge loss of life, chaos and the displacement of tens of millions of people. If you live on or near the Sundarbans and the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna, the world's largest delta, that traverses Bangladesh and southeast India, you are already a victim of global climate disruption. The southern islands here are already progressively-dipping beneath encroaching saltwater, shrinking available arable land not to mention a place to live. Each year an estimated 100 square kilometers is lost to the sea. Khulna, Chittagong and Cox's Bazar are highly vulnerable to natural disasters being not far from the front lines of climate change. Warming, thermal expansion of water and rise of sea level is now noticeably affecting the Bay of Bengal. 20% of Bangladeshi's land area could be lost by mid-century due to transgression by the ocean and flooding events also involving unusually-high volumes of melt-water tumbling down from the Himalayas. Scientists at Dhaka University estimate that before 2050, 35 million people in the country risk becoming internally-displaced climate refugees. This implies an average rate of about one million people per year in Bangladesh whose lives will be disrupted perhaps to the point of no return. Bengal tigers in the area do not like this "squeeze play" either and are becoming nastier towards people. Nor would we want to run-up against an Indian python, a species that is also on-the-ropes in this region.

A combination of global rising sea level and deltaic subsidence fuels the rate of submergence. Ongoing subsidence in many inland and coastal areas around the world occurs due to a myriad of factors. Factors include increased sediment load, increased structural load from cities, saltwater ingression and progressive loss of support from fresh water once contained underground. Due to the complications, the dynamics here are most often left out of equations about climate-change-induced global rise of sea level. In Bangladesh, ground water tables are increasingly being depleted to lower and lower levels as more and more people search for and utilize fresh water from aquifers. According to the government of Bangladesh, it plans to plant 100 million trees as a natural way to try to reduce the negative impact of storms, tidal surges, floods, salt incursion and droughts. Hopefully, this action will help to stem the worrisome decline in rice paddy production As the level of salt for crops to choke down increases over time, more and more rice farmers may have to look to other endeavors such as planting date palm trees or harvesting submerged vegetation such as seaweed.

Arsenic contamination of groundwater including well-water is a widespread affliction, so widespread that it affects at least 30 million people. As many as 100 million people are at risk of developing arsenicosis (poisoning from arsenic) or cancer. Apparently, arsenic contamination of water up to nearly one part per million of arsenic is treatable effectively using the innocuous bacteria Lactobacillus acidophilus. At least, there should be arsenic filtration before people drink this water. Where there exists the power of  knowledge, understanding and progress, it seems, hope is always alive. Bangladeshi's that opt to drink surface water are frequently afflicted with a variety of gastro-intestinal illnesses. Diarrhea and diarrhea-related diseases have reached epidemic proportions in parts of Bangladesh. With virtually any river in Bangladesh, there may be river bank and estuary erosion and switching morphology at certain times of the year thereby displacing nearby residents and spreading the polluted contents of the river onto the adjacent land areas.

Chemicals and waste dumped into rivers in Bangladesh include DDT, other pesticides, animal hide and skin trimmings, grime, grease, oil, chlorine, mercury, chromium, sulphate, ammonia and copious amounts of chemical fertilizers from agricultural run-off. The Buriganga River is said to be close to being devoid of life. But now, there exists an enforceable court-ordered clean-up in effect blockading private interests from further polluting the river. We hope and trust this will eventually result in rehabilitation of the river. This is the type of dramatic remedial action this Earth really needs. People everywhere cannot afford to pussy-foot around any longer concerning our ecological survivability, it's become so fragile.

Other rivers such as the Shitalakhya, Turag, Balu, Bhairab and Norai are also ecologically null and void. Chemical contamination and microbial oxidation has become so concentrated, there remains virtually no dissolved oxygen content to sustain life forms. These rivers are a bruising dark blue-black and often have the consistency of motor oil. In and around Hazaribagh, a center for coal, steel and the dyeing, tannery and textile industry, the water is really not water at all. Rather, it's an abominable, yughly, murky, saturated crimson or blue-gray chemical concoction of poisonous industrial effluents plus agricultural residues and raw wastes plus residential solid waste, sewage and other garbage. Kamrangirchar and Dhanmondi areas of Dhaka are also heavily-polluted. Other industrial centers such as Narayanganj, Gazipur, Rajshahi City and Tejgaon are nearly as odious as that of Dhaka and Hazaribagh.

Living organisms including us are mostly water. We need fresh water every week to survive. What future do the people have here if water quality is this pathetic? Many freshwater fish are on the verge of extinction or have disappeared altogether as a consequence mainly of water pollution. Siltation is creating new terrain in places but is fragmenting and eliminating waterways that were once habitat for fish and transportation corridors for people. We suggest farmers try placing live ducks throughout their paddy fields as a substitute for pesticides, fertilizer and use of more water.

Cities such as Dhaka, Chittagong and Khulna are plugged with old-junk buses and trucks that belch noxious fumes from diesel fuel combustion. The concentration of lead in the air in Dhaka is an order of magnitude greater, that is ten times greater, than the environmental standard set. So we have very high levels of particulate matter mixed in with carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, cyanide, polycyclic organics, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, low-level ozone, lead and sulfur. Other big contributors to air pollution are petroleum-diesel electricity generators that discharge particulates and volatile organic compounds, and mostly coal-fired brick-producing kilns that throw-off carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, soot, nitrous oxide and metallic particles, too. Fuel sources, including for cook-stoves in Bangladesh, may include any of petroleum-based diesel fuel, wood, coal, charcoal, oily kerosene, dung, crop residues, polythene, even rubber tires. With combustion like this, is it any wonder that pollutants, particularly fine particulates, have been blamed for various cancers, kidney, lung and vascular diseases?

Bangladeshi's have indeed absorbed haymaker lefts, roundhouse rights and innumerable jabs. Bangladesh is aiming for 10% of electricity to be derived from renewable sources of energy especially solar power. So now, glimmers of hope come from 150 million kilometers away, from the star of our solar system. By 2013, up to 10 million people in Bangladesh may have access to modest cost and capacity solar power systems, generally off-grid. More than a half million of these facilities have been installed already. It's heartening that millions of citizens who did not have reliable electricity, or had none at all, are turning to the Earth's shining star, the sun, to brighten their futures. Breathing is becoming easier in this country as droves of dreadful crude-oil-derived-kerosene-burning lamps are being junked in the wake of this change. More and more obnoxious, noxious fuel dealers and salesmen are finding themselves looking for something else to do. In fact, as we know now, it's better to do nothing at all than to contribute to eco-calamity like what Bangladesh has been saddled with.

There already have been shortages of potable water which may be expected to occur chronically across large areas of Pakistan. The majority of Pakistani's do not have access to water fit to drink. Over one million Pakistani's die each year from water-borne diseases including as many as one-quarter of a million young children from diarrhea-related complications of drinking or using untreated water. Also, we have had widespread gastroenteritis outbreaks. Nearly half Pakistan's water bodies are contaminated with pollutants including arsenic, lead, various other toxic metals, industrial chemicals, agricultural waste, nitrates, fertilizer-derived hazards and pesticide residues. Agricultural waste runoff, discharges of untreated sewage and industrial effluents are also big causes of pollution. Croplands, especially those more proximal to large population centers, are often contaminated by the very water used to irrigate. Pesticides and insecticides banned in many countries are still used in Pakistan. Consequently, there has been growth and spreading of aflatoxins into feed stocks sufficient to cause poultry and even large animals like buffalo to die. Environmental hazards are making large numbers of people sick long before their time with communicable diseases at the forefront of maladies.

Deforestation, soil erosion and desertification add to their afflictions. Even though most agricultural land in Pakistan depends on the Indus River for water, the volume of water available is likely to diminish in future due to increased net melting of Central Asian mountain glaciers, an insidious long-term trend down of the amount of rain and snow plus a tendency to try to augment hydropower one-too-many times. Siltation of the riverbed and river bank areas arises due to the reduced velocity of flowing water. The Chenab, Jhelum, Beas, Sutluj and Ravi Rivers are affected similarly. If the water volume of, and load carried by, principal water bodies is curtailed, irrigation canal and channel offshoots from those rivers jeopardizes the reliable distribution of water to sustain agriculture. Furthermore, ongoing subsidence of land, rising sea level and lower-power rivers deliver a triple whammy blast of salt into the water supply of maritime regions. To the extent this phenomena remains unchecked, it is already and will continue to negatively-affect agricultural activity, food production and water supply in Pakistan. Obviously, ever-more salt intake is not good for the health of people who see no other choice but to consume it.  

Pakistan has relied on gas and hydropower each providing nearly one-third of its electric power. Pakistan has been increasing reliance on turnkey oil-fuelled power plants and home furnace oil which increases emissions relative to using gas. Merely getting from a to b in Lahore, Islamabad or Peshawar is hazardous to your health. Quetta, Karachi, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Hyderabad and Gujranwala also have serious air quality problems. In Lahore, they burn tires as fuel, often as a modus operandi in steel mills. How pathetic is that? Is it any wonder air quality there is abysmal? In Islamabad, people burn garbage to get rid of it. Old diesel-burning trucks add to the pall of pollution in many population centers as does the burning of solid waste. In Gujranwala, we have a fast growing gray-iron center for manufacture of metals, ceramics, textiles and more. In these congested metro areas, there usually exists a motley collection of vehicles including countless motorcycles and two-stroke, three-wheel, motor rickshaws ejecting ghastly plumes of poisonous, particulate-laden air as if there was no tomorrow. Exhaust ranges from the dark smoke of petrol burning in a poorly-tuned, inefficient engine to blue-tinged charcoal gray combustion products from lubricants or other oily constituents to whitish-gray smoke trails of leaking, burning engine coolant in dilapidated engines. Sadly, there is no tomorrow for an estimated one million Pakistani people who succumb to air pollution every year.

Clearly, Pakistan needs to initiate and escalate reliance on renewable sources of energy very soon now including solar, biofuels, waves, wind, geothermal and more! Having 5% renewable energy content by 2020 or later is pretty pathetic. The epoch characterized by burning coal and other carbon-intensive fuels has already passed along with its seemingly-interminable laundry list of hidden health, well being and environmental costs. Pakistan does have plenty of vehicles running on compressed natural gas already which has been improving the situation measurably. That's very good news, and we hope use of relatively-clean natural gas continues to ramp up further, to beyond-half of all cars, light trucks, jitneys and heavy vehicles on the roads. But don't go to sleep on developing renewable sources of energy please and thank you!

We also have Pakistan becoming something of an electronic junk wasteland. The open smashing and burning of old computers may well result in release of toxic substances like phosphor dust and mercury from the monitors and carbon monoxide and dioxins from burning plastics that were likely treated with flame retardants when manufactured.

Iran has water stresses looming. Lack of water bodies means dust storms that sweep across the country are more severe. Iran also suffers from expanding dryness and desertification which, in turn, contributes to their water woes. At times, it's a vicious circle. Furthermore, the drawdown of groundwater is causing surface subsidence of up to one-half meter per year or so in some localities.

Iran could have 15% to 20% of their electricity generation requirements come from hydropower before 2019 with another 1% or so each from wind power and biomass sources. This is a pretty good start. Given the intensity of sunshine in Iran, the contribution from solar power could be ramped way, way up. That's up and up more; the potential for this is unlimited. Getting the fossil fuel subsidy monkey off their back once and for all would accelerate progress and greening of their economy plus improve the general health and well being of people living there.

And today still, despite our vast knowledge of serious environmentally-induced illness from it, asbestos is being exported from Russia. All this is very regressive and unfortunate because, generally speaking, Russia has more environmentally-friendly natural resources to draw on including about one-quarter of the world's known reserves of natural gas. Russia has also developed significant hydro and nuclear power capabilities. Inexplicably, they lag in adopting wind power even though there is available for harnessing across Russia more wind energy than exists in any other country. It should be a high priority area of development for Russia. Whereas, Russia's target is a mere 5% contribution from renewable energy by 2020 to power their electricity grid.

The countries here are large geographically, in particular, vast Russia. So they can absorb a certain amount of ecological punishment before too many ill effects and impacts make it apparent a clampdown and some Yeltsin-style "shock therapy" may be required to redress the situation. The most out-of-control polluters likely belong in jail; when they get out on parole, their community service work should include time physically cleaning up ecological disasters and messes.

Raging fires in Russia have ratcheted-up markedly the greenhouse gas emissions toll on the atmosphere. Springtime burning of agricultural land and new areas being prepared for crops or livestock grazing is widespread throughout southern Russia, adding to the haze. Also, heatwaves, drought and crackling dryness have created conditions for rampaging wildfires. Smoke, soot and smog add to the stressors and woes particularly in the southwestern part of the country where radioactive particles, elements and isotopes are still contained in soil, trees and other vegetation due to fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear accident more than a generation ago. Unfortunately, peat and coal fires can persist underground for great lengths of time and certainly do have the potential to smolder and burn throughout Russian winters.

Russia is a top-five greenhouse gas emitter and coal exporter. They burn coal, wood and other biomass extensively. Russia has been the largest flarer of gas in the world for many years. Up to one quarter of gas associated with oil production is wasted by being flared though plans are in place to cut this to about 5% overall by 2012 or face significant financial penalties. Worse still, oil leaks are pervasive from creaky, oxidized, stress-crack-ridden oil infrastructure resulting in cumulative annual losses of more than 1% of oil produced.

The government wants Russians to reduce energy consumption by 40% by 2020 mostly through conservation and improving energy efficiency. Russia is currently targeting somewhere from a 10% to 25% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels by 2020. However, this means emissions by 2020 can increase by about 10% to 25% relative to their 2007-2008 levels. They have also committed to be 50% below 1990's total before 2050.

About two-thirds of Russian cities are afflicted with high levels of air pollution. Radioactive and otherwise toxic chemical sites, persistent organic pollutants, pesticides and other noxious chemicals are often very evident. Especially poignant is the experience in Dzerdjinsk where seemingly-medieval cauldrons still abound and spew gruesome plumes of pollutants into a dying airspace. Norilsk, a northern mining and smelting center, has historically released hideous amounts of sulfur dioxide, nickel oxides and various other heavy metal compounds into the atmosphere sufficient to knock up to 10 years off your life if you reside there. People say no trees grow for tens of kilometers around the most horrific point source polluters; the entire area is a seriously contaminated brownfield.

Throughout Russia, a lot of garbage is still incinerated in air, even the toxic stuff. Large fines and a clamp down on egregious-polluting offenders have only recently been initiated in some localities. According to the city administrators, 40% of St. Petersburg's raw sewage and untreated industrial waste ends up in River Neva and Gulf of Finland. Kaliningrad's raw sewage has ended up in the Baltic Sea along with a variety of other pollutants. Volge Federal District also has many severe pollution problem areas. The Volga River is nearing ecological collapse from various wastewater injections to its watershed. Several rivers in Siberia are also heavily polluted.

The coldest days of winters in Russia are reported by the British Meteorological Office to be up to four degrees Celsius warmer than during the 1950's, only a half-century ago. In Siberia, the temperature of permafrost soil is estimated to have risen by about one degree Celsius over one generation of time. Over the past century, average temperatures in Russia have warmed by about one-and-a-third degrees Celsius. The effects of melting permafrost are often all-too-obvious. Unfortunately, more than half the enormous land area of Russia has permafrost. There is considerable anecdotal and other evidence attesting to tree lines moving upslope in some places by many meters every year. And we have rail track bending, buckling and snapping. Hopefully, pipeline mishaps due to corrosion are pre-empted or at least, contained and managed expeditiously. Such a milieu is certainly not a given with aging infrastructure and / or less-than very diligent oversight and monitoring. Pipeline creep, warps and breaks from permafrost melting present yet-another serious eco-risk. A risk that is multivariate and very complex to map, model and monitor. Accordingly, the unexpected does and will continue to occur in the new millennium wherever permafrost conditions exist in soil, peat lands and more places, too.

Offshore, the East Siberian Shelf is being scrutinized for widespread methane gas plume venting naturally into the atmosphere. The cause is apparently global warming, whereupon we have a global problem now emanating from the far north of Russia.

Also, as more and more ice and snowpack thaws than has been the norm, flood risk has increased in many locations throughout Russia, outstripping the extra capacity engineered to contain excessive spring run-off or heavy rainfall thunderstorm scenarios. Moreover, submergence risk in Russia due to progressive global warming-related rise in sea level or from storm surge events is omnipresent these days in St. Petersburg and the Arctic Ocean-facing cities of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk.

 In Ukraine and Belarus, soil pollution arises from overuse of pesticides and/or contamination from radioactive constituents still in the soil from Soviet-era events. We understand that Ukraine was the centre for as much as one-quarter of Soviet era industrial activity and pollution. For example, vats of poisonous pesticide were buried in many localities in an attempt to rid the stuff. However, as the containers decomposed over time the contents began leaking into the ground and groundwater. From consequences due to the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear site accident in Ukraine, one-quarter million people have been afflicted with radiation-induced illnesses of various kinds, in particular, cancers. The latter have already led to the demise of about 100,000 people. Several rivers in this region also still contain high levels of radioactive particles in various locations. It's still a propitious project to seal off the site, to encase it. Clearly, however, such action should have occurred a generation ago.

Look here, too to see the effects of significant coal mining and old coal-fired power plants. Prior careless, large-scale metal mining has added to the woes here-and-now for these countries. Don't go to Mariupol, Dneprodzerzhynsk or Donetsk on a holiday anytime-soon. Dneprodzerzhynsk ("Dzerzhinsk") has been associated with processing of, and contamination by, a number of bizarre chemical constituents produced at one time for defense purposes. The air, water and soil quality is also abysmal across swathes of Ukraine that suffer from severe-pollution including lingering effects of radiation from Chernobyl.

Similar to Russia, Ukraine commits to keeping greenhouse gas emissions at least 5% and perhaps 10% below 1990 levels. However, such levels would actually represent a significant increase over their 2008 amounts.

About one-third of garbage is recycled or composted so there is much room for improvement here given the sheer magnitude and scope of consumption that goes on in US. They also have some 100 million cows plus a huge number of other methane out-gassing farm animals, too. Emissions arising from land use changes still have a sizeable impact. Vast tracts of private timberlands are rezoned and subdivided in stages. Often, second homes and acreages are added amid existing forest lands.

Five-sixths of America's total energy still comes from fossil fuels, an unsustainable situation. Coal-driven power plants still provide about 50% of electricity generated and account for nearly one-third of all greenhouse gases each year in USA. The Energy Information Administration has reported that coal is still expected to provide nearly half of America's electric power even in 2030. We hope not. We also sincerely hope and trust USA will not develop into a massive exporter of coal. We consider the exporter to be half responsible for the pollution to be generated by mining, transporting and burning it, the other 50% being attributed to the importing country. It takes two to tango and there is no free ride, lack of culpability or guilt-free existence for either the exporter or the importer in the assessment of ecological survivability.

There is also the serious problem of what to do about the innumerable slate-gray coal ash dumps from legacy production of coal. Over time, some of the contents of these ponds including a variety of toxic compounds are being leached out. In principle, tax-exempt bonds can still be used to finance coal power plants. However, increasingly, many applications for new coal-driven power stations are being blocked or delayed by various legal actions and the court system. Nation wide, coal-fired power generation is still responsible for as much as 40% of mercury emissions and 60% of sulfur dioxide emissions. However, nitrous oxide from coal-powered plants must be reduced in 2009 and sulfur dioxides must be curtailed further no later than 2010. In the short to medium term, many coal facilities will terminate operations, being unable to keep up with the required technology, funding, public posturing or environmental safeguards. By 2014, coal power plants in many states must cut nitrous oxides vented by about half and sulfur dioxide by nearly three-quarters relative to the 2005 level ejected.

Older generation nuclear power provides about one-fifth of America's base-load electric power, accounting for about one-tenth of US energy production in 2010. We would like to see very broad diversification in the energy industry. The existence of that broad diversification contains the risk and enhances energy security. The starting point in thinking about broad diversification of energy to assure our supply of it should be something like our "10 x 10%" solution. It's one way to attempt to make a smooth circle from a rigid, prickly square of sometimes-diametrically-opposing points of view: There's an initial 10% target allocation to, or goal for, each of: 1) solar thermal and solar photovoltaic;  2) wind; 3) liquid biofuels especially from reformulated cyanobacteria, algae, seaweed and second generation cellulosic feedstocks, plus some extraneous biomass from crop residues, forestry waste, plant and grass clippings; 4) geothermal including ocean temperature and concentration gradients; 5) hydro, including run-of-river microgeneration projects; 6) tidal, wave and currents; 7) fuel cells; 8) nuclear fission and, one day, nuclear fusion; 9) natural gas, and 10) the lighter grades of oil. There, that's ten. Did we miss anything important? Not really? Okay, so in short, renewables should comprise about three-quarters of total energy requirements. Solar thermal, geothermal, biomass, fourth generation nuclear energy and conceivably fuel cells, too should progressively displace fossil fuels for the remainder and contribute to reducing intermittency thereby providing assurance of more than adequate base-load power available 24/7/365. In order of precedence, that displacement should be according to carbon intensity and pollution generated, so first we rid existing coal and heavy oil, then medium API grades of oil, etc., shale gas and lastly, some day, to have eliminated natural gas, too. Mining shale rock for low-grade, greasy oil is a desperate, fleeting, environmentally-destructive undertaking. Money could instead flow into developing solar power in the Mojave Desert, projects that are upgradeable for an eternity and draw on essentially-unlimited reserves of thermonuclear energy transmitted to us from the sun. How's that for security given the ecological survivability imperatives of the new millennium? We believe energy security will become inherent when you have developed a deep and wide-ranging diversity of forms and potential suppliers of cleaner energy.

Historically, sulfuric acid rain has been a big problem in USA. That particular phenomenon was remedied to a significant extent in recent years. Cleaning up abandoned coal mines remains a big task. US pipeline and refinery operators currently plan and are undertaking upwards of $50 billion or more of capital investment for new pipelines, refineries, refinery expansions, retrofitting and conversion of conventional crude facilities so they can transport and process heavy crude input from Canada and Venezuela. To the extent that heavy crude is used as feedstock and use of these dirty, sour inputs is not cut-back or halted in some areas, pollution from affected oil refineries including sulfur and metals like mercury, nickel and lead, is likely to increase markedly in US and cross-border into Canada, too.

The impact of the Deepwater Horizon blowout disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is upsetting and sickening...ecosystem degradation and destruction; contamination and disruption of the food chain including seafood; sick and perishing fish, shellfish, birds and other wildlife; compounded threats to biodiversity; lost jobs, enterprise and ways of life; compromised white sand beaches, near shore property and tourism; a horrific wasted, murky mess of frothy surface oil, thick clouds of subsurface oil, dispersed oil globs and droplets and burnt oil residue and air pollution that will act as a scourge to marine surface, subsurface water and ocean floor environments for many years to come; and vast quantities of heat-trapping methane dissolved in water that inevitably, to some extent, will end up in the air, too along with emissions from hydrocarbons that are burned on the water surface, vented or flared. So this multi-faceted pollution whamming is also embedded with another reckless addition of soot and greenhouse gas for us all to contend with.

Given the scale of the US economy and the extent of trade, pollution is also vast from bunker fuel-burning ships entering their waters and diesel trucks rumbling in and out of port areas. Those emissions cocktails includes plenty of soot, particulates, nitrogen and sulfur oxides and nitryl chloride. Stricter diesel-powered emissions rules for the future have recently been announced in USA affecting vessels, boats and trains. Cruise liners, tanker and container ships anywhere near California must operate on low-sulfur diesel fuel.

Due to new federal government standards set, greenhouse gas emissions from, and the fuel efficiency of, cars and trucks will have to improve markedly before 2016. Across fleets, an average of 35.5 miles per US gallon of fuel is required. Even medium and heavy duty trucks and buses will have to meet new standards to improve fuel efficiency and mileage by up to a quarter before 2020. Tailpipe pollutants generally are also in the cross-hairs of government. We very much look forward to the realization of a nation-wide, smart power grid and to one million plug-in hybrid electric or electric cars being on the roads in America before 2016. We want to see a rigorous low-carbon fuel standard applied throughout USA not only California, Oregon and some states of the northeastern and mid-Atlantic regions.

Further, California has regulations mandating a reduction in carbon content of transportation fuels by 2015, and they do not accept inbound carbon-intensive energy sources anymore. This was the first low-carbon fuel standard we knew of. It recognizes the significant carbon footprint associated with first generation ethanol. This ethanol also utilizes about four times the volume of water as ethanol produced to process it from starch which is a concern. California has also pushed for a hydrogen highway including a network or hydrogen-fuelling stations. We are dismayed that these incredible liquid hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles are ready-to-go, however, potential owners in virtually every jurisdiction are still waiting for hydrogen service depot infrastructure so drivers can get from point to point before they run out of fuel. But now, one-sixth of new vehicles must be hydrogen, electric or plug-in hybrids before 2025, a welcome development to up-the-pace of change for the betterment of all who breathe and drink.

Fluorinated gases are also being regulated, use of which is being cut back. We are also fired-up about California's leading-edge green chemistry initiative. It will reveal to consumers to what extent the design, manufacture, transport and use of a product is environmentally friendly. California are also pushing for 33% of its grid-electricity to be derived from renewable sources before 2020. Their objective is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020. By law, cities in California must cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels or less by 2020.

If we were eligible to vote in California in 2010, we would have voted No to Propositions 23 and 26. Engaging in ongoing, egregious, avoidable polluting that to some degree imperils us all is anti-social. Believing this does not imply you're a socialist, rather it means an existential threat is being recognized and we should do something about that. Outsize polluting is not beneficial for business, the macroeconomy or our spirit, health and wellness. That means it's one big drag on our economic welfare and existence until we develop the legal structures to deal with it. This includes enabling green courts, police and society to quickly remedy the actions and fix the attitudes of perpetrators of awful, offside pollution offloading  whenever and wherever it occurs around the world. That's a really big undertaking, we understand that. So we better all press ahead with it now to properly institutionalize what's missing where it's missing. At the local jobs level, people are much-better off re-educating and re-training themselves than scratching out an existence predicated on creating some horrible pollution for others to suffer the consequences of, or try to remedy later at their own effort and cost. Performing a dirty, polluting job where others pick up the tab for, and consequences of, an offending firm's activities is a convoluted mechanism for cheating the system. If the full costs are not accounted for properly including that required for remediation of the associated pollution beyond some well-defined threshold, resources will be erroneously allocated towards more of that same gray activity instead of a competing one. Then even more pollution is generated whilst entities offering greener alternatives are displaced or blocked. They do not get the incremental business. And, at the margin, society as a whole loses out relative to what could have been. Gross external costs, the collective hit against the Earth's natural capital due to man's activities that so far have gone unaccounted for, have been estimated by the UN to be about 10% of global output. This escalating toll of externalities, costs not paid for by the private interests involved, has apparently now reached a magnitude similar to global aggregate economic profits, about 10% of gross income. So this is not a pretty picture being painted here but it's one we all need to look at very carefully to be sure it really is a painting and not a mirror implicating ourselves. What can we do about all this today to begin to change it around? Make polluters pay or give up; there has to be a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Build the green economy, and fast.

Other states such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and Hawaii are also already far-along the green path. New York is targeting renewable energy to provide 30% of electricity grid power generation by 2015 and for a reduction by 30% of carbon emissions before 2030. Colorado could have one-third of it's electric grid energy coming from renewable sources by some time in 2012, or shortly thereafter. New Jersey is doing very well installing solar power facilities, trailing only California. We have many other emerging clean-tech jurisdictions, too such as Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maryland, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Washington where there have been bold moves to ramp up use of renewable energy faster and/or to improve energy efficiency and conservation efforts. Hawaii has mandated that an astonishing two-thirds of electrical demand be satisfied by renewable or other alternative sources before 2030. Texas is likely to become a prime area for wind-generated power and solar energy too. Presently, however, Texas has a very problematic chemical soup of fossil fuel combustion emissions, petrochemicals and more to contend with. Texas can't go on generating greenhouse gases at rates comparable to all of Africa. The Midwest and parts of the Southeast have historically suffered from mining, refining and widespread use of carbon-intensive fuels. A clean fuel standard will over time face-down that huge problem by eliminating all high-carbon sources so we should have a happy ending in these regions, too. Due to greater population density in Eastern United States, the challenge of greening society and enhancing ecological survivability there correspondingly mushrooms.

There are many fuel inefficient vehicles still on the roads throughout America and plenty of whimsical driving. Plus we obviously have lots of flights that involve US locations. Jets worldwide add several percentage points to the global tab for greenhouse gases. The American Lung Association has gathered much data on metropolitan statistical areas in United States. Greater Los Angeles including Riverside-San Bernadino, Phoenix and Pittsburgh have the most polluted air overall among major cities according to their analysis. Particulates including dust, soot, flakes of metal and aerosols plague those cities plus other centers including Bakersfield, Fresno, Birmingham, AL, Cincinnati, St. Louis and Louisville. Ground-level ozone has also been problematic in USA particularly on hotter days in congested areas of cities such as Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta and Sacramento due to high levels of volatile organic compounds, photochemical smog and nitrous oxides. Also, Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia too-often suffer from too-high level of smog. However, many of these same metropolitan areas, notably Los Angeles, are also among the leading centers in United States in reducing greenhouse gases. This is happening by virtue of the steadily-increasing energy efficiency of commercial buildings and residences. Chicago, Houston, Dallas and Detroit also have made significant gains in energy-efficiency and conservation.

San Francisco is the first major city we know of that has implemented a strict but realistic plan towards the noble objective of eliminating the need for more landfills and incinerators. As a corollary, San Franciscans are participating en masse in recycling, composting and developing a keen sense of eco-consciousness. Plus a nutrient-rich organic fertilizer-type product is being made available for delivery to California's agriculture industry. The drive to improve energy efficiency is also pronounced here as it is in Washington, New York and Atlanta. Times are changing quickly and so has the willingness to test and upgrade structures and vehicles to reduce energy consumption and the associated pollution.

The newly-recognized phenomenon of cold weather ozone emanating from natural gas fields or gaseous oilfields is unwelcome news. Apparently, anywhere that particular well-bore drilling chemicals mix with gas fumes from the vicinity of those types of wells plus snow-reflected sunlight leads to creation of very high levels of ozone. There also exists the emerging problem of gas reservoir fracturing chemicals that potentially, somehow could end up in groundwater. Knowing exactly what those chemicals are will make it easier to sense and trace what happens subsurface.

In the US, there has (or had) been a practice of allowing heavy industry such as cement kilns to burn rubber tires as a fuel source which clearly adds to pollution woes. Tire-burning releases rubber particulates, soot, dioxins, furans, lead, cadmium, various acids and other noxious gases. We are counting on Americans to stop others from burning this hideous material and to mandate doing something else with it. And to lead the mission to find a substitute for vulcanized rubber. And to try to curtail it from being shipped as it is being now from certain countries to some developing nations to become a cheap and dirty extender in a dreadful blend of diesel fuel which is then combusted. Into our atmosphere. As the Earth rotates, the winds just might bring that air pollution back our way for us to breathe, too. Not a warm and fuzzy bedtime story for our children. Cement-makers have also released too much mercury, particulates and hydrochloric acid.

US continental shelf areas have extensive anaerobic dead zones attributable in large measure to fertilizers, pesticides and other chemical runoff originating inland that ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Unnervingly, PCB's, DDT, other pesticide residues, dioxins, mercury, arsenic, boron and more still show up in many US rivers with unacceptable concentrations even though PCB's and DDT were banned long ago in the US. Sadly, there is little doubt remaining that disastrous effects from the Gulf oil spill will, at the margin, put pressure towards a significant reduction in aggregate ecological survivability characterizing the region for many years to come. US Environmental Protection Agency now has compiled a most-wanted list of environmental fugitive types which can only help enforcement of existing laws, rules and regulations. It's also on a parallel path to regulate major greenhouse gases if it comes to that but legislation is still the preferred means to prompt pollution reduction, lessen the impact of disruptive weather events and enhance ecological survivability.

We like the competitive auctions implemented in the US to boost the geothermal energy segment. USA has been the world's largest geothermal power producer. The amount they produce should increase by half or more before 2020. Various entities have been moving aggressively developing wind power, solar power, geothermal and different bio-fuels. If biomass including ethanol is tallied up along with other renewable sources, the US now has clean energy for about 7% of its overall energy needs.

Growing extra canola, sunflower, rapeseed, soybeans, jatropha, miscanthus, camelina, etc. along highway, transmission line, pipeline, geophysical survey cut-lines and other marginal or line-stripped right-of-way lands is gaining momentum. In tropical and sub-tropical countries, similar actions could be undertaken with sesame, peanut, flax, coconut, cassava, jatropha and more. Entrepreneurs of America should gear up to offer what we call biofuel "land-strip strips" or "land-strip squared" participations. To create a suitable investment vehicle, land-strip strips here and there could be combined in a potpourri. Only this time, unlike the bad experience with some mortgage-backed securities, binned strips would be closely tallied, monitored and mapped. Through this green investment-driven process of strip-land upgrading to produce biofuels, as opposed to the all-too-familiar pattern worldwide of degradation of land, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced significantly due to land use change (carbon sink) improvement and reduced use of fossil fuels in favor of biofuel. We believe such systematic cultivation of heretofore underutilized land, if undertaken on a large scale, represents exactly the kind of change, ingenuity, innovation and technology we must pursue vigorously. One day, the impact of it could seal our victory, thereby preventing us all from tipping, then perhaps plunging, headlong into some heat-sink gray-hole warp weirdness whereupon there exists a near-infinite escape velocity for us to get out of it. In short, we avert disaster by taking control of disruptive pollution-driven climate change play before it all takes control of our destiny in some perhaps-unpredictable way. We cannot get into the realm where we had quite an inkling about it but no clear understanding, focus, will, cooperation or collective action soon enough to first stop, then reverse the unraveling of ecological survivability.

USA is currently targeting being about 4% below 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 whereas in 2008 they were about one-sixth beyond their 1990 total. This target equates to being 17% below 2005 levels. They also aim to be about one-fifth below their 1990 amount of greenhouse gases by 2025 and to emit one-third less heat-trapping gases versus 1990 before 2030. At that juncture, fossil fuels is still projected to provide about two-thirds of total energy, nuclear one-sixth, and renewable sources one-sixth. By the mid-century mark, the anticipation currently is to reduce heat-trapping gases by 83% below 2005 emissions which equates to somewhere in the range of two-thirds to three-quarters relative to the situation during 1990.

On the algebra front, we hesitate to believe USA can achieve such targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions at the same time as they continue along the coal pathway and anticipate ramping-up importation of carbon-laden heavy crude from Canada by two hundred percent or more by the 2030's. There appears to be good progress getting the coal monkey off the backs of citizens of United States. While we certainly do not want USA to roll dice on national or global security issues, we believe the dirty oil Keystone XL pipeline sourced from the Alberta oil sands is not needed. We are also opposed to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline connecting ports in west-central BC with the Alberta oil sands. This carbon-intensive flow apparently would be destined for China, India or elsewhere in Asia. The imperative exists for Canada to wind down its overdependence on the pollution-centric oil sands, not scale it up further. Going harder and further in the dirty fossil fuel direction will result in a very significant, wide-ranging, incremental hit against ecological survivability for Canada, USA, the Arctic region and the world. 

We believe USA is very well-up to the challenge of once-and-for-all getting off the heavy fossil fuels forthwith including both coal and heavy oil derived from bitumen. In fact, a similar high-bar act is needed right-around the world. In the new millennium, despite what graying armchair quarterbacks would have people believe, the intrepid world of global green action and investing has arrived on the front lines of this Earth's playing field. And that's where most playoff football games are won or lost, in the trenches, along the front lines. With time winding down and the green economy still trailing the gray one, we realize it's not first-and-goal for the side we are on. But it's not fourth-and-goal either, at least not yet. The outcome, everything, is still hanging in the balance.

Wind currently accounts for only about 2% of electric grid power. However, US now has rules for offshore wind and wave development which will spur development activity. The Department of Energy has said it's conceivable wind-driven turbines could comprise 20% of electric power generation in US by 2030 or so. The majority of electrical generating capacity added these days is driven by either renewable sources or natural gas even though clean coal or nuclear have not been ruled out. USA should be aiming to ramp-up grid-power coming from clean energy sources, displacing coal-based generation at a much faster rate than currently. If you can get to the moon by 1970, you can get-off burning that next lump of coal real soon now...which would in turn encourage China , India and more to do the same.

In America, those quaint days are over when seemingly we only had to worry about New Orleans being inundated. A geophysical paper is raising the specter of much greater coastal submergence risk in the long run in US than previously had ever been articulated. East coast cities including Boston, New York, Jacksonville, Norfolk and Miami are especially vulnerable to ongoing increase in sea level. Higher short term rise components due to storm and tidal surges superimpose on top of the long term rise occurring as a consequence of global warming, thermal expansion of water and polar icecap melting. It makes for rather spooky reading and we hope someone finds a flaw in their data, analysis and/or hypothesis rather than having to think of things like alteration of the Earth's axis of rotation as a result of catastrophic, or even substantial, polar ice sheet melting. Normally, predictable "low frequency component" large-scale isostatic rebound originating from retreat and melting of huge masses of ice sheets, much of which formed during Ice Ages, is now being found to be supplemented by a much higher frequency isostatic adjustment which is being attributed to heat anomalies that occurred, for example, in southern Greenland over a period of a few days. The global warming monster appears to be breathing fire on us again in yet-another guise. The inevitable result? Yet another dollop of global mean sea level rise which is even more likely to have an added impact on the East Coast of North America given that it's origin is isostatic. Ever study Perturbation Theory? No?! We're quite sure what most mathematicians and physicists will tell you is that if you don't know full-well what you're really doing in an experiment involving a complex system, it's a good idea not to perturb that system too much in too many alien kinds of ways because the result from that perturbation may not behave in a linear, predictable or even controllable way.

Salt is creeping into fresh water and adding salt to soil and vegetation. The process is insidious. Salination is already affecting many countries around the world. The unforgiving, salty dynamic here is happening much more impactfully in the short term than the often-mere visual sensory perception change from global rising sea level. Of course, the force behind salt influx is global rise in sea level due to global warming. This force is formidable and pervasive. It operates relentlessly at the surface and in the subsurface. It affects the subsurface where it is apparently out-of-sight, out-of-mind, that is, until you begin to taste the difference. Gulp! Now, not only can we see fundamental changes happening, we can taste it.

Canada is heavily involved heavily in mineral extraction and processing activities and are significant producers of aluminum, an energy intensive undertaking. Canada exports huge volumes of coal, heavy oil and lower-carbon fossil fuels, outsize amounts of carbon-intensive fossil fuels relative to the size of their population. Heavy oil, wherever it exists, is not a viable proposition for humanity in the new millennium. We need to move on to clean energy and to do that smartly and in wholesale fashion, not to be lollygagging along with token change here and there. Furthermore, Canada does not need the oil sands to survive and prosper. However much resources are dedicated to incrementally improve oil sands extraction and processing, you still have dirty, heavy oil to sell to a world that is demanding clean, green fuels. Moreover, even though it's a heavy, dirtier blend of oil, it's still more expensive to produce, pipe and transport to markets than lighter grades. That's before any thought of spending even more to try and bury greenhouse gases, or at least to be able to claim to a mystified public that the carbon dioxide emissions problem has been solved when, as we explain below here, it hasn't.

However, because the vast transportation sector is currently very dependent on liquid fuels, it may be a responsible thing to do to work out a way oil sands projects could be held at bay as a sunk cost, strategic reserve type operation. Same could only be fired-up in the event of a security issue arising affecting Canada, NAFTA/NORAD, NATO, etc. such that more energy was needed pronto. In this sense, at best, the oil sands rate as a standby-reserve. We believe opinion worldwide, including among the Canadian and American public, is solidly against the oil sands of Alberta and a referendum concerning the future of the tar sands in Canada would establish exactly that. Due to the unending controversy around the world and in Canada regarding further development of the oil sands, why don't we let Canadians have their say about it during the next election? Participatory democracy is vital and this is the most important turning-point issue Canadians face. Canadian society needs to be heard.

Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by more than one-quarter since 1990 so compliance with the Kyoto Protocol has been fairly-disastrous. People everywhere expect their powers-that-be to live-up to international commitments, for example the Kyoto Protocol, and to bear their fair share of responsibility for legal agreements, not to shirk same. The players in heavy oil and coal have not paid their pro rata share of Kyoto liability based on the pollution generated historically by their activities. Whose bill is that, who is obligated to pay it? It's got to be the ones making the mess and benefiting financially from the activity itself, otherwise, the incentives are not there to reduce pollution or make the right economic decisions about which energy projects are feasible to pursue in the new millennium.

The Alberta oil sands are widely-considered to be among the highest cost, energy and pollution intensive fossil-fuel projects remaining on Earth. As time goes by and tar sands extraction descends further into the abyss, each increment of production becomes more and more carbon-intensive. Very few people speak of the possibility that carbon capture and underground sequestration can overcome this burden. Alberta, with their vast windfall from triple-digit oil prices, should have been aggressively diversifying into renewable sources of energy a generation ago. They failed to do it and even today are reluctant. This in our new epoch where either multilateral political pressure, carbon markets and/or, in our view, the inevitability of a global externality tax (GET) type mechanism will all-but ensure there is no viable future for Alberta's oil sands. With climate-can't-change looming on the horizon as an imperative in virtually every country, it may not be long before there are no refineries left that can upgrade grimy, sulfurous heavy crude because the jurisdiction where they operate has effectively or actually shut them down. Rather than the dirty oil, we think many people in western United States would want the fresh, clean water that is forgone from the watershed once used in processing of bitumen.

Australia stands out again and again as being among, or is, the highest per capita emitter and polluter anywhere. Australia is relatively-sparsely populated but has a sizeable resource-based economy that are generators of enormous quantities of pollutants. On a per capita basis, they rank among the world's worst offenders as emitters of greenhouse gases and as generators of waste generally. High levels of vehicular emissions are especially noticeable in larger, congested metropolitan areas whereas very high industrial levels of "natural-resource-curse" type pollution generally occurs in the outback. Official government data in 2011 show that Australia's largest 50 polluters account for more than half of the countries maelstrom of carbon pollution. There has to be a way for the perpetrators, those responsible, to pay for the consequences of their acts, that's the way the market system is supposed to work. Otherwise, they will never refrain, reduce, recycle. Or spend money on research for better technology or a better business to be in in the new millennium.

Performance with respect to the Kyoto Protocol has been fairly disastrous: Australia's greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by more than three-quarters since 1990. If Australia does not pay-up to cover their own shortfalls with respect to this agreement as Japan willingly did, there would seem to be a problem. They appear to believe commitments made regarding reducing their throw-off of heat-trapping gases is some kind of high-level game. For example, the same lagging bozos who are finally supposed to pay for polluting are then attempting to be eligible to get the doe right back again from the government as some kind of compensation. We don't think so. In this cartoon, they realize there is Sylvester™ the Cat and Tweety Bird™, but ostensibly they also believe there is no watchdog with teeth like Brutus™. Further, the general population are presumably thought to be naive, vacuous or oblivious to the shenanigans.

Many, if not most, Australians live near the ocean so are vulnerable to global sea level rise and storm surges. We assume they must be eco-conscious by this point in time. Given the scorching heat and vast outback, we may be forgiven for thinking they must have been going green with solar power years ago. The country also has vast wind and geothermal energy potential. Surprisingly, this is what it has not developed. What forms of energy has it developed? Australia singlehandedly supplies the world marketplace with an estimated one-quarter of the total demand for "black" coal. If greenhouse gas emissions from export industries are attributed 50% to the exporting country, which seems reasonable to us, then Australia's per capita emissions are now way too high, perhaps half-again higher than the situation would be without their coal exports.

Our view is that Australia's current environmental plan borders on the ludicrous: it facilitates continued unabated polluting in Australia, that is full-offsetting of emissions generated in Australia going forward by contributing funds to alleged reductions thereof in other countries. Moreover, they are set to dish out to Australian industry for free up to 90% of permits to do exactly this! Australia still relies heavily on coal for 83% of electricity generation and is showing few signs yet that it realizes what a sunset industry or segment is. Even though Australia still relies on coal for 80% of its power generation, the industry is to receive billions of dollars in payments from government in the next five years and be allowed to continue polluting virtually for free.

We support development of Gorgon gas fields. Cooling gas production to liquid form then shipping it abroad can only hasten the demise of coal in Australia. Moreover, it gives the world the chance to see if carbon dioxide sequestration on a massive scale will work. The plan is to jam unwanted, liquefied carbon dioxide into formations quite far below Barrow Island and monitor it to verify if its staying put where its intended to be and for how long. If it does leak out, Australian's collectively will be picking up the lion's share of the tab for the cost and consequences of possibly-gargantuan additional carbon pollution.

Prior to 2007, Australia was already the highest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from agricultural activities. Greenhouse gas emissions in Australia have been ramping up not down. 2008 figures also show total greenhouse gas emissions up another 1.1%. If emissions from croplands and grasslands were included, the 2008 rise would be much greater due to drought. Increasing incidence of wildfires and net deforestation, not reforestation in the aggregate, makes the situation even worse. Add in the impact of all their sheep, goats, cows, camels, water buffalos, kangaroos and jackasses and the air is turning rotten egg mauve with gastrointestinal gas. Not what tourists have in mind when they come, to breathe that in. All-told, Australia may already be an astonishing 80% or more beyond their 1990 level of greenhouse gas emissions. Not 8% above, that's 80%! Unreal! In the absence of an aggressive transition to renewable energy, it is anticipated Australia's heat-trapping emissions will rise by another 25% before 2020.

As such, despite the environmental calamity which also includes five years of climate-induced drought resulting in 60% reduction in grain harvests, Australia plans to 2020 have it continuing to be one of the world's largest polluters per person. Metropolitan areas, in particular Newcastle, Perth and Adelaide, are already reading very high on most air pollution meters. Australia plans to have 20% of electricity sourced from wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tides and other forms of renewable energy by 2020. Another plan could be implemented for this time frame that would dramatically ratchet-up grid-power sourced from a wide range of solar thermal and wind turbine projects. The drama couldn't come a moment too soon. Furthermore, the badly-needed price on carbon emissions could happen in Australia in 2012. They say it's darkest just before the dawn.

Precipitation in the Australian Alps increasingly will come as rain not snow. In fact, snowfall may not occur at all here come 2050. Not such a fun skiing trip or pretty Christmas card anymore, is it?  Worse still, the volume of fresh water falling from the sky is expected to decline further by at least one-quarter as the specter of global warming unfolds.

Some lakes are already so short of fresh water, due mainly to extended drought, that the lakebeds have become laden with various toxins and acids including hydrochloric and sulfuric acid. Most native river red gum trees, some that are 500 years old, are dying off or have capitulated already due mainly to reduced fresh water volume. On the coast, Sydney Harbor is said to have seaweed with the highest levels of lead and copper contamination ever measured. The gray waters of the Murray-Darling River system have reached perilous levels of pollution with acidity comparable in stretches to pure sulfuric acid. Rising salinity and acidity is affecting fish to the point where the lowly carp now constitutes about half the remaining biomass of fish that can survive there. High acid-sulfate content of soil near the Murray River is degrading vegetation and causing dead zones to form as it oxidizes into sulfuric acid, then runs off into the river. Aluminum, cadmium, nickel and iron have been found to be far beyond safe levels where the river runs into the ocean. Likely a ramification of nearby mining and smelter activity, we also have the sorry situation in the city of Mt Isa where lead-laden dust is affecting the health and welfare of many people. We have a heavy metal mine effluent ecological disaster affecting Dalpura Creek. We also now have Ipswich, a place near the gruesome setting near the Bremer River where there have been many independent sightings of two-headed snakes and rats. People familiar with the area claim this river has been a receptacle for various effluents over the years including chemicals and many toxic heavy metals. So they are not totally shocked by the descent of their life-space environs into the realm of eco-genetic mutation.

Australia has accounted for almost half the world's mammal extinctions over the past 200 years. Australia is now among the top five countries in total number of threatened species and biodiversity has dropped. Its apparent that many species cannot now cope with the effects of increases in global temperature, never mind 2020 or 2050. Endangered species range from certain frogs and possums to marine turtles to tree kangaroos to hare-wallabies and koala bears. Bandicoots are also apparently being shown the door-way...to the edge of the universe we would guess. The current range area covered by kangaroos is predicted to be cut in half by about 2030 as their grazing areas become parched and more water holes dry out. Three-quarters of the number of shorebirds that existed a generation ago have disappeared. Furthermore, many seabirds that heretofore have depended on the vitality of the Great Barrier Reef are in big trouble. This is in part because their food sources such as fish and plankton are increasingly descending to deeper, cooler water as a consequence of global warming. The other part is the Great Barrier Reef itself is now steeped in ecological risks. This  reef among others are now listed on the morning line of many scientists as being "even-money favorites" to become before 2049 ghostly, pale-gray-colored limestone rock formations. And little else besides thanks to the devastating effects of coral bleaching brought on by warmer, more acidic and polluted ocean water. Reef ecosystem degradation has gotten to the point where visits there from divers, nature lovers and other tourists from far and wide have decidedly been on a downswing. Once marine life populations, ocean biochemistry, temperature and salinity start changing on a macro-scale, its going to take a long-term sustained and determined effort by virtually every country on Earth to get the oceans and coral reefs back to anything resembling "the way we were".

In light of all this pandemonium, planning for some environmental change or improvement generally for 2050 only is, to us, flakey stuff. We don't believe any country can continue to be half-hooked on fossil fuel energy come 2050. It astounds us that there is this big hullaballoo in Australian society over the prospect of having to reduce greenhouse gases generated by 5% relative to the baseline amount of 2000, before 2020. Politicians are there to govern for the people and the planet not for this or that business segment, special interest or gray banker. There exists no connection in the real world between physics, chemistry and biology and money, wealth or jobs. The former is forever and ever, everywhere on Earth, like an enabler switch that everything is subject to. The latter is a benefit or luxury that some are fortunate enough to have and there is no natural law or rule that guarantees it. Keep violating the former out of ignorance or greed and we may find there is less and less and less of the latter everywhere.

Want to see for yourself how Australia has been changing and progressing? Its parliament passed the carbon tax during October, 2011. To get a flavor for the dynamics involved here, take a gander at Al Jazeera's 101 East presentation of August, 2011 by clicking-through on the following link to Al Jazeera programs: Pricing Pollution