Hello All,
Some of you might already know that the Tomorrow's Leaders Project that managed this blog for the past 9 months, has officially ended.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support and enthusiasm. A special thought for those who worked with us on events and campaigns.
For those of you who aren't familiar with us and our work, well, its not too late! While the TP won't exist anymore, there are still hundreds of Sustainability related things that you can do at Westminster.
There is good news though... the Sustainability department at Westminster will be continuing its good work, and will have bigger better projects in the future, some of which are already in their first phase.
For more information, please see: wwww.wmin.ac.uk/sustainability
Also this blog will remain in cyberspace and continue to be updated with loads of debates, questions, concerns and information on Sustainability.
So it's with a heavy heart that we at Tomorrow's Leaders say goodbye, and hope that are paths cross again soon.
Until then, keep green and we hope that this end is a beginning of a lot more.
Over and Out!
Shelby and Gayatri
The Tomorrow's Leaders Project
Tuesday 15 December 2009
Thursday 10 December 2009
Tuesday 8 December 2009
Of Tropical Paradises and Sustainable Futures
Hawaii's six main islands are quickly becoming a green laboratory for the rest of America and perhaps the world. With a startlingly diverse array of energy experiments and projects underway, Hawaii is well on its way to establishing a renewable energy future and reduce its dependance on fossil fuels. Each islands has its own renewable energy accent: waves in Maui, wind in Lanai and Molokai, solar panels in Oahu and eventually crops grown from biomass energy in Kauai.
Hawaii needs renewable energy to reduce the cost of energy to its citizens, avoid the negative economic effects of volatile oil prices, reduce its overdependence on oil, and increase its energy security by reducing imports from overseas. Renewable energy can grow new industries in Hawaii, provide jobs and income for its citizens, and protect its environment, which is also the basis of its economy. Hawaii’s citizens pay the nation’s highest energy costs. This is in part due to the fact that Hawaii is the most oil-dependent of the 50 states. The Hawaiian Islands have no fossil fuel resources and do not import natural gas.
Given its location in pacific, its tropical climate and the fact that it benefits from a large variety of natural resources favourable to the production and widespread use of renewable energy (waves, wind, sun and biomass), Hawaii is a perfect place to implement renewable energy models. Moreover, its climate being similar to that of other developing nations, the significance of these experiments to the wider world is quite important. Successful models can be mainstreamed, and implemented elsewhere and thereby contribute to one of the most problematic points in the Copenhagen agenda: reducing fossil fuel dependency and carbon emissions in the developing world.
However, about three decades ago a similar renewable energy plan was formulated by the Hawaiin govermnent, that never saw light of day. Hopefully, thirty years on the pressing need to combat climate change is greater than political complacency.
Hawaii needs renewable energy to reduce the cost of energy to its citizens, avoid the negative economic effects of volatile oil prices, reduce its overdependence on oil, and increase its energy security by reducing imports from overseas. Renewable energy can grow new industries in Hawaii, provide jobs and income for its citizens, and protect its environment, which is also the basis of its economy. Hawaii’s citizens pay the nation’s highest energy costs. This is in part due to the fact that Hawaii is the most oil-dependent of the 50 states. The Hawaiian Islands have no fossil fuel resources and do not import natural gas.
Given its location in pacific, its tropical climate and the fact that it benefits from a large variety of natural resources favourable to the production and widespread use of renewable energy (waves, wind, sun and biomass), Hawaii is a perfect place to implement renewable energy models. Moreover, its climate being similar to that of other developing nations, the significance of these experiments to the wider world is quite important. Successful models can be mainstreamed, and implemented elsewhere and thereby contribute to one of the most problematic points in the Copenhagen agenda: reducing fossil fuel dependency and carbon emissions in the developing world.
However, about three decades ago a similar renewable energy plan was formulated by the Hawaiin govermnent, that never saw light of day. Hopefully, thirty years on the pressing need to combat climate change is greater than political complacency.
Thursday 3 December 2009
Oh Copenhagen!
"This is the generation that must stop the spread of the pollution that is lowly killing our planet... Rolling back the tide of a warming planet is a responsibility that we have to ourselves, to our children to all of those who will inherit creation long after we are gone."
- Barack Obama, April 2009.
From the 7th to the 18th of December, the officials, environment ministers and leaders of the world's most powerful nations will once again convene at Copenhagen to discuss quite literally the planet's future and how as nations a greener world can be created for this and future generations.
Naturally, with every country pulling its weight to ensure that policy decided upon at Copenhagen is suitable to their own realities, the summit has the reputation of turning into a business as usual situation more often than not ending in a deadlock (such as over the issue of funding green technology for developing nations).
After 2 meetings at Bonn, 1 at New York, another in Bangkok and yet another in Barcelona, this year alone, the lead up to Copenhagen has been dynamic to say the least. For all those who are still wondering, these are the key tasks ahead for Copenhagen not to turn into one of the biggest political failures.
1. Setting binding targets to reduce carbon emissions. So far the US, EU, India and China have all tables offers of reducing their carbon emissions. Whether these are implementable remains to be seen, as does the issue of accountability.
2. Green Funds and Technology should be established to encourage low carbon emissions in developing countries. This hotly debated issue of who picks up the bill is one of the key areas of conflict at Copenhagen.
3. Developing Countries need to take anti-deforestation actions that are associated with emissions and consequently commit to 30% lower emissions than what they are currently projecting by 2020. Once again a bone of major contention, the question remains how can these countries afford to implement greener economies when they are not at par with richer nations? Can we expect the same type of commitment to greening the planet from countries that have complicated histories (often further complexified by the effects of colonisation) and pressing issues such as civil war, starvation and hunger, conflict and other endemics, not to mention poor economic development?
4. Rich nations need to leverage more support and finance to green the planet
5. All countries must agree that global emissions must be at least 80% lower than 1990 levels by 2050.
Somehow reminiscent of an armchair revolution, these talks have been alive for the best part of the decade, and it seems that most agree on most of the points. The crucial question of HOW is yet to be answered. Perhaps the old and wise of the world woud consider third sector involvement that bypasses counter productive political nerve endings.
- Barack Obama, April 2009.
From the 7th to the 18th of December, the officials, environment ministers and leaders of the world's most powerful nations will once again convene at Copenhagen to discuss quite literally the planet's future and how as nations a greener world can be created for this and future generations.
Naturally, with every country pulling its weight to ensure that policy decided upon at Copenhagen is suitable to their own realities, the summit has the reputation of turning into a business as usual situation more often than not ending in a deadlock (such as over the issue of funding green technology for developing nations).
After 2 meetings at Bonn, 1 at New York, another in Bangkok and yet another in Barcelona, this year alone, the lead up to Copenhagen has been dynamic to say the least. For all those who are still wondering, these are the key tasks ahead for Copenhagen not to turn into one of the biggest political failures.
1. Setting binding targets to reduce carbon emissions. So far the US, EU, India and China have all tables offers of reducing their carbon emissions. Whether these are implementable remains to be seen, as does the issue of accountability.
2. Green Funds and Technology should be established to encourage low carbon emissions in developing countries. This hotly debated issue of who picks up the bill is one of the key areas of conflict at Copenhagen.
3. Developing Countries need to take anti-deforestation actions that are associated with emissions and consequently commit to 30% lower emissions than what they are currently projecting by 2020. Once again a bone of major contention, the question remains how can these countries afford to implement greener economies when they are not at par with richer nations? Can we expect the same type of commitment to greening the planet from countries that have complicated histories (often further complexified by the effects of colonisation) and pressing issues such as civil war, starvation and hunger, conflict and other endemics, not to mention poor economic development?
4. Rich nations need to leverage more support and finance to green the planet
5. All countries must agree that global emissions must be at least 80% lower than 1990 levels by 2050.
Somehow reminiscent of an armchair revolution, these talks have been alive for the best part of the decade, and it seems that most agree on most of the points. The crucial question of HOW is yet to be answered. Perhaps the old and wise of the world woud consider third sector involvement that bypasses counter productive political nerve endings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
