After the Earth Summit, young people push for real change

By Lisa Curtis

Young people protested at the Earth Summit in Rio last month. (Photo courtesy of Adopt a Negotiator.)

There are two ways to respond when you watch the world’s leaders attempt to solve the planet’s most pressing problems and fail: You can despair or you can raise hell.

After watching the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen collapse, many bright-eyed young people despaired, suffering through months of what can only be described as a “Hopenhagen” hangover. More recently, when the diplomats at the Rio+20 Earth Summit produced a policy document with all the weight of a fluffy pink cloud, we watched the cloud pass and decided to get down to business.

I attended Rio+20 as the communications coordinator for SustainUS, an entirely youth-run and volunteer-led nonprofit that helps U.S. youth sort through the alphabet soup of the United Nations and push for meaningful change at conferences like Rio+20. It was truly inspiring to be entrusted with the stories of young people across the globe.

For so many of us, sustainability isn’t something we do in our free time; it’s a way of life. It’s an identity that cuts across national boundaries and issue areas, an identity that’s gaining popularity under the term “ecological citizenship.” So it is all the more frustrating when world leaders can’t seem to keep up. On the second-to-last day of Rio+20, young people organized a “people’s plenary” to make our voices heard and then walked out of the conference center after symbolically ripping up the summit’s final “outcome document.”

Unlike many of the gray-haired negotiators, we can’t afford to let our system continue to fail. We’re coming of age in a time of rising inequality, staggering rates of global unemployment [PDF], severe declines in natural resources, and this fun little thing called climate change that even scientists funded by Big Oil can’t seem to deny. Many of my peers and I have come to see this doom and gloom as an incredible opportunity to change the way the world works.

I’ve seen the green economy lift up communities in my own work with Solar Mosaic in Oakland, Calif. Through our crowdfunding platform for solar projects, we’ve managed to save local nonprofits thousands of dollars on their utility bills while creating green jobs and clean energy. We’ll be scaling up the platform even further soon.

And I’m not the only one who has seen the need to change the way the system works. Reverberating through the Occupy movement that encamped in cities worldwide, the Arab Spring that toppled dictatorships, and now even murmuring from the conference halls of the United Nations, is the idea that economic growth — the topic that sucked up most of the energy and air at the official Earth Summit — hasn’t translated into increased well-being for much of the world.

In fact, while the final Earth Summit agreement contains some rainbows and sunshine about “recognizing the need for broader measures of progress,” the push for a new way of thinking about progress dominated discussions at many of the side events run by environmental and social justice groups. As many of the lecturers pointed out, there was a unique combination of factors that led to the formation of gross domestic product, or GDP, as the global indicator of choice: American hegemony after World War II, a strong focus on economic growth as a means of reconstructing Europe, a perceived abundance of natural resources, and the strong belief that economic growth would lift all boats. Clearly, we now live in a different world.

As the old adage goes, “what gets measured, gets managed,” and our sole focus on the production of goods and services has led us to a system that optimizes economic efficiency at the expense of our social and economic values. This isn’t a new idea. Decades ago President John F. Kennedy pointed out that GDP (and its corollary GNP) count numerous destructive activities as economic positives:

The Gross National Product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and jails for the people who break them. GNP includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior … GNP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile …

Now, people young and old are beginning to push for a new framework for defining progress. The famous economist Jeffery Sachs gathered crowds at Rio when he gave speeches warning that by failing to account for the things that make us well-off and satisfied, our current metrics of progress will lead us over a cliff. Karma Tshiteem, Bhutan’s National Secretary of Happiness, lectured to hundreds of civil society members on how the tiny Himalayan country’s Gross National Happiness indicator can serve as a model for the world.

Surprisingly, even many corporations are jumping on board, recognizing that their sole focus on the economic bottom line is hurting both their reputations and the long-term sustainability of their business. Though we’ll need to stay vigilant for signs of greenwashing, by far the strongest commitments at Rio+20 came from the business community. Over 200 corporations made sustainability pledges through the U.N. Global Compact, which are time-bound, measurable, and are expected to be held accountable through public disclosure and annual reporting.

A few of the most exciting side commitments include: Microsoft’s pledge to become carbon neutral by the end of 2013, Unilever’s pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions associated with its products in half by 2020, and Bank of America’s pledge of $50 billion by 2022 for clean energy and energy efficiency initiatives. The Consumer Goods Forum — a group of heavyweights like Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kraft, and others — have pledged to have a zero-deforestation footprint by 2020.

And though the commitments from civil society were clearly more exciting than anything the governments could come up with, there are key suggestions in the final Rio+20 text that young people, and civil society in general, must put pressure on world leaders to strengthen. Among them are strengthening the United Nations Environment Programme, which is currently one of the least funded and weakest U.N. bodies, creating clearly defined Sustainable Development Goals to replace the Millennium Development Goals that expire in 2015, and ensuring that the G20 follow up on their commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

Though the negotiations might have failed to set ambitious targets for sustainable development, Rio+20 has given us a sense of our common cause and inspired all of us to work harder to put the correct systems into place to create the future we truly want. This time we’re not turning away in despair. We’re walking away determined to lead where our leaders could not.

A frequent blogger and social entrepreneur, Lisa Curtis is the community builder at Solar Mosaic and co-founder of Kuli Kuli, a nutrition-focused social enterprise. Previously, Lisa wrote political briefings for President Obama, served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Niger, and managed communications for an impact investment firm in India. Follow her on Twitter @LisaCurtis. var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//politics/after-the-earth-summit-young-people-push-for-real-change/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

After the Rio Earth Summit: Will agriculture really get any greener?

By Twilight Greenaway

If last week’s Rio+20 Earth Summit made anything clear to those of us at home, it’s the degree to which the world’s developed nations have been sitting on their hands since the original Earth Summit 20 years ago. As Grist’s Greg Hanscom reported from the summit, the “outcome document” was negotiated before the week started, and “the overwhelming feeling [there], even as world leaders and celebrities rolled in for the official pomp and circumstance, was that the summit was over even before it began.”

Meanwhile, Bill McKibben called the event a “formulaic bureaucracy-fest” wherein the only real excitement was a walkout staged by young activists.

So where was food and agriculture in all this? Food was one of seven “critical issues” identified by the U.N. before Rio+20 began, as population growth (we’ll have another 2 billion people on the planet by 2050) and climate change have put the question of food access into sharp focus. But a quick look at the “issue brief” prepared before the summit will tell you most of what you need to know about the vast chasm that exists between the kinds of goals articulated in meetings like this and the level of real change occurring on the ground. “Global delivery of the food security and sustainable agriculture-related commitments has been disappointing,” the brief reads. And it’s easy to see why; a table reporting on target goals set as early as 1995 is filled with stalled progress, lack of funding, and a general dearth of political will. Here are a few examples:

Target: To develop and maintain in all countries the integrated plant nutrition approach, and? to optimize availability of fertilizer and other ?plant nutrient sources.
Year proposed: 2000
Progress: Not achieved. Several areas are nutrient depleted.

Target: National systems for environmentally sound management of chemicals, including? legislation and provisions for implementation? and enforcement, should be in place in all? countries to the extent possible.
Year proposed: 2000
Progress: Some progress made. Limited resources and political will hamper progress.

Target: Globally harmonized hazard classification and 2000 compatible labeling system, including? material safety data sheets and easily? understandable symbols, should be available, ?if feasible.
Year: 2000
Progress: Harmonized system developed. Uptake is slow.

Target: Improve the efficient use of water ?resources and promote their allocation? among competing uses in a way that gives ?priority to the satisfaction of basic human? needs and balances the requirement of preserving or restoring ecosystems and their functions.
Year: 2005
Progress: Not achieved — several areas are running out of water.

Target: Halve the proportion of the world’s 2015 people whose income is less than $1 a ?day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
Year: 2015
Progress: On track to reach poverty but not hunger target.

You get the idea. Every few years, the international community comes together to think big about how agriculture could and should really change. And then they let a few years pass before they meet again to reiterate the same goals.

In Rio last week, food did end up in the final document — in the form of something called a Zero Hunger Challenge — but it appears that to save themselves the embarrassment of missing the mark later down the road, the negotiators kept the targets nice and vague.

The Zero Hunger Challenge comes with a list of five worthwhile goals, including “all food systems are sustainable,” along with food security (or an end to hunger through redistribution), support for small farmers, and the reduction food waste. But, as The Guardian adds, “there is no reference to how [sustainable food systems] could be achieved” and “no deadline has been set for achieving these aims.” The Rio+20 draft outcome document also mentions the need to “address the root causes of excessive food price volatility.”

There was also a whole daylong event in Rio dedicated to food and farming, but it too was full of grand, vague messaging about sustainability. (Ever since companies like Monsanto started using “sustainable agriculture” to describe their work, it has become especially difficult to tell if and when the term has any teeth.) Try reading this Huffington Post blog entry, written by a representative from a food and climate NGO, and you’ll see what I mean.

To feed a global population of 9 billion people by 2050 will require a 60 to 70 percent increase in global food production and a 50 percent rise in investments in food, agriculture, and rural development. Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5 percent of GDP each year and seriously undermine the ability of small-scale farmers to provide food for their families and national and global markets. We must take heed of the reminder from Dyborn Chibonga, CEO of the National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi, that “the hand hoe is an instrument of mass urbanization,” and step forward to develop and disseminate appropriate technologies for meeting gaps in yields, in livelihoods, and in climate resilience.

The “dissemination of appropriate technologies for meeting gaps in yields”? In this context that phrase could refer to something as simple as adding a mule to the farm, or something as complex as introducing a combined program of GMO seeds and the pesticides they’re engineered to be used with.

Especially confusing in this regard is the use of the relatively new term “climate smart agriculture,” which was established at the U.N. conference on climate change in Durban, South Africa, last December. The plan was to reduce and sequester carbon emissions while conserving soils and feeding people in Africa. That sounds great, right?

But, as Tristan Quinn-Thibodeau writes in Climate Connections, these aren’t the same as true agroecological practices.

International social movements like La Via Campesina had argued compellingly for years that “small farmers cool the planet,” relying on many studies that ecological agriculture can reduce climate change. Ecological agriculture or “agroecology” uses no chemicals like fertilizers or pesticides derived from fossil fuels, and biodiverse agriculture systems greatly reduce carbon in the atmosphere while maintaining local resilience in the face of climate change.

Meanwhile:

 “Climate smart agriculture” still uses fossil fuel-based chemicals. A U.N.-commissioned panel of experts issued a report again touting the climate change reduction potential of sustainable agriculture. The Montpellier Panel report advocated a transition to agroecology, but defined it as a technique that can be used with existing industrial practices like “transgenic crops, conservation farming, microdosing of fertilizers and herbicides, and integrated pest management.”

But as prominent agroecology scholar Miguel Altieri has recently written [PDF], “Agroecology does not need to be combined with other approaches … it has consistently proven capable of sustainably increasing productivity and has far greater potential for fighting hunger [than industrial agriculture].”

Meanwhile corporations like Pepsi Co. were also present in Rio, where they were trumpeting food investments that purported to support developing world farmers while going after cheap raw materials for their own needs. Take this promising-sounding initiative to address malnutrition in Ethiopia. It would “dramatically increase chickpea production” as a “locally sourced, nutrient-rich, ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) to address malnutrition” through “modern agricultural practices” (there’s that vague term again). And, of course, the company also admits that for PepsiCo, “chickpea-based products are an important part of the company’s strategy to build a $30 billion global nutrition business by 2020.” (Remember that the Quaker, Tropicana, Gatorade, and Frito-Lay brands are all now under the Pepsi Co. corporate umbrella.)

The company’s official, full-color brochure [PDF] tells us that the effort is “part of a global strategy to make Pepsi Co. a leader in sustainable agriculture around the world.” Just like Monsanto. We can all rest easier now.

Twilight is the food editor at Grist. Follow her on twitter.var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//sustainable-farming/after-the-rio-earth-summit-will-agriculture-really-get-any-greener/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

Rio hangover: 50,000 people rallied for the Earth Summit. Did it do any good?

Rio hangover: 50,000 people rallied for the Earth Summit. Did it do any good? | Grist//Global Grist objectvar GRIST = {};//Google Analytcicsvar _gaq = _gaq || [];_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-191816-1']);_gaq.push(['_setDomainName', 'grist.org']);_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);function recordOutboundLink(link, category, action) {_gat._getTrackerByName()._trackEvent(category, action);setTimeout('document.location = "' + link.href + '"', 100);}(function() {var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);})();//End Google Analytics//Grist Evil Robot Detectionvar category = 'trafficQuality';var dimension = 'botDetection';var human_events = ['onkeydown','onmousemove'];if ( navigator.appName == 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' && !document.referrer) {for(var i = 0; i var hellobar_nonce = 'dc1c3b2fa2';var hellobar_email_form_action = 'http://grist.org/subscribe/'; Skip to contentSkip to site navigation Get your gift matched dollar for dollar! Donate to Grist by July 4.Climate & EnergyFoodCitiesLivingBiz & Technology

 Comments

27 Jun 2012 10:38 AM

Rio hangover: 50,000 people rallied for the Earth Summit. Did it do any good?By Greg Hanscom

The Earth Summit is mercifully over, leaving us all to wonder: What the hell happened last week? Did the end result justify the 3,600 tons of CO2 generated by the U.N. delegation alone? And has anyone seen my pants?

Rio+20 was like Carnival without the party — unless you consider 50,000 people cramming into conference centers, soccer stadiums, and makeshift meeting halls, all struggling to access the internet and navigate between venues as much as three hours apart by bus a good time.

The official summit and negotiations were, as we predicted, a bomb. The final “outcome document” [PDF], signed by world leaders last Friday, brings empty political speak to new heights. The 49-page tome amounts to a long list of “acknowledgements,” “affirmations,” and “underscorings” of statements and agreements already put in writing years or decades ago.

In a nutshell, the leaders of the world said, “We recognize that we are in deep doo-doo, and we need to do something about it.” What that “something” is remains unclear.

Even where clear solutions exist, they were laughably noncommittal. Consider this paragraph, about ending fossil fuel subsidies:

Countries reaffirm the commitments they have made to phase out harmful and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and undermine sustainable development. We invite others to consider rationalizing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by removing market distortions, including restructuring taxation and phasing out harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, with such policies taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries, with the aim of minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development and in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities.

That’s right. We “invite” you to “consider rationalizing” those subsidies — but only if you really want to. That’s leadership!

Granted, fossil fuel subsidies are a tricky issue, and they were not a big priority for this summit. But check out this gem, from the paragraph hailing the launch of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s ambitious Sustainable Energy for All initiative, aimed at bringing solar and other renewable energy sources to the world’s poor:

We are all determined to act to make sustainable energy for all a reality, and through this, help eradicate poverty and lead to sustainable development and global prosperity. We recognize that countries’ activities in broader energy-related issues are of great importance and are prioritized according to their specific challenges, capacities and circumstances, including energy mix.

Again, we are totally committed to making this happen, except when we’re not. Now can we all go home?

The summit has been panned as “perhaps the greatest failure of collective leadership since the first world war,” “a staggering failure of responsibility,” and other less family-friendly things. Leaders in the developed world failed to deliver a requested $30 billion to help developing countries make the transition to a green economy. A proposal to protect the “high seas” — those areas outside the boundaries of national waters — dried up and blew away. And throughout the text, language was watered down to appease world leaders who, almost without exception, plead poverty.

The bright spots from the official talks, if you can call them that, include:

Hey poor people, here’s a turbine or two: Despite the flaccid endorsement in the outcome document, the Sustainable Energy for All initiative won wide backing from individual nations, banks, and private investors, who pledged over $80 billion to make it a reality.Oceans, you’re all right: While the high seas rescue plan failed, there was wide agreement on the need to do more to protect oceans and fisheries. Again, world leaders were long on talk and short on action, but this seems like one area where the international community is poised to actually make real progress in coming years.Go for the goals: The gathered nations also pledged to develop a set of “sustainable development goals” by 2013 that will replace the Millennium Development Goals, a set of priorities that have been adopted by all of the U.N.’s member countries. It’s a baby step at best (unable to agree on specific goals, the Rio delegates created a “high level political forum” that will spend the next year and a half developing some recommendations), but it is a sign, at least, that sustainability will become a central tenet to international development policy.

Is that meager progress worth 3,600 tons of CO2? You decide. But the U.N. wasn’t the only outfit throwing a party in Rio last week. There were dozens of sideshows, subconferences, media events, and award ceremonies around the city, and these were the sources of the most notable progress. A few examples:

Banking on transit: In what was arguably the biggest announcement of the week, international development banks promised to spend $175 billion to promote transit, bike lanes, and other sustainable transportation in the world’s largest cities.Fishy business: While the U.N. could only commit to toothless pledges of future action, Australia, the Maldives, and Mexico actually drew some lines in the sand, unveiling substantial new ocean and fisheries protections.Pure rubbish: The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group announced a new initiative aimed at helping cities reduce methane emissions from garbage. Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than CO2, and can be captured and burned to generate electricity.Good company: A number of corporations and industry alliances like Unilever and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition rolled out initiatives designed to protect forests and give poor people a boost. Skepticism is merited here, obviously, but considering that large corporations now dwarf many national economies, any signs that they are paying attention to the planet are positive ones.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has created a website called Cloud of Commitments to promote — and track — the multitude of pledges made at the summit. But the real question is how the NRDC, or anyone else, will make those in the cloud live up to their promises. At minimum, they’re gonna need a lot of interns.

But beyond all the wrangling, speechifying and promise-making, Rio offered a clear look at the human spectacle, and the challenges that lie ahead as we hurtle toward 9 billion people on this planet.

Rio is a metropolis of more than 12 million souls. Its traffic is epic, its air thick with diesel exhaust and cigarette smoke, and its turquoise water so polluted that it is unsafe to swim in much of the year. The chasm between rich and poor yawns wide, though they live side by side, with slums spreading up steep hillsides above posh, beachside neighborhoods, and catadores wheeling carts of scavenged recyclables through the streets alongside shiny luxury cars.

One evening, as the early winter darkness fell over the city, I walked through the seaside park that was home to the People’s Summit. Two young boys splashed in the surf as scissor-tailed seabirds glided silently overhead. Out in the water, lights twinkled on a massive oil platform as container ships moved in and out of port, delivering goods from the far corners of the ever-shrinking globe. On the city skyline, a sign lit up in neon green: Hotel Novo Mundo.

Welcome to the new world, my friends. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

Greg Hanscom is a senior editor at Grist. He tweets about cities, bikes, transportation, policy, and sustainability at @ghanscom.Read more: Business & Technology, Cities, Climate & Energy, Politics, Pollution Also in Gristvar OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//politics/rio-hangover-50000-people-rallied-for-the-earth-summit-did-it-do-any-good/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }Follow GristGet Grist in your inbox every day! Daily Grist
Weekly Grist
Business & Technology
Food
Living
Climate & Energymore email choicesAdvertisementHealth care and sustainability: Experts weigh in on ruling38 mins ago

Exxon boss cries over natural gas glut, tells us we’re climate crybabies3 hours ago

America: Awash in sunlight and oil21 hours ago

We’ll be right back, after these quick falsehoods23 hours ago

What we stand to lose (or gain!) in a compromise transportation bill23 hours ago

Here’s just how filthy that beach water is1 day ago

Why Congress must investigate the wasteful Solyndra investigation1 day ago

Hope you enjoyed those two years without drilling on Alaska’s North Slope2 days ago

More GristmillA male birth control dudes might actually use52 mins ago

This gigantic hybrid ship can run on a battery3 hours ago

Power your laptop with your butt4 hours ago

Incredible underwater sculptures turn into living reefs23 hours ago

Amazing things happen when you yell at baby pigs1 day ago

Could this 5-by-5 inch piece of paper reduce food waste by 25 percent?1 day ago

This 1933 video of the last living thylacine is a haunting look at a now-extinct species1 day ago

Sidecar lets drivers rent out their empty backseat1 day ago

More Grist Listgrist on facebookFrom Our FriendsA New Argument for the 10,000-Mile Diet: Is Locavorism a Crock?There Goes Lonesome George, Last Tortoise of His KindCalifornia Activists Band to Keep State Parks OpenAdvertisementMost ViewedH & Ahem: Cheap clothing hurts the planet, the economy, and your styleNewly discovered mushroom is actually a rubber vaginaShopper’s delight: Here’s what to buy organicOff our chests: What breasts tell us about the state of our worldGiant, awesome ‘tree lobster’ survived 80 years in hidingAmerica has 40 million McMansions that no one wantsAdvertisement Most CommentedAdvertisement Buckets o' GoodnessCitiesClimate & EnergyFoodLivingBusiness & TechnologyDon't MissDavid RobertsLisa HymasAsk Umbra ®Tom LaskawyDo Not Eat This!The Fine PrintAboutContactAdvertiseJobs at GristLegalGrist LabsReturn to content© 1999-2012 Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor. ®Grist is Powered by WordPress.com VIPvar my_sections="Business & Technology,Cities,Climate & Energy,Politics,Pollution"; var my_authors="Greg Hanscom";var _sf_async_config={};/** CONFIGURATION START **/_sf_async_config.uid = 16082;_sf_async_config.domain = 'grist.org';_sf_async_config.sections = typeof(my_sections) === 'undefined' ? '': my_sections ;_sf_async_config.authors = typeof(my_authors) === 'undefined' ? '': my_authors;/** CONFIGURATION END **/(function(){ function loadChartbeat() {window._sf_endpt=(new Date()).getTime();var e = document.createElement('script');e.setAttribute('language', 'javascript');e.setAttribute('type', 'text/javascript');e.setAttribute('src', (('https:' == document.location.protocol) ? 'https://a248.e.akamai.net/chartbeat.download.akamai.com/102508/' : 'http://static.chartbeat.com/') + 'js/chartbeat.js');document.body.appendChild(e); } var oldonload = window.onload; window.onload = (typeof window.onload != 'function') ? loadChartbeat : function() { oldonload(); loadChartbeat(); };})();jQuery(document).ready(function($){ Gravatar.profile_cb = function( h, d ) { WPGroHo.syncProfileData( h, d );}; Gravatar.my_hash = WPGroHo.my_hash; Gravatar.init( 'body', '#wp-admin-bar-my-account' ); });.reblog-from img { margin: 0 10px 0 0; vertical-align: middle; padding: 0; border: 0; }.reblogger-note img.avatar { float: left; padding: 0; border: 0; }.reblogger-note-content { margin: 0 0 20px; }.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt-content { border-left: 3px solid #eee; padding-left: 15px; }.reblog-post ul.thumb-list { display: block; list-style: none; margin: 2px 0; padding: 0; clear: both; }.reblog-post ul.thumb-list li { display: inline; margin: 0; padding: 0 1px; border: 0; }.reblog-post ul.thumb-list li a { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; }.reblog-post ul.thumb-list li img { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; }.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt { clear: both; }.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt address,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt li,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt h1,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt h2,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt h3,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt h4,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt h5,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt h6,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt p { font-size: 100% !important; }.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt blockquote,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt pre,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt code,.reblog-post .wpcom-enhanced-excerpt q { font-size: 98% !important; }try{Typekit.load();}catch(e){}

Read more >>

Tweet

Windows Phone Summit: We’re here for WP8!

Microsoft is returning for its second bite of the mobile news cycle today, with SlashGear headed to the company’s Windows Phone Summit where WP8 “Apollo” is expected to make its official debut. Having wowed us with Microsoft Surface on Monday, the prediction is that Microsoft will show us what its smaller mobile devices are soon to be capable of, with the first proper look at what makes Windows Phone 8 so special.

So far we’ve got plenty of speculation and rumor – and a handful of supposedly leaked screenshots – to go by. Windows Phone 8 is expected to have Microsoft-owned VoIP service Skype fully baked in, with making a voice or video call over your data connection made just as straightforward as a regular cellular call.

There’s also a new, Nokia-powered version of the mapping app, which will bring traffic information, more flexible directions and more to Windows Phone. In terms of hardware, developers are expected to get an early glimpse of the nuts & bolts of coding for the new platform, which will introduce multi-core processor support, NFC short-range wireless, and a broader range of screen resolutions (in fact four are believed to be in the pipeline).

Microsoft – and key partners like Nokia - are betting big on Windows Phone 8, so the company needs to get today right and build momentum for its launch. We’ll have all the details from Microsoft’s Windows Phone Summit as soon as they’re announced, so keep an eye on the SlashGear homepage!

Read more >>

Tweet

A pop culture history of the Earth Summit

By Greg Hanscom

World leaders gather next week at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to talk about creating a green economy for the planet. But don’t go thinking this is the first international eco-bash. Bigwigs from the far corners of the globe have been talking about Saving the World for four decades now. Here’s a quick romp through 40 years of international environmental diplomacy, interspersed with Important Cultural Landmarks, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and, just for fun, some notes on what I was doing at the time.

1972

Leaders of the world gather in Stockholm, Sweden, to talk about what a mess we’ve made of the planet. The meetings spawn the United Nations Environment Programme (which is like a program, only fancier) and kick off a generation of environmental treaties and agreements on ozone depletion, protecting biological diversity, hazardous waste, endangered species, and climate change.

Al Green’s song “Let’s Stay Together” hits No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot 100.

Atmospheric CO2, the main driver of global warming, hovers just under 330 parts per million.

I am born, on Oct. 24, in a Salt Lake City hospital.

1982

Leaders of the world gather in Nairobi, Kenya, to talk about what a mess we’ve made of the planet. The talks spark a groundbreaking report, released five years later, called “Our Common Future,” aka the Brundtland Report for its lead author, Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. The report is perhaps best known for its definition of sustainable development as that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Olivia Newton-John releases “Physical” and rocks the world in a leotard and sweatband in one of the first ever “video albums.” Hot hot hot (also totally hatin’ on fat people).

Atmospheric CO2 levels hit 340 parts per million.

I ask my mom to buy me a pair of parachute pants for my first day of fourth grade because that’s what all the break dancers on TV are wearing. She wisely declines.

1992

Leaders of the world gather in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to talk about what a mess we’ve made of the planet. (You’re beginning to see the pattern.) This time, it’s a major circus, with over 100 heads of state (including George Bush Sr., who agreed to attend only at the last minute), 8,000 delegates from 178 countries, 9,000 members of the press, and 3,000 representatives of non-governmental organizations. The summit produces a couple of important documents, including Agenda 21, which sets off alarm bells for conspiracy theorists (including the Republican National Committee) to this day, and kicks off major initiatives protecting biodiversity and combating climate change. The climate change initiative, signed by Bush Sr., will lead to the development of the Kyoto climate treaty in 1997.

Nirvana’s album Nevermind hits the top of the Billboard charts. Hope is in the air. In the grungiest sorta way.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere top 350 parts per million — the upper limit, according to climate scientists, that is safe for sustaining life as we know it on Earth.

I start work on a master’s degree in environmental journalism with the thought that one day, I might figure out what on earth is going on.

2002

Leaders of the world gather in Johannesburg, South Africa, to — oh hell, you know. It’s the freaking Barnum and Bailey of summits, with over 25,000 people, elephants, lions, clowns, the works. Colin Powell even makes an appearance. (George W. Bush, his boss, does not. Nor will he have anything to do with the Kyoto Protocol, which his father helped set in motion.) And the result? No new mega-treaties, no new Earth-saving institutions, and no sweeping declarations or action plans.

Nirvana knockoff Nickelback tops the charts with its craptastic song, “How You Remind Me.” Clouds blot out the sun.

CO2 levels march toward 370 parts per million.

I land at the helm of a small environmental magazine just in time to chronicle Bush Jr.’s dismantling of decades of environmental protections and safeguards.

2012

Next week, world leaders will convene yet again to talk about what a mess we’ve made of this planet. Climate change is off the table — too contentious, apparently. The focus this time will be creating a “green economy” Van Jones-style, for the globe. A fine idea, but by now, many have lost faith in these carnivals. With days to go before the summit, it does not appear that President Obama will attend, despite a really nice letter of encouragement from environmental groups. The interesting action, it seems, will be around the edges of the official talks, in events held by conservation and civil society groups, philanthropies, and the leaders of the world’s cities.

Marvel’s The Avengers tops box office sales for the first half of the year, followed by the eco-apocalyptic The Hunger Games and a bastardization of Dr. Seuss’ environmental classic, The Lorax.

CO2 levels shoot past 390 parts per million.

Tomorrow, I climb aboard a flight to Rio de Janeiro to report on the Earth Summit (aka “Rio+20” because this is the 20th anniversary of the first Rio Earth Summit). Watch Grist for regular updates from the latest eco-carnival and its many sideshows, and follow me on Twitter for the play-by-play: @ghanscom.

Next: 40 years of environmental diplomacy — what do we have to show for it?

Find all of Grist’s Earth Summit coverage here.

Greg Hanscom is a senior editor at Grist. He tweets about cities, bikes, transportation, policy, and sustainability at @ghanscom.

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//climate-change/a-pop-culture-history-of-the-earth-summit/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

Before Rio Earth Summit, let’s put pressure on world leaders to end fossil fuel subsidies

By Bill McKibben

Bill McKibben at 350.org’s recent Rally to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies. (Photo by 350.org.)

In just a few weeks, world leaders are converging on Rio for a landmark “Earth Summit” to talk about sustainability issues — but it’s time for them to stop talking and start doing. And we know where they can begin.

This year our governments will hand nearly hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies to the coal, gas, and oil industries. Instead, they should cut them off.

Cutting fossil fuel subsidies could actually take a giant step towards solving the climate crisis: Phasing out these subsidies would prevent gigatonnes of carbon emissions and help make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels.

And here’s the thing: This demand is completely reasonable — so reasonable that the leaders of the big countries have already agreed to it. The G20 promised in 2009 that fossil fuel subsidies would be phased out in the “medium term.” But the political power of the corporate polluters scares them, and so no nation has yet followed through.

If we want real action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, we need to give world leaders a people-powered push as the Rio Summit approaches — and that push starts now with this global call to action.

Why focus on subsidies? Well, remember those pictures we took all over the world a few weeks ago, the ones where hundreds of thousands of people rallied in places wrecked by the drought, flood, fire, and melt that come with climate change? The billions in fossil fuel subsidies handed out to the fossil fuel industry are driving those climate disasters, and it’s time for us, and our political leaders, to connect the dots. Those billions should be spent investing in the world we want — in renewable energy, in efficiency, in public health and education — not sent to the corporate polluters who are super-heating our planet and threatening our future.

How are we going to ensure world leaders make good on their commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies? With a huge global groundswell of citizen pressure. Our friends at Avaaz, the planetary network for social good, are helping to lead this fight — already there are over half a million people signed on. In the U.S., hundreds of thousands of activists are pushing for landmark legislation to remove $113 billion in American fossil fuel subsidies over the next 10 years. But now we need a truly international effort in the lead-up to the Rio Earth Summit — which means enlisting you, and your friends.

Click here to sign on and spread the word.

After you sign on, please share the campaign with anyone you know who cares about the future. Or, for that matter, anyone who cares about not wasting their tax money by sending it to the richest industry on earth.

We’ll deliver the signatures on June 18, when world leaders arrive for the Earth Summit — in fact, we’ve got big plans brewing for some exciting ways to make sure our message in Rio is unignorable. But first we need you on the list, so please sign on today.

Bill McKibben is founder of 350.org and Schumann Distinguished Professor at Middlebury College in Vermont. He also serves on Grist’s Board of Directors.

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//energy-policy/before-rio-earth-summit-lets-put-pressure-on-world-leaders-to-end-fossil-fuel-subsidies/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

Greens break silence, ask Obama to attend Earth Summit

By Greg Hanscom

Well, it’s not the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, but it’s a start.

A coalition of U.S. environmental and social justice groups has asked President Obama to step up and attend the Earth Summit, a gathering of international bigwigs next month in Rio. It’ll be an important opportunity to meet influential people from other countries, attend critical meetings, and lead high-level negotiations. Oh, and figure out how to build a green economy, Van Jones-style, around the globe.

Twenty years ago, when George Bush Sr. was hedging about attending the first Rio Earth Summit, a pack of green groups tried to convince him with a spooky video featuring a horse charging through a burning wasteland and James Earl Jones warning ominously of the planet’s imminent demise. He did attend, and had some fascinating conversations, while Barbara enjoyed her stay as well.

This year, many of the major U.S. green groups were weirdly silent about the Earth Summit — until this week, when they sent Obama a letter:

We are writing on behalf of civil society organizations that represent more than 5 million Americans to urge you to commit as soon as possible to lead the United States delegation to the Rio+20 Earth Summit in Brazil in June.

Your presence at this Summit would signal its critical importance to all Americans, demonstrate our country’s deep concern over urgent global issues that will inevitably affect our security and well-being, and highlight our nation’s determination to be a contender in the race to a low-carbon green economy.

The letter [PDF] also asks Obama to roll out a list of commitments from the U.S. to promote the green economy here and abroad. The groups want Obama to push for elimination of fossil-fuel subsidies, sign onto the U.N.’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative, which aims to bring clean power to developing countries, and crack down on ocean pollution and overfishing.

Twenty-two groups signed onto the letter, including four of the seven groups behind the Horsemen of the Apocalypse video in 1992 (the National Audubon Society, The Wilderness Society, and the Rainforest Action Network are still MIA), and some notable additions, among them the National Tribal Environmental Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

No word yet from the prez on whether he’s accepting the invitation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is reportedly out. So is British Prime Minister David Cameron — never mind that Cameron once pledged to lead the “greenest government ever,” and the U.N. postponed the Earth Summit so it wouldn’t conflict with the other huge event of mind-blowing global importance next month: the British Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. (Seriously, Brits, why do you even still have a queen? You tell me that and I’ll try to explain why we have the Electoral College. Deal?) Also bailing are members of the European parliament, who say they can’t afford the hotels, which have jacked up their rates for the occasion.

The good news is that the presidents and prime ministers of more than 130 other nations have RSVPed for the event. And if Obama does decide to attend, I happen to know that there are still bunks available at one of the beachside hostels at Copacabana, cheap. I’m sure he’d find something worthwhile to do.

Greg Hanscom is a senior editor at Grist. He tweets about cities, bikes, transportation, policy, and sustainability at @ghanscom.

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//politics/greens-break-silence-ask-obama-to-attend-earth-summit/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

Ubuntu Dev Summit, Mark Shuttleworth Shares Plans for Ubuntu 12.04

  Posted on October 31, 2011 by TechCrunch in Tech & Gadgets

The Ubuntu Developer Summit, starting today in Florida, is a gathering of Canonical employees, industry partners and Ubuntu community members to “define the focus and plans for [the] up-coming version of Ubuntu”. That version, 12.04 codenamed “Precise Pangolin”, will be released in April of 2012 and will be the next Long Term Support (LTS) release of the distribution. The changes scheduled for 12.04 are interesting, and simultaneously represent the current state of the art of the Ubuntu distribution as well as represent the foundation on which future developments will be built. I spoke with Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu’s Benevolent Dictator For Life, about what to expect in Ubuntu 12.04 and beyond.

First and foremost, Shuttleworth pointed out that the support schedule for 12.04 has been extended from three to five years on the desktop. Ubuntu LTS releases have historically provided three years of support on the desktop (five on the server), with new LTS versions coming out every two years. With 12.04, desktop users will enjoy support through 2017, which is a pretty long time to offer support for a desktop operating system.

I asked Shuttleworth what the motivation was for extending the 12.04 support offering on the desktop and he immediately responded “corporate deployments.” There are a number of companies standardizing on Ubuntu for their desktop computing needs, and the three year support from prior LTS releases was proving inadequate. Large corporations don’t adopt the latest and greatest technologies quickly, and they often have long QA processes to ensure that new desktop operating systems will properly function with their fleet of legacy applications. (Just look at how many companies are still in the transition process from Windows XP to Windows 7!)

Shuttleworth pointed out that there’s a growing change in attitude toward corporate computing. As more and more applications move “to the cloud”, IT departments are seeing that there’s less and less need for expensive desktop lock-in. Something like Ubuntu provides sufficient computing resources for a great many environments, and is free from licensing fees.

Continue Reading

Post Author

TechCrunch is a leading technology media property, dedicated to obsessively profiling startups, reviewing new Internet products, and breaking tech news. Founded in 2005, TechCrunch and its network of websites now reach over 10 million unique visitors and draw more than 33 million page views per month.

Other posts by TechCrunch ?

Read more >>

Tweet