Green book review - Climate Myths: The Campaign Against Climate Science by Dr. John J. Berger

Climate change is always a fascinating story, not just the way it changes our lives, but also the way it became a public debate and the role political and economic forces played to increase the uncertainty about it. 

The latter is also the subject of the book we're reviewing this:  

Climate Myths: The Campaign Against Climate Science by Dr. John J. Berger (publisher: Northbrae Books)

What this book is about?
Climate Myths describes the fossil fuel industries’ successful two-decade-long campaign to control the public debate over global climate change―with disastrous consequences. The book reveals how fossil fuel companies manufactured controversies about climate change, obscuring its true causes and effects.  Dangerous climate change has now become a reality for which the nation is unprepared: Federal climate policy has been stalemated, legislation has been stillborn, and international climate negotiations have been stymied.

Climate Myths exposes how the fossil fuel industry’s campaign was modeled on the cigarette companies’ campaign to convince Americans that tobacco was not a health hazard, and how it operated to sow doubt about climate change through a network of prominent proxy organizations.  The book provides insights into the campaign’s origins, motives, techniques, and main actors as it tracks the industry’s ever-changing and contradictory climate myths.  

Beyond merely describing the way we got to this tragic, perilous impasse, the book carefully dissects the fossil fuel industry’s main allegations about climate change―one-by-one―in language ordinary readers can understand. 

The book includes a preface and foreword by two eminent climate scientists, Dr. Kevin Trenberth and Dr. John Harte, and an introduction by John H. Adams, winner of the 2010 Presidential Medal of Freedom.

About the author: 

Dr. John J. Berger is the author and editor of 11 books on climate, energy, and natural resources. He is a graduate of Stanford University and has a master’s in energy and natural resources from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in ecology from UC Davis.

Our review:

I read this book in its entirety. The actual reading and material was only 64 pages, which I really liked. I didn’t feel overwhelmed with information, which sometimes you get with the longer books. I do have very mixed thoughts about its content though. The book gives you loads of information, which you then need to try to take in and think about. It’s written in a way that most people will be able to understand and is then backed up with documentation. There are plenty of references and organizations in the index, which were very helpful. I was able to go and check out some of the issues and do research on my own which I actually enjoy. Plus with this type of issue, I believe people need to go out and do some of their own research in order to fully understand the problem. The index was a huge help and road map in being able to do just that. 

However, I found a lot of hypocrisy within its pages. I believe that we have a very real climate issue on our hands. This book, in my opinion, is part of the problem in getting people on board. For instance, in one section it states that 2,500 of the world’s leading scientist were in agreement with the climate issues. Yet, when you do a basic search of climate scientists there are well over 18,000-42,000 (give or take). So there is only a fraction of the climate scientists that actually agree on what is the cause of global warming. This is a huge problem. If the scientists can’t even agree, how do we expect the world too? I’m not even going to touch the tax section. 

There is also a section that goes on about how easy it is to make unfounded charges and raise misleading questions. It continues with how the skeptical try to make their case by going to the media and the students, on TV and on the radio and even to the online communities. Both of these examples can be said for both sides of the case. Both are able to make unfounded charges and raise misleading questions. Both sides are all over the media and on the tv and everywhere you look. My problem is that this book seems to be all about finger pointing and not the real issues, not the facts. It causes more questions instead of answering them. 

I understand this was a book on the campaign against climate science, but the blame game is not going to help. For the people already on board with the climate issues, I believe that this is a very good book and I believe will be well read. However, in my opinion, I don’t believe it will appeal to the conflicted, which is the very group climate science needs in order to make a difference. We have to appeal to them with facts and science, not with blame and finger pointing.

You can purchase the book on Amazon.com (both e-book and hardcover formats are available).

Yours,

Raz @ Eco-Libris
Plant a tree for every book you read!

Green book of the week: Global Warming by Seymour Simon

Today we review a green book that is taking on itself a big challenge that looks almost impossible - explaining global warming to children in a clear and intelligent way!

Our book is:

Global Warming

Author: Seymour Simon

Seymour Simon has been called "the dean of the [children's science book] field" by the New York Times. He has written more than 250 books for young readers and is the recipient of the Science Books & Films Key Award for Excellence in Science Books, the Empire State Award for excellence in literature for young people, and the Educational Paperback Association Jeremiah Ludington Award. He is also the recipient of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's/Subaru Lifetime Achievement Award for his lasting contribution to children's science literature. Mr. Simon lives in Great Neck, New York.

Publisher: Collins

Published on: February 2010

Ages: 5-9

What this book is about? (from the publisher's website)

Earth's climate has always varied, but it is now changing more rapidly than at any other time in recent centuries. The climate is very complex, and many factors play important roles in determining how it changes.

Why is the climate changing? Could Earth be getting warmer by itself? Are people doing things that make the climate warmer?

Award-winning science writer Seymour Simon teams up with the Smithsonian Institution to give you a full-color photographic introduction to the causes and effects of global warming and climate change.

What we think about it?

Simon's book is indeed a comprehensive introduction to global warming, sort of 'An Inconvenient Truth' for children if you like. But not for them - even though this book is aimed at children in the ages of 5-9, I know many adults who will find it very useful, starting with Senator James Inhofe, Glenn Beck and other climate skeptics who might had trouble understanding Al Gore's presentation.

Simon is really doing the best he can to present a complicated issue in a simple way without compromising on depth or details. I find the result very satisfying, given this challenging task. An important part of the book that helps readers to digest the data are the beautiful photographs that you find on each and every page. These photos are really making the book and I'm sure they'll help children better understand its messages.

And yes, it has some messages. It's not just describing the causes and effects of global warming, but also providing some good advice about what can be done on the national and family levels, so children can get ideas on how to translate the information they just received into action (or at least asking mom and dad to do the right things).

Bottom Line: In times where the scientific base of global warming is being attacked again and again, this book is providing a great deal of clarity for both children and their parents. Recommended!

Disclosure: We received a copy of this book from the publisher.

If you're looking for other interesting green-themed books, you are invited to check out our green books page on Eco-Libris website's green resources section.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

Is REDD going bad? Is it going to enable conversion of natural forests into industrial plantations?

Last month we had a 3-part series on the potential and risks of forest-based carbon credits following the growing discussion about the Deforestation and Degradation in developing countries (REDD) mechanism. Now it looks like the risks part should to be updated.

Bloomberg reported about a proposal that was made during the climate talks in Bangkok last month didn’t include wording to protect natural forests from being used to cultivate managed woodlands. In other words, carbon credits will be given also to those who wish to convert large-scale natural forests into industrial plantations.

According to Mongabay.com, the provision, which included safeguards against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations, was removed the negotiating text during the final session at climate talks in Bangkok. The European Union, backed by Democratic Republic of the Congo and other Congo Basin countries, blocked reinstatement of the conversion safeguard, despite strong requests to do so from Brazil, India, Mexico, Switzerland, Norway, and more than a dozen other countries.

Environmentalists say that without the provision, forestry companies could receive REDD payments for logging tropical forests and replacing them with single-species plantations, which are biologically impoverished and store less carbon relative to natural forests.

Some observers described this move as a tactic one and were quite sure this provision, which included "the words “against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations,” will be added eventually to whatever proposal will hopefully will be approved in Copenhagen next month.

In the meantime, the talks which ended Barcelona didn't provide any encouraging signs about it as REDD-Monitor reports today. It quotes Roman Czebiniak, political advisor on climate change and forests for Greenpeace International, who told SolveClimate that “Right now, we have a pretty worthless safeguard and no rules to implement it, at a time when we need strong safeguards and strong rules are needed.”

Zebiniak remains optimistic that safeguards and monitoring could still be inserted into a REDD agreement, even after Copenhagen, and we also keep our fingers crossed that this mechanism, which as we reported last month has a promising potential, won't becme worthless because of political agendas and lack of will to make sure it will benefit the environment and not just couple of big forestry companies.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

The potential and risks of Forest-based carbon offsets: part 3 - REDD: how it can actually work?

On the first part on our series on forest-based carbon credits we talked of the potential of this concept as we saw on the example of Canopy Carbon. On the second part we discussed the risks of this mechanism following the report of Greenpeace on Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (NKCAP) in Bolivia. Today on our final article in this series we try to rap it all and find out if this option can actually work.

WWF wrote couple of days ago on their website that "failure by the world’s financial leaders to support responsible forest finance will allow rampant deforestation to continue and contribute to the disastrous effects of climate change." This logic is very clear and I definitely agree with it and think that REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) can be one of the implementations that follow this logic.

But no matter how tempting are the prospects of REDD both for the environment and the participants, there are some issues that remain a problem. A big problem. Just as a reminder, here are the main issues we need to deal with, as summarized by REDD-Monitor:

• monitoring the state of forests and the volumes of carbon either being emitted or stored;
• in preventing ‘avoided deforestation’ efforts in one location simply shifting the problem elsewhere; and
• finding ways that funding can be got to the people living in the forests – who should ultimately make the decisions about whether their forests stand or fall.

So what do we do? how we do it right? the answer I believe is a set of guiding rules that every REDD project will need to follow to be considered part of this mechanism. Now, it doesn't have to be necessary in a form of regulation - it can be a voluntary guidelines, just like the FSC or the Equator Principles. The only thing is that there should be only one benchmark - if every project will use its own set of guidelines, then it's worthless. Uniformity is a must here.

For example, Carbon Canopy will be using "the highest standards in the voluntary market will be used– the Voluntary Carbon Standard and Climate Action Reserve." Now, these two standards are great, but according to 'Review of Forestry Carbon Standards', a research of Paulo Lopes, a Carbon Management Consultant at Carbon Clear, when it comes to REDD, there are some couple of other standards that can be a good fit such as the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standard (CCBS), Plan Vivo, or American Carbon Registry (ACR).

So what happens if another project choose to use one of these standards? it will have a similar reliability but we won't be able to effectively follow, evaluate and compare these projects. And therefore we need all projects to follow the same set of standards and rules, and it should address all the main issues, such as how to calculate the carbon savings, additionality, leakage, benefits for local communities and permanence.

And this can and should be part of the Copenhagen Conference in December. The REDD effort can succeed if it will be a global effort and hence Europe, U.S., China and other countries should unite in Copenhagen and promote one solution for all. This is the time to do it and no better place to start with than Copenhagen.

Other parts of this series:

Part 1 - the Carbon Canopy

Part 2 - Noel Kempff and the Greenpeace report

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

The potential and risks of Forest-based carbon offsets: part 2 - Noel Kempff and the Greenpeace report

On the first part of our series about forest-based carbon credits we talked about the potential of this model and presented the example of Carbon Canopy. Today we talk about the risks and the lessons we can learn from the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (NKCAP) in Bolivia.

Noel Kempff is probably the most known project of forest offset scheme under REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). On October 15, Greenpeace released a detailed report calling this project a "Forest Carbon Scam".

The project began more than a decade ago, in 1996, where a group of three energy companies (American Electric Power(AEP), BP-Amoco (BP), and Pacificorp) and the Nature Conservancy and Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN) joined forces with the Bolivian government in the first large-scale experiment to curb climate change with a strategy that promised to suit their competing interests: compensating for greenhouse gas emissions by preserving forests.

Together with the Bolivian government and three energy companies, the partners terminated logging rights in 4 areas just adjacent to a pre-existing national park and incorporated the land into the national park, creating the 3.9 million acre Noel Kempff Mercado National Park. The partners also initiated a comprehensive community development program to address the problem of small scale deforestation by local communities living just outside of the park.

There was also a financial aspect to the project: In return for millions of dollars of investment for the protection of an area of rainforest from logging for 30 years, they would be allocated the carbon offsets generated by keeping the trees standing. These offsets could then be bought and sold in carbon trading systems, in order to offset some of the CO2 pollution produced by these power companies.

So far, so good. But in reality, according to the report, the model just didn't work. Here are the main claims of Greenpeace (from their website):

Since the project started in 1997 the estimated CO2 emission reductions have plummeted by more than 90 per cent, from about 55 million tonnes to "up to" 5.8 million tonnes. Had the original false estimates been used on carbon markets there could have been an INCREASE in greenhouse gas emissions. Companies could have claimed non-existent emission reductions while continuing to emit the amount supposedly offset. These serious errors in counting emissions are reason enough to avoid sub-national offsetting altogther – but as if we didn't have proof enough, here's more. The project has failed to protect against:

1. “Leakage” — the companies promised that they were effectively monitoring leakagage but in percentage terms overall deforestation rates have actually increased in Bolivia. In fact, leakage from the project could be as high as 42-60 per cent.

2. ““Additionality” — Changes in Bolivian law mean that Noel Kempff may have been protected anyway, without company involvement, and therefore any C02 savings may not be additional.

3. "Permanence" – The project is at risk from forest fires, pests, disease and political changes, all of which can undermine forest protection. This could mean that the carbon stored, and used to offset the company emissions, could still be released.

4. "Community benefits" – Industry claims the project has benefited local communities in many ways, but testimonies we captured tell a different story. "Well, the reality is that the Noel Kempff project has not delivered any benefits," says local Pastor Solís Pérez.

Now, these are serious accusations, and of course they generate a big question mark on the real value of the carbon credits from the project. The Nature Conservancy, NKCAP's main broker and one of the world's largest conservation groups, strongly disputes this notion (and so is FAN, the other organization involved in the project).

As reported on the New York Times, the Nature Conservancy doesn't dispute some of the specific figures on the report, but their interpretation. For example, the estimation of the CO2 that the project will save, which was at first about 55 million tonnes and was reduced over the years to only 5.8 million tonnes. Now, Greenpeace sees it as an indication that it's difficult if not impossible to provide an accurate calculation of the savings. The Nature Conservancy on the other hand, sees these adjustments as an indication of how much the science and on-the-ground measurements have improved over the last decade and how serious efforts are to ensure legitimate credits.

There are some lessons from this case that can more easily implemented. For example, the question whether forest-based carbon offsets should come from individual projects. As reported on the NYT, practically everyone involved in the debate agrees that countrywide programs that measure deforestation against a national baseline are better because they eliminate carbon leakage within a country's own boundaries - a fact that the NKCAP experience effectively demonstrated.

There can be some exceptions (such the ones on the House-passed climate bill, relating to small countries and states in Brazil and Indonesia to submit individual project credits into the market), but this can definitely be the guiding rule.

But that of course won't help when it comes to issues such as the reliability of the calculations of the CO2 reductions. How do you make sure you're providing a figure that is meaningful and reliable? And is the risk in making false estimations too high and therefore we should not get into this forest-based carbon offsetting concept in the first place? These are though questions and we'll try to answer them on our third and last part of the series this Sunday.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

The potential and risks of Forest-based carbon offsets: part 1 - the Carbon Canopy

This week we're issuing a 3-part series that will cover one of the most interesting issues in the green market.

It's getting more and more attention (also on this blog) as a promising way to deal with global warming under the cap and trade scheme. At the same time, it is also the center of a heated debate between organizations, companies and others on its legitimacy and effectiveness.

Yes, we're talking about forest-based carbon offsets. Or in other words, enabling landowners who keep their trees standing and not cut them down, or selectively log their forests to earn carbon credits they can trade on the open market. Such a trading system does not exist yet and it's part of legislation before Congress, as well as one of the issues to be discussed on global level in Copenhagen in December.

Today we'll talk about the Carbon Canopy, which according to their website, "seeks to establish a new model to support landowners who expand protection, restoration and conservation of their forests and certify management practices to the high standards of FSC certification. The Carbon Canopy is focused initially on building a credible carbon market model for landowners in the Southern US. "

The group includes timber and paper supply companies, such as Domtar Corporation, Columbia Forest Products and Staples, as well as environmental NGOs such as the Dogwood Alliance, Rainforest Alliance, the Forest Stewardship Council and our friends at the Green Press Initiative.

The coalition starts a pilot project in South U.S. offering what they see as a win-win model: "Private landowners receive revenue for the ecological benefits their forests provide. Forest product manufacturers receive a stable supply of FSC certified wood to use in their products. In turn, large paper and wood end-users and retailers are able to offer FSC certified products to reduce their environmental impacts. And all of us, including our future generations, will benefit from forests that not only support a more stable climate but also biodiversity and watershed protection."

I like this model. It does a good use in the cap and trade mechanism and everybody wins. It also deals with a severe issue - according to the Washington Post, "ninety percent of forests in the South, which ranks as the largest paper and wood-producing region in the world, is privately owned. Some farmers in the region still clear cut their forests, or convert them to pine plantations that are fast-growing but less environmentally beneficial."

Now, there are some that question the concept like Greenpeace. Daniel Kessler, a spokesman for Greenpeace, praised on the Washington Post the idea of managing forests according to the Forest Stewardship Council's standards, but added, "We also believe that forest offsets should not be used in a compliance carbon market."

Still, I think that there's something right in providing incentives to keep trees alive. We discussed it many times in the past and we always get to the same conclusion: no matter how many flows this system has, it's the most realistic way to fight deforestation.

The Carbon Canopy explains it very clearly on their website: "Currently, forest landowners do not have access to viable roadmaps or sufficient economic incentives to help them conserve, restore and/or manage working forests to a high environmental standard. The potential of earning income from forest carbon sequestration could provide incentive for private landowners to enhance forest protection, restoration and conservation."

There are of course issues that shouldn't be ignored like the validity of carbon offsetting in general and forest-based ones specifically (how do you measure them? are they sustainable? what happens in a case of a fire where the whole forest is burned?) as well as their ability to actually reduce emissions.

The later issue is a very important one, as not matter how good you do carbon offsetting, if you eventually didn't reduce emissions then it's just not the right way. The Carbon Canopy doesn't ignore this question and I actually liked what they had to say about it:

"Carbon offsets are often criticized as serving as a crutch for polluters who prefer to buy their way out of having to implement true carbon emission reductions. Because the Carbon Canopy’s members strongly believe in the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before and alongside of purchasing and retiring offsets to compensate for emissions that can’t be reduce, we seek to work with corporations that are committed to transparency in reporting and demonstrate real leadership in developing sustainable conservation models to significantly reduce their operational and supply chain climate impacts."

I don't know what the results of this pilot will be and neither the Carbon Canopy, but it looks like they know what they're doing, dealing openly with difficult questions and issues and moving forward to find the right model that will both save our forests, fight global warming and will be worthwhile to all sides involved.

On the second part of our series we'll discuss some of the problems that were found in another pilot of forest-based carbon offsets, this time in Bolivia.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

Paying to keep the trees in the Amazon alive - it ain't that simple as it might look like

We talked here many times about the concept of paying landowners to keep their trees standing and not cut them down.

This idea is gaining more popularity as a tool to fight climate change and a very interesting article in the New York Times presents some of the difficulties involved with the implementation of this concept, especially in Brazil.

Here are some of the issues Elisabeth Rosenthal brings up the article ("In Brazil, Paying Farmers to Let the Trees Stand"):

1. How much money is enough to keep the trees standing? The payment strategy includes direct payments to landowners to keep forests standing but with uprising demand to the alternatives, which are mainly cleared farmland to raise soy or cattle, the price can be high. Too high. For example, the article presents José Marcolini, a farmer that is offered by an environmental group $12 per acre per a year to keep it untouched, but at the same time can get for cleared farmland here up to $1,300 an acre.

2. How to avoid paying for tree plantations? as the article explains, "one proposed version of the new United Nations plan would allow plantations of trees, like palms grown for palm oil, to count as forest, even though tree plantations do not have nearly the carbon absorption potential of genuine forest and are far less diverse in plant and animal life." This is a situation that should be avoided - the programs should be solely focused on forests because of both environmental and monetary (limited resources) reasons.

3. Clearing away the trees is often the best way to declare and ensure ownership - the article mentions that "in parts of Southeast Asia, early experiments in paying landowners for preserving forest have been hampered because it is often unclear who owns, or controls, property."

4. Need to change - We have to remember that until not too long ago, developing the Amazon was the priority and the Brazilian government encouraged settlement through homesteaders’ benefits like cheap land and housing subsidies, many of which still exist today. It means that you need to change the state of mind, believes and values of the whole country to make real changes in the way the Amazon is considered and valued by the people.

As we see there are many issues to deal with and the success of such programs is still far from being a sure thing. But nevertheless for the first time there's money in forest preservation and this is going to be a game changer this way or another.


More related posts:

Will the new Climate Bill help protecting forests or become a source of income for timber companies?

How investors can save the forests? check out the Ethical Corporation Magazine

Al Gore and Wangari Maathai calls the U.N. General Assemby to support protection of forests

Merrill Lynch is investing in forest protection

How to deal with the growing deforestation in the Amazon rain forest?

Prince Charles wants to team up with Norway to save forests

Preserving forests to fight global warming

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting green printing

Can barcodes become the secret weapon against illegal logging?

As strange as it sounds, there's a good chance it might happen with a new technology provided by the British company Helveta.

According to an article on Reuters, the company has put already barcodes (yes, just like the ones you have in supermarkets, only in plastic bags) on about million trees across Africa, southeast Asia and South America.

Patrick Newton, Helveta's chief executive officer told Reuters that the computerized system is less prone to fraud than traditional paper records, carries live data and can help governments to collect more timber taxes, Newton said.

How does it work exactly? watch this piece on BBC Oxford News for the details:



In all the barcodes can't prevent criminals from chopping down trees, but the system's promise is to make it hard for them to process, sell or export the wood.

Can this system stop illegal logging? On one side, this "industry" is too lucrative to be stopped only by one measure. Usually innovative solutions against theft generates more innovations on the other side and creates more sophisticated thieves. BUT on the other side, not only this is a much better and secure system than the current paper-based system, it will also make illegal logging more expensive and difficult.

Hence my guestimation is it will become a powerful tool that can decrease illegal logging, and even more it will bring more technology and further innovation into the fight in illegal logging, which will be crucial in winning this fight.

What do you think? I'll be happy to hear your thoughts about it.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting green publishing

Will the new Climate Bill help protecting forests or become a source of income for timber companies?

The Climate bill passed in the House last Friday. It might not be only a new era in fighting climate change, but also the first time when it is worthwhile to keep trees alive instead of cutting them down.

The Huffington Post reported last Friday that trees will be part of the credits scheme that is presented in the bill, and this time it means not only reforestation projects, but also protection of existing forestlands.

The article explains the mechanism:

"Say an acre of forestland sucks up two additional metric tons of carbon after a landowner plants more trees on his land or promises to rotate the way he cuts them down so more are standing at once. If the pollution market created by the legislation is currently trading at $20 a ton, then the landowner could stand to make $40 per acre if he qualifies for the program"

The legislation, according to the article. would also extend to international forests, promising to pay some countries that agree to slow their harvesting of trees abroad. We mentioned this idea in the past (see links below) and we're definitely in favor of giving economic incentives to preserve the forests and to make it worthwhile to keep them alive, avoid logging and prevent further deforestation.

This idea was discussed in the U.N.’s Bali meeting in December last year, and though it is not approved yet, there's a good chance it will be part of the post-Kyoto protocol that will be discussed in Copenhagen in December. It also enjoys the support of many international parties, such as Prince Charles, Norway, Al Gore and Wangari Maathai.

So we should be happy as forest protection finally becomes part of the carbon market, right? well, we are but it seems that the way it was integrated in the Bill is a little bit problematic..

Well, there are of course concerns about measurement, monitoring and making sure carbon capturing is actually taking place (especially outside the U.S.), but in all these concerns are no different really from the concerns you have with every other component in the "trade" part of the cap and trade scheme under the Bill. The more significant issue here might be who is eligible to take part in it in the first place.

The article on the Huffington Post mentions that owners of large swaths of forestland, such as timber companies and large farms can benefit from it. Frank O'Donnell of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch is quoted saying "In effect, the public is going to pay polluters to plant trees. Does that really lead to a major improvement in global warming? I don't know and I'm not sure anybody knows."

The fact that the Agriculture Department, which includes the U.S. Forest Service, will oversee the domestic program and develop regulations for verifying whether a forest owner's particular tract of land is actually capturing carbon, brings up questions like will they make tree farms eligible as well and how much will they will take sustainability into account?

If eventually we'll have timber companies being paid for having single-species tree farms that have replaced highly diverse forests (you can see that in the Southeast U.S. for example), then we're very far from what the idea of forests protection was meant to achieve in the first place.

So how it can be prevented? here is just one idea - how about limiting forest protection to highly-diverse forests and/or forests that have FSC certification. I believe that these kind of restrictions can provide a better chance that this measure of forests protection will truly help fighting climate change and not just become another way for land owners to make money without making any significant impact on the environment.

What do you think? I'll be happy to hear your thoughts about it so feel free to add your comments.

More related posts:

How investors can save the forests? check out the Ethical Corporation Magazine

Al Gore and Wangari Maathai calls the U.N. General Assemby to support protection of forests

Merrill Lynch is investing in forest protection

How to deal with the growing deforestation in the Amazon rain forest?

Prince Charles wants to team up with Norway to save forests

Preserving forests to fight global warming

Yours, Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting green printing

And we have a winner on the giveaway of 'The Carbon Diaries: 2015'

The last giveaway of our green book reviews week is over! This is the giveaway of "The Carbon Diaries: 2015", where we ask you to share with us your favorite diary book or movie.

And we have a winner!

Our winner is Marion G. who chose the unforgettable and maybe the most known of all -Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl . Marion wrote the following:

Hi My favorite diary book is The Diary of Anne Frank. That is an awesome book. I however like the teaser you've written on The Carbon Diaries. I am very interested in reading this book as is my daughter. Merci. MarionG.

Congrats Marion! You won a copy of The Carbon Diaries: 2015 and we will also plant with our planting partners one tree for this book. We also wish to thank all the other participants.

We'll continue now as usual with a green book review every Monday and with more giveaways of great green books to come.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris
www.ecolibris.net

Friday's green book: The Carbon Diaries: 2015 (and a giveaway!)

Today we finish our green book reviews week with a great book that provides a documentation of 16-year old teenager to a very unique reality, where drastic measures are being taken against global warming, and it's only six years away.

Our book today is:

The Carbon Diaries: 2015

Author: Saci Lloyd

Saci Lloyd has worked as a script editor for Camouflage Films, where she was involved in several projects including a $20m Columbia Tri-Star co-production, Amy Foster. She is now head of Media at Newham Sixth Form College in London. The Carbon Diaries: 2015 is her first novel.

Publisher: Holiday House

Published on: February 2009

What this book is about? (from the publisher's website)
Told in short diary entries filled with scrapbook clippings, this riveting ecothriller is one girl's attempt to stay grounded in a world where disaster has become the norm.

It's the year 2015, a time when global warming has begun to ravage the environment. In response, the United Kingdom becomes the first country to mandate carbon rationing—a well-intentioned plan that goes tragically awry.

When her carbon debit card arrives in the mail, sixteen-year-old Laura is just trying to pass her exams, manage her ecopunk band, and catch the attention of her gorgeous classmate Ravi. But as multiple natural disasters strike and Laura's parents head toward divorce, her world spirals out of control. A severe drought sparks fires and deadly riots; then the highest-category hurricane in recent history strikes London. With the death toll in the thousands and climbing, Laura and her family face the unimaginable as her older sister clings to life.

Why you should get it?
If you think you read already everything to be read, this is the book for you. A refreshing and unique novel, The Carbon Diaries: 2015 combines a 16 year old typical teenager with severe conditions caused by the need to stop global warming here and now. If you want, it's "White Teeth" of Zadie Smith meeting Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

But this book is far from being doomy and gloomy - although it's very frightening in its realistic descriptions of what can happen to us should things will continue to deteriorate, it succeeds to charm you with the struggling yet funny, rebellious, and sassy character of Laura Brown.

Here's one example from the book:

Mon., May 4 Back to school. Grr. But we had ourselves a totally hard-core band practice at Adi's. We've got a date for the gig now, it's June 7. His mum's given us extra practice time cos she's saving carbon on heating during the warm weather. We've picked so funny., messed-up world and death to capitalist scum. 15 minutes of pure venom.

death to capitalism
a new world waiting to be born
murder is capitalism
cast off the cloak of scorn

you selling us mercedes, nike, mp3
gucci, rolex, toys R us-
trying to sedate us - but the tragedy
is that in reality you are killing us

I also found the theme of the book - living under carbon rationing - intriguing, not because I like the idea so much, but because it can be more realistic than we think. Maybe if more people will read the book and get influenced by it, a carbon regime will stay a science fiction and won't become part of reality.

In all, this is a great book, enjoyable and disturbing at the same time, that will stay with you a long time after you'll finish reading.

What others think about the book?
"There’s just so much to love about this book; the amazingly resourceful Laura, who is still trying to lead a normal life, the scarily close to home nature of the imagined future and signs of human nature that are brought to the fore in times of trouble. I would highly recommend everyone to read it." - Eve at Vulpes Libris

"Deeply compulsive and urgently compulsory reading" - Booklist, starred review

GIVEAWAY ALERT!!!

We're giving away one copy of the book, courtesy of the book's publicist, and of course a tree will be planted for the copy!

How you can win? please add a comment below with an answer the following question: what is your favorite diary book (or movie)? Submissions are accepted until Friday, May 22, 12PM EST. The winner will be announced the following day.

If you're looking for other interesting green-themed books, you are invited to check out our green books page on our website's green resources section.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Plant a tree for every book you read!

Monday's green books series: The Legend of Honey Hollow (and a giveaway!)

I love bears. Polar, Panda, Brown - you name it. Therefore I was immediately was fond of our books this week - a children's book that takes place in a little bears' heaven and where the main characters are bears (and very funny ones!).

Our book this week is:

The Legend of Honey Hollow

We mentioned it firstly last month when we announced on a collaboration with the author who plant a tree for every book sold on her signing events and provides buyers of the book with our sticker (made of recycled paper), saying: "One tree planted for this book".

Author: Jeanne McNaney
Jeanne McNaney lives in Greenwich, Connecticut, with her husband, Joseph, and their three children. In addition to her passion for raising awareness about the environment and the plight of endangered species, she is dedicated to causes that enhance the lives of children and their families throughout the world.

Illustrator: David Cochard
David Cochard has been a freelance illustrator since 1996. He currently resides in Argentina with his wife, Sandrine, where he runs his own illustration company, Ilustra World, and pursues his other passions-traveling and studying science and ecology.

Publisher: Ovation Books/Joey Publishing

Published on: January 2009

Reading level: ages 4-8

What this book is about? Honey Hollow is not a place known to humans, but it is well-known to the bears of the world. Bears travel to this beautiful forest sanctuary to escape habitat destruction and global warming. The magical paradise has now been discovered by man. When the trees are cut down by developers, can the bears and the children of the loggers join together to save Honey Hollow for the future?

Why you should get it? This is a very moving story for kids and what I mostly liked about it is that although it's a story for children, it keeps a very realistic ton and is not afraid to present environmental issues in a very frank way. It gets children to face critical issues such deforestation and the impact of human beings on the nature in general and animals specifically.

Nevertheless, it's also a fun story with funny characters that make you laugh and also get you to identify with them from the first page and follow them breathless in their adventures. The author found a great balance between the various elements and the result is a book that teaches kids a valuable lesson about humans-nature relationship and the importance of community, gets them to appreciate wildlife and the environment and at the same time tells them a great children's story.

The author, Jeanne McNaney, said that she hopes the book will bring environmental awareness to a younger generation. I believe this unique story, with its bear characters, the beautiful illustrations and the optimistic message that we can still change things and make them better is doing a great job in increasing the awareness of youngsters and educating them to do the right thing.

And last but not least, the book is printed on environmentally-friendly paper and a percentage of all profits from the sales will go to organizations that support wildlife conservation and endangered species preservation.

What others think about the book?
“This book is just adorable, and it has real meaning.” – Billy Powell | Lynyrd Skynyrd

“It's a big hit in our house. My girls request it all the time. The story weaves in useful topics of environmental consciousness and social responsibility, which are nice teaching opportunities. The global cast of characters also led to some fun discussion. It reminds me of one of my favorite books from growing up: "If Everybody Did", by Jo Ann Stover, which was a pioneering effort in kids literature.“ – John Cassidy | Creative Dir., Comedy Central

You can get more information about the book on its website - http://www.honeyhollowbears.com/

GIVEAWAY ALERT!!!

We're giving away one copy of the book, courtesy of the author, Jeanne McNaney, and of course a tree will be planted for the copy!

How you can win? please add a comment below with an answer the following question: what is the best way to teach children to appreciate wildlife? Submissions are accepted until Sunday, May 3, 12PM EST. The winner will be announced the following day.

If you're looking for other interesting green-themed books, you are invited to check out our green books page on our website's green resources section.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Plant a tree for every book you read!

New book is looking for American stories and images about global warming

I learned yesterday about a great project. It's a joint initiative of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Penguin Classics, which along with bookstores across the U.S. are encouraging aspiring writers and photographers to submit their personal stories and images about global warming for publication in a new online book, to be published in 2009, Thoreau's Legacy: American Stories about Global Warming.

Kudos to the Union of Concerned Scientists and Penguin Classics for this great idea! The book is inspired by the great American outdoors literature's tradition as explained on its website:

The American outdoors has been central to some of this country's greatest books, from Henry David Thoreau's The Maine Woods to Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi. Writers like Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Muir, Rachel Carson, Peter Matthiessen, and E.O. Wilson have inspired us to make positive changes in our lives with their wisdom and words about our lands, geographical riches, and wildlife.

Now it's time for new voices to inspire us to fight the dangers of global warming.

Your voices.

There are only few days left for submitting stories and images for the book (deadline is on November 15, 2008), but it's better late than never, so if you think you have a story or an image that would be a great fit for this book, please Read the guidelines and submit your work.

The submission process is open to anyone in the United States. A panel of judges will select the top essays and photographs to be included in the book. Writers and photographers whose submissions are selected for publication will receive a limited edition printed copy of the book and will be invited to participate in book promotion activities.

Yours,

Raz @ Eco-Libris
www.ecolibris.net

And the winner in a copy of "On Empty" is..

Thank you for all the participants in our giveaway of the book 'On Empty (Out of Time)' by Bill Roth we reviewed last Monday.

We got many interesting comments on the debate about nuclear energy as an altenrative to the current sources of energy. This debate is far from being over, but I sure hope that policymakers will take a look at the book prior to discussing this issue. In any case, just to put things in perspective, as Bill himself mentioned in his comment, nuclear is one of seven technology paths discussed in the book.

And the winner in our giveaway is Johan Jansson, who wrote the following:

The last few days all news media are reporting about the newly discovered leak in the nuclear waste facility in Saxony, Germany: "The Asse-II mine was closed in 1964 and converted to an "experimental" nuclear facility in 1967. Now it officially holds up to 130,000 metal drums of low- and mid-level radioactive waste. But the report said highly radioactive plutonium had also been dumped in the mine, along with a number of nuclear fuel rods. Radioactivity readings there are at eight times the "safe" level, some barrels have tipped over and rusted through, and the worry is that saltwater leaking from the mine is not just radioactive but might contaminate public water supplies. The mine has been known to leak brine since 1988. Some experts fear it may collapse altogether by 2014." From Spiegel.

It is a scary world indeed. "We" are putting enormous responsibility in the hands of few, when we use nuclear power. Our over infatuation with tech fixes is scaring me the most. The only way forward is conservation. In order for this to work, understanding of human behavior is much, much more important than the next hot tech innovation. Sadly, most research money goes to the tech fixes and not to understanding consumer behavior and how it can be changed without much welfare loss.

Bill says in a comment that including the true cost will overcome some of the problems. However, economics is a subjective area more than for example nuclear research. One economist will find one cost to include, and another will not. How will we arrive at a true cost estimate for anything? I would argue that it is impossible. Thus, this cost-focus is only a very small part the solution. Perhaps the arguments for this are better explained in the book which I haven't read... yet.

Congratulations Johan! As mentioned, Eco-Libris will plant a tree for this book (as we do with every copy printed of this book) and we'll send Johan with the book our "One tree planted for this book" sticker.

And don't forget to keep following our giveaways. We have many more green books to review and give away so stay tuned (we'll have one tomorrow!).

Yours,

Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: plant a tree for every book you read!

Monday's Green Books: On Empty by Bill Roth (and a copy giveaway)

On Empty (Out of Time) is an energy industry veteran's take on the current sorry state of affairs of the US American dependence on oil imports, and the impending economic and ecological crises stemming from man made global warming.

As such, it joins the ranks of similarly billed books such as Washington state congressman Jay Inslee's Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy, and Environmental Defense Fund founder Fred Krupp's Earth: The Sequel (previously featured in our green books series).

Krupp's work brought to life the alternative energy technological sector with a focus on the exciting soap operatic world of cleantech start-ups and investors, while Inslee focused on political leadership and vision. Roth's approach is different. First of all he brings to the table a solid background in the energy sector, with a career that included posts such as senior VP of marketing and sales with PG&E Energy Services, COO of Texaco Ovonics Hydrogen Solutions and president of Cleantech America, a developer of solar power plants.

Yes, Roth (http://www.cleantechgrowth.com/) is a corporate America insider and a reluctant environmentalist, whose resistances had to be overcome. These resistances fell away when they were faced with hard scientific and economic facts, and Roth now believes that global warming is here, was created by human activity, and that something can be done about it. As such, he is well worth listening to.

Numbers are something you will not be able to ignore when reading this book. Roth likes to explain the economics and goes as far as defining basic principles to the uninitiated reader, such as supply & demand, income effect, price elasticity and so on. Once he has given you the basics he begins to demonstrate each of his points with figures, facts and explanations.

Here is one of my favorites:

FACT: There is a national debate on whether our country should drill for oil in the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The motivation to do so is based upon estimates that this area contains 4.3 to 11 billion barrels of oil... This monster-sized oil deposit only equals between 1 to 2 years of out annual imports of oil. It would only fulfill about THREE MONTHS of the world's current annual oil demands of 85 to 90 billion barrels.(p.33)

This drives home quite clearly the futility of extra drilling as any form of real solution to the energy crisis, and the frivolous way in which drilling advocates are willing to condemn the Arctics to ruination for a relatively insignificant return.

An interesting position Roth holds is in that which is in favor of renewed national interest in nuclear energy. According to Roth (p. 101), “The U.S history of nuclear-fueled electricity is an unqualified success from a consumer and environmental perspective”. He then goes on to list some facts which are sometimes quite hard to accept.

The first is that there are “no fatalities tied to nuclear power plant operations”. Having reviewed here recently Kelly McMaster's Welcome to Shirley, a memoir from a town adjacent to a nuclear research facility in Long Island, I will have to take this assertion with a grain of salt.

Another point which he makes, writing that “nuclear waste has been safely contained”, is in contrast to many views, such as Krupp's assessment of nuclear power in Earth: The Sequel. Such public debate can only benefit us and help direct research agendas and funds. I can only hope that there will be more open and widespread discussion on these topics.

Finally, Roth presents his own agenda and big solutions to the crisis at the end of the book, but I am not going to list it all here. He builds up his case over time, and it is really imperative to digest some of the economics and numbers in order to get where he's going with it and why. So I'll just say that some of his ideas are very interesting, feasible, and yet quite radical in today's political climate. But who knows, maybe next year we'll see it all take place.

Bill Roth is working with Eco-Libris to green up the book. A tree will be planted for every copy sold of the book. Buyers will also receive our sticker with their book, saying "One tree planted for this book".

Book's name: On Empty (Out of Time)

Author: Bill Roth

Publisher: Self Published (2008)

Pages: 204

GIVEAWAY ALERT!!!

We will be giving away the review copy of the book. It also comes with a tree that will be planted for it with Eco-Libris and you will also recieve our "One tree planted for this book" sticker.

How you can win? please add a comment below about your thoughts on nuclear energy and whether you are in favor of wider use of this option or not. Submissions are accepted until Saturday, September 6, 12PM EST. The winner will be announced the following day.

Best,

Eylon @ Eco-Libris

Plant a Tree for Every Book you Read!