Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Amazonas

Amazonas | Imagining Equality
In this captivating series of portraits, photographer Felipe Jacome profiles nine indigenous women who exercised their strength, voice, and power in order to defend the Ecuadorian Amazon against oil exploitation. 

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Women leaders gathering to discuss climate action that is good for people and the climate



Women leaders gathering to discuss climate action that is good for people and the climate
JUNE 12 2014

During the Climate Change Intercessional in Bonn this June, Mary Robinson, President of the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice, invited members of the Troika+ of Women Leaders on Gender and Climate Change to discuss and promote a people-centred approach to climate action.

Participants included, among others, Troika+ members Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the Climate Change Secretariat of the UNFCCC, Connie Hedgaard, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, the Dutch Minister for the Environment, Wilma Mansveld and a delegation from the South African Ambassador at Large for Climate Change who came together to exchange ideas and share experiences on the following two topics:
In her opening remarks, Mary Robinson spoke about the need to build positive momentum for a new climate agreement. She said:

“To make sure that climate action benefits all people as well as the climate, we need to guarantee that our climate action is fair and protects human rights. In order to achieve this we also need to give grassroots practitioners a platform to participate in dialogues with policy makers and to share the lessons learned from their experience.”

Aira Kerala, Senior Gender Adviser from Finland, was invited to brief the meeting on the progress on implementing the Decision 23/CP.18 that has placed gender on the agenda of the COP decision. She shared an update and the outcomes of a very well attended gender workshop at COP 19 in Warsaw and discussed plans for next steps at COP 20 in Lima with the Troika+ members.

During the discussion, Mary Robinson and the present women leaders highlighted the need for further work on gender participation and gender sensitive climate policy, referring to already achieved successes like the “Doha miracle” at COP 18 in Doha.

The participants of the Troika+ meeting also agreed the need for human rights to be an integral part of any future climate action, but especially to be enshrined in the text of the COP agreements at COP20 in Lima and COP21 in Paris, in order to ensure that the resulting climate action is having a positive effect for people as well as the climate.

The Foundation is currently working on a position paper on a people-centred framing for the 2015 agreement focusing on gender equality, human rights and intergenerational equity which will be published in due course.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

A World On Notice



A World On Notice
Published on May 1, 2014

This short film is about the Women's Earth & Climate Action Network, International (formerly IWECI) engages women worldwide to take action as powerful stakeholders in climate change and sustainability solutions.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

AGW – what is the root cause?


AGW – what is the root cause?
Moses Seenarine, April 23, 2014

In a recent talk, ecologists Guy McPherson was asked if capitalism was the main cause of climate change. McPherson, aligning himself with Jensen, Keith and followers of the deep ecology movement, avows that the fundamental cause of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is civilization, and that the only solution to AGW is collapse and anti-civilization. Both McPherson and Jensen assert that civilization arises quickly after adoption of agriculture, and collapses just as rapidly from population overshoot. Consequently, both view agriculture and civilization as a dead-end. However, recognizing that civilization is necessary to prevent nuclear power plants from melting down, McPherson concludes that we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't end civilization. Though he may be right in his conclusion, his premise of farming as a cul-de-sac is a misrepresentation based on a false dichotomy.

Using a reductionist binary approach, deep ecology proponents conclude that hunter-gathers are sustainable egalitarians who stand in sharp contrast to unsustainable, patriarchal agriculturalists who inevitably create population overshoot. However, they declare that the omnicidal agrarian path toward civilization is not a one-way street, and cherry-pick anecdotes to fabricate evidence of cultures they claim chose to reverse course and become anti-civilization hunter-gathers. With no expertise in palaeontology, archeology, anthropology, or the study of ancient cultures, McPherson and Jensen universalize assertion is unsupported and has never been peer-reviewed.

In Search of Repentant Hunter-Gathers

According to McPherson, at least three Native American cultures - the Mimbres, Olmec and Chaco - figured out that agriculture inexorably led to civilization, which was a problem, and consequently forsook agriculture to return to a hunter-gather diet. There is little archaeological evidence to support his conjecture, but McPherson insist this is a hard lesson modern humans have yet to learn.

The Mimbres were a group of small villages in southern New Mexico, each with less than 200 inhabitants, existing between approximately A.D. 100 and A.D. 1150. Destruction by looters of this archeological site means that pottery and other artifacts cannot be studied in situ, and important clues about Mimbres culture and history have been destroyed. The region experienced several harsh droughts, and there was significant depopulation. McPherson claim that they didn't store seed corn after the depopulation period, which confirms that MimbreƱos made a conscious decision to be anti-civilization.

There are several problems with this analysis. First, there was never really a population explosion among the Mimbres, with 6, 000 being a peak estimate. During droughts, arable land remained along the river banks, and some Mimbres never migrated and continued farming. If or why the Mimbres didn't store seed, for how long, and how widespread, are all unclear. But even if true for an extended period, one anecdotal example of a complex culture does not prove the Mimbres became anti-agriculture and anti-civilization.

McPherson similarly claims that Anasazi and Olmecs decided to become anti-civ after collapse from the effects of cultivation. However, experts on the Anasazi have observed that severe droughts, religious upheaval, internal political conflict and warfare may have led them to abandon Chaco Canyon and migrate south into Mexico, where, significantly, they continued to practice agriculture. Furthermore, few Anasazi remained or returned to the canyon to live as hunter-gathers. Olmec researchers state that their collapse was due to volcanoes, earthquakes, silting up of rivers, and political conflict, and few, if any, make a case for collapse due to agriculture-led over-population. Olmec sites were never re-populated and successor Mayan cultures continued to rely heavily on agriculture. There is hardly no evidence to suggest the Mimbres, Olmec and Anasazi in Chaco Canyon resorted to hunter-gathering exclusively.

Myth of the Noble Savage?

If there is no anti-civilization exception to the agrarian dead-end, this leaves little room for hope for deep ecologists and their hunter-gather vision of the future. Finding repentant hunter-gathers is not their only problem. Deep ecologists fail to explain why many agricultural civilizations never collapsed, or why some farming groups have not experienced population overshoot. They do not explicate the rise and fall of hunter-gather groups in any general or specific context, distinguish between matriarchal or patriarchal agriculturalists, or discuss the relationship between collapse and patriarchy in a non-agrarian context. Collapse on Easter Island was not due to the adoption of farming, but to deforestation caused by patriarchal culture.

Many of deep ecology's basic assumptions are flawed. In contrast to their false dichotomy portraying hunter-gathers as pre-civilized groups with limited populations, Paleolithic discoveries indicate that hunter-gathers gathered in complex societies with large populations, and ancient megalithic sites demonstrate that pre-agrarian cultures were capable of transforming their environment. Recent research of the Pleistocene correlate the arrival of hunter-gathers with the extinction of mega-fauna, which establishes that extinction and collapse is not an agrarian phenomena. The elimination of mega-fauna in turn led to drastic habitat changes across wide areas of the globe.

Another false assumption made by deep ecologists is that hunter-gathers are egalitarian. The widespread practice of raiding, capture and gang rape of girls and women among Amazon hunter-gathers show just the opposite. Indeed, there is little evidence to suggest that the vast majority of hunter-gathers are egalitarian or ever were.

Agents and Agency 

With the collapse of modern civilization due to climate change all but assured, it is extremely important that we try to determine the root cause of AGW. Men are the main creators of civilization, yet it is interesting that two men would transfer male responsibility entirely to an ambiguous development method that is supposedly gender neutral.

Women-invented agriculture, food storage and processing technologies, are entirely dismissed, as are the flowering of cultures and consciousness due to these female discoveries. Women still are the majority of agricultural laborers, and feed much of the world, but their work is minimized by men who own and control most of the land they toil on. Female agrarian technology is organic and sustainable, and most women do not support deforestation for monoculture and factory farms.

Other scientists and environmentalists argue that industrialized civilization, not agriculture, is the root of all planetary destruction. However, industrialized civilization did not emerge fully formed out of the clear blue sky. The patriarchal mindset that created industrialized civilization existed before the Pleistocene, and is characterized by the objectification of nature and women as free resources for male competition and development.

Men's oppression of women and nature predates agricultural and industrial civilization. Focusing on agricultural and industrial civilization as the main causes for planetary collapse ignores the hegemonic agency that created both, minimizes ubiquitous male violence against women and nature, and provides men with a completely free pass. It means little to women and nature if industrial civilization ends and male dominance and patriarchal thinking remains.

Ecofeminist Analysis  

The root cause of AGW is the patriarchal destruction of nature, and inequality. Radical ecofeminists link the exploitation of animals and nature, and the oppression of women, to male desire for transcendence of both. Masculinity and male identity are viewed as the main cause of conflict, hierarchy, resource depletion, and collapse. Ecofeminists' solution is not a cul-de-sac, catch-22 anti-civ struggle that still seeks to transcend wild animals and females, but an anti-patriarchal movement based on equality with nature. And surviving examples of sustainable matriarchal agrarian cultures like the Minangkabau, Mosuo, Khasi, Bribri, Nagovisi and others, inspire hope that change is not only possible, but doable. 

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Hot Climate Women Scientists in Cool Places (2013)



Hot Climate Women Scientists in Cool Places (2013)
Published on May 22, 2013
Women scientists in 2013 report their climate research in richly illustrated and powerful ways to the public and students. They are: Jennifer Francis, Julie Brigham-Grette, Natalia Rybczynski, and Lisa Graumlich.

01:06 JENNIFER FRANCIS teaches (1) why the melting of Arctic sea ice is causing extreme weather to the south; (2) how global warming has already weakened the jet stream, (3) why a weakened jet stream can cause longer-lasting droughts, bigger floods, and spring snow storms in the eastern USA, the UK, and eastern China.

18:20 JULIE BRIGHAM-GRETTE describes the rigors and excitement of an international expedition that extracted detailed cores of layered sediments going back nearly 4 million years from a crater lake in Siberia. From 3.2 to 3.6 million years ago (during the Pliocene epoch), carbon dioxide in the atmosphere matched that of today -- 400 ppm. Yet plant pollen (pine, hemlock, fir) deposited in the lake sediments of that time indicate a far warmer climate in the Arctic then (forest rather than tundra), and thus warn us that fossil-fuel-burning over just two centuries of modern times has already set in motion unprecedented shifts in climate that will unfold in the decades and centuries ahead as the polar ice melt slowly equilibrates with the new greenhouse planetary conditions.

26:38 NATALIA RYBCZYNSKI shows the results of her paleontological exploration in the high Arctic. She unearthed fragments of a giant camel of Pliocene age (3.5 million years old) on Ellesmere Island, which confirms that forests reached far into an astonishingly warm Arctic when the atmosphere's measure of carbon dioxide matched that of today: about 400 ppm.

31:17 LISA GRAUMLICH is a paleoecologist who surveys the devastation of climate change already apparent in the mountain western USA: reduced snow pack, retreating glaciers, dying trees, drying rivers, and a longer and far more destructive forest fire season.

38:35 - Conclusions

39:35 - Suggestions for action

42:16 - Thanks to our "older sisters on the path who changed the cultural climate for women in science."

Science writer CONNIE BARLOW serves as host, introducing and summarizing the discoveries of these great women scientists -- and why those discoveries are important today.

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Mothers vs. climate change

Mothers Out Front has only two full-time staff members; the group is mainly volunteer-run. Here, a training session in Cambridge.

Mothers vs. climate change
A startup activist group turns to an ages-old network for recruits: moms.
By Melissa Schorr, APRIL 06, 2014 bostonglobe.com

Kelsey Wirth has concluded that the big environmental groups have for whatever reason largely failed to engage the masses. Mothers — who vote, who purchase, who network — could be the ones to change that.

ON A DAMP WEDNESDAY NIGHT, women trickle into a home on Jamaica Plain’s Eliot Street, shedding winter coats, chitchatting about work and kids, grabbing a wineglass and a bit of cheese. Some have come intrigued to learn more, others simply because a neighbor invited them. Eventually, they meander into the living room, settling on chairs and couches around a projection screen, awaiting the pitch.

In another era, what’s for sale might be Tupperware; on another block somewhere, perhaps Stella & Dot jewelry or pricey skin-care products. But here, tonight, what’s being sold is no less than saving the planet.

***

“CONVINCE ME.”

That’s the gauntlet I threw down weeks earlier to Kelsey Wirth, 44, a seasoned entrepreneur and mother of two who’s the driving force behind Mothers Out Front, the upstart nonprofit throwing house parties (and stroller-dotted Beacon Hill rallies) in an effort to unite Massachusetts mothers in the fight against climate change. I present the perfect test case: a South Shore mom who schleps the kids around in a gas guzzler, spends way too much on winter oil bills, gets scolding letters from her power company about using more kilowatts than the neighbors, and, other than separating trash from recycling, hasn’t given too much mind-share to the cause.

By contrast, Wirth is a woman who could probably itemize her carbon footprint down to the cubic foot, from the Prius (a plus) parked outside her spacious (a minus) Cambridge home recently retrofitted with efficient LED bulbs (another plus) to her second home (another minus) in Colorado, equipped with solar panels on the property that help offset the energy it takes to fly there and to run the house. By tapping mothers, both apathetic and green true believers, Wirth is hoping to unleash a broad social movement that ultimately evolves into a national force — similar to what journalist-turned-activist Bill McKibben’s 350.org has done with college students, this time with moms.

Forget the polar bears. This is about human mamas protecting their cubs. “We are not an environmental organization,” says Wirth, curled up in her sun-lit kitchen in jeans and a gray sweater, colorful kids’ artwork plastering the walls. “The earth is not our symbol. It’s not about the planet, per se. It’s about our kids. Our goal is to make climate change an issue that mothers care about because they are concerned about their kids’ future.”

Growing up the daughter of a politician (Tim Wirth of Colorado, pictured) meant Kelsey Wirth was used to a level of “uncertainty and chaos” around job security. She says that helped her as an entrepreneur.

It may sound a bit starry-eyed or like an Ivy-educated stay-at-home mom’s creative play to reenter the workforce. But Wirth may just have the pedigree to pull it off, bringing a trifecta of talents: environmental chops, political insight, and business savvy. As a newly minted Stanford MBA in what seems like a lifetime ago, she cofounded Align Technologies, makers of Invisalign invisible braces, taking it from startup mode to a publicly traded company in a short four years. And she comes from a family of environmental champions. Her father, former US representative and senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, in 1988 held one of the earliest congressional hearings on climate change. He subsequently served as undersecretary of state for global affairs and then as president of the United Nations Foundation. Her mother, Wren Winslow, runs a foundation that gives $1.2 million annually in small grants, some of which go to green groups. Wirth’s husband, Samuel Myers, researches the impact of global environmental change on human health for Harvard’s Department of Environmental Health.

From her perch, Wirth has concluded that the big environmental groups have for whatever reason largely failed to engage the masses. Mothers — who vote, who purchase, who are the linchpins of communities, and, yes, who network on Facebook — could be the ones to make it happen.

“We need people coming together and putting pressure on our leaders to change,” says Wirth. “They’re not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts; that’s not how change happens. If ever there were a powerful messenger bringing this message, it is mothers.” She continues: “That’s the voice that has been largely missing. It’s not a bunch of easily dismissed political radicals. We’re not a bunch of anarchists. We’re moms.”

***

AT THE JAMAICA PLAIN MEETING, the women take turns sharing what drew them there. For one, it was a symposium on Cape Cod where climate scientists were “visibly petrified.” For others, it was a daughter’s school project on fracking, or witnessing an oil company burning off natural-gas flares from wells on a trip to Ecuador, or growing up in a polluted steel-mill town, or noticing the prevalence of asthma inhalers.

Some are silver-haired grandmothers. One is four months pregnant. Two are childless, there for their nieces and nephews. Many moms have done their small bit. Cloth diapers. Reusable lunch containers. Making their kids walk to school. Now they’re looking for something more. One mother describes her “deep sadness” about changes she sees in the natural world, then says, “I want something I can do on a bigger level.”

“A lot of us are privately worrying,” another mom says. “We do have power,” she adds. “This is our chance to seize it.”

The notion that climate scientists and activists have long fought to get across, that Mother Earth is off-kilter, seems to be resonating with regular people throughout the country. In a November 2013 Yale/George Mason poll, 63 percent of the Americans surveyed said they were convinced climate change is happening, and half of the people overall were worried about it. State officials are certainly taking the issue seriously and have earmarked $50 million for climate-change preparedness.

At the house party, a slide show and video briefly review the science, but the most crucial message is one of empowerment. You don’t need to be an expert on climatology, the listener is reassured. Ninety-five percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made.

“People don’t respond to, ‘Oh my God, let me tell you the latest science. We’re in trouble if we don’t stop burning X number of fossil fuels by 2050, the sea levels are going to rise by X amount’ and all these horrible things,” Wirth says, explaining the messaging. “That makes people want to run in the opposite direction. Including me. I spent years — even though I grew up knowing about climate change because of my father’s work — I spent a long time avoiding reading about it. It’s depressing; the science is depressing.”

She’s right. One by one, each environmental activist I speak with praises Wirth’s ambition — then proceeds to beat the same dreary drum. That 167 nations agreed with a UN resolution in 2009 that average temperatures should not be allowed to rise more than 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit, yet we’re reneging on the promise and are nearly halfway there. That we’ve blown past the so-called threshold figure of 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, beyond which it would be difficult to stop temperatures from exceeding that limit. That to avoid a further rise, 80 percent of the globe’s fossil fuels known to be recoverable need to be left — unused by Big Oil and the rest of us — in the ground. That the United States has an important leadership role to play and can’t ask other countries to take any aggressive action if we are not leading.

Wirth, when we speak again, yanks me back from the abyss. She wouldn’t be doing this if she didn’t have faith, and others should, too. It’s not too late, but we do need to get to work.

***

WIRTH GREW UP shuttling back and forth between Colorado and Washington, D.C., where she attended the elite Sidwell Friends School starting in seventh grade. “Politics is what we lived and breathed. It directed every conversation at the dinner table,” she recalls. Raised in a family of mountain climbers and skiers, she studied American history and literature at Harvard. There, outside the Beltway bubble, she was taken aback to find herself categorized as a “senator’s daughter” by her status-conscious peers. After graduation, she worked on political campaigns back in Colorado, including Clinton/Gore in 1992, ultimately moving to D.C., where she spent one year as a consultant at the Environmental Working Group, to which she would eventually return as a member and then chairwoman of its board.

On what she calls a lark, she applied and was accepted to the Stanford Graduate School of Business in 1995, graduating in 1997. She was then persuaded by a classmate, Zia Chishti, to attempt a startup that would create an invisible teeth-straightening system. “I felt none of that risk aversion, because I grew up with a father who every two years had a 50-50 chance [that he] wasn’t going to have a job,” she says. “The uncertainty and chaos felt totally comfortable to me.” Still, the move puzzled classmates, most of whom in those pre-dotcom-boom days were still pursuing traditional post-MBA paths into consulting and finance. Close to a dozen different venture capitalists easily dismissed Wirth and Chishti, some laughed them out of their offices, until finally they persuaded a partner at Silicon Valley’s renowned Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers to give them a shot.

The business grew, going public on the Nasdaq in January 2001 in a $120 million offering. Shortly thereafter, Wirth left her post as president, retaining a place on the board for two years. During her scant moments of free time at Align, Wirth had met Myers, then a practicing physician, and the two married in October 2002 in a 300-person black-tie ceremony held in San Francisco’s stately Grace Cathedral.

In 2004, the couple decided to settle in the Boston area, where Myers grew up, and purchased their Cambridge home, a short walk to Harvard Yard. They quickly had two daughters, Sophie and Lucy, now 9 and 7. For a period of time, Wirth leaned out, staying active on the Environmental Working Group board but eschewing full-time employment for their daughters’ sake.

“My childhood was full of love, but it was a lot of chaos and putting my father’s career ahead of our family. I was determined they would have a mother who was capable of being entirely focused on them — for better or worse,” she says with a rueful smile. For largely the same reason, she shudders at the idea of entering politics herself, pointing to the job’s inhospitableness for raising a family, not to mention the current logjam in federal government.

But even immersed in parenting, Wirth couldn’t escape that nagging inner voice. One night, reading a picture book on coral reefs to Sophie, then 2, Wirth found her eyes tearing up and her voice catching at the thought of her daughter perhaps never experiencing that wonder for herself, and then her own sense of powerlessness. “I thought, I can’t be the only mother who feels this intense anxiety,” she says, pointing to this as her “aha” moment. “How about trying to reach them and explore what we could do if we all came together?”

Between preschool drop-off and pickup, she booked a meeting with Marshall Ganz, a social activism theorist who is a senior lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Wirth got a crash course from Ganz in movement building, from Frances Willard’s temperance fight to Cesar Chavez and workers’ rights, reading about how to solicit concrete action, pooling individuals into a greater collective, working at the local, state, and federal levels, giving an abstract concept moral urgency, and, most of all, infusing participants with a sense of hope.

“When she went off for the summer, she was gobbling up books on movements and then came back with this idea,” Ganz recalls. “I thought, Of course. It’s really striking to what extent the environment movement has been dominated by male scientific voices. The human dimension of what’s at risk we don’t hear much about. For Kelsey, it seemed what made it real was having kids — your perspective on the future shifts a little bit.”

To the naysayers, Ganz points to ample moments throughout history when mothers have forced a change: temperance, suffrage, drunken driving, nuclear testing, and, as contemporaries, the nascent One Million Moms for Gun Control. One morning in the fall of 2012, Wirth cornered Vanessa Rule, cofounder of the environmental group Better Future Project, pre-dawn at a round-the-clock vigil in Boston lobbying Massachusetts’s senatorial candidates. She had one simple proposal: How about harnessing mothers as a constituency?

The idea immediately appealed to Rule, who admits, strikingly, that her member base included few parents. Despite being a mother herself, Rule had deliberately kept those two parts of her life disconnected, knowing the subject was, as she puts it, “touchy” and “a downer.” The pair started organizing a flurry of house parties in early 2013, often running one a night. “Kelsey’s an unbelievable learner. She has this incredible vision and discipline,” says Rule, whose epiphany occurred while viewing Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, in 2006. “I’ve been pouring my heart and soul into this work, but I never would have had the vision of scale.”

“Kelsey is not only an idea person, but someone who sees things through,” says Chip Giller, a Lexington native and founder of the Seattle-based environmental news site Grist. “I think that’s the mark of a leader: idea plus follow-up.”

The strategy is ingenious. After all, which would your typical mom be more likely to choose, a dry lecture down at the local library or a glass of chardonnay and a chance to escape bedtime duty? “If we were a program of the Sierra Club, there are a lot of mothers who would never come to a meeting,” Wirth says.


The Salem Harbor Power Station, a coal- and oil-fired plant that is set to be replaced with one that runs on natural gas — more efficient, but still a source of greenhouse gases — is a point of contention for the group.

To date, Wirth, Rule, and a second generation of facilitators have run 76 parties, recruiting more than 600 women in homes from Beacon Hill to Amherst to get involved, whether that means attending a roundtable to quiz the state’s gubernatorial candidates on energy policy or joining a protest against one of the state’s few remaining coal plants. (As for me, I was indeed convinced enough to sign up for an energy audit through Mass Save.) At a rally in Hyannis over Labor Day Weekend, Wirth spoke persuasively on the need for collective action. “We know reducing personal energy use is not enough,” she told the crowd of 200, according to news reports, “and voting makes me feel small.” Momentum seems to be growing beyond just the house parties. The group’s February 1 campaign kickoff turned out 350 supporters to march from Tremont Temple Baptist Church to the State House. Except for two full-time staffers, the group is volunteer-led, receiving money from the Barr Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, individual donors, and others.

“Kelsey brings clear-eyed leadership and an understanding of politics,” says state Senator Lori Ehrlich, a Democrat from Marblehead, who spoke at the February event and was impressed with the turnout. “She comes from a political family; she knows how the game is played.”

“Mothers are a natural group who should be stepping up,” says Bob Massie, a former executive director of the environmental coalition Ceres and a longtime family friend who helped officiate at Wirth’s marriage. “We have experienced an appalling and disgraceful failure of leadership from the people who are normally referred to as leaders in our society. . . . Other groups are stepping up and saying we may not be the culturally accepted definition of leaders, we may not have all the training you’d want . . . but we can’t stand this.” He continues, “This is a new take on organization that’s a long way from the Tupperware party.”

***

FIRST ON THE MOTHERS OUT FRONT agenda is individual action, persuading 10,000 households to enroll in Mass Energy’s GreenUp program, asking them to willingly pay around a 20 percent premium on their monthly electric bill to source their home’s needs with renewable rather than fossil-fuel energy. (Strictly speaking, the program does not literally source one’s home with green power; rather, it creates demand in the marketplace by committing to purchase energy credits produced by solar or wind projects.)

It may be a lofty goal, considering that of the state’s 2.2 million households, only a tiny fraction of them — around 9,000 — currently are enrolled, but one Mass Energy executive director Larry Chretien believes is within grasp. “I’m not dismissing Mothers Out Front,” he says, “and people who do would be making a mistake.” From her position of privilege, with two daughters attending private school in Belmont, Wirth is keenly aware of the cost she is asking others to pay. “Can only rich people afford to do this?” she muses. “It is $10 to 15 a month more. . . . Making the right choices is going to involve some personal sacrifice.”

The group’s broader policy platform is even more ambitious. It includes persuading Massachusetts not to invest in any new power plants that use nonrenewable energy and asking Governor Deval Patrick to sign an executive order to that effect. One of the flash points for Mothers Out Front is the plan to replace Salem’s retiring coal- and oil-fired plant with a new natural-gas one. Natural gas — which, studies indicate, cuts greenhouse gas emissions nearly 50 percent compared with coal but does not eliminate them — already provides more than half of the state’s energy, Wirth says. That hard-line stance puts the group at odds with an administration that has already passed ambitious emissions-reducing legislation, currently leads the nation in energy-efficiency policies, and has required utility companies to contract 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020.

Wirth argues that people in government and industry just need to think more creatively, that Massachusetts could forgo additional natural-gas infrastructure simply by increasing efficiency, conservation, and deployment of renewable energy we know how to use. “It is our firm opinion that as we are phasing out coal we should be leapfrogging natural gas and going straight to clean, renewable energy,” says Wirth, “because that is the only energy choice that makes sense for our kids’ future. Getting off coal is really important, but we have this irrational exuberance around natural gas as a society.”

State officials and energy observers contend that solar panels and wind turbines, while growing technologically and financially more competitive each day, are not yet able to fill the gap. Especially not when a project like Cape Wind, which would construct the nation’s first offshore wind turbines, has been embroiled for more than a decade in legal challenges. The slated closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and the Brayton Point coal facility in Somerset are also factors.

“We do have a reality of some 8,000 megawatts going offline in the next few years,” says state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Rick Sullivan. “Part of the job is having a reliable grid so people can turn the lights on.” And Mass Energy’s Chretien says, “We’re going to have to do this more aggressively but gradually.”

In some sense, Wirth is asking us collectively to leap into the void without a parachute, trusting that the green infrastructure will be up and running by the time we touch ground. She is comfortable with not having all the answers. “Someone needs to put the stake in the sand,” she says. “We can’t present a road map; we’re not engineers, nor is that our job. We have a strong sense that this is doable, and our job is to insist we do it.” In other words, it’s relying on the time-honored argument used by mothers — and voters — everywhere: Because I said so.

Melissa Schorr is a frequent contributor to the Globe Magazine. Send comments to magazine@globe.com.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Women’s Rights and Climate Justice: Impediments to Women in the Workforce Inhibit Action on Climate Change



Women’s Rights and Climate Justice: Impediments to Women in the Workforce Inhibit Action on Climate Change
BY RICHARD MATTHEWS, MARCH 13TH, 2014 globalwarmingisreal.com

Women could shift the balance of power and help us to move forward on a host of sustainability issues. Women’s Day was celebrated on March 8, so this is an opportune time to review the importance of women to the health of the planet. While women represent roughly half of the population, they have yet to assume their rightful role at the highest levels of decision making.

We have good reason to believe that as the power of women grows, they will be a civilizing force in business. There are a number of female environmentalists who have played pivotal roles over the years. There are also a number of studies which show that women are better for the environment than their male counterparts.

There are a number of women’s organizations that are actively involved in efforts to combat environmental degradation and climate change in particular. One such organization is WECAN. According to a recent WECAN publication, women are disproportionately impacted by climate change.

“Women make up 20 of the 26 million estimated refugees displaced by climate change, comprising 80 percent of the world’s climate refugees.” The implication here is that those most impacted by a warming world may be better change agents than their male counterparts.

Women are not only adversely impacted by the problems associated with climate change, they are also an integral part of the solution. As WECAN states:
“[W]omen are key to sustainability solutions. It is women who are responsible for food production and the collection of water and fuel wood, which makes them particularly aware of changing weather patterns that alter growing seasons, decreasing crop yields and decreasing water levels. This knowledge is essential to adaption and mitigation strategies. Women in North America determine 80 percent of all consumer purchases. That market power could be mobilized to significantly reduce carbon emissions through purchasing choices, including demanding an end to fossil fuels and a radical increase in renewable energy.”
On February 14, 2014, WECAN held a day of action for women and climate justice highlighting women’s leadership in climate solutions. Here are some of the actions taken for this event:
Women farmers will highlight the importance of local organic farms to food sovereignty and food security
  • Actions demonstrating how women are being affected by the tar sands and pipelines
  • Highlighting women-led solar projects in Africa
  • Calling on communities to plant trees and flowers that absorb large amounts of CO2
  • Women protecting the rainforests of Congo and the Amazon
  • Holding a “carbon fast” with youth in the U.S.
They also staged the International Women’s Earth and Climate Summit in September of 2013 in New York. ThroughWECAN’s Online Solutions Forum, where more than 25 countries provided advocacy and on-the-ground solutions for climate change and environmental crises.

Women and the Green Economy (WAGE) is another important organization. WAGE was launched at the UNFCCC 16th Conference of the Parties in Cancun, Mexico in December, 2010. WAGE helps women to aggregate their power and promote leadership in the creation of a sustainable green economy.

Women are getting involved with the nuts and bolts of renewable energy construction. Thanks to support from groups like Women of Wind Energy (WoWE), Meredith MacDonald is but one example of a woman who pursued her dream to work on the construction of wind turbines.

There are also many great examples of women who have played important roles in driving sustainability forward. One such woman is Marlys Appleton, CEO of the metals recycling company Avtaar America and an early champion of sustainability risk management.

Sadly, women like MacDonald and Appleton are far too rare. Part of the blame must fall on a culture that impedes the progress of women in the workplace.

Women in the workforce

As reported by Triple Pundit, women account for over 50 percent of college graduates and they have $8 trillion of annual buying power, however, they still account for less than 15 percent of S&P 500 boards of directors. Almost one third (30 percent) of midsize companies have no women on their board of directors. In most companies, women are a minority and they certainly are a minority in leadership positions.

As reviewed in a recent study in The Shriver Report titled, “A Woman’s Nation Pushes Back from the Brink,” there are still a number of challenges faced by women face in the US workforce.

Although there are now some high profile women who have attained the position of CEO, working women still have to deal with a significant wage and career gap. This makes it far harder for women to achieve positions of power from which they could auger change.

In addition to being under-represented in positions of power, women are over-represented in the ranks of low wage earners. Women still take home between 9 and 30 percent less than men for similar jobs. Women also have less opportunities for career growth. While companies may hire women, they are less frequently promoted to leadership positions. The irony here is that promoting women into leadership positions has been shown to be in the best interest of employers and shareholders. The research shows that when women lead, businesses perform.

On almost every measurable indice, companies with the highest percentages of women board directors significantly outperformed those with the least. Despite these findings, as of 2013, women held only 16.9 percent of corporate board seats, only 14.6 percent of Executive Officer positions, and only 8.1 percent of top earner slots.
Women and sustainable business

Women are especially good for advancing sustainability. This is the finding in research conducted by Kellie McElhaney, the Whitehead Faculty Fellow in Corporate Sustainability for the Haas School of Business at University of California, Berkeley and Sanaz Mobasserir, and a PhD candidate at the Haas School.

She investigated the corporate performance of more than 1,500 companies across three main categories of environmental, social and governance. Key findings were that companies with more women on their board of directors are more likely to:
  • Invest in renewable power generation and to proactively take steps to improve operational energy efficiency.
  • Have integrated climate change into their actuarial models and developed products that help customers manage climate change risk.
  • Measure and reduce carbon emissions of their products.
  • Have supplier programs to reduce their supply chain carbon footprint.
  • Reduced the environmental impacts of their packaging.
  • Address environmental risks in their financial decisions.
  • Not disturb large and/or fragile areas of biodiversity.
The emerging evidence is that women on a company’s board of directors are helping their companies better serve their equity owners’ interests through enhanced environmental, social and governance risk-positioning.

As explained by WECAN:
“Women are rising with fierce resolve, because what’s happening at the national and international policy level on climate change is not equivalent to the urgency we are facing. We are demanding no more delays and calling for strategic action that addresses root causes and systemic change.”
Women are important to the future of our planet. Advancing the role of women could very well prove to be the crucial element that helps us to build a critical mass of ecologically aware people. Any serious environmental advocate needs to appreciate the value of also advocating for women’s rights.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Women bear the brunt of India's erosion disaster


Women now run farms and families in the Rohmoria area of India's Assam state after worsening erosion drove men and boys to seek work in India's cities. 

Women bear the brunt of India's erosion disaster

Naresh Newar, 12 Mar 2014  Thomson Reuters Foundation

APAR LAUPANI, India (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – As the wind suddenly starts blowing, Madhumati Chettri rushes to save the rice spread to dry on open ground near the compound of her house, making sure that none is swept away.
“This is all we have for this week. Every grain is too precious,” says 60-year old Chettri. She forces a smile as she recounts how difficult life has become for her family in recent years since devastating river erosion has washed away farms in her village of Apar Laupani, in Assam’s Rohmoria area, 500 km (310 miles) from Guwahati, the state capital.

Assam, which shares international borders with Bhutan to the north and Bangladesh to its south, is also home to one of Asia’s longest rivers, the Brahmaputra, which flows through China, India and Bangladesh.

For the last 60 years, villages in Assam have suffered devastating riverbank erosion initially triggered by a powerful earthquake in 1960 that altered the geography of the river valley. The changes have been intensified since then by more extreme weather and worsening yearly floods.

Erosion has affected over 4,500 villages in the state, destroying more than 425,000 hectares (1 million acres) of land, according to Assam’s Department of Revenue and Disaster Management.

Most of the land lost was agricultural, and its destruction has ruined the livelihoods of nearly a million of the state’s roughly 30 million people. Many men who no longer have land to farm have moved to bigger cities elsewhere in the country to work as daily wage labourers or security guards. Experts say the effects of this exodus on the women who must stay are profound.

“Usually the women are left behind to take care of everything from the children and the elderly to the livestock, farms (and) house and protect the families from imminent natural risks,” said economist Partha Ganguly of the University of Dibrugarh in Assam.

Research has shown that natural disasters take a particularly high toll on women’s health and mental wellbeing.

“The burden is heavier on women than men as they have so many responsibilities, especially in disaster situations,” added Ganguli.

There are plenty of examples of growing problems for women in Assam’s remote villages like Apar Laupani, where almost all the men from the 150 households have moved away, mostly to affluent cities in the country’s south.

The women says they must not only worry about ensuring that their families have enough food, but also struggle to access assistance from politicians.

“We have been completely abandoned by the government and the officials never listen to women,” charged 35-year old Ganga Bharati, whose husband now works in Bangalore.

‘NOBODY COMES TO TALK TO WOMEN’

“I have never seen a journalist before (now) because nobody really bothers to come here to talk to women,” said Gunwati Gurung, a 37-year old mother of three children.

Gurung is worried about the coming monsoon arriving in April or May, she said. Women must start planning for floods by storing their valuables and stockpiling food, she said, in addition to keeping their cattle in safe places and finding shelter for their children and older family members.

The nearest hospital is 18 km (11 miles) from the village, and at times the villages face attacks from bandits or armed separatist groups, the women said.

“It is difficult to find a single man to help us and we need them to protect us and carry the sick,” Gurung added.

A dead tree stands in the middle of the village, a constant reminder that little can now survive in the marshy soil that once was farmland.

“In the past there were several small villages, forests, bamboo groves, swamps and cattle farms, which provided all commodities necessary for an affluent rural livelihood,” said Jogendra Nath Sharma, an expert on river erosion at the University of Dibrugarh. These have now been destroyed by river erosion, he said.

The government needs to do more to help families prepare for disasters and rehabilitate those who have lost their farms, Sharma said.

“There are efforts being made by the government but there is more that needs to be done,” said Rajit Dutta of the district agriculture office. Dutta helps to train farmers to use climate-appropriate and diverse crops, and said the government is planning to train women farmers in crop diversification.

“So far the only alternative for the farmers is fishing, but that is also gradually diminishing due to huge competition,” said Sanchita Boruah, a hydrology expert.

The situation is dire for female farmers, she added.

“As the erosion increases, the size of the farms will reduce, and eventually survival will be even more difficult for the farmers, and women will be more severely affected,” said Partha Das of the Water, Climate and Hazard Programme of Aaranyak, a national scientific research organisation.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Address Climate Change by Empowering Women


Address Climate Change by Empowering Women
Rep. Carolyn Maloney 03/07/2014

International Women's Day is a time to celebrate women's achievements, but it's also a good time to draw attention to problems too often overlooked by policymakers and begin discussing constructive solutions. As a member of the Congressional Safe Climate Caucus, I am struck by the disproportionate toll that environmental destruction driven by climate change exacts on women.

Women account for 20 million of the 26 million people displaced by climate change -- a staggering disparity driven by the fact that women make up over 70 percent of the world's poor. When access to food, shelter, education, income, land, and health care are already limited, the effects of a natural disaster caused by a changing climate are devastating.

Women in the world's poorest regions are the most immediate victims of climate change. In Africa, women and girls spend 40 billion hours a year collecting water. As drought becomes increasingly common, they must travel further distances and face greater danger from attack and sexual assault. After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the death rate for women soared, and in some areas it was three times greater than it was for men.

The London School of Economics studied the impact of 141 natural disasters on women and men and concluded that women have a higher death rate because of their lack of rights and mobility.

Unfortunately, these problems are getting worse, not better, and it's time to sound the alarm. Poverty, especially among women, is growing in large part due to our changing climate. The United Nations Development Program 2013 Human Development Report concluded that the number of people living in extreme poverty may increase by up to 3 billion by 2050 unless there is international response to environmental disasters.

As the U.S. and other nations struggle to address environmental challenges, we must recognize the unique challenges women face. But we cannot adapt without including more women of diverse backgrounds in the discussion. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening now. A 2012 report by the European Institute for Gender Equality shows that men continue to outnumber women in high-level decision-making positions related to stopping climate change and mitigating its effects.

On International Women's Day, let's commit to correcting this disparity. We need women at the table to ensure that more perspectives are heard and that the impact of climate change on women is not forgotten. Climate change is here. It is happening, and it is affecting women at a greater rate than men. While our effort to limit carbon emissions and assist those impacted by climate change is no small task, involving more women in these negotiations is something that we can change immediately. I say we do it.

Friday, March 7, 2014

International Women’s Day 2014



International Women’s Day 2014
World Meteorological Organization, 7 March 2014 wmo.int

On International Women’s Day, WMO is encouraging more women to become meteorologists and hydrologists, and shape knowledge and action on weather, climate and water to meet present and future challenges to build weather and climate resilient societies.

“International Women’s Day is a time to reflect on progress made in the WMO Policy on Gender Mainstreaming; to review the challenges, to call for change and to celebrate acts of courage and determination by strong and talented women meteorologists and hydrologists who have played an extraordinary role in WMO and National Meteorological and Hydrological Services, universities and other institutions,” said WMO Assistant-Secretary-General Elena Manaenkova. “Regretfully there are still too few women on key positions in WMO’s constituencies. Women can and should play a greater role as both providers and users of cutting-edge meteorological science,” she said.

The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day on 8 March is “Equality for Women is progress for all.”

Women are mostly under-represented in meteorological professions. WMO wants to inspire more girls to consider careers such as weather observers and forecasters, engineers, data processors and researchers, broadcast meteorologists, climatologists, aviation forecasters and marine meteorologists, environmental and agricultural meteorologists as well as hydrologists.

A newly updated book A Career in Meteorology presents exciting opportunities for young people. It has been published in advance of World Meteorological Day on 23 March which focuses on Weather and Climate: Engaging Youth.

WMO is calling for more targeted investment to increase education and training opportunities for women.

Gender Conference

The Third WMO Gender Conference, taking place in November 2014, will provide a platform bringing together female and male meteorologists, climatologists, hydrologists and early career scientists as well as users of services in key weather and climate sensitive sectors. Entitled “The Gender Dimension of Weather and Climate Services: The Benefits of Working Together,” the conference aims to ensure that women equally as men are active players in the design and provision of user-driven weather and climate services.

The Global Framework for Climate Services, now being implemented by WMO and a wide range of partners, is meant to increase and improve climate services like seasonal forecasts so that they are accessible and understandable to users at both national and community level. There are four priority areas: food security, water management, disaster risk reduction and health. The Gender Conference aims to ensure that action in these priority areas takes into account the needs and contributions of women.

Food security: Women provide up to 80 per cent of agricultural labour and produce 45 to 90 per cent of domestically consumed food, depending on the region. They play an important role in land management and as community educators. Traditional food sources are vulnerable to climate change, weather extremes and soil degradation, and women face potential loss of income as well as harvests. WMO seeks to reach out to those women with the information that can help them to minimize harmful impacts of weather and climate

Water Management. Fetching and transporting water often falls on women and girls, reducing time for more productive socio-economic activities or education. Climate change, environmental degradation and population growth is putting increasing pressure on fresh water resources. Many women therefore have to walk increasing distances for water. The needs and knowledge of women must be reflected in water management decisions as well as the positioning of new facilities such as wells and taps.

Disaster risk reduction. Female-headed households are often among the poorest and most vulnerable to disaster and climate change, as they may have little choice other than to live in precarious locations such as flood-prone lands or on steep slopes. Studies have shown that disaster mortality rates are higher for women than for men. But women and girls are also pillars of resilience - they are the first to prepare their families for a disaster and the first to put communities back together in the aftermath. WMO calls to ensure that women have reliable access to communication means for getting warnings.

Health. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), natural hazards such as droughts, floods and storms kill more women than men. Some diseases that women and children are especially vulnerable to, such as malaria and diarrhea, are also expected to increase in prevalence as temperatures rise or as a result of floods and water contamination. Specific tailored weather and climate services can help reduce exposure and take preventive measures.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Why women are world's best climate change defense


Why women are world's best climate change defense
Mary Robinson, December 12, 2011 CNN.com

Editor's note: Mary Robinson served as President of Ireland from 1990-1997. Mary Robinson is President of the Mary Robinson Foundation -- Climate Justice. She served as President of Ireland from 1990-1997 and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997-2002. She is a member of the Elders and the Club of Madrid and serves as Honorary President of Oxfam International.

Women must make their voices heard in climate negotiations. The role of women as agents of change in their homes, places of work and communities is often underplayed. Yet their role is critical: Women understand the inter-generational aspects of climate change and sustainable development. We women think in time horizons that span the lives of our children and grandchildren. We need to use this understanding to influence the political process and to inject a much needed sense of urgency into the climate change negotiations.

Time is not on our side; report after report has shown this. This is not a trade discussion and we cannot wait until the next meeting or the meeting after that to take action. Time is running out for the planet. 2020 is too late to put a legally binding agreement in place. A legal framework with clear and common rules to which all countries are committed is critically important. It is the only assurance we have that action will be taken to protect the most vulnerable. This COP (U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban) must agree to initiate negotiations towards this end -- with a view to concluding a new legal instrument by 2015 at the latest.

Climate change is a matter of justice. The richest countries caused the problem, but it is the world's poorest who are already suffering from its effects. The international community must commit to righting that wrong.

For me, a high point of the Durban Conference was that it demonstrated once again the value of women's leadership in global efforts to deal with climate change. The outgoing COP President who did an excellent job in Cancun last year is a woman, Minister Patricia Espinosa. The COP President at Durban is a woman, Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane from South Africa and the Executive Secretary of the Convention is also a woman, Ms Christiana Figueres. Collectively these and other women leaders are playing a vital role in highlighting the gender dimensions of climate change.

Awareness of the differential impacts of climate change on men and women is increasing. We know that in continents like Africa, where women are responsible for 60-80% of food production, unpredictable growing seasons and increased incidence of droughts and floods place women, their families and their livelihoods at risk. All over the world women are adapting to these changes, showing incredible resilience in the face of crop failures, water shortages and increases in environment-related diseases such as malaria. They are growing different crops, planting trees, harvesting rainwater and growing fodder for livestock to minimize the impacts of climate change. We need to continue to support women to be innovative, creative and resilient in a climate-constrained world as we strive to ensure equitable solutions to the climate problem. Investing in climate smart agriculture and capacity building for vulnerable rural communities will not be sustainable without the inclusion of women in the decision-making process.

But we also need to see the value of women as drivers of economic growth -- as educators, carers, farmers, entrepreneurs and above all, as leaders. A recent World Bank report found that "women now represent 40% of the global labor force, 43% of the world's agricultural labor force, and more than half the world's university students. Productivity will be raised if their skills and talents are used more fully." The report also found that eliminating the barriers that discriminate against women could increase labor productivity by as much as 25% in some countries.

Clearly we need to harness the contribution of women if we want to find our way out of the current economic recession and if we want to embrace inclusive, sustainable green growth. Last month, in remarks made at the International Forum on Women and Sustainable Development in Beijing, Sha Zuhang, Secretary General of the 2012 U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, said "in many countries women are the champions of the green economy, practicing sustainable agriculture, nurturing our natural resources, and promoting renewable energy."

Around the world women are showing leadership and championing change, often due to more progressive policies and a greater social inclusion. Their voice and leadership on climate change can result in a low-carbon revolution for the 21st century that is sustainable and equitable.

We can have a future where economic growth is not proportional to greenhouse gas emissions and where, for example, off-grid energy solutions could enable the 1.3 billion people without access to electricity to reach their full potential by providing access to affordable and sustainable energy technologies. At present burning kerosene for light and cooking over open fires damages women's health and limits their ability to engage in other work or education because they spend hours collecting wood.

It also costs them a lot of money -- up to 20% of their weekly expenditure. Solar panels, improved cooking stoves and LED lights can transform lives, create jobs and contribute to our collective low-carbon future and are clear examples how intelligent climate change policies do not lead to a gray and dull existence but the opposite: They lead to a brighter future.

I encourage all leaders to highlight the importance of gender throughout COP17 and at Rio+20 next year. We need to secure stronger references to the gender dimensions of climate change in the texts, institutions and mechanisms agreed by Parties to the Convention. Leaders informed by the experiences of grassroots women from around the world can and must make a difference.

I call on women to speak out and lead the way. We cannot wait, we have to act. Our children's and grandchildren's future is at stake.

Why women are the secret weapon to tackling climate change




Why women are the secret weapon to tackling climate change
Christiana Figueres, March 6, 2014 CNN.com

Editor's note: Christiana Figueres is the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Climate Change secretariat. Momentum for Change is a secretariat initiative that shines a light on women's leadership in addressing climate change. Follow Christiana Figueres on Twitter: @CFigueres

As countries around the world look to celebrate International Women's Day on Saturday, it is important to reflect on the unique position of women when it comes to climate change.

Although climate change affects all people, women often bear the brunt in places where the impacts of climate change are already being felt. This is due to their central role in their families and communities.

For example, most of the world's small-scale farmers are women, producing most of the food. This is especially true in developing countries where men often must leave their villages in search of work.

Climate change makes farming more difficult for these women. When crops fail due to flooding, drought or soil erosion, less food is produced and women are under pressure to feed their families.

To cook the food they can produce, fifty per cent of women around the world still burn wood, dung, coal and other traditional fuels for cooking inside their homes.

The resulting air pollution in unventilated homes releases high levels of black carbon, causing approximately 1.5 million deaths a year, mainly of women and children in the poorest communities in the world.

When the climate changes, women work harder and longer. As food, fuel and water become scarce, women have to walk farther to collect them. Long treks often put women at a greater risk of violence. All of this in regions where women are also the health care providers and caregivers in their families.

When extreme weather conditions do hit—something we're seeing with increased regularity—women suffer the most. This is often linked to their lack of rights. For example, many can't leave their homes during emergencies if they lack a male escort.

It's easy to label these women as victims, but what makes them vulnerable also makes them pivotal to climate change action. Whether in developing countries or in developed countries, women stand at the front lines in the battle against climate change: as providers of water, food, and energy or as leaders in businesses, communities and politics. Women are in a unique position to recognize some of the opportunities that climate change provides.

We recognized some of these women and the work they do to tackle climate change as part of the United Nations' Momentum for Change initiative at the Warsaw climate change conference last year.
For example, the Low Smoke Stoves Project is delivering health and economic benefits to households in the strife-torn region of Darfur, Sudan, where climate change, drought and desertification are a fact of life.

In Ghana, propelled by women's leadership, the Ghana Bamboo Bikes Initiative is tackling climate change and providing an income for women by training them to build and sell high-quality bamboo bicycles. In Guatemala, women farmers are planting trees to sequester carbon and improve farming techniques.

And in Australia, 1 Million Women has grown to become the country's largest women's environmental organization -- with a goal to get one million women to take small steps in their daily lives that shrink their carbon footprint.

These are all examples of action led by women who are already experiencing the effects of climate change and developing solutions to address them; solutions we will all increasingly depend upon as the impact of climate change spreads throughout the world.

These women are not only inspirational, they're entrepreneurs and trailblazers. But if they are to be true agents of change, real and measurable action at all levels must be ramped up.

Here are four steps we can take immediately that will increase equality for women worldwide, and lessen the severity of climate change.

First, we can reduce consumption patterns that have become incompatible with a sustainable future and instead invest in products that support low-carbon living.
These women are not only inspirational, they're entrepreneurs and trailblazers.
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Climate Change secretariat

Second, we can support the expansion of women's rights throughout the world as well as their leadership in climate-related activities.

Third, we can enable the transfer of technologies to developing countries to help establish renewable energy and build sustainable transportation. This includes technologies that will empower women to adapt to climate change.

Finally, we can encourage government representatives to achieve an international agreement on climate change backed up by national plans of action. This will have a positive and lasting effect for all people.

Let us then work together to inspire real change; change that empowers women and gives them central roles in the decision-making process and in their communities.

By recognizing the pivotal role women play in fighting climate change, we can achieve our aims faster and enhance the impact of our actions.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Global Climate Change Emergency




Global Climate Change Emergency - the Defining Issue for Our Time
moses seenarine, february 18, 2014
This paper argues there is a global climate change emergency. The focus is on increasing public awareness, examining the causes of climate change, and exploring some of its near-term effects. Remediation and possible solutions are not addressed.

Earth is on the inner edge of the habitable zone, and lies within 1% of inhabitability. A minor change in Earth’s atmosphere removes human habitat, and unfortunately, we’ve invoked major changes. Earth has warmed about 1 C since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The northern hemisphere is particularly susceptible to accelerated warming and summers in the northern hemisphere are already hotter than they’ve been for 600 years.

In the past, many human civilizations were ruined and radically transformed as a direct result of ecosystem collapse and catastrophic climate change. From Egypt to Easter Island, rapid habitat destruction and civilization crash have a common thread – male hegemony and patriarchal models of development.

Continuing a tragically misguided patriarchal tradition, modern economic and social development is male dominated, top-down, and dismissive of women and nature. Generating economic growth is paramount, and trumps sustainability and concerns about climate change. As in the past, across the globe, development activities that generate greenhouse gasses are intensifying, even as collapse of ecosystems is fully under way.

Once again, human civilization has reached a turning point in climate change and local and global catastrophic collapses can occur anytime without prior warning. But, in the face of mounting evidence of global warming, most governments, organizations and individuals view the threat of climate change as distant and irrelevant.

What Are Greenhouse Gases?

Even though only a tiny amount of the gases in Earth’s atmosphere are greenhouse gases, they have a huge effect on climate change. There are several different types of greenhouse gases. The major ones are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

All of these have molecules with three or more atoms. The atoms are held together loosely enough that they vibrate when they absorb heat. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will release the radiation. The radiation will likely be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. This process, which keeps heat near the Earth’s surface, is called the greenhouse effect.

Almost all of the other gases in Earth’s atmosphere are nitrogen and oxygen. The two atoms in these molecules are bound together tightly and unable to vibrate, so they cannot absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide has unique long-term effects on climate change that are largely "irreversible" for one thousand years after emissions stop even though carbon dioxide tends toward equilibrium with the ocean on a scale of 100 years. The greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide do not persist over time in the same way as carbon dioxide.

Carbon Dioxide
Natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide include volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, wildfires and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms. These natural sources are nearly balanced by natural sinks, physical and biological processes which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


Around 150-200 million years ago, CO2 atmospheric concentrations were around 3000 ppm. During periods of extreme warmth, sea levels were so high that 200 metre-deep shallow seas formed on continental land masses. CO2 levels slowly declined, and about 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 was about 760 ppm, and less than 300 ppm by about 20 million years ago.

Ice core reconstructions going back roughly 800,000 years show concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air around 200 ppm during the ice ages. The concentrations were about 280 parts per million, during the last several interglacial periods and from the most recent ice age to the mid-18th century, as the industrial revolution was getting under way in 1750. The records show that CO2 levels were fairly stable for millions of years, but it has been increasing at an increasing rate since 1750.


Man-made sources of carbon dioxide include the burning of fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport, as well as some industrial processes such as cement making. Almost a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities is absorbed by land areas, though this varies from year to year depending on large-scale drought and other factors. Another quarter is absorbed by the ocean.

Although approximately 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans, the remainder stays in the atmosphere for a century or longer. How fast carbon enters the atmosphere translates to the how fast temperature increases, but there is a four-decade lag between emissions and temperature rise.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. China and the United States each account for over 20% of global CO2 emissions. Russia, India and Japan contribute around 5% each.

In 2013, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were more than 43% higher above pre-industrial levels, in 1750, with a recent growth rate of between 2 and 4 ppm per year. In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes. Estimated carbon in global terrestrial vegetation increased from approximately 740 billion tons in 1910 to 780 billion tons in 1990. The environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a break-neck speed could be devastating.

Atmospheric carbon levels are current at just below 400 parts per million – a figure last seen during the Pliocene, between 5.3 and 2.6 million years ago. At that time, global temperatures were 2-3°C higher than today, and sea levels were several meters higher, due to partial melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.

Methane
Among the other greenhouse gases involved is methane, which has increased dramatically over the last century. Methane stays in the atmosphere for much less time than carbon dioxide (around a decade) and there is much less of it, but molecule for molecule, it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas. Methane release tracks closely with temperature rise throughout Earth history — specifically, Arctic methane release and rapid global temperature rise are interlinked— including a temperature rise up to about 1 C per year over a decade, according to data from ice cores.

Pre-industrial levels of Methane in the atmosphere were around 700 parts per billion. Methane concentrations rose about 1% a year in the 1980s. The concentrations leveled off beginning about 2000, and then began increasing again in 2007, to 1803 parts per billion in 2011. This figure is 1100 ppb higher than pre-industrial peak levels.


Methane rising from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean entering the atmosphere, reached levels as high as 2662 ppb in 2013. The total methane burden in the atmosphere now is 5Gt, and almost half of all global warming may have resulted from a 3Gt rise in methane since the 1750s.

Sediments underneath the Arctic Ocean hold vast amounts of methane. Just one part of the Arctic Ocean alone, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf holds up to 1700 Gt of methane. Significant quantities of methane are escaping from this shelf and a sudden release of just 3% of this amount could add over 50 Gt of methane to the atmosphere, and could be released at any time. Imagine the warming that will take place if the methane in the atmosphere was suddenly multiplied by 11. A 50-billion-tonne “burst” of methane could warm Earth by 1.3 C.

Seeps are also appearing in numerous locations off the eastern coast of the United States, leading to rapid destabilization of methane hydrates there. This is in addition to anthropogenic emissions of methane.

Other Greenhouse Gases
Other important greenhouse gases include nitrous oxide, near-surface ozone and water vapor, the most prevalent greenhouse gas. As global temperatures increase, more water vapor is released by oceans and lakes, and this in turn helps to increase temperatures further. This is one of many feedback loops that help to reinforce and intensify climate change.

The current global warming is not unprecedented. There evidence of other hyperthermal events in Earth's history, sudden rapid warmings that occurred during periods of more gradual warming.

Nine million years after an asteroid slammed into the YucatĆ”n Peninsula, setting off a cataclysm that most scientists now believe wiped out the dinosaurs, the Earth seems to have undergone another shock to the system. Earth was already much warmer than it is today. But as the Paleocene epoch gave way to the Eocene, it was about to get much warmer still—rapidly, radically warmer.

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)
The most studied hyperthermal is the PETM which occurred in the middle of a 10 million year period of gradual warming, 55 million years ago. During the PETM, around 5 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed gradually around 6°C - 9°C (11°F - 16°F) over 10,000 -20,000 years, around 0.025°C every 100 years.

However, Schaller and Wright contend that climate change occurred much more rapidly, following a doubling in CO2 levels. The surface of the ocean turned acidic over a period of weeks or months and global temperatures rose by 5 degrees centigrade – all in the space of about 13 years.

In the Paleocene the summer water temperature in the Arctic Ocean was already around 64 degrees Fahrenheit; during the PETM it shot up to around 74. Today the water at the deep seafloor is just above freezing; in the PETM it was in the 60s. Since the PETM occurred in an already warm climate (another thing that sets the PETM apart from modern warming), there was very little sea ice and glacial cover to melt, so sea level did not change dramatically.

Yet, the PETM brought on drought, catastrophic flooding, insect plagues, and a few extinctions. Ocean circulation reversed, oceans acidified, permafrost melted, peat lands, forests burned in wildfires which caused migration of land mammals, extinction of some benthic foraminifera minuscule organisms (forams for short), coral bleaching. Acidified ocean wiped out myriad life-forms, dissolving the shells of corals, clams, and forams.

When CO2 is injected into modern greenhouses, the plants grow more, but their protein content is lower, making their leaves less nutritious. The same may have happened in the hothouse world of the PETM - insects had to eat much more foliage just to fill up. The PETM leaves were also much smaller than those of their Paleocene ancestors, because rainfall had dropped by around 40 percent. When water gets scarcer, plants cut down on water loss by shrinking their leaves. During the PETM itself a strange thing also happened to some mammals - they got dwarfish. Horses shrank to the size of Siamese cats; as the carbon ebbed from the atmosphere, they grew larger again.

The PETM lasted more than 150,000 years, until the excess carbon was reabsorbed. After 56 million years primates, then the size of mice or rabbits, are directing the show. They have tamed other descendants of the PETM—horses, cows, pigs, sheep—and spread with them around the planet.

Tracking Climate Change
Earth's climate is dominated by amplifying feedbacks on time scales of 10-100,000 years and less. For this reason, Earth can be whipsawed between glacial and interglacial conditions by the small climate forcings caused by perturbations of Earth's orbit.

Changes in the Earth’s orbit and axis cooled the world over the past 10,000 years. This cooling would normally be expected to continue for at least another 1,000 years. And yet Arctic palaeoclimate records show that the period 1950-2000 was the warmest 50 year interval for 2,000 years. We should be cool, but we’re not. Why?

In 1960 the carbon dioxide concentration was 315 parts per million and in the 1960’s the concentration was increasing at 0.8 parts per million per year, in the 1980’s at 1.6 parts per million and from 2003 until 2011 inclusive it rose at 2.0 parts per year.

Today, fossil fuel burning is leading to 30 billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere every year, driving temperature up at an incredible rate. In 2010, fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2. By comparison, volcanoes release 0.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.


In 2012 carbon dioxide concentration rose 2.39 parts. Between July 2012 and July 2013 atmospheric carbon dioxide increased in concentration by 3.35 parts, by far the largest 12 month increase ever. This rate of increase is much faster than that which preceded the greatest extinction of life on earth 249 million years ago.

Atmospheric carbon levels are current at just below 400 parts per million. If the current rate of increase (2 ppm per year) continues, CO2 levels could reach 600 ppm by the end of this century; levels which ‘have not been seen for 24 million years.’ Should the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide be greater than about 3.1 parts per million then the world could probably enter a fast runaway event.

A relatively modest rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature results in significant sea level rise, while oceans become more acidic and less oxygenated. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels could result in temperature increases of between 3°C and 4.5°C, due to fast changes such as snow and ice melt, and the behavior of clouds and water vapor.

Feedback Loops
The transient climate response is inherently slow, due to the great inertia of the system, especially the ocean -- and that allows slow feedbacks to begin to operate while the fast ones are still growing. Unfortunately, slow feedbacks are amplifying on time scales that humans care about: decades, centuries, even millennia. Vegetation changes that occur as climate warms from today's situation will also have a significant amplifying effect, as forests move into tundra regions in North America and Eurasia. This feedback contributed to Pliocene warmth.

There are dozens of positive feedback loops affecting climate change, including: (1) methane hydrates are bubbling out the Arctic Ocean; (2) Siberian methane vents have increased in size from less than a meter across in the summer of 2010 to about a kilometer across in 2011; (3) methane is being released from the Antarctic, too; (4) warm Atlantic water is defrosting the Arctic as it shoots through the Fram Strait; (5) summer ice in the Antarctic is melting 10 times quicker than it was 600 years ago, with the most rapid melt occurring in the last 50 years; (6) Arctic ice is growing darker, hence less reflective; (7) Greenland ice is darkening; (8) surface meltwater draining through cracks in an ice sheet can warm the sheet from the inside, softening the ice and letting it flow faster; (9) cracking of glaciers accelerates in the presence of increased carbon dioxide; (10) exposure to sunlight increases bacterial conversion of exposed soil carbon, thus accelerating thawing of the permafrost; and (11) breakdown of the thermohaline conveyor belt is happening in the Antarctic as well as the Arctic, thus leading to melting of Antarctic permafrost.

Other feedback loops include: (12) loss of Arctic sea ice is reducing the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator, thus causing the jet stream to slow and meander; (13) ocean acidification leads to release of less dimethyl sulphide (DMS) by plankton. DMS shields Earth from radiation; (14) sea-level rise causes slope collapse, tsunamis, and release of methane; (15) rising ocean temperatures will upset natural cycles of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and phosphorus, hence reducing plankton; (16) earthquakes trigger methane release, and consequent warming of the planet triggers earthquakes; (17) mixing of the jet stream is a catalyst, too. High methane releases follow fracturing of the jet stream, accounting for past global-average temperature rises up to 16 C in a decade or two; (18) droughts, for example, in 2010 one in the Amazon triggered the release of more carbon than the United States; (19) peat in the world’s boreal forests is decomposing at an astonishing rate; (20) forest and bog fires are growing; and (21) invasion of tall shrubs warms the soil, hence destabilizes the permafrost.

Global Temperature Increase
Today, the globe is warming fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years, and we may have passed a tipping point in 2007, at about 0.76 C warming. Arctic sea-ice passed its tipping point, with the six lowest September ice extents have occurred in the last six years as the Arctic moves to sea-ice-free conditions in summer by summer 2016. But the Greenland Ice Sheet is not far behind. In 2012 Greenland crossed a threshold where for the first time we saw complete surface melting at the highest elevations in what we used to call the dry snow zone.

An average temperature increase beyond one degree C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage.

Ecosystems Already Affected
There is already significant sea ice decline, extreme drought, more wildfires, increase in glacier melt, more catastrophic floods, ocean acidification, sea level rise, shoreline erosion, etc. Oceans are more acid than they have been for eight million years and the rate of acidification is greater than it has been for 350 million years. Foraminifera have already decreased markedly in some areas, and coral is bleaching at a very rapid rate.

Penguins, polar bears, whales, seals, salmon, and orangutans are just a few of the mammals being impacted by anthropogenic climate change. While it was possible for land mammals to migrate to cooler regions in the PETM, man made infrastructure (roads, railways, cities, etc) will prevent them from doing so this time around.

IPPC 2014 Report
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. In their draft 2014 Report, they reported that there is risk of death and disruption in low-lying coastal zones; dangers of food insecurity, with risks of starvation greatest among the world’s poor; “severe harm” risks of flooding in cities; the collapse of ocean and land ecosystems and the food they provide; and deaths and illnesses caused by heat waves. Hundreds of millions of people will be affected by flooding, with many of them driven from their homes by the end of the century. The majority of those affected will live in Asia.

The biggest impacts from climate change will be felt on farms, which will endure worsening water shortages and will have to deal with shifting growing ranges. That’s going to make it harder to feed the world its staples of wheat, rice, and corn.

Climate change will reduce yields of major crops by up to two per cent each decade for the remainder of this century. (One of the reasons for this is that heat waves, which will become more common as the world warms, depress the yields of staple crops like corn.)

We are losing a major carbon sink as the forests - and indeed, all perennial vegetation on earth - is dying. It is being poisoned by tropospheric ozone. Ozone is invisible so most people don't even realize that the background level is inexorably rising. The persistent concentration is now at or over 40 ppb, in even very remote locations far from precursors - and that is the point at which plantlife becomes damaged when it absorbs ozone through the stomata. Commercial crops are reduced, everything from coffee to bananas to citrus and maple syrup. Annual crop yield and quality loss is measured in the billions of dollars worldwide, including essentials such as wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans.

Since the global population is projected to grow throughout the century—to eight billion by 2025, nine billion by 2050, and almost eleven billion by 2100 - this is obviously rather bad news. At the same time, the incidence of flooding, drought, and general weather-related mayhem will increase, and already-vulnerable populations will be pushed closer to the edge, or, quite possibly, over it. Conflict is bound to ensue. Climate change “will increasingly shape national security policies,” the report warns.

Meanwhile, as bad as things look for humans, the prognosis for non-humans is, in many ways, worse. A “large fraction” of terrestrial and freshwater species face elevated extinction risks. Under the most likely scenarios, many species “will not be able to move fast enough during the 21st century to track suitable climates”, and there is a chance that some ecosystems, including the Arctic tundra and the Amazon rainforest, will undergo “abrupt and irreversible change.”

Women and Climate Change
Women, as the majority of the world’s poor, are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Women are involved in, and dependent on livelihoods and resources that are put most at risk by climate change. Women produce 60 to 80 percent of the household food supply in most developing countries. They carry water, gather wood for fuel, and manage household resources worldwide. They are also the chief caregivers for victims of weather-related and other natural disasters.

As part of the world’s poor, women suffer most from erratic weather and its disruptions because they live in substandard housing in marginal land subject to drought or flood, or in crowded urban areas lacking essential services.

Further, climate change threatens to set back decades of progress and efforts made by women, who lack rights and access to resources and information vital to overcoming the challenges posed by climate change. Women are frequently excluded from processes and decisions relating to the use and management of natural resources, including those impacting on climate change. And male dominance and discrimination means women worldwide are the first to lose their homes and their jobs after weather-related disasters, and the last to receive credit, technical help and education on energy and resource conservation.
Potential Impacts in the Near Future
The rate of climate change clearly has gone beyond linear, as indicated by the presence of the myriad self-reinforcing feedback loops, and now threatens our species with extinction in the near term. Modern ecosystems are already struggling to adapt to their new, warmer environments. Given the rate of warming the globe is experiencing, it is likely that many ecosystems will be totally incapable of adapting.

Some potential impacts include degraded air and water quality, permafrost melting, global ocean circulation changes, more violent winter storms and spring tornado seasons, more intense hurricanes. There is plenty of ice to melt on our modern planet, and sea level may rise anywhere from 0.2 to 0.6 meters (0.7 to 2 feet) by the year 2100. The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today's levels.

The rising carbon dioxide levels will probably lead to rising global temperatures from about 2015 onwards which will cause more climatic disruption, especially severe droughts, and thus more carbon emissions almost certainly before 2020. This is going to occur at a time when the Arctic Ocean will probably become free of sea ice leading to a different set of runaway events which will coalesce with the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This will lead to societal collapse after rising global temperatures have caused severe droughts and a global famine at some time prior to 2040, but probably much sooner in about 2020 or in the 2020’s. Carana expects up to 20 C warming by 2050.

In much of China, India, southern Europe, and the United States, summer temperatures would average well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, night and day, year after year.

Uninhabitable Earth?
Looking ahead, if the rate of fossil-fuel burning continues to rise on a business-as-usual trajectory, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order 1500 ppm. The atmosphere will not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future.

Is it possible, with the present surface pressure of ~ 1 bar, for Earth's surface to become so hot that that the planet is practically uninhabitable by humans? Earth is not now near a runaway greenhouse effect situation, but studies do not provide a picture of where Earth is headed if all fossil fuels are burned.

If we should "succeed" in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C. At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive. Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working. Burning all fossil fuels could result in the planet being not only ice-free but human-free.

Conclusion
Just like prior episodes of ecosystem collapse, rapid climate change, and global warming, we are likely catapulting ourselves into a new geologic era, the post-Anthropocene. A male modern development paradigm is causing the sixth extinction, and we need to change this 10,000 year-old tradition of male dominance of women and nature in order to halt ecosystems decline and start to turn things around. Tens of millions of years from now, whatever becomes of humanity, the whole pattern of life on Earth may be radically different from what it would otherwise have been – as a direct result of patriarchal development and the way men desired to power their lives for a few centuries.

By moses seenarine, educator and activist

Selected Sources