SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RMF who wrote (260)6/13/2008 11:20:07 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3816
 
Nature laid waste: The destruction of Africa

The massive scale of environmental devastation across the continent has been fully revealed for the first time in an atlas compiled by UN geographers. Michael McCarthy reports

Wednesday, 11 June 2008

It was long shrouded in mystery, called "the Dark Continent" by Europeans in awe of its massive size and impenetrable depths. Then its wondrous natural riches were revealed to the world. Now a third image of Africa and its environment is being laid before us – one of destruction on a vast and disturbing scale.



Using "before and after" satellite photos, taken in all 53 countries, UN geographers have constructed an African atlas of environmental change over the past four decades – the vast majority of it for the worse.

In nearly 400 pages of dramatic pictures, disappearing forests, shrinking lakes, vanishing glaciers and degraded landscapes are brought together for the first time, providing a deeply disturbing portfolio of devastation.

The atlas, compiled by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) at the request of African environment ministers, and launched yesterday simultaneously in Johannesburg and London, underlines how extensively development choices, population growth, regional conflicts and climate change are impacting on the natural world and the nature-based assets of the continent.

The satellite photos, some of them spanning a 35-year period, offer striking snapshots of environmental transformation in every country.

The purpose of the atlas is to inspire African governments to improve their records as environmental custodians, and as such, its language and tone are studiously neutral, generally referring to environmental "change" rather than destruction. But although there are some examples given of change for the better, the vast majority of the case studies are of large-scale environmental degradation, and the atlas compilers freely accept that this represents the true picture.

They write of "the swell of grey-coloured cities over a once-green countryside; protected areas shrinking as farms encroach upon their boundaries; the tracks of road networks through forests; pollutants that drift over borders of neighbouring countries; the erosion of deltas; refugee settlements scattered across the continent causing further pressure on the environment; and shrinking mountain glaciers."

For its visual impact, the atlas takes advantage of the latest space technology and Earth observation science, including the 36-year-old legacy of the US Landsat satellite programme, demonstrating the potential of satellite data in monitoring ecosystems and changes to them.

The "before and after" shots show vividly just how vast the changes have been, not only since the first Landsat satellite in 1972, but on much shorter timescales. Deforestation is shown not only as mass forest disappearance in countries such as Rwanda, but also as the insidious spread of logging roads through once entirely untouched rainforests in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the replacement of natural forest by bright green rubber and palm plantations in Cameroon.

Urban spread is illustrated not only by the dramatic expansion of the Senegalese capital Dakar over the past half century, from a small urban centre at the tip of the Cape Verde peninsula, to a metropolitan area with 2.5 million people spread over the entire peninsula, but by the rapid development of a small town like Bangassou in the Central Africa republic, now beginning to affect the nearby forest.

Shrinkage of mountain glaciers is shown only in the well-known case of Mount Kilimanjaro, but also in the disappearing glaciers in Uganda's Rwenzori mountains, which decreased by 50 per cent between 1987 and 2003. And to the well-known cases of the drying up of Lake Chad, and falling water levels in Lake Victoria, the atlas adds new cases of disappearing water bodies like the drying up of Lake Faguibine in Mali, as well as many examples of desertification, unsustainable large-scale irrigation and degraded coastal areas.

Put it all together and you have a picture that is hard to credit, so enormous is the destruction. Statistically, the atlas finds that deforestation is a major concern in no fewer than 35 African countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Nigeria and Malawi, among others. Africa is losing more than four million hectares of forest every year – twice the world's average deforestation rate.

That problem is closely followed in significance by major loss of biodiversity [wildlife] which is occurring in 34 countries, such as Angola, Ethiopia, Gabon and Mali. Land degradation is similarly a major worry for 32 countries, including Cameroon, Eritrea and Ghana, with some areas across the continent said to be losing more than 50 metric tonnes of soil per hectare per year.

The atlas shows that erosion, as well as chemical and physical damage, have degraded about 65 per cent of the continent's farmlands. In addition, slash-and-burn agriculture is adding to the number of wildfires which are naturally caused by Africa's high prevalence of lightning.

Rapidly rising populations account for one of the principal pressures on the natural resource base. Between 2000 and 2005, the atlas says, Africa's population grew by 2.32 per cent annually – nearly double the global rate of 1.24 per cent per year. Twenty of the 30 fastest growing countries in the world are in Africa, including Liberia, which has the highest annual growth rate – 4.8 per cent – of any country in the world. In the next half century Africa will have twice the population growth rate of any other region. This means that more and more land must be devoted to agriculture, but as the amount of available land is limited, the amount available per person is swiftly shrinking. The atlas points out that in 1950 there were 13.5 hectares of land per person in Africa, but by 1990 this had shrunk to 4.7 hectares per person and by 2005 to 3.2 hectares per person – while on present population growth estimates, by 2050 the amount will be 1.5 hectares per person.

And now, it says, climate change is emerging as a driving force behind many of these problems and is likely to intensify the "already dramatic transformations" taking place. Although Africa's 965 million people produce only 4 per cent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions, they are likely to suffer disproportionately from the consequences of global warming, not least because African nations' ability to adapt to climate change is relatively low.

One of the key points the atlas makes is that environmental degradation is likely to have a higher human cost in Africa than in other regions, as people on the continent live in closer relation to the natural world than elsewhere: they are often directly dependent on the environment.

It was for African governments themselves to address the problem, said Marion Cheatle, chief of UNEP's Early Warning Branch, who introduced the atlas in London. "In many places you have a problem of policies being enforced. Not that policies and legislative instruments [to protect the African environment] are not in place, but very often they're only on paper, and they don't have the management to follow that really should be in place."

independent.co.uk



To: RMF who wrote (260)7/25/2008 4:52:05 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 3816
 
Has India just signed away its sovereignty?

============================

India's nuclear battle
Nick Harvey

Published 25 July 2008

3 comments Print version Listen RSS As George Bush urges India to push ahead with a highly controversial civil nuclear deal corruption allegations have only heightened suspicions on the subcontinent

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been under US pressure to endorse a controversial nuclear power deal
US President George W Bush has urged India's Prime Minister Manmahan Singh to push ahead with a controversial deal on nuclear power between the two countries in the wake of a key confidence vote in New Delhi.

The issue has divided opinion as supporters argue it is the only way to keep pace with the energy demands of India's fast-growing economy. But many remain deeply suspicious of a deal they fear will cede too much influence to America.

“The whole thing is not about what is best for the Indian people,” said Samil Kumar, a businessman from Calcutta. “It is about lining the pockets of politicians on both sides of this filthy covenant.”

For though India’s government may have survived this week's vote of confidence the win was marred by serious corruption allegations pouring fuel on the fire of already flaming suspicion.

The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came through by an unexpectedly high margin of 19 votes. Yet only hours before the vote took place there were scenes of high drama in the Lok Sabha parliament building when members of the opposing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) marched up to the secretary general’s table and began pulling out large bundles of cash from a black holdall. They claimed the money, totalling 10 million rupees (£118,000) was the first installment of a 90 million rupee (£1.1 million) bribe paid to the party by government supporting politicians to ensure three BJP members would abstain from the crucial vote.

The vote was triggered after the government’s left-wing allies withdrew their support for the nuclear deal struck with the US in 2005. The pact will give India, which has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, access to US nuclear technology and fuel for civilian use. In return, India’s civilian nuclear facilities would be opened to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Those in favour of the deal argue it will help meet India’s escalating energy demands:

“Our economy has been growing at a rate of 8-9% over the last decade,” says Vishal Budda, an engineer from Delhi. “We simply need nuclear energy to keep the momentum running.”

Yet many Indians are suspicious of America’s interest as well as its intentions.

“This deal will just make us a junior partner of the U.S.,” says Vikram Mittal, President of the Haryana Student Federation of India. “America is trying to hijack our foreign and national policies. First it will be the nuclear deal, then it will be agricultural deals, then education- before we know it we will be another puppet of the U.S.”

India is under pressure from Washington to sign the accord before the U.S. presidential elections in November. Some think this pressure is an indication that America will be the real winners from this agreement.

“This deal will generate over 100 billion dollars worth of business for the U.S,” says Bhadra Kumar, a left-wing diplomat. “And it will also give them more power to maintain there dominance over the Muslim world if India is a close ally. But what do we get? Expensive power when our people are already going hungry.”

Many on the left suspect the deal has nothing to do with India’s energy needs.

“Nuclear power provides only 3 per cent of India’s current energy and this will not change massively in the near future,” says Mohammed Thallath, student of International Relations. “We have an abundance of natural resources here as well as energy security through the supply of gas from Iran. No, this is all about money - it may generate business for India but more importantly it will generate massive kickbacks for the politicians.”

India is indeed only too familiar with such corruption. A study by the campaign group Transparency International in 2005 found that more than 50 per cent of Indians had firsthand experience of paying a bribe or peddling influence to get a job done in public office. Even before the thick bundles of cash were waved around in the parliament building on Tuesday, there had been serious allegations of foul-play surrounding this vote. A week before, the leader of the Communist Party, A.B. Bhardan, argued it was no secret that votes were being exchanged for large amounts of money: “It is not a question of a few million but more than 250 million rupees (£3 million) for this horsetrading,” he said at a public meeting last week.

It is an indication of the importance of the deal with the US that both those in favour as well as those against the agreement have been trying desperately to woo members of parliament with promises of influence and lucrative jobs. One prominent MP, Ajit Singh, was even offered to have an airport named after his father, Charan Singh, a former prime minister. The government insisted the timing of this offer was purely coincidental.

As well as the cash, the BJP claim to have hidden camera footage of a member of the government-supporting Samajwadi Party (SP) handing them the money.

SP leader Amar Singh, one of the MP’s being accused, insists the allegations are baseless: “This is a conspiracy by the BJP. If they have such a tape why don’t they just show it?”

If the accusations are proven to be true it will prove a massive embarrassment for the government and its allies and those involved could face lengthy prison sentences under the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act.

The BJP may be taking the high moral ground this time but the party is no stranger to corruption allegations itself. In 2001, the BJP’s president at the time, Bangaru Laxman, was caught on film casually accepting the equivalent of a £1500 bribe to give the go-ahead for the Indian military to buy hand-held thermal imaging cameras from journalists posing as arms dealers.

This high profile sting exposed an intricate web of official corruption which ran vertically to almost the very top of Indian politics. But after the initial uproar things soon returned to normal, the defence minister resigned only to be reinstated, and it became clear exposure made little difference.

The Indian government may have won its confidence vote but many Indians feel the chaotic scenes shown on Tuesday from inside the parliament, the first time a vote of this kind had been fully covered live on television, have left a permanent stain on India’s reputation as the world’s largest democracy.

“It is so embarrassing,” says Monika Mehra, a shop worker from Delhi. “The whole world was watching that circus, I can only guess what they must be thinking about our country.”