Saturday, June 4, 2011

cycles, myth or reality.

Cycles, myth or reality, the Truth Lies. What is the connection with the earthly symbols?
Send us your views.























cycles, myth or reality. The Truth Lies. what is the connection with the earthly symbols?

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

World Park Antarctica


Background - February 25, 2010
The campaign to save Antarctica was one of our greatest lessons in the importance of impossible ambitions. The campaign began with little faith that we would ever achieve a complete protection of the Antarctic from looming oil and mineral interests. Yet with a combination of daring action, solid science, and political pressure, we achieved the goal of declaring the Antarctic a World Park. Here's the story of how it happened.
© Greenpeace/Steve Morgan
In 1985 Greenpeace embarked on perhaps its most ambitious campaign to date, a campaign that at its peak would swallow more than half of the organisation's total annual budget. Antarctica has become a unique place in the modern world, the only continent that remains relatively untouched by human interference and therefore arguably the only pristine wilderness left on Earth. For Greenpeace it seemed imperative to keep it that way. Some ecologists have even argued that Antarctica could provide important information for future generations seeking to reverse the environmental degradation wrought by humanity in the Twentieth Century.
Paradoxically, despite winds of up to 450 kilometres per hour and temperatures reaching -50C Antarctica has the most delicate ecosystem of any place on earth. Ever since humankind began to explore the continent, from Amundsen and Scott's famous battle to the South Pole onwards, it had been noted that Antarctic ecosystems take years to recover from damage if they recover at all: a footprint in the moss can linger for decades before it disappears. For scientists the lack of any indigenous industry also make the region an ideal place to monitor the global effects of pollution.
In 1958 the Antarctica Treaty was signed by eighteen countries, seven of which claimed a territorial stake in the region. The treaty recognised Antarctica as a unique scientific and planetary resource for the whole of mankind and protected it for 30 years. At a meeting of the Antarctica Treaty Nations in 1975, a delegation from New Zealand first put forward the idea that the continent should be given 'World Park' status and be governed by similar legislation that protects many National Parks around the globe. But the proposal met with a unfavourable reception from the other treaty nations in 1975. Later the idea was adopted as the bedrock of the Greenpeace Antarctica campaign.

There's oil under that ice

In the early 80's the threat of commercial exploitation of Antarctica loomed large for a number of reasons:  the continent, although today covered in ice, was thought to be rich in flora and fauna millions of years ago, strong evidence for the existence of oil and mineral deposits under the rock and ice; and technological advances have made it feasible to drill for oil in conditions of extreme cold. It seemed to environmentalists that the signatories to the Antarctic Treaty were all but lining up to start prospecting, and the prospects of stopping them looked slim.
The idea to plough resources into a campaign to make Antarctica a "World Park" was first suggested by Greenpeace in 1979. At first the plan was modest; some sort of radio station along the lines of 'Radio Free Europe' was discussed, but as more research was done it became apparent that the organisation would have to set up a permanent base on the ice if it was to have a voice at the Antarctica Treaty table where the continent's fate would ultimately be decided -- and to challenge national territorial claims with an argument that Antarctica should be preserved as a global commons, belonging to none.
copy-of-over-winterers-at-gree.jpg

Greenpeace World Park Base

The task was a daunting one. No non-governmental organisation had ever set up a base in Antarctica and there were many practical as well as political obstacles to overcome. Not least because countries that already had bases in the region were unanimously hostile to the idea of being Greenpeace's neighbour on the ice. Officially they made it known that they didn't want to mount rescue missions should something go wrong, but their antagonism also masked their reluctance to encourage outside scrutiny.
In 1985 it seemed that everyone's scepticism was justified. After months of preparation the worst weather conditions for 30 years prevented Greenpeace's Antarctic supply ship, the "Greenpeace", from reaching the continent. This failure sparked a major a debate within Greenpeace about whether it was justified to even continue the campaign. But in 1986 another attempt was mounted.
Once again the "Greenpeace" set out from New Zealand carrying in her hold a pre-fabricated base and supplies for the 4 volunteer over-winterers: a mechanic, a radio operator, a scientist and a doctor. For its second attempt the Greenpeace ship was equipped with a larger helicopter capable of a greater flying range in case they met with similar ice conditions that stymied the 1985 attempt. This time however the "Greenpeace" was able to moor just 200 metres from the shore of Ross Island, the chosen location for the organisation's permanent base on the ice. Construction began in earnest in the summer of January 1987 and 'World Park Base' was completed and fully operational just three weeks later.
The base featured individual sleeping quarters, a communal living room, bath room and shower, a laboratory facility, communications equipment and a hydroponics greenhouse so that vegetables could be grown to supplement the diets of the over-winterers. One of the campaign objectives was to make 'World Park Base' a model for good ecological practice in the region, so every effort was made to ensure that it met the high standards necessary to lessen the impact of human beings on the delicate ecosystem. The tasks of the over-winterers during their year on the ice included monitoring pollution from the neighbouring bases of McMurdo owned by the USA (which was the size of a small town) and Scott Base owned by New Zealand.
greenpeace-protest-against-was.jpg

Watchdogs on the ice

Greenpeace had a permanent base in Antarctica for a total of 5 years from 1987 to 1991, the professionalism of its operation gradually earning the respect of other Antarctica Treaty Nations. With each annual re-supply, World Park Base's facilities were gradually improved, better satellite communication was installed and a wind power generator lessened reliance on nonrenewable resources. In 1987 A new ship was purchased, a former icebreaker christened "Gondwana" by the campaign, it replaced the "Greenpeace" as the supply vessel.
But the re-supply of World Park Base was only part of the Antarctica campaign. In its annual trips to the ice the Gondwana toured bases in the region to monitor how closely they adhered to Antarctic Treaty regulations concerning the environmental impact of such facilities. Many scandals came to light forcing the treaty nations to clean up their act. In the 1987/88 season Greenpeace made headlines around the world when 15 protesters blocked the building site for a French airstrip at Dumont D'Urville. The construction work was controversial because it involved dynamiting the habitats of nesting penguins and even French scientists admitted an airstrip violated the terms of the Antarctica Treaty. On the day of the protest French construction workers reacted angrily to a Greenpeace demonstration staged on the site of the airstrip, the workers forcibly evicted the protesters and smashed up a hut Greenpeace had erected, but despite continuing threats of violence, the protesters returned to occupy the landing strip for a second day. The French later abandoned plans to build the airstrip.

Lobbyists in the halls

In the seven years of the campaign Greenpeace went from being perceived as almost a despised outsider in the affairs of the Antarctica Treaty Nations to a respected player in negotiations for the future of the continent. In 1989 the "Exxon Valdez" oil spill in Alaska severely undermined the oil company's argument that drilling in ecologically sensitive areas could be conducted in a safe environmentally friendly manner. Greenpeace offices worldwide lobbied their governments to take a responsible position on protecting the Antarctic, joining forces with other non-governmental organisations and eliciting support from global personalities including Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, Jacques Cousteau, and Ted Turner.  

World Park Antarctica declared!

Gradually more and more of the Treaty signatories were persuaded of the merits of making Antarctica a World Park. In 1991 the members of the Antarctic Treaty agreed to adopt a new Environmental Protocol, including a 50-year minimum prohibition on all mineral exploitation.  
Antarctica had been saved from a deadly threat.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

2011: The year of forests for people – and people for forests

Blogpost by John Bowler - February 2, 2011 at 12:51Add comment

Greenpeace activists work with the Deni people of the Amazon. Image: Greenpeace / Daniel Beltrá
The United Nations has labelled 2011 the International Year of Forests. The slogan is “Celebrating Forests for People”. It's a nice slogan. But does it mean anything? Will it bring us closer to protecting the forests and the people and biodiversity that depend on them? Let's hope so.
Forests are important for a number of reasons - but today it’s their role in helping to prevent climate change that gets the most attention. Simply put, forests store nearly 300 billion tonnes of carbon in their living parts. This is roughly 40 times the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuels. Deforestation accounts for more climate pollution than all the world's cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships combined. So, from a climate point of view it’s better to keep the GHGs where they are by preserving and protecting the forests.
In international negotiations, primarily at the UNFCCC talks, this is known as reducing emissions from tropical deforestation and degradation – what policy experts abbreviate as “REDD”. The concept is fairly simple: rich, developed countries provide funding to help developing countries protect their forests and invest in clean, green development. In the process, the entire world benefits because forests and the ecosystems they form are beyond doubt essential for the survival of life on Earth.
Yet in our haste to mitigate climate change, we mustn’t forget the indigenous peoples and other communities who live in and depend upon forests for survival. So, most certainly lets actively pursue the slogan ‘celebrating forests for people’ whilst at the same time inspiring ‘people for forests’ – because we all need to work together to make sure forests are protected.
We must also remember the other important benefits bestowed by forests. Tropical forests are one of the greatest storehouse of nature's diversity on Earth, over half of all land-based species of plants and animals view the forest as home. Forests regulate water flow and rainfall so we depend on them to grow our crops and food. Loss of a forest in one part of the world can have severe impacts in another part of the globe - scientists have found that loss of forest in Amazonia and Central Africa can severely reduce rainfall in the US Midwest. And much, much more.
For Greenpeace, every year is a year to celebrate forests for people – and people for forests. I've been an environmental campaigner for 30 years now, and forests and their protection hold a special significance for me. I've always thought that their importance can best be summed up by an old Cree prophecy: "Only after the last tree has been cut down ... only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." We campaign to protect forests because of the vast range of amazing biodiversity they support, because they capture and contain climate changing greenhouse gases and - last but not least - because without healthy thriving forests, planet Earth cannot sustain life.
So let’s all take action to protect forests in 2011 and celebrate them this and every year.

Swimming accessories presented to Russian Governor for a swim in the Neva River

Blogpost by Alexey Kiselev - February 2, 2011 at 17:41Add comment
This morning Greenpeace activists brought a very unusual gift to the Governor of St. Petersburg – a set of swimming accessories: beach towel, air bed, diving pipe, underwater mask, flippers and beach umbrella. Also attached to the gift was a set of measures on what needs to be done to make the Neva River clean and safe for swimming.
Two weeks ago the Governor of St. Petersburg Mrs. Valentina Matvienko announced that in 2012 the Neva River and the Gulf of Finland waters will be so clean that it will be possible to swim there. But unfortunately without adequate measures from state and business only a miracle can make the Governor’s dream come true in such a short period of time.
It is the fifth year of the Clean Neva campaign in St. Petersburg. During this time we have sampled water and sediment, set up independent water monitoring, and pushed the government to implement effective measures to make the Neva River. It has been us, not the state authorities, who have highlighted pollution crimes. While bureaucrats only see the Neva from the windows of luxury cars, Greenpeace activists have patrolled dozens of discharges contaminating the river.
The Governor’s announcement about safe swimming seems to reveal either that the Governor does not possess the accurate information about the situation, or else is intentionally misleading the population. And this is the why we decided to visit her office with a symbolic gift.
Several times we have appealed to city fathers and mothers to join efforts to save the river: we invited the Governor to a “Hidden St. Petersburg boat tour” to see the real pollution, we forwarded her an appeal from thousands of Peterburgers demanding she stop the pollution, and many times she was given our proposals on how to solve this sad situation. We proposed she meet with us at any time convenient for her, but until now it seems she has had much more important things to do than the care for the health of the people who get their drinking water from the Neva on a daily basis.
The Neva River is a symbol of St. Petersburg and a single water source for millions of people. But the Neva River is not only a water supply, it is a dumping ground for untreated discharges – ranging from little underwater fountains to huge concrete pipes with constantly flowing toxic liquids. All wastewater – whether it is household or industrial – flows into a single sewer system and is transported to large municipal treatment plants which are only capable of treating household wastewaters – not industrial pollutants.
Treating industrial wastewater is very complicated as there is a need to apply many different methods to remove thousands of contaminants. There is no “magic pill” capable of removing all hazardous substances from industrial wastewaters.
As a result there are a lot of hazardous substances being discharged by the municipal wastewater treatment plants. And the authorities know about this. They denied a request from Greenpeace Russia to do joint sampling for hazardous substances from St. Petersburg wastewater treatment plants. But it did not stop us from taking samples from these pipes in other ways, where we found such substances as phatalates, phenols, chloroform, dichloromethane, and heavy metals.
But there is a solution for the ongoing contamination of the Neva River. Even if we stopped all the toxic discharges one year is not enough to make river clean, but it is enough to decrease dramatically the negative impact of contaminated wastewater. Today, this measure has been presented to the Governor by Greenpeace Russia.
Our position is that a first step should be reducing the generation of contaminated wastewaters rather than spending time and money trying to transport the wastewaters out of the St. Petersburg city center. The real solution is clean production. City authorities have to encourage enterprises to use the best available technologies to achieve clean production.
Only a clean production approach together with real state environmental controls can reduce or eliminate the hazardous substances being discharged into the Neva River via the municipal sewers and actually make the river safe for swimming and drinking. Hopefully our gift of swimming accessories to the Governor will encourage her to take the action necessary to truly clean up the Neva.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Big Cat Cub Photos -- National Geographic

Big Cat Cub Photos -- National Geographic
Photo: An African lion
Photograph by Beverly Joubert

About the Initiative

From lions in Kenya to snow leopards in the Himalaya, the big cats of the world need help. Lionstigers,cheetahsleopardsjaguars, and other top felines are quickly disappearing, all victims of habitat loss and degradation as well as conflicts with humans.

To address this critical situation, the National Geographic Society has launched the Big Cats Initiative, a comprehensive program that supports on-the-ground conservation projects, education, and economic incentive efforts and a global public-awareness campaign. “We no longer have the luxury of time when it comes to big cats,” says National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Dereck Joubert. “They are in such a downward spiral that if we hesitate now, we will be responsible for extinctions across the globe. If there was ever a time to take action, it is now.” You can help us make a difference. Your donation can help save a big cat and ensure the Earth is not without these majestic creatures. Please donate today! You also can help by signing up for Big Cats Initiative updates with the Geo-Link Newsletter.

First Step: Halting Decline of Lions

Lions are dying off rapidly across Africa. These cats once ranged across the continent and into Syria, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and even northwest India; 2,000 years ago more than a million lions roamed the Earth. Since the 1940s, when lions numbered an estimated 400,000, lion populations have blinked out across the continent. Now they may total as few as 20,000 animals. Scientists connect the drastic decreases in many cases to burgeoning human populations. The Big Cats Initiative aims to halt lion population declines by the year 2015 and to restore populations to sustainable levels.

Who’s Involved

The Big Cats Initiative is made up of conservationists led by National Geographic Explorers-in-Residence Dereck and Beverly Joubert. Having lived and worked in some of Africa’s most remote areas for more than 25 years as authors and filmmakers, the Jouberts have embraced the cause of wildlife conservation, especially for big cats. They are active conservationists in Botswana, members of the IUCN Lion Working Group, and founding members of the Chobe Wildlife Trust and of Conservation International in Botswana. The Jouberts also work in ecotourism and on building community partnerships.

Partners and Funders Sought

National Geographic will collaborate with local and international NGOs, corporations, local community groups, and individuals to work with saving lions and ensuring the future of this multiyear initiative.