FROM: GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Recycling Electronics: A Common Sense Solution for Enhancing Government Efficiency and Protecting Our Environment
Good morning Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kevin Kampschroer, and I am the Deputy Senior Sustainability Official at the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). Thank you for inviting me to testify about electronics recycling and the opportunities this area provides for increased environmental stewardship by the Federal government.
E-waste is the largest growing waste stream in the country. According to the most recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, more than five million tons of electronics were in storage. Of those, 2.37 million tons were ready for end-of-life management, yet only twenty-five percent were collected for recycling.
The Administration is committed to reducing e-waste and realizing efficiency by standardizing procedures across the government. As the world’s largest consumer of electronics, e-waste is a significant opportunity for the Federal government. In 2009, the President issued Executive Order 13514 which, among other things, called for the Federal community to promote electronics stewardship. The Administration also established an Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship (the Task Force) led by GSA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The President charged the Task Force with developing a National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship (the Strategy), which the Task Force released in 2011.
Today, I look forward to discussing the development of the Strategy, its important tenets, and GSA’s efforts as a member of the Task Force to help enact those provisions to address this critical challenge.
The Strategy —
GSA has always had programs for the disposal of excess equipment, including electronics, but these programs were not designed with the specific challenges of e-waste in mind. Before the Strategy, there was no standardized government-wide plan to properly evaluate or dispose of electronics that could no longer be used as originally intended.
To help develop the Strategy, the Task Force, made up of sixteen agencies, including GSA, EPA and CEQ, hosted several listening sessions with industry stakeholders (electronics manufacturers and recyclers), the non-governmental organization community, State and local governments and customer agencies. In addition, the Task Force solicited public comments through the Federal Register and Regulations.gov. The Strategy was released on July 20, 2011.
The Strategy details the Federal government’s plan to enhance the management of electronics throughout the products’ lifecycle — from design to eventual reuse or recycling.
The Strategy set forth several items to be addressed over the coming years: development and publication of proper government-wide policy and guidance on the reuse and disposal of electronics including the use of certified recyclers for proper management of used electronics, acquisition of more sustainable electronics that can be easily reused and are designed to have a minimal end-of-life environmental impact, and transparency of newly-collected data regarding Federal government procurement, reuse, and disposal of electronics.
Reuse and Disposal of Electronics —
On February 29, 2012, GSA published Bulletin B-34 in the Federal Management Regulations, presenting a specific list of options to consider when excess electronics are identified. Excess electronics should first either be offered to other Federal agencies for reuse through GSAXcess, or transferred to schools and other educational organizations. In FY 2013, $32 million worth of equipment was transferred among agencies through GSAXcess and in the first quarter of FY 2014, $2.6 million worth of equipment was transferred.
Through GSA’s Computers for Learning Program, agencies may transfer excess computers and related peripheral equipment to schools and educational nonprofit organizations. In FY 2013, $72 million worth of equipment was donated through this program and in the first quarter of FY 2014, $12.7 million worth of equipment was donated. Approximately thirty agencies participate in GSA’s Computers for Learning Program each year.
Electronics not transferred through GSAXcess or donated to schools are declared surplus and are eligible to be donated through GSA’s Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation Program to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations. In FY 2013, $4.6 million worth of equipment was donated through this program and in the first quarter of FY 2014, $513,000 worth of equipment was donated.8
Additionally, if electronics are not transferred or donated, the agency may sell, or, if a take-back provision exists,9 return the electronics to the original vendor. GSA is incorporating these provisions into many of our contracts, and is also developing government-wide guidance about incorporating take-back requirements into all contracts.
Under GSA’s policy, Bulletin B-34, non-functional electronics should ultimately be directed to a third-party certified electronics recycler and should not be sent to landfills or incinerators. Furthermore, all electronics recyclers listed on GSA’s Schedules must be third-party certified.10
Acquisition of More Sustainable Electronics —
Another goal of the Strategy is to promote the purchase of green electronics to reduce their life cycle environmental impact. GSA continues to improve our contract vehicles in order to simplify Federal agencies’ acquisition of green electronics.
Currently, there are over 120,000 Energy Star products offered across several GSA Schedules.11 Focusing on Information Technology products, GSA is currently revising Schedule 70 (IT Equipment) to encourage vendors to provide Energy Star and EPEAT-registered electronics. Additionally, used and refurbished electronics are already offered on Schedule 70 — $50 million worth of used and refurbished electronics were sold in FYs 2010-2013 and $2.5 million were sold in the first quarter of FY 2014.12
Within the GSA Advantage online shopping portal, environmental icons (such as Energy Star) are used to show the various attributes of listed products. Additionally, GSA has developed an easy to use, web-based, Green Procurement Compilation tool which consolidates and displays products designated for Federal procurement by the EPA and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture as more sustainable. Each item’s listing includes the item’s environmental certifications, where to buy the product and how to find vendors through GSA’s offerings.
In addition to the GSA Schedules, the National IT Commodities Program and the FSSI Print Management Program also offer Energy Star and EPEAT-registered electronics. Both solutions require vendors to report their sales of Energy Star and EPEAT-registered electronics. This reporting assists our customer agencies track their purchases of sustainable electronics.
With GSA’s internal acquisitions, we are committed to meeting the goals outlined in the Strategy. In FY 2013, we purchased $4.3 million worth of Energy Star and EPEAT-registered products from various GSA procurement vehicles.
Additionally, we have been deploying Energy Star servers and workstations at GSA since 2001. Servers and personal computers have been EPEAT-compliant since 2005 and EPEAT Gold since 2009, meaning that the equipment is built with reduced amounts of lead, mercury and other sensitive materials, incorporates recycled materials, and is manufactured in ways that simplify disassembly and reuse.
Transparency —
Transparency is a crucial part of the Strategy and one of the most challenging aspects of the plan. Currently, although many e-waste recycling programs exist, there are no guidelines to measure their use government-wide. GSA, working with other Federal agencies, is considering a policy that will include a requirement for agencies to submit data for all disposed electronics. This data, which could be publicly available on Data.gov, would provide greater transparency into Federal agencies’ performance against the goals of the Strategy.
Conclusion —
The Federal government, as the largest purchaser of information technology in the world, has a unique responsibility to be a leader in the management and disposal of electronics. GSA plays an important role in helping agencies meet the goals set forth in the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship, through policy guidance and responsible acquisition, donation and disposal of electronics. We have a lot more work ahead of us and hope to continue to make progress on this important issue.
I am pleased to be here today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
__________________________________
1 http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm. Estimates are from 2009. Id.
2 Id.
3 For a full list of Task Force members, visit: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/taskforce/faq.htm.
4 The Strategy lists four goals: (1) Build Incentives for Design of Greener Electronics, and Enhance Science, Research and Technology Development in the United States; (2) Ensure that the Federal Government Leads By Example; (3) Increase Safe and Effective Management and Handling of Used Electronics in the United States; and (4) Reduce Harm from US Exports of E-Waste and Improve Safe Handling of Used Electronics in Developing Countries.
5 GSAXcess. Valuations are based on original acquisition value.
6 Under E.O. 12999, agencies may also transfer computers and related equipment directly to schools.
7 GSAXcess.
8 GSAXcess.
9 GSA is incorporating some of these provisions in our contracts, such as in the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI) Print Management Program.
10 Schedule 899 (Environmental Services).
11 GSA Advantage. Energy Star products include: Copiers on Schedule 36 (Office, Imaging, and Document Solutions); Appliances on Schedule 51V (Hardware Superstore); Audio/Visual equipment on Schedule 58I (Professional Audio/Video Telemetry/Tracking; Recording/Reproducing and Signal Data Solutions); Camera battery chargers on Schedule 67 (Photographic Equipment); and Refrigeration equipment on Schedule 73 (Food Service, Hospitality, Cleaning Equipment and Supplies, Chemicals and Services).
12 Schedule 70.
Showing posts with label ENVIRONMENT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ENVIRONMENT. Show all posts
Friday, February 28, 2014
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
MACROSYSTEMS BIOLOGY DATA REQUIREMENTS
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Data-intensive ecology needed to understand what makes the biosphere tick
Journal special issue reports new findings on macrosystems biology: biological sciences writ large.
Have you looked closely at a local pond, meadow or forest--or at nature in your suburb or city--and observed changes in it over time? That's exactly what scientists are trying to do on a larger, regional to continental scale--a macrosystems biology scale.
Macrosystems biology might be called "biological sciences writ large."
Scientists funded by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) MacroSystems Biology Program are working to better detect, understand and predict the effects of climate and land-use change on organisms and ecosystems at regional to continental scales.
The researchers have published new results in this month's special issue of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, published by the Ecological Society of America.
The ecologists are asking questions such as: How are regional-scale processes in plant and animal invasions, and in disease transmission, shaped by continent-wide environmental and land-use patterns? How can continent-wide data lead to better forecasts of disease outbreaks? How do invasive species and infectious diseases arrive at new locations, sometimes across great distances?
"Scientists conducting macrosystems biology research are working to find answers to these complex questions," says John Wingfield, NSF assistant director for Biological Sciences.
"Current knowledge of the biosphere is largely based on research in small plots of land and on satellite-scale remote sensing," says Wingfield. "But the insights needed to answer critically important questions about the biosphere's future can't always be extrapolated from such studies. They require new approaches."
Now macrosystems biologists are entering a new realm: that of big data.
"Ecologists can no longer sample and study just one or even a handful of ecosystems," says Patricia Soranno, a scientist at Michigan State University and co-editor of the special issue with David Schimel of the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Lab.
"We also need to study lots of ecosystems and use lots of data to tackle many environmental problems--such as climate change, land-use change and invasive species--because such problems exist at larger scales than other problems we have faced in the past."
Soranno and Schimel worked with many researchers, all funded by NSF's MacroSystems Biology Program, to produce the special issue.
"Data-intensive science is being touted as a new way to do science of any kind, and we think it has a lot to offer ecology," says Soranno.
"Traditionally, ecologists are trained to study and take samples from the field in places like forests, grasslands or wetlands, and measure things in the lab.
"In the future, many ecologists will also need to be trained in advanced computational methods that will allow them to study complex systems using big datasets."
Researchers have accumulated decades and decades of data. The sources include small, individual projects by university biologists; government agency scientists monitoring natural resources; terabytes of data from new or existing field sensors and observation networks; and millions of high-definition satellite images.
Easier access to supercomputers is paired with a near-endless deluge of data. Analyses that once took months or years can now be conducted in hours or days. Scientists also have access to the latest statistical modeling and geographic information system tools, says Soranno.
"Ten years ago, it would have been much harder to take this approach," she says. "We didn't have the intersection we have today of great tools, volumes of data, sufficient computing power and a growing understanding of natural systems at broad scales."
The makeup of macrosystems biology research teams should reflect the demands of data-intensive ecology, these researchers believe. Groups should include database managers, data-mining experts, GIS professionals and others, they say.
"An important question we're facing is how ecologists can best solve many of today's top environmental problems, challenges that need a broad-scale approach," Soranno says.
"From the research that has already been conducted by macrosystems biologists, evidenced by the papers in this special issue, we think we're on the right path."
It's where science needs to go, say these papers' authors, to understand what makes Earth's biosphere tick.
The research papers in the special issue can be accessed online at the Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment website.
-NSF-
Data-intensive ecology needed to understand what makes the biosphere tick
Journal special issue reports new findings on macrosystems biology: biological sciences writ large.
Have you looked closely at a local pond, meadow or forest--or at nature in your suburb or city--and observed changes in it over time? That's exactly what scientists are trying to do on a larger, regional to continental scale--a macrosystems biology scale.
Macrosystems biology might be called "biological sciences writ large."
Scientists funded by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) MacroSystems Biology Program are working to better detect, understand and predict the effects of climate and land-use change on organisms and ecosystems at regional to continental scales.
The researchers have published new results in this month's special issue of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, published by the Ecological Society of America.
The ecologists are asking questions such as: How are regional-scale processes in plant and animal invasions, and in disease transmission, shaped by continent-wide environmental and land-use patterns? How can continent-wide data lead to better forecasts of disease outbreaks? How do invasive species and infectious diseases arrive at new locations, sometimes across great distances?
"Scientists conducting macrosystems biology research are working to find answers to these complex questions," says John Wingfield, NSF assistant director for Biological Sciences.
"Current knowledge of the biosphere is largely based on research in small plots of land and on satellite-scale remote sensing," says Wingfield. "But the insights needed to answer critically important questions about the biosphere's future can't always be extrapolated from such studies. They require new approaches."
Now macrosystems biologists are entering a new realm: that of big data.
"Ecologists can no longer sample and study just one or even a handful of ecosystems," says Patricia Soranno, a scientist at Michigan State University and co-editor of the special issue with David Schimel of the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Lab.
"We also need to study lots of ecosystems and use lots of data to tackle many environmental problems--such as climate change, land-use change and invasive species--because such problems exist at larger scales than other problems we have faced in the past."
Soranno and Schimel worked with many researchers, all funded by NSF's MacroSystems Biology Program, to produce the special issue.
"Data-intensive science is being touted as a new way to do science of any kind, and we think it has a lot to offer ecology," says Soranno.
"Traditionally, ecologists are trained to study and take samples from the field in places like forests, grasslands or wetlands, and measure things in the lab.
"In the future, many ecologists will also need to be trained in advanced computational methods that will allow them to study complex systems using big datasets."
Researchers have accumulated decades and decades of data. The sources include small, individual projects by university biologists; government agency scientists monitoring natural resources; terabytes of data from new or existing field sensors and observation networks; and millions of high-definition satellite images.
Easier access to supercomputers is paired with a near-endless deluge of data. Analyses that once took months or years can now be conducted in hours or days. Scientists also have access to the latest statistical modeling and geographic information system tools, says Soranno.
"Ten years ago, it would have been much harder to take this approach," she says. "We didn't have the intersection we have today of great tools, volumes of data, sufficient computing power and a growing understanding of natural systems at broad scales."
The makeup of macrosystems biology research teams should reflect the demands of data-intensive ecology, these researchers believe. Groups should include database managers, data-mining experts, GIS professionals and others, they say.
"An important question we're facing is how ecologists can best solve many of today's top environmental problems, challenges that need a broad-scale approach," Soranno says.
"From the research that has already been conducted by macrosystems biologists, evidenced by the papers in this special issue, we think we're on the right path."
It's where science needs to go, say these papers' authors, to understand what makes Earth's biosphere tick.
The research papers in the special issue can be accessed online at the Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment website.
-NSF-
Sunday, February 16, 2014
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Jakarta, Indonesia
February 16, 2014
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Robert. Thank you very, very much. I don’t know. I think some of you were cheering twice for the same university. I don’t know. (Laughter.) It seemed to come from the same place anyway.
What a pleasure to be here at America, where we are looking at all of the air conditioning pipes running right through here. I love it. The spirit and feel of this place is very special and it’s wonderful to see our friends up here from Kalimantan and also everybody from Sumatra. Thank you very much for being with us. Can you hear me? Yeah! Wave! (Laughter.) Do a few selfies, everybody will – (laughter.) Anyway, it’s really a pleasure to be here. I see a lot of iPads up in the air sort of flashing away.
This is special. Ambassador Blake, thank you for doing this. Thank you all for coming here today. I want to welcome all of those of you who are tuning in elsewhere, some of you who are watching on a home webcast, and we’re delighted to have you here. It’s really a pleasure for me to be able to be back in Jakarta, back in Indonesia, where you have one of the richest ecosystems on Earth. And you live in a country that is at the top of the global rankings for both marine and terrestrial biodiversity, and you have a human ecosystem that includes some 300 ethnic groups, speaking at least 700 languages – extraordinary place.
But because of climate change, it is no secret that today, Indonesia is also one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth.
This year, as Secretary of State, I will engage in a series of discussions on the urgency of addressing climate change – particularly on the national security implications and the economic opportunities. And I want you to think about those. But I wanted to start right here, in Jakarta, because this city – this country – this region – is really on the front lines of climate change. It’s not an exaggeration to say to you that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk. So let’s have a frank conversation about this threat and about what we, as citizens of the world, need to be able to do to address it.
Some time ago I travelled to another vibrant city – a city also rich with its own rich history – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. And I was there, sitting in a big room, surrounded by representatives from about 170 countries. We listened as expert after expert after expert described the growing threat of climate change and what it would mean for the world if we failed to act. The Secretary General of the conference was – he was an early leader on climate change, a man by the name of Maurice Strong, and he told us – I quote him: “Every bit of evidence I’ve seen persuades me that we are on a course leading to tragedy.”
Well, my friends, that conference was in 1992. And it is stunning how little the conversation has really changed since then.
When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them. And it is a challenge that I address in nearly every single country that I visit as Secretary of State, because President Obama and I believe it is urgent that we do so.
And the reason is simple: The science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3D movie. It’s warning us; it’s compelling us to act. And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. It’s something that we understand with absolute assurance of the veracity of that science. No one disputes some of the facts about it. Let me give you an example. When an apple separates from a tree, it falls to the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics. No one disputes that today. It’s a fact. It’s a scientific fact. Science also tells us that when water hits a low enough temperature, it’s going to turn into ice; when it reaches a high enough temperature, it’s going to boil. No one disputes that. Science and common sense tell us if you reach out and put your hand on a hot cook stove, you’re going to get burned. I can’t imagine anybody who would dispute that either.
So when thousands of the world’s leading scientists and five reports over a long period of time with thousands of scientists contributing to those reports – when they tell us over and over again that our climate is changing, that it is happening faster than they ever predicted, ever in recorded history, and when they tell us that we humans are the significant cause, let me tell you something: We need to listen.
When 97 percent of scientists agree on anything, we need to listen, and we need to respond.
Well, 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. These scientists agree on the causes of these changes and they agree on the potential effects. They agree that the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide contributes heavily to climate change. They agree that the energy sources that we’ve relied on for decades to fuel our cars and to heat our homes or to air condition our homes, to – all the things that provide us electricity like oil and coal – that these are largely responsible for sending those greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere. And the scientists agree that emissions coming from deforestation and from agriculture can also send enormous quantities of carbon pollution into our atmosphere.
And they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change – and it will change dramatically for the worse.
So we know this is happening, and we know it with virtually the same certainty that we understand that if we reach out and touch that hot stove, we’re going to get burned. In fact, this is not really a complicated equation. I know sometimes I can remember from when I was in high school and college, some aspects of science or physics can be tough – chemistry. But this is not tough. This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this.
Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here.
This is what’s causing climate change. It’s a huge irony that the very same layer of gases that has made life possible on Earth from the beginning now makes possible the greatest threat that the planet has ever seen.
And the results of our human activity are clear. If you ranked all the years in recorded history by average temperature, you’d see that 8 of the 10 hottest years have all happened within the last 10 years. Think about it this way: all 10 of the hottest years on record have actually happened since Google went online in 1998.
Now, that’s how fast this change is happening. And because the earth is getting hotter at such an alarming speed, glaciers in places like the Arctic are melting into the sea faster than we expected. And the sea is rising – slowly, but rising – and will rise to dangerous levels. Scientists now predict that by the end of the century, the sea could rise by a full meter. Now, I know that to some people a meter may not sound like a lot, but I’ll tell you this: it’s enough to put half of Jakarta underwater. Just one meter would displace hundreds of millions of people worldwide and threaten billions of dollars in economic activity. It would put countries into jeopardy. It would put countless – I mean, come to the local level – it would put countless homes and schools and parks, entire cities at risk.
Now, climate change also tragically means the end of some species. The changing sea temperature and the increasing amount of acidity – the acidity comes from coal-fired power plants and from the pollution, and when the rain falls the rain spills the acidity into the ocean. And it means that certain species of fish like cod or sardines can no longer live where they once lived. This is devastating for the world’s fisheries. And scientists predict that fisheries will be among the hardest hit. Just think about the fishermen who sell their fish catches at Pasar Ikan. Think about it. There are some studies that say that Indonesia’s fisheries could actually lose up to 40 percent of what they currently bring in – so a fisherman who usually has about a hundred fish to sell one day would suddenly only have 60 or so for sale. The impact is obvious.
Climate change also means water shortages. And if you have these enormous water shortages, then you have a change in the weather – because of the weather patterns, you’re going to wind up with droughts, the lack of water. And the droughts can become longer and more intense. In fact, this isn’t something around the corner – this is happening now.
We are seeing record droughts right now, and they’re already putting a strain on water resources around the world. We’ve already seen in various parts of the world – in Africa, for instance – people fighting each other over water, and we’ve seen more conflicts shaping up now over the limits of water. Back in the United States, President Obama just the other day visited California, where millions of people are now experiencing the 13th month of the worst drought the state has seen in 500 years. And no relief is in sight. What used to be a 100-year or a 500-year event is now repeating itself within 10 years.
Furthermore, climate change means fundamental transformations in agriculture worldwide. Scientists predict that, in some places, heat waves and water shortages will make it much more difficult for farmers to be able to grow the regular things we grow, like wheat or corn or rice. And obviously, it’s not only farmers who will suffer here – it’s the millions of people who depend on those crops that the farmers grow. For example, the British government research showed that climate change may have contributed to the famine that killed as many as 100,000 people in Somalia just back in 2010 and 2011.
And scientists further predict that climate change also means longer, more unpredictable monsoon seasons and more extreme weather events. Now, I’ll tell you, I can’t tell you – no weatherman on TV or anybody is going to be able to look at you and tell you – that one particular storm was absolutely the result of climate change. But scientists do predict that many more of these disastrous storms will occur if we continue down the current path. Ladies and gentlemen, I saw with my own eyes what the Philippines experienced in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan and I will tell you it would be absolutely devastating if that kind of storm were to become the normal thing that happens every single year in many places.
On top of the unspeakable humanitarian toll, the economic cost that follows a storm like that is absolutely massive. I don’t mean just the billions that it costs to rebuild. We’ve seen here in Asia how extreme weather events can disrupt world trade. For example, after serious flooding in 2011, global prices for external computer hard drives rose by more than 10 percent. Why? Because electronic manufacturing zones around Bangkok were out of commission, wiped out by the weather. So it’s not just about agriculture – it’s also about technology. It’s about our global economy. It’s about potentially catastrophic effects on the global supply chain.
Now, despite all of these realities – despite these facts – much of the world still doesn’t see or want to see the need to pursue a significant response to this threat. As recently as 2011, a survey of city officials here in Asia found that more than 80 percent of the population said they did not anticipate climate change hurting their cities’ economies.
And despite more than 25 years of scientific warning after scientific warning after scientific warning – despite all that, the call to arms that we heard back in Rio back in 1992 – despite that, we still haven’t globally summoned the urgency necessary to get the job done. And as a result of this complacency, last year the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere reached the highest point in human history – despite all the warnings.
Now, I know that these are some dramatic scientific facts – statistics. But think of it this way: If the worst-case scenario about climate change, all the worst predictions, if they never materialize, what will be the harm that is done from having made the decision to respond to it? We would actually leave our air cleaner. We would leave our water cleaner. We would actually make our food supply more secure. Our populations would be healthier because of fewer particulates of pollution in the air – less cost to health care. Those are the things that would happen if we happen to be wrong and we responded. But imagine if the 97 percent of those scientists are correct and the people who say no are wrong. Then the people who say no will have presented us with one of the most catastrophic, grave threats in the history of human life. That’s the choice here.
Notwithstanding the stark choices that we face, here’s the good thing: there is still time. The window of time is still open for us to be able to manage this threat. But the window is closing. And so I wanted to come to Jakarta to talk to you because we need people all over the world to raise their voices and to be heard. There is still time for us to significantly cut greenhouse emissions and prevent the very worst consequences of climate change from ever happening at all. But we need to move on this, and we need to move together now. We just don’t have time to let a few loud interests groups hijack the climate conversation. And when I say that, you know what I’m talking about? I’m talking about big companies that like it the way it is that don’t want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.
First and foremost, we should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact. Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. There are people who say, “Oh, it’s too expensive, we can’t do this.” No. No, folks. We certainly should not allow more time to be wasted by those who want to sit around debating whose responsibility it is to deal with this threat, while we come closer and closer to the point of no return.
I have to tell you, this is really not a normal kind of difference of opinion between people. Sometimes you can have a reasonable argument and a reasonable disagreement over an opinion you may have. This is not opinion. This is about facts. This is about science. The science is unequivocal. And those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.
Now, President and I – Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society. One of the arguments that we do hear is that it’s going to be too expensive to be able to address climate change. I have to tell you, that assertion could not be less grounded in fact. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. Serious analysts understand that the costs of doing nothing far outweigh the costs of investing in solutions now. You do not need a degree in economics or a graduate degree in business in order to understand that the cost of flooding, the cost of drought, the cost of famine, the cost of health care, the cost of addressing this challenge is simply far less – the costs of addressing this challenge are far less than the costs of doing nothing. Just look at the most recent analysis done by the World Bank, which estimates that by 2050, losses – excuse me one second – losses from flood damage in Asian ports – fishing ports, shipping ports – the losses in those ports alone could exceed $1 trillion annually unless we make big changes to the infrastructure of those ports.
Finally, if we truly want to prevent the worst consequences of climate change from happening, we do not have time to have a debate about whose responsibility this is. The answer is pretty simple: It’s everyone’s responsibility. Now certainly some countries – and I will say this very clearly, some countries, including the United States, contribute more to the problem and therefore we have an obligation to contribute more to the solution. I agree with that. But, ultimately, every nation on Earth has a responsibility to do its part if we have any hope of leaving our future generations the safe and healthy planet that they deserve.
You have a saying, I think, here in Indonesia, “Luka di kaki, sakit seluruh badan”. (Laughter.) I – for those that don’t speak as well as I do – (laughter) – it means “when there’s a pain in the foot, the whole body feels it.” Well, today in this interconnected world that we all live in, the fact is that hardship anywhere is actually felt by people everywhere. We all see it; we share it. And when a massive storm destroys a village and yet another and then another in Southeast Asia; when crops that used to grow abundantly no longer turn a profit for farmers in South America; when entire communities are forced to relocate because of rising tides – that’s happening – it’s not just one country or even one region that feels the pain. In today’s globalized economy, everyone feels it.
And when you think about it, that connection to climate change is really no different than how we confront other global threats.
Think about terrorism. We don’t decide to have just one country beef up the airport security and the others relax their standards and let bags on board without inspection. No, that clearly wouldn’t make us any safer.
Or think about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It doesn’t keep us safe if the United States secures its nuclear arsenal, while other countries fail to prevent theirs from falling into the hands of terrorists. We all have to approach this challenge together, which is why all together we are focused on Iran and its nuclear program or focused on North Korea and its threat.
The bottom line is this: it is the same thing with climate change. And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.
Now I mentioned earlier, a few minutes ago, that last December I went to Tacloban in the Philippines, not long after Typhoon Haiyan. I have to tell you: I’ve seen a lot of places in war and out of war and places that have been destroyed, but in all the time of my life, I don’t think I’ve ever seen devastation like. We saw cars and homes and lives turned upside-down, trees scattered like toothpicks all across a mountainside. And most devastating of all, so quickly, that storm stole the lives of more than 5,000 people – women, and children who never saw it coming.
The fact is that climate change, if left unchecked, will wipe out many more communities from the face of the earth. And that is unacceptable under any circumstances – but is even more unacceptable because we know what we can do and need to do in order to deal with this challenge.
It is time for the world to approach this problem with the cooperation, the urgency, and the commitment that a challenge of this scale warrants. It’s absolutely true that industrialized countries – yes, industrialized countries that produce most of the emissions – have a huge responsibility to be able to reduce emissions, but I’m telling you that doesn’t mean that other nations have a free pass. They don’t have a right to go out and repeat the mistakes of the past. It’s not enough for one country or even a few countries to reduce their emissions when other countries continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon pollution as they see fit. At the end of the day, emissions coming from anywhere in the world threaten the future for people everywhere in the world, because those emissions go up and then they move with the wind and they drop with the rain and the weather, and they keep going around and around and they threaten all of us.
Now, as I’ve already acknowledged, I am the first one to recognize the responsibility that the United States has, because we have contributed to this problem. We’re one of the number – we’re the number two emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. The number one is now China. The fact is that I recognize the responsibility that we have to erase the bad habits that we have, which we adopted, frankly, before we understood the consequences. Nobody set out to make this happen. This is the consequence of the industrial revolution and the transformation of the world, and many of the advances that we made that have changed the world for the better came from these steps. But now we do know the attendant consequences that are linked to these actions.
President Obama has taken the moral challenge head on. Over the past five years, the United States has done more to reduce the threat of climate change – domestically and with the help of our international partners – than in the 20 years before President Obama came to office.
Thanks to President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the United States is well on our way to meeting the international commitments to seriously cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and that’s because we’re going straight to the largest sources of pollution. We’re targeting emissions from transportation – cars trucks, rail, et cetera – and from power sources, which account together for more than 60 percent of the dangerous greenhouse gases that we release.
The President has put in place standards to double the fuel-efficiency of cars on American roads. And we’ve also proposed curbing carbon pollution from new power plants, and similar regulations are in the works to limit the carbon pollution coming from power plants that are already up and already running.
At the same time, Americans have actually doubled the amount of energy we are creating from wind, solar, and geothermal sources, and we’ve become smarter about the way we use energy in our homes and in our businesses. A huge amount of carbon pollution comes out of buildings, and it’s important in terms of the lighting, in terms of the emissions from those buildings, the air conditioning – all these kinds of things thought through properly can contribute to the solution. As a result, today in the United States, we are emitting less than we have in two decades.
We’re also providing assistance to international partners, like Indonesia. This year the Millennium Challenge Corporation launched the $332 million Green Prosperity program to help address deforestation and support innovation and clean energy throughout the country. We also implemented what we called “debt for nature” swaps, where we forgive some of the debt – and we have forgiven some of Indonesia’s debt – in return for investments in the conservation of forests in Sumatra and Kalimantan.
But the United States – simple reality: just as I talked about the scientific facts in the beginning, this is a fact – the United States cannot solve this problem or foot the bill alone. Even if every single American got on a bicycle tomorrow and carpooled – instead of – or carpooled to school instead of buses or riding in individual cars or driving, or rode their bike to work, or used only solar powers – panels in order to power their homes; if we each, every American, planted a dozen trees; if we eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions – guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to counter the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. Because today, if even one or two economies neglects to respond to this threat, it can counter, erase all of the good work that the rest of the world has done. When I say we need a global solution, I mean we need a global solution.
That is why the United States is prepared to take the lead in bringing other nations to the table. And this is something that President Obama is deeply committed to. And as Secretary of State, I am personally committed to making sure that this work is front and center in all of our diplomatic efforts. This week I will be instructing all of the chiefs of our missions at American embassies all over the world to make climate change a top priority and to use all the tools of diplomacy that they have at their disposal in order to help address this threat.
Now I have just come here today, I arrived last night from China, where I met with government leaders and we discussed our cooperation, our collaboration on this climate change front at length. The Chinese see firsthand every single day how dangerous pollution can be. I recently read that an 8-year-old girl was diagnosed with lung cancer because of all the air pollution that she was inhaling. Eight years old. And the devastating human toll pollution, it takes comes with a very hefty price tag: Air pollution already costs China as much as 8 percent of its GDP because two things happen as a result of the pollution: healthcare spending goes up and agricultural output goes down.
Now I am pleased to tell you that the leaders of China agree that it is time to pursue a cleaner path forward. And China is taking steps, and we have already taken significant steps together through the U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group that we launched in Beijing last year.
Just yesterday, we announced a new agreement on an enhanced policy of dialogue that includes the sharing of information and policies so that we can help develop plans to deal with the UN climate change negotiation that takes place in Paris next year, in planning for the post-2020 limit to greenhouse gas emissions. These plans are a key input into UN negotiations to develop a new global climate agreement, and we have hopes that this unique partnership between China and the United States can help set an example for global leadership and global seriousness.
Now make no mistake: this is real progress. The U.S. and China are the world’s two largest economies. We are two of the largest consumers of energy, and we are two of the largest emitters of global greenhouse gases – together we account for roughly 40 percent of the world’s emissions.
But this is not just about china and the United States. It’s about every country on Earth doing whatever it can to pursue cleaner and healthier energy sources. And it’s about the all of us literally treating the pain in the foot, so the whole body hurts a little less.
Now this is going to require us to continue the UN negotiations and ultimately finalize an ambitious global agreement in Paris next year. And nations need to also be pursuing smaller bilateral agreements, public-private partnerships, independent domestic initiatives – you name it. There’s nothing to stop any of you from helping to push here, to pick things that you can do in Indonesia. It’s time for us to recognize that the choices the world makes in the coming months and years will directly and substantially affect our quality of life for generations to come.
Now I tell you, I’m looking out at a young audience here. All of you are the leaders of the future. And what we’re talking about is what kind of world are we going to leave you. I know that some of what I’m talking about here today, it seems awful big, and some of it may even like it’s out of reach to you. But I have to tell you it’s not. One person in one place can make a difference – by talking about how they manage a building, how they heat a school, what kind of things you do for recycling, transportation you use. What you don’t – I think what you don’t hear enough about today, unfortunately, and I’ve saved it for the end, because I want you to leave here feeling, wow, we can get something done. There’s a big set of opportunities in front of us. And that’s because the most important news of all: that climate change isn’t only a challenge. It’s not only a burden. It also presents one of the greatest economic opportunities of all time.
The global energy market is the future. The solution to climate change is energy policy. And this market is poised to be the largest market the world has ever known. Between now and 2035, investment in the energy sector is expected to reach nearly $17 trillion. That’s more than the entire GDP of China and India combined.
The great technology – many of you have your smart phones or your iPads, et cetera, here today – all of this technology that we use so much today was a $1 trillion market in the 1990s with 1 billion users. The energy market is a $6 trillion market with, today, 6 billion users, and it’s going to grow to maybe 9 billion users over the course of the next 20, 30, 40 years. The solution to climate change is as clear as the problem. The solution is making the right choices on energy policy. It’s as simple as that. And with a few smart choices, we can ensure that clean energy is the most attractive investment in the global energy sector.
To do this, governments and international financial institutions need to stop providing incentives for the use of energy sources like coal and oil. Instead, we have to make the most of the innovative energy technology that entrepreneurs are developing all over the world – including here in Indonesia, where innovative companies like Sky Energy are building solar and battery storage and projects that can help power entire villages.
And we have to invest in new technology that will help us bring renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydro power not only to the communities where those resources are abundant –but to every community and to every country on every continent.
I am very well aware that these are not easy choices for any country to make – I know that. I’ve been in politics for a while. I know the pull and different powerful political forces. Coal and oil are currently cheap ways to power a society, at least in the near term. But I urge governments to measure the full cost to that coal and that oil, measure the impacts of what will happen as we go down the road. You cannot simply factor in the immediate costs of energy needs. You have to factor in the long-term cost of carbon pollution. And they have to factor in the cost of survival. And if they do, then governments will find that the cost of pursuing clean energy now is far cheaper than paying for the consequences of climate change later.
Make no mistake: the technology is out there. None of this is beyond our capacity.
I am absolutely confident that if we choose to, we will meet this challenge. Remember: we’re the ones – we, all of us, the world – helped to discover things like penicillin and we eradicated smallpox. We found a way to light up the night all around the world with a flip of the switch and spread that technology to more than three quarters of the world’s population. We came up with a way for people to fly and move from one place to another in the air between cities and across oceans, and into outer space. And we put the full wealth of human knowledge into a device we can hold in our hand that does all of the thinking that used to take up a whole room almost this size.
Human ingenuity has long proven its ability to solve seemingly insurmountable challenges. It is not a lack of ability that is a problem. It is a lack of political resolve that is standing in our way. And I will tell you as somebody who ran for elected office, when you hear from the people, when the people make it clear what they want and what they think they need, then people in politics respond.
Today I call on all of you in Indonesia and concerned citizens around the world to demand the resolve that is necessary from your leaders. Speak out. Make climate change an issue that no public official can ignore for another day. Make a transition towards clean energy the only plan that you are willing to accept.
And if we come together now, we can not only meet the challenge, we can create jobs and economic growth in every corner of the globe. We can clean up the air, we can improve the health of people, we can have greater security; we can make our neighborhoods healthier places to live; we can help ensure that farmers and fishers can still make a sustainable living and feed our communities; and we can avoid disputes and even entire wars over oil, water, and other limited resources. We can make good on the moral responsibility we all have to leave future generations with a planet that is clean and healthy and sustainable for the future.
The United States is ready to work with you in this endeavor. With Indonesia and the rest of the world pulling in the same direction, we can meet this challenge, the greatest challenge of our generation, and we can create the future that everybody dreams of.
Thank you all very much for letting me be with you. Thank you. (Applause.)
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Jakarta, Indonesia
February 16, 2014
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Robert. Thank you very, very much. I don’t know. I think some of you were cheering twice for the same university. I don’t know. (Laughter.) It seemed to come from the same place anyway.
What a pleasure to be here at America, where we are looking at all of the air conditioning pipes running right through here. I love it. The spirit and feel of this place is very special and it’s wonderful to see our friends up here from Kalimantan and also everybody from Sumatra. Thank you very much for being with us. Can you hear me? Yeah! Wave! (Laughter.) Do a few selfies, everybody will – (laughter.) Anyway, it’s really a pleasure to be here. I see a lot of iPads up in the air sort of flashing away.
This is special. Ambassador Blake, thank you for doing this. Thank you all for coming here today. I want to welcome all of those of you who are tuning in elsewhere, some of you who are watching on a home webcast, and we’re delighted to have you here. It’s really a pleasure for me to be able to be back in Jakarta, back in Indonesia, where you have one of the richest ecosystems on Earth. And you live in a country that is at the top of the global rankings for both marine and terrestrial biodiversity, and you have a human ecosystem that includes some 300 ethnic groups, speaking at least 700 languages – extraordinary place.
But because of climate change, it is no secret that today, Indonesia is also one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth.
This year, as Secretary of State, I will engage in a series of discussions on the urgency of addressing climate change – particularly on the national security implications and the economic opportunities. And I want you to think about those. But I wanted to start right here, in Jakarta, because this city – this country – this region – is really on the front lines of climate change. It’s not an exaggeration to say to you that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk. So let’s have a frank conversation about this threat and about what we, as citizens of the world, need to be able to do to address it.
Some time ago I travelled to another vibrant city – a city also rich with its own rich history – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. And I was there, sitting in a big room, surrounded by representatives from about 170 countries. We listened as expert after expert after expert described the growing threat of climate change and what it would mean for the world if we failed to act. The Secretary General of the conference was – he was an early leader on climate change, a man by the name of Maurice Strong, and he told us – I quote him: “Every bit of evidence I’ve seen persuades me that we are on a course leading to tragedy.”
Well, my friends, that conference was in 1992. And it is stunning how little the conversation has really changed since then.
When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them. And it is a challenge that I address in nearly every single country that I visit as Secretary of State, because President Obama and I believe it is urgent that we do so.
And the reason is simple: The science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3D movie. It’s warning us; it’s compelling us to act. And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. It’s something that we understand with absolute assurance of the veracity of that science. No one disputes some of the facts about it. Let me give you an example. When an apple separates from a tree, it falls to the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics. No one disputes that today. It’s a fact. It’s a scientific fact. Science also tells us that when water hits a low enough temperature, it’s going to turn into ice; when it reaches a high enough temperature, it’s going to boil. No one disputes that. Science and common sense tell us if you reach out and put your hand on a hot cook stove, you’re going to get burned. I can’t imagine anybody who would dispute that either.
So when thousands of the world’s leading scientists and five reports over a long period of time with thousands of scientists contributing to those reports – when they tell us over and over again that our climate is changing, that it is happening faster than they ever predicted, ever in recorded history, and when they tell us that we humans are the significant cause, let me tell you something: We need to listen.
When 97 percent of scientists agree on anything, we need to listen, and we need to respond.
Well, 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. These scientists agree on the causes of these changes and they agree on the potential effects. They agree that the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide contributes heavily to climate change. They agree that the energy sources that we’ve relied on for decades to fuel our cars and to heat our homes or to air condition our homes, to – all the things that provide us electricity like oil and coal – that these are largely responsible for sending those greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere. And the scientists agree that emissions coming from deforestation and from agriculture can also send enormous quantities of carbon pollution into our atmosphere.
And they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change – and it will change dramatically for the worse.
So we know this is happening, and we know it with virtually the same certainty that we understand that if we reach out and touch that hot stove, we’re going to get burned. In fact, this is not really a complicated equation. I know sometimes I can remember from when I was in high school and college, some aspects of science or physics can be tough – chemistry. But this is not tough. This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this.
Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here.
This is what’s causing climate change. It’s a huge irony that the very same layer of gases that has made life possible on Earth from the beginning now makes possible the greatest threat that the planet has ever seen.
And the results of our human activity are clear. If you ranked all the years in recorded history by average temperature, you’d see that 8 of the 10 hottest years have all happened within the last 10 years. Think about it this way: all 10 of the hottest years on record have actually happened since Google went online in 1998.
Now, that’s how fast this change is happening. And because the earth is getting hotter at such an alarming speed, glaciers in places like the Arctic are melting into the sea faster than we expected. And the sea is rising – slowly, but rising – and will rise to dangerous levels. Scientists now predict that by the end of the century, the sea could rise by a full meter. Now, I know that to some people a meter may not sound like a lot, but I’ll tell you this: it’s enough to put half of Jakarta underwater. Just one meter would displace hundreds of millions of people worldwide and threaten billions of dollars in economic activity. It would put countries into jeopardy. It would put countless – I mean, come to the local level – it would put countless homes and schools and parks, entire cities at risk.
Now, climate change also tragically means the end of some species. The changing sea temperature and the increasing amount of acidity – the acidity comes from coal-fired power plants and from the pollution, and when the rain falls the rain spills the acidity into the ocean. And it means that certain species of fish like cod or sardines can no longer live where they once lived. This is devastating for the world’s fisheries. And scientists predict that fisheries will be among the hardest hit. Just think about the fishermen who sell their fish catches at Pasar Ikan. Think about it. There are some studies that say that Indonesia’s fisheries could actually lose up to 40 percent of what they currently bring in – so a fisherman who usually has about a hundred fish to sell one day would suddenly only have 60 or so for sale. The impact is obvious.
Climate change also means water shortages. And if you have these enormous water shortages, then you have a change in the weather – because of the weather patterns, you’re going to wind up with droughts, the lack of water. And the droughts can become longer and more intense. In fact, this isn’t something around the corner – this is happening now.
We are seeing record droughts right now, and they’re already putting a strain on water resources around the world. We’ve already seen in various parts of the world – in Africa, for instance – people fighting each other over water, and we’ve seen more conflicts shaping up now over the limits of water. Back in the United States, President Obama just the other day visited California, where millions of people are now experiencing the 13th month of the worst drought the state has seen in 500 years. And no relief is in sight. What used to be a 100-year or a 500-year event is now repeating itself within 10 years.
Furthermore, climate change means fundamental transformations in agriculture worldwide. Scientists predict that, in some places, heat waves and water shortages will make it much more difficult for farmers to be able to grow the regular things we grow, like wheat or corn or rice. And obviously, it’s not only farmers who will suffer here – it’s the millions of people who depend on those crops that the farmers grow. For example, the British government research showed that climate change may have contributed to the famine that killed as many as 100,000 people in Somalia just back in 2010 and 2011.
And scientists further predict that climate change also means longer, more unpredictable monsoon seasons and more extreme weather events. Now, I’ll tell you, I can’t tell you – no weatherman on TV or anybody is going to be able to look at you and tell you – that one particular storm was absolutely the result of climate change. But scientists do predict that many more of these disastrous storms will occur if we continue down the current path. Ladies and gentlemen, I saw with my own eyes what the Philippines experienced in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan and I will tell you it would be absolutely devastating if that kind of storm were to become the normal thing that happens every single year in many places.
On top of the unspeakable humanitarian toll, the economic cost that follows a storm like that is absolutely massive. I don’t mean just the billions that it costs to rebuild. We’ve seen here in Asia how extreme weather events can disrupt world trade. For example, after serious flooding in 2011, global prices for external computer hard drives rose by more than 10 percent. Why? Because electronic manufacturing zones around Bangkok were out of commission, wiped out by the weather. So it’s not just about agriculture – it’s also about technology. It’s about our global economy. It’s about potentially catastrophic effects on the global supply chain.
Now, despite all of these realities – despite these facts – much of the world still doesn’t see or want to see the need to pursue a significant response to this threat. As recently as 2011, a survey of city officials here in Asia found that more than 80 percent of the population said they did not anticipate climate change hurting their cities’ economies.
And despite more than 25 years of scientific warning after scientific warning after scientific warning – despite all that, the call to arms that we heard back in Rio back in 1992 – despite that, we still haven’t globally summoned the urgency necessary to get the job done. And as a result of this complacency, last year the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere reached the highest point in human history – despite all the warnings.
Now, I know that these are some dramatic scientific facts – statistics. But think of it this way: If the worst-case scenario about climate change, all the worst predictions, if they never materialize, what will be the harm that is done from having made the decision to respond to it? We would actually leave our air cleaner. We would leave our water cleaner. We would actually make our food supply more secure. Our populations would be healthier because of fewer particulates of pollution in the air – less cost to health care. Those are the things that would happen if we happen to be wrong and we responded. But imagine if the 97 percent of those scientists are correct and the people who say no are wrong. Then the people who say no will have presented us with one of the most catastrophic, grave threats in the history of human life. That’s the choice here.
Notwithstanding the stark choices that we face, here’s the good thing: there is still time. The window of time is still open for us to be able to manage this threat. But the window is closing. And so I wanted to come to Jakarta to talk to you because we need people all over the world to raise their voices and to be heard. There is still time for us to significantly cut greenhouse emissions and prevent the very worst consequences of climate change from ever happening at all. But we need to move on this, and we need to move together now. We just don’t have time to let a few loud interests groups hijack the climate conversation. And when I say that, you know what I’m talking about? I’m talking about big companies that like it the way it is that don’t want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.
First and foremost, we should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact. Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. There are people who say, “Oh, it’s too expensive, we can’t do this.” No. No, folks. We certainly should not allow more time to be wasted by those who want to sit around debating whose responsibility it is to deal with this threat, while we come closer and closer to the point of no return.
I have to tell you, this is really not a normal kind of difference of opinion between people. Sometimes you can have a reasonable argument and a reasonable disagreement over an opinion you may have. This is not opinion. This is about facts. This is about science. The science is unequivocal. And those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.
Now, President and I – Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society. One of the arguments that we do hear is that it’s going to be too expensive to be able to address climate change. I have to tell you, that assertion could not be less grounded in fact. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. Serious analysts understand that the costs of doing nothing far outweigh the costs of investing in solutions now. You do not need a degree in economics or a graduate degree in business in order to understand that the cost of flooding, the cost of drought, the cost of famine, the cost of health care, the cost of addressing this challenge is simply far less – the costs of addressing this challenge are far less than the costs of doing nothing. Just look at the most recent analysis done by the World Bank, which estimates that by 2050, losses – excuse me one second – losses from flood damage in Asian ports – fishing ports, shipping ports – the losses in those ports alone could exceed $1 trillion annually unless we make big changes to the infrastructure of those ports.
Finally, if we truly want to prevent the worst consequences of climate change from happening, we do not have time to have a debate about whose responsibility this is. The answer is pretty simple: It’s everyone’s responsibility. Now certainly some countries – and I will say this very clearly, some countries, including the United States, contribute more to the problem and therefore we have an obligation to contribute more to the solution. I agree with that. But, ultimately, every nation on Earth has a responsibility to do its part if we have any hope of leaving our future generations the safe and healthy planet that they deserve.
You have a saying, I think, here in Indonesia, “Luka di kaki, sakit seluruh badan”. (Laughter.) I – for those that don’t speak as well as I do – (laughter) – it means “when there’s a pain in the foot, the whole body feels it.” Well, today in this interconnected world that we all live in, the fact is that hardship anywhere is actually felt by people everywhere. We all see it; we share it. And when a massive storm destroys a village and yet another and then another in Southeast Asia; when crops that used to grow abundantly no longer turn a profit for farmers in South America; when entire communities are forced to relocate because of rising tides – that’s happening – it’s not just one country or even one region that feels the pain. In today’s globalized economy, everyone feels it.
And when you think about it, that connection to climate change is really no different than how we confront other global threats.
Think about terrorism. We don’t decide to have just one country beef up the airport security and the others relax their standards and let bags on board without inspection. No, that clearly wouldn’t make us any safer.
Or think about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It doesn’t keep us safe if the United States secures its nuclear arsenal, while other countries fail to prevent theirs from falling into the hands of terrorists. We all have to approach this challenge together, which is why all together we are focused on Iran and its nuclear program or focused on North Korea and its threat.
The bottom line is this: it is the same thing with climate change. And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.
Now I mentioned earlier, a few minutes ago, that last December I went to Tacloban in the Philippines, not long after Typhoon Haiyan. I have to tell you: I’ve seen a lot of places in war and out of war and places that have been destroyed, but in all the time of my life, I don’t think I’ve ever seen devastation like. We saw cars and homes and lives turned upside-down, trees scattered like toothpicks all across a mountainside. And most devastating of all, so quickly, that storm stole the lives of more than 5,000 people – women, and children who never saw it coming.
The fact is that climate change, if left unchecked, will wipe out many more communities from the face of the earth. And that is unacceptable under any circumstances – but is even more unacceptable because we know what we can do and need to do in order to deal with this challenge.
It is time for the world to approach this problem with the cooperation, the urgency, and the commitment that a challenge of this scale warrants. It’s absolutely true that industrialized countries – yes, industrialized countries that produce most of the emissions – have a huge responsibility to be able to reduce emissions, but I’m telling you that doesn’t mean that other nations have a free pass. They don’t have a right to go out and repeat the mistakes of the past. It’s not enough for one country or even a few countries to reduce their emissions when other countries continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon pollution as they see fit. At the end of the day, emissions coming from anywhere in the world threaten the future for people everywhere in the world, because those emissions go up and then they move with the wind and they drop with the rain and the weather, and they keep going around and around and they threaten all of us.
Now, as I’ve already acknowledged, I am the first one to recognize the responsibility that the United States has, because we have contributed to this problem. We’re one of the number – we’re the number two emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. The number one is now China. The fact is that I recognize the responsibility that we have to erase the bad habits that we have, which we adopted, frankly, before we understood the consequences. Nobody set out to make this happen. This is the consequence of the industrial revolution and the transformation of the world, and many of the advances that we made that have changed the world for the better came from these steps. But now we do know the attendant consequences that are linked to these actions.
President Obama has taken the moral challenge head on. Over the past five years, the United States has done more to reduce the threat of climate change – domestically and with the help of our international partners – than in the 20 years before President Obama came to office.
Thanks to President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the United States is well on our way to meeting the international commitments to seriously cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and that’s because we’re going straight to the largest sources of pollution. We’re targeting emissions from transportation – cars trucks, rail, et cetera – and from power sources, which account together for more than 60 percent of the dangerous greenhouse gases that we release.
The President has put in place standards to double the fuel-efficiency of cars on American roads. And we’ve also proposed curbing carbon pollution from new power plants, and similar regulations are in the works to limit the carbon pollution coming from power plants that are already up and already running.
At the same time, Americans have actually doubled the amount of energy we are creating from wind, solar, and geothermal sources, and we’ve become smarter about the way we use energy in our homes and in our businesses. A huge amount of carbon pollution comes out of buildings, and it’s important in terms of the lighting, in terms of the emissions from those buildings, the air conditioning – all these kinds of things thought through properly can contribute to the solution. As a result, today in the United States, we are emitting less than we have in two decades.
We’re also providing assistance to international partners, like Indonesia. This year the Millennium Challenge Corporation launched the $332 million Green Prosperity program to help address deforestation and support innovation and clean energy throughout the country. We also implemented what we called “debt for nature” swaps, where we forgive some of the debt – and we have forgiven some of Indonesia’s debt – in return for investments in the conservation of forests in Sumatra and Kalimantan.
But the United States – simple reality: just as I talked about the scientific facts in the beginning, this is a fact – the United States cannot solve this problem or foot the bill alone. Even if every single American got on a bicycle tomorrow and carpooled – instead of – or carpooled to school instead of buses or riding in individual cars or driving, or rode their bike to work, or used only solar powers – panels in order to power their homes; if we each, every American, planted a dozen trees; if we eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions – guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to counter the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. Because today, if even one or two economies neglects to respond to this threat, it can counter, erase all of the good work that the rest of the world has done. When I say we need a global solution, I mean we need a global solution.
That is why the United States is prepared to take the lead in bringing other nations to the table. And this is something that President Obama is deeply committed to. And as Secretary of State, I am personally committed to making sure that this work is front and center in all of our diplomatic efforts. This week I will be instructing all of the chiefs of our missions at American embassies all over the world to make climate change a top priority and to use all the tools of diplomacy that they have at their disposal in order to help address this threat.
Now I have just come here today, I arrived last night from China, where I met with government leaders and we discussed our cooperation, our collaboration on this climate change front at length. The Chinese see firsthand every single day how dangerous pollution can be. I recently read that an 8-year-old girl was diagnosed with lung cancer because of all the air pollution that she was inhaling. Eight years old. And the devastating human toll pollution, it takes comes with a very hefty price tag: Air pollution already costs China as much as 8 percent of its GDP because two things happen as a result of the pollution: healthcare spending goes up and agricultural output goes down.
Now I am pleased to tell you that the leaders of China agree that it is time to pursue a cleaner path forward. And China is taking steps, and we have already taken significant steps together through the U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group that we launched in Beijing last year.
Just yesterday, we announced a new agreement on an enhanced policy of dialogue that includes the sharing of information and policies so that we can help develop plans to deal with the UN climate change negotiation that takes place in Paris next year, in planning for the post-2020 limit to greenhouse gas emissions. These plans are a key input into UN negotiations to develop a new global climate agreement, and we have hopes that this unique partnership between China and the United States can help set an example for global leadership and global seriousness.
Now make no mistake: this is real progress. The U.S. and China are the world’s two largest economies. We are two of the largest consumers of energy, and we are two of the largest emitters of global greenhouse gases – together we account for roughly 40 percent of the world’s emissions.
But this is not just about china and the United States. It’s about every country on Earth doing whatever it can to pursue cleaner and healthier energy sources. And it’s about the all of us literally treating the pain in the foot, so the whole body hurts a little less.
Now this is going to require us to continue the UN negotiations and ultimately finalize an ambitious global agreement in Paris next year. And nations need to also be pursuing smaller bilateral agreements, public-private partnerships, independent domestic initiatives – you name it. There’s nothing to stop any of you from helping to push here, to pick things that you can do in Indonesia. It’s time for us to recognize that the choices the world makes in the coming months and years will directly and substantially affect our quality of life for generations to come.
Now I tell you, I’m looking out at a young audience here. All of you are the leaders of the future. And what we’re talking about is what kind of world are we going to leave you. I know that some of what I’m talking about here today, it seems awful big, and some of it may even like it’s out of reach to you. But I have to tell you it’s not. One person in one place can make a difference – by talking about how they manage a building, how they heat a school, what kind of things you do for recycling, transportation you use. What you don’t – I think what you don’t hear enough about today, unfortunately, and I’ve saved it for the end, because I want you to leave here feeling, wow, we can get something done. There’s a big set of opportunities in front of us. And that’s because the most important news of all: that climate change isn’t only a challenge. It’s not only a burden. It also presents one of the greatest economic opportunities of all time.
The global energy market is the future. The solution to climate change is energy policy. And this market is poised to be the largest market the world has ever known. Between now and 2035, investment in the energy sector is expected to reach nearly $17 trillion. That’s more than the entire GDP of China and India combined.
The great technology – many of you have your smart phones or your iPads, et cetera, here today – all of this technology that we use so much today was a $1 trillion market in the 1990s with 1 billion users. The energy market is a $6 trillion market with, today, 6 billion users, and it’s going to grow to maybe 9 billion users over the course of the next 20, 30, 40 years. The solution to climate change is as clear as the problem. The solution is making the right choices on energy policy. It’s as simple as that. And with a few smart choices, we can ensure that clean energy is the most attractive investment in the global energy sector.
To do this, governments and international financial institutions need to stop providing incentives for the use of energy sources like coal and oil. Instead, we have to make the most of the innovative energy technology that entrepreneurs are developing all over the world – including here in Indonesia, where innovative companies like Sky Energy are building solar and battery storage and projects that can help power entire villages.
And we have to invest in new technology that will help us bring renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydro power not only to the communities where those resources are abundant –but to every community and to every country on every continent.
I am very well aware that these are not easy choices for any country to make – I know that. I’ve been in politics for a while. I know the pull and different powerful political forces. Coal and oil are currently cheap ways to power a society, at least in the near term. But I urge governments to measure the full cost to that coal and that oil, measure the impacts of what will happen as we go down the road. You cannot simply factor in the immediate costs of energy needs. You have to factor in the long-term cost of carbon pollution. And they have to factor in the cost of survival. And if they do, then governments will find that the cost of pursuing clean energy now is far cheaper than paying for the consequences of climate change later.
Make no mistake: the technology is out there. None of this is beyond our capacity.
I am absolutely confident that if we choose to, we will meet this challenge. Remember: we’re the ones – we, all of us, the world – helped to discover things like penicillin and we eradicated smallpox. We found a way to light up the night all around the world with a flip of the switch and spread that technology to more than three quarters of the world’s population. We came up with a way for people to fly and move from one place to another in the air between cities and across oceans, and into outer space. And we put the full wealth of human knowledge into a device we can hold in our hand that does all of the thinking that used to take up a whole room almost this size.
Human ingenuity has long proven its ability to solve seemingly insurmountable challenges. It is not a lack of ability that is a problem. It is a lack of political resolve that is standing in our way. And I will tell you as somebody who ran for elected office, when you hear from the people, when the people make it clear what they want and what they think they need, then people in politics respond.
Today I call on all of you in Indonesia and concerned citizens around the world to demand the resolve that is necessary from your leaders. Speak out. Make climate change an issue that no public official can ignore for another day. Make a transition towards clean energy the only plan that you are willing to accept.
And if we come together now, we can not only meet the challenge, we can create jobs and economic growth in every corner of the globe. We can clean up the air, we can improve the health of people, we can have greater security; we can make our neighborhoods healthier places to live; we can help ensure that farmers and fishers can still make a sustainable living and feed our communities; and we can avoid disputes and even entire wars over oil, water, and other limited resources. We can make good on the moral responsibility we all have to leave future generations with a planet that is clean and healthy and sustainable for the future.
The United States is ready to work with you in this endeavor. With Indonesia and the rest of the world pulling in the same direction, we can meet this challenge, the greatest challenge of our generation, and we can create the future that everybody dreams of.
Thank you all very much for letting me be with you. Thank you. (Applause.)
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
THE BIOMASS BIG PICTURE
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
There's more to biofuel production than yield
Focusing solely on yield comes at a high price
When it comes to biofuels, corn leads the all-important category of biomass yield. However, focusing solely on yield comes at a high price, scientists say.
In this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the researchers show that looking at the big picture allows other biofuel crops, such as native perennial grasses, to score higher as viable alternatives.
"We believe our findings have major implications for bioenergy research and policy," said Doug Landis, a biologist at Michigan State University (MSU) and one of the paper's lead authors.
"Biomass yield is obviously a key goal, but it appears to come at the expense of many other environmental benefits that society may desire from rural landscapes."
Landis and a team of researchers from the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center and the National Science Foundation (NSF) Kellogg Biological Station Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site compared three potential biofuel crops: corn, switchgrass and mixes of native prairie grasses and flowering plants.
Kellogg Biological Station is one of 26 such NSF LTER sites in ecosystems from grasslands to coral reefs, deserts to mountains around the world.
"Sustainability, food security, biodiversity, biofuel production--all are important to an increasing human population," says Saran Twombly, program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research through the LTER Program. "This is a superb example of how fundamental ecological research can assist human well-being."
The scientists measured the diversity of plants, pests and beneficial insects, birds and microbes that consume methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.
Methane consumption, pest suppression, pollination and bird populations were higher in perennial grasslands.
In addition, the team found that the grass crops' ability to harbor such increased biodiversity is strongly linked to the fields' location relative to other habitats.
For example, pest suppression, which is already higher in perennial grass crops, increased by an additional 30 percent when fields were located near other perennial grass habitats.
That suggests that to enhance pest suppression and other critical ecosystem services, coordinated land use should play a key role in agricultural policy and planning, Landis said.
"With supportive policies, we envision the ability to design agricultural landscapes to maximize multiple benefits," he said.
However, rising corn and other commodity prices tempt farmers to till and plant as much of their available land as possible.
"Corn prices are currently attractive to farmers, but with the exception of biomass yield, all other services were greater in the perennial grass crops," Landis said.
"If high commodity prices continue to drive conversion of these marginal lands to annual crop production, it will reduce the flexibility we have in the future to promote other critical services like pollination, pest suppression and reduction of greenhouse gases."
Additional MSU researchers involved in the study include Ben Werling, Timothy Dickson, Rufus Isaacs, Katherine Gross, Carolyn Malmstrom, Leilei Ruan, Philip Robertson, Thomas Schmidt, Tracy Teal and Julianna Wilson.
Scientists from the University of Wisconsin, University of Nebraska, Bard College and Trinity Christian College were part of the research.
The work was also funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and MSU AgBioResearch.
-NSF-
There's more to biofuel production than yield
Focusing solely on yield comes at a high price
When it comes to biofuels, corn leads the all-important category of biomass yield. However, focusing solely on yield comes at a high price, scientists say.
In this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the researchers show that looking at the big picture allows other biofuel crops, such as native perennial grasses, to score higher as viable alternatives.
"We believe our findings have major implications for bioenergy research and policy," said Doug Landis, a biologist at Michigan State University (MSU) and one of the paper's lead authors.
"Biomass yield is obviously a key goal, but it appears to come at the expense of many other environmental benefits that society may desire from rural landscapes."
Landis and a team of researchers from the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center and the National Science Foundation (NSF) Kellogg Biological Station Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site compared three potential biofuel crops: corn, switchgrass and mixes of native prairie grasses and flowering plants.
Kellogg Biological Station is one of 26 such NSF LTER sites in ecosystems from grasslands to coral reefs, deserts to mountains around the world.
"Sustainability, food security, biodiversity, biofuel production--all are important to an increasing human population," says Saran Twombly, program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research through the LTER Program. "This is a superb example of how fundamental ecological research can assist human well-being."
The scientists measured the diversity of plants, pests and beneficial insects, birds and microbes that consume methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.
Methane consumption, pest suppression, pollination and bird populations were higher in perennial grasslands.
In addition, the team found that the grass crops' ability to harbor such increased biodiversity is strongly linked to the fields' location relative to other habitats.
For example, pest suppression, which is already higher in perennial grass crops, increased by an additional 30 percent when fields were located near other perennial grass habitats.
That suggests that to enhance pest suppression and other critical ecosystem services, coordinated land use should play a key role in agricultural policy and planning, Landis said.
"With supportive policies, we envision the ability to design agricultural landscapes to maximize multiple benefits," he said.
However, rising corn and other commodity prices tempt farmers to till and plant as much of their available land as possible.
"Corn prices are currently attractive to farmers, but with the exception of biomass yield, all other services were greater in the perennial grass crops," Landis said.
"If high commodity prices continue to drive conversion of these marginal lands to annual crop production, it will reduce the flexibility we have in the future to promote other critical services like pollination, pest suppression and reduction of greenhouse gases."
Additional MSU researchers involved in the study include Ben Werling, Timothy Dickson, Rufus Isaacs, Katherine Gross, Carolyn Malmstrom, Leilei Ruan, Philip Robertson, Thomas Schmidt, Tracy Teal and Julianna Wilson.
Scientists from the University of Wisconsin, University of Nebraska, Bard College and Trinity Christian College were part of the research.
The work was also funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and MSU AgBioResearch.
-NSF-
Saturday, August 24, 2013
U.S. OFFICIAL'S REMARKS AT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WATER COOPERATION
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
High-Level International Conference on Water Cooperation
Remarks
Daniel A. Reifsnyder
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Dushanbe, Tajikistan
August 21, 2013
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like others, we wish to thank President Rahmon and the Government and people of Tajikistan for their leadership on these important issues and for their warm hospitality.
The message of this conference should be simple: There is no alternative to cooperation on water.
We have heard repeatedly of the incredible challenges that nearly every one of us now faces and will continue to face. I don’t think there is one among us who does not appreciate – at a personal level – the importance of water. Our economies depend on it, our environment depends on it, and our lives depend on it. We know this is true for ourselves and for our neighbors.
As demands rise and supplies decline – as variability increases – there will be conflicts among competing uses and among competing users. There will be legitimate disputes over who has access, and over when and how water is used. There will also be less room for mistakes and a greater need to get the most value out of every drop.
This can be done. In the United States, we have more than 20 large river basins and more than 20,000 small watersheds. We share several rivers with our neighbors. The availability of water and the demand for water varies greatly across these basins, as do the interests of the public in how these resources should be managed.
We have a range of institutional arrangements that support joint research, data sharing and cooperative decision-making. We are working with Canada, jointly managing our shared river systems to optimize power production, protect the environment, and minimize the risks from floods. With Mexico, we recently put in place a provisional agreement that enables Mexico to store water.
I am pleased that this conference is so strongly focused on positive examples of cooperation. There seem to be common strands that run through each of these examples -- among them: (1) a thorough understanding of the problems each participant faces; (2) an appreciation of the concerns that arise from these problems; (3) a willingness to share data and information, which increases trust and confidence; (4) a willingness to work together in various arrangements and mechanisms to address shared problems jointly; and (5) a strong belief that cooperation produces better, more durable results.
I am also pleased to be here discussing some of the mechanisms that support cooperation on shared waters -- such as the Shared Waters Program (SWP) at the United Nations Development Program. The SWP is a multi-donor platform for establishing new, or strengthening existing, regional mechanisms for advancing cooperation on shared waters. Initial U.S. funding is currently supporting SWP activities in several basins. The focus of this initiative will be on laying the ground work -- for example, through meetings, workshops, legal/technical/facilitation expertise that establish a foundation -- for cooperative work between and among countries on shared waters. Once that ground work is laid, we expect that long-term capacity building and institutional reform will be supported through traditional bilateral and regional development assistance efforts. The SWP thus complements these development activities.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that there really is no choice. The history here is clear – without cooperation economic growth is slower and insecurity grows. Through cooperation, communities and countries can fully realize the multiple benefits of shared water resources, and work toward a more secure water future.
I thank you.
High-Level International Conference on Water Cooperation
Remarks
Daniel A. Reifsnyder
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Dushanbe, Tajikistan
August 21, 2013
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like others, we wish to thank President Rahmon and the Government and people of Tajikistan for their leadership on these important issues and for their warm hospitality.
The message of this conference should be simple: There is no alternative to cooperation on water.
We have heard repeatedly of the incredible challenges that nearly every one of us now faces and will continue to face. I don’t think there is one among us who does not appreciate – at a personal level – the importance of water. Our economies depend on it, our environment depends on it, and our lives depend on it. We know this is true for ourselves and for our neighbors.
As demands rise and supplies decline – as variability increases – there will be conflicts among competing uses and among competing users. There will be legitimate disputes over who has access, and over when and how water is used. There will also be less room for mistakes and a greater need to get the most value out of every drop.
This can be done. In the United States, we have more than 20 large river basins and more than 20,000 small watersheds. We share several rivers with our neighbors. The availability of water and the demand for water varies greatly across these basins, as do the interests of the public in how these resources should be managed.
We have a range of institutional arrangements that support joint research, data sharing and cooperative decision-making. We are working with Canada, jointly managing our shared river systems to optimize power production, protect the environment, and minimize the risks from floods. With Mexico, we recently put in place a provisional agreement that enables Mexico to store water.
I am pleased that this conference is so strongly focused on positive examples of cooperation. There seem to be common strands that run through each of these examples -- among them: (1) a thorough understanding of the problems each participant faces; (2) an appreciation of the concerns that arise from these problems; (3) a willingness to share data and information, which increases trust and confidence; (4) a willingness to work together in various arrangements and mechanisms to address shared problems jointly; and (5) a strong belief that cooperation produces better, more durable results.
I am also pleased to be here discussing some of the mechanisms that support cooperation on shared waters -- such as the Shared Waters Program (SWP) at the United Nations Development Program. The SWP is a multi-donor platform for establishing new, or strengthening existing, regional mechanisms for advancing cooperation on shared waters. Initial U.S. funding is currently supporting SWP activities in several basins. The focus of this initiative will be on laying the ground work -- for example, through meetings, workshops, legal/technical/facilitation expertise that establish a foundation -- for cooperative work between and among countries on shared waters. Once that ground work is laid, we expect that long-term capacity building and institutional reform will be supported through traditional bilateral and regional development assistance efforts. The SWP thus complements these development activities.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that there really is no choice. The history here is clear – without cooperation economic growth is slower and insecurity grows. Through cooperation, communities and countries can fully realize the multiple benefits of shared water resources, and work toward a more secure water future.
I thank you.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
MICROBIAL ASTRONAUTS
FROM: NASA
Spaceflight Alters Bacterial Social Networks
When astronauts launch into space, a microbial entourage follows. And the sheer number of these followers would give celebrities on Twitter a run for their money. The estimate is that normal, healthy adults have ten times as many microbial cells as human cells within their bodies; countless more populate the environment around us. Although invisible to the naked eye, microorganisms – some friend, some foe – are found practically everywhere.
Microorganisms like bacteria often are found attached to surfaces living in communities known as biofilms. Bacteria within biofilms are protected by a slimy matrix that they secrete. Skip brushing your teeth tomorrow morning and you may personally experience what a biofilm feels like.
One of NASA’s goals is to minimize the health risks associated with extended spaceflight, so it is critical that methods for preventing and treating spaceflight-induced illnesses be developed before astronauts embark upon long-duration space missions. It is important for NASA to learn how bacterial communities that play roles in human health and disease are affected by spaceflight.
In two NASA-funded studies – Micro-2 and Micro-2A – biofilms made by the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa were cultured on Earth and aboard space shuttle Atlantis in 2010 and 2011 to determine the impact of microgravity on their behavior. P. aeruginosa is an opportunistic human pathogen that is commonly used for biofilm studies. The research team compared the biofilms grown aboard the International Space Station bound space shuttle with those grown on the ground. The study results show for the first time that spaceflight changes the behavior of bacterial communities.
Although most bacterial biofilms are harmless, some threaten human health and safety. Biofilms can exhibit increased resistance to the immune system’s defenses or treatment with antibiotics. They also can damage vital equipment aboard spacecraft by corroding surfaces or clogging air and water purification systems that provide life support for astronauts. Biofilms cause similar problems on Earth.
“Biofilms were rampant on the Mir space station and continue to be a challenge on the International Space Station, but we still don’t really know what role gravity plays in their growth and development,” said Cynthia Collins, Ph.D., principal investigator for the study and assistant professor in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. “Before we start sending astronauts to Mars or embarking on other long-term spaceflight missions, we need to be as certain as possible that we have eliminated or significantly reduced the risk that biofilms pose to the human crew and their equipment.”
In 2010 and 2011, during the STS-132 and STS-135 missions aboard space shuttle Atlantis, astronauts in space and scientists on Earth performed nearly simultaneous parallel experiments; both teams cultured samples of P. aeruginosa bacteria using conditions that encouraged biofilm formation.
Identical hardware designed for growing cells during spaceflight were used for both the flight and ground studies. According to Collins, “artificial urine was chosen as a growth medium because it is a physiologically relevant environment for the study of biofilms formed both inside and outside the human body.”
Biofilms were cultured inside specialized fluid processing apparatus composed of glass tubes divided into chambers. The researchers loaded each tube with a membrane that provided a surface on which the bacteria could grow; the artificial urine was used for the bacteria’s nourishment. Samples of P. aeruginosa were loaded into separate chambers within each tube.
The prepared tubes were placed in groups of eight inside another specialized device called a group activation pack (GAP) – designed to activate all of the bacterial cultures at once. The research team prepared identical sets of GAPs for the concurrent spaceflight and ground experiments.
Astronauts aboard the shuttle initiated the flight experiments by operating the GAPs and introducing the bacteria to the artificial urine medium. Scientists on Earth performed the same operations with the control group of GAPs at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. After activation, the GAPs were housed in incubators on Earth and aboard the shuttle to maintain temperatures appropriate for bacterial growth.
After the microgravity samples returned to Earth, the researchers determined the thickness of the biofilms, the number of living cells and the volume of biofilm per area on the membranes. Additionally, they used a microscopy technique that allowed them to capture high-resolution images at different depths within the biofilms, revealing details of their three-dimensional structures.
What the scientists found was that the P. aeruginosa biofilms grown in space contained more cells, more mass and were thicker than the control biofilms grown on Earth. When they viewed the microscopy images of the space-grown biofilms, the researchers saw a unique, previously unobserved structure consisting of a dense mat-like “canopy” structure supported above the membrane by “columns.” The Earth grown biofilms were uniformly dense, flat structures. These results provide the first evidence that spaceflight affects community-level behavior of bacteria.
Microbes experience “low shear” conditions in microgravity that resemble conditions inside the human body, but are difficult to study. According to Collins, “Beyond its importance for astronauts and future space explorers, this research also could lead to novel methods for preventing and treating human disease on Earth. Examining the effects of spaceflight on biofilm formation can provide new insights into how different factors, such as gravity, fluid dynamics and nutrient availability affect biofilm formation on Earth. Additionally, the research findings one day could help inform new, innovative approaches for curbing the spread of infections in hospitals.”
NASA’s Space Biology Program funded the Micro-2 and Micro-2A investigations. Related space biology research continues aboard the space station, including recently selected studies that are planned for future launch to the orbiting laboratory.
Wherever we go, microbial communities will faithfully follow, making this evidence of the effects of spaceflight on bacterial physiology relevant to human health. That bacterial biofilms exhibit different behavior in space versus on Earth is critical information as NASA strives to keep astronauts healthy and safe during future long-duration space missions.
by Gianine M. Figliozzi
Spaceflight Alters Bacterial Social Networks
When astronauts launch into space, a microbial entourage follows. And the sheer number of these followers would give celebrities on Twitter a run for their money. The estimate is that normal, healthy adults have ten times as many microbial cells as human cells within their bodies; countless more populate the environment around us. Although invisible to the naked eye, microorganisms – some friend, some foe – are found practically everywhere.
Microorganisms like bacteria often are found attached to surfaces living in communities known as biofilms. Bacteria within biofilms are protected by a slimy matrix that they secrete. Skip brushing your teeth tomorrow morning and you may personally experience what a biofilm feels like.
One of NASA’s goals is to minimize the health risks associated with extended spaceflight, so it is critical that methods for preventing and treating spaceflight-induced illnesses be developed before astronauts embark upon long-duration space missions. It is important for NASA to learn how bacterial communities that play roles in human health and disease are affected by spaceflight.
In two NASA-funded studies – Micro-2 and Micro-2A – biofilms made by the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa were cultured on Earth and aboard space shuttle Atlantis in 2010 and 2011 to determine the impact of microgravity on their behavior. P. aeruginosa is an opportunistic human pathogen that is commonly used for biofilm studies. The research team compared the biofilms grown aboard the International Space Station bound space shuttle with those grown on the ground. The study results show for the first time that spaceflight changes the behavior of bacterial communities.
Although most bacterial biofilms are harmless, some threaten human health and safety. Biofilms can exhibit increased resistance to the immune system’s defenses or treatment with antibiotics. They also can damage vital equipment aboard spacecraft by corroding surfaces or clogging air and water purification systems that provide life support for astronauts. Biofilms cause similar problems on Earth.
“Biofilms were rampant on the Mir space station and continue to be a challenge on the International Space Station, but we still don’t really know what role gravity plays in their growth and development,” said Cynthia Collins, Ph.D., principal investigator for the study and assistant professor in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. “Before we start sending astronauts to Mars or embarking on other long-term spaceflight missions, we need to be as certain as possible that we have eliminated or significantly reduced the risk that biofilms pose to the human crew and their equipment.”
In 2010 and 2011, during the STS-132 and STS-135 missions aboard space shuttle Atlantis, astronauts in space and scientists on Earth performed nearly simultaneous parallel experiments; both teams cultured samples of P. aeruginosa bacteria using conditions that encouraged biofilm formation.
Identical hardware designed for growing cells during spaceflight were used for both the flight and ground studies. According to Collins, “artificial urine was chosen as a growth medium because it is a physiologically relevant environment for the study of biofilms formed both inside and outside the human body.”
Biofilms were cultured inside specialized fluid processing apparatus composed of glass tubes divided into chambers. The researchers loaded each tube with a membrane that provided a surface on which the bacteria could grow; the artificial urine was used for the bacteria’s nourishment. Samples of P. aeruginosa were loaded into separate chambers within each tube.
The prepared tubes were placed in groups of eight inside another specialized device called a group activation pack (GAP) – designed to activate all of the bacterial cultures at once. The research team prepared identical sets of GAPs for the concurrent spaceflight and ground experiments.
Astronauts aboard the shuttle initiated the flight experiments by operating the GAPs and introducing the bacteria to the artificial urine medium. Scientists on Earth performed the same operations with the control group of GAPs at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. After activation, the GAPs were housed in incubators on Earth and aboard the shuttle to maintain temperatures appropriate for bacterial growth.
After the microgravity samples returned to Earth, the researchers determined the thickness of the biofilms, the number of living cells and the volume of biofilm per area on the membranes. Additionally, they used a microscopy technique that allowed them to capture high-resolution images at different depths within the biofilms, revealing details of their three-dimensional structures.
What the scientists found was that the P. aeruginosa biofilms grown in space contained more cells, more mass and were thicker than the control biofilms grown on Earth. When they viewed the microscopy images of the space-grown biofilms, the researchers saw a unique, previously unobserved structure consisting of a dense mat-like “canopy” structure supported above the membrane by “columns.” The Earth grown biofilms were uniformly dense, flat structures. These results provide the first evidence that spaceflight affects community-level behavior of bacteria.
Microbes experience “low shear” conditions in microgravity that resemble conditions inside the human body, but are difficult to study. According to Collins, “Beyond its importance for astronauts and future space explorers, this research also could lead to novel methods for preventing and treating human disease on Earth. Examining the effects of spaceflight on biofilm formation can provide new insights into how different factors, such as gravity, fluid dynamics and nutrient availability affect biofilm formation on Earth. Additionally, the research findings one day could help inform new, innovative approaches for curbing the spread of infections in hospitals.”
NASA’s Space Biology Program funded the Micro-2 and Micro-2A investigations. Related space biology research continues aboard the space station, including recently selected studies that are planned for future launch to the orbiting laboratory.
Wherever we go, microbial communities will faithfully follow, making this evidence of the effects of spaceflight on bacterial physiology relevant to human health. That bacterial biofilms exhibit different behavior in space versus on Earth is critical information as NASA strives to keep astronauts healthy and safe during future long-duration space missions.
by Gianine M. Figliozzi
Monday, April 29, 2013
U.S. OFFICIAL'S REMARKS AT U.S.-RUSSIA INNOVATION WORKING GROUP EXECUTIVE SESSION
 |
| Map of Russia From CIA World Factbook |
Remarks for the U.S. - Russia Innovation Working Group Executive Session
Remarks
Robert D. Hormats
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment
Washington, DC
April 24, 2013
As Prepared
Thank you, Lorraine, for the kind introduction, and thank you and Oleg for coordinating the working group. I would also like to thank Microsoft – specifically Daniel Lewin and Dorothy Dwoskin – for hosting today’s meeting. I am very grateful to our Russian colleagues for their hard work and participation. And, of course, I would like to thank all of the working group members who attended and presented today.
Both the United States and Russia have a long and proud history of invention. We train some of the world’s best scientists and engineers. And we are home to some of the most innovative businesses. Bloomberg Business Week recently released a list of the 50 Most Innovative Countries. I was impressed—though not surprised—at how quickly Russia has advanced in the rankings. Russia has positioned itself to seize upon fast-growing global innovative sectors, such as aerospace and information and communications technology. We strongly supports Russia’s efforts to create a innovation economy because bringing new technologies to market is good not just for Russia, it is also beneficial to the U.S. economy and society as a whole.
This understanding is embedded in U.S.-Russia Innovation Working Group’s mission. Members of the U.S.-Russia Innovation Working Group have been working on an exciting array of initiatives to support commercialization. I will highlight three key areas of cooperation.
First, the working group has helped advance a series of regional partnerships. I am delighted that Deputy Governor Ivanov has joined today’s meeting to present on the cooperation plan between Nizhny Novgorod Oblast and the State of Maryland. Our goal is to spur future regional partnerships and, in particular, to broaden cooperation to include other regional clusters and other industries. The United States is home to a number of lesser-known, but equally impressive innovation clusters. There is a tremendous aerospace sector in Oklahoma, Florida, and Mississippi; Minnesota and Utah are home to a booming information technology sector; and Arizona is making strides in nanotechnology.
The Working Group should consider these clusters for future collaboration.
The second major area of discussion today was on the commercialization of innovative technologies. Working group members provided an update on their ongoing programs, including the American Councils’ Enhancing University Research and Entrepreneurial Capacity – or EURECA – program. This partnership between U.S. and Russian research universities is aimed at building the innovation ecosystem and expanding entrepreneurial and technology transfer capacities. In addition to the EURECA program update, CRDF Global and the National Business Incubators Association spoke about their efforts and ideas on promoting innovation in the United States and Russia.
Last, the working group has helped better delineate the government’s role in innovation. My good friend Alan Wolff—who is one of our foremost experts on comparative innovation policy—shared his thoughts on the U.S. experience and the role of our government. As I mentioned earlier, the United States is an innovation nation but, of course, we have learned hard lessons along the way.
So, there is a tremendous opportunity for others to benefit from our path. Tomorrow, many of you will visit the National Institutes of Health, where you will see firsthand an example of the government’s role in biotech innovation. You will also meet with officials from the Small Business Administration and learn about their "Small Business Innovation Research" program. This program helps small businesses by providing funds for the critical startup and development stages of technology commercialization. One of the most important things a government can do to promote innovation is to establish a legal and regulatory framework that is conducive to entrepreneurial thinking and bringing new ideas to market. You heard today recommendations by an expert group of U.S. and Russian lawyers for both of our governments. I have seen the policy recommendations and look forward to a read-out of the discussion during this session. I would like to thank all those who contributed to this report.
Now it is our turn.
The United States is—and will remain—and innovation economy. That’s why our government takes these recommendations seriously. The Russian government has also heeded the call to action. Russia has placed a very high priority on implementing policies that foster and facilitate innovation. The Bloomberg statistic I quoted earlier is testament to this fact. My colleague and co-chair of the U.S.-Russia Innovation Working Group, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation and Government Chief of Staff Vladislav Surkov will speak to the Russian perspective. Mr. Surkov has been a prominent voice for the promotion of innovation in Russia and a strong supporter of our bilateral innovation cooperation agenda. Vladislav Yuryevich it is a pleasure to have you here, and I now turn the microphone over to you.
Thank you.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
EPA PUBLISHES U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY
FROM: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Publishes 18th Annual U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its 18th annual report of overall U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions showing a 1.6 percent decrease in 2011 from the previous year. Recent trends can be attributed to multiple factors including reduced emissions from electricity generation, improvements in fuel efficiency in vehicles with reductions in miles traveled, and year-to-year changes in the prevailing weather.
Under this Administration, EPA has taken a number of common sense steps to help reduce GHG emissions. This includes increasing fuel efficiency for cars that will reduce America’s dependence on oil by an estimated 12 billion barrels by 2025, and increasing energy efficiency through the Energy Star program that saved Americans $24 billion in utility bills in 2012.
GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans. GHG emissions in 2011 showed a 6.9 percent drop below 2005 levels. Total emissions of the six main greenhouse gases in 2011 were equivalent to 6,702 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011 is the latest annual report that the United States has submitted to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change since it was ratified by the United States in 1992. The treaty sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to address the challenge posed by climate change. EPA prepares the annual report in collaboration with other federal agencies and after gathering comments from stakeholders across the country.
The inventory tracks annual GHG emissions at the national level and presents historical emissions from 1990 to 2011. The inventory also calculates carbon dioxide emissions that are removed from the atmosphere through the uptake of carbon by forests, vegetation, soils, and other natural processes (called carbon "sinks").
Emissions and TrendsSince 1990, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by about 8%. From year to year, emissions can rise and fall due to changes in the economy, the price of fuel, and other factors. In 2011, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions decreased compared to 2010 levels. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed to generate electricity due to a decrease in coal consumption, with increased natural gas consumption and a significant increase in hydropower used. Additionally, relatively mild winter conditions, especially in the South Atlantic Region of the United States where electricity is an important heating fuel, resulted in an overall decrease in electricity demand in most sectors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)