The Rio + 20 Environmental Summit: Failed Promises Redux?

An environmental summit expected to reconcile the seemingly disparate needs of environmentalism and economic development in the 21^st Century, will the Rio + 20 Environmental Summit will just be a repeat of the failed 1992 UNCED? 

By: Ringo Bones 

There might be some truth to what the Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez said about if the global environment were a bank the world’s leaders would have bailed it out by now. Such is the present appalling state of our global environment at present. And yet the recent Rio + 20 Environmental Summit slated to last from June 20 to June 22, 2012 was “auspiciously” opened by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, where almost 200 participating nations are expected to sign a pledge focusing on environmental protection and reducing extreme poverty. More auspicious still was a 175-billion US dollar fund was also set aside for the development of more environmentally-friendly transport systems. 

There was also a slated discussion on the need for the removal of government funded – namely citizens’ taxpayers money – fossil fuel subsidies by the world’s leading industrialized economies. As nations are expected to sign the pledge “The Future We Want” and the discussion of the three main agendas / goals mainly on a) Sustainable Development, b) Protect the Oceans and c) Measure the Well-Being of the People. Lofty goals indeed, but will this all be just a repeat of the failed UNCED – which was also held in Rio de Janeiro back in June 1992? 

Sadly, the Rio + 20 Environmental Summit also failed to reach a binding breakthrough after three days. And the only thing the participating world leaders unanimously settled on is to meet again at a later date – probably somewhere 20 years from now. With even energy efficiency discussed rather superficially, is the Rio + 20 Environmental Summit truly an utter failure? 

Well, it did manage to start the Rio + Social – the social network based alternative to the failed Rio + 20 Environmental Summit. But yet again, most of us – including me – are still doubtful if the concept of “digital inclusion” will be a way forward for a truly effective mass environmental activism. Social networks may mean louder voices and more direct action compared to our elected officials, but even I have doubts whether the “like button” on social networks like Facebook will ever replace the good old ballot box. As I found out first hand back in June 1992 that enforcing existing binding environmental treaties are way much harder than enforcing post-Cold War nuclear disarmament treaties. 

Looking back at the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development (UNCED) which was held in Rio de Janeiro back in June 1992, I noticed that a year after the conference – in June 1993 – the treaties that were signed the previous year have not even been implemented. Money that was pledged during the 1992 UNCED Summit has not been forthcoming. And the group that was established to enforce Agenda 21 – a 40-chapter credo for sustainable development – has not cut its teeth, even 20 years later. 

  The only “nice” outcome of the June 1992 UNCED conference, which was attended by delegates and diplomats from some 178 countries as well as thousands of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), resulted in the creation of a seemingly strong global political will and the endorsement of several important policy documents. Along with the Agenda 21, they include the Rio Declaration – a list of environmental and development concerns that ensures national sovereignty – and a statement about protecting forests. Maybe Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez was right all along. 

2011 Durban Climate Conference: No New Ground Broken?

Might be hailed by pundits as a renewed commitment to renew the global campaign to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions, does the 2011 Durban Climate Conference really offer significant improvement over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012?

By: Ringo Bones

South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabana who was appointed president of this year’s Durban Climate Conference might had managed to fast track herself for future Nobel Peace Prize nominations if you truly believe the hype surrounding the alleged success of the 2011 Durban Climate Conference. But like most hardcore environmentalists that has been subjected to vituperation by the American Evangelical right since 1995 when it comes to whether climate change is real, I highly doubt it if this year’s climate conference is really a step beyond the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set to expire next year. After all, India, Mainland China, and the United States – today’s top three generators of greenhouse gasses via industrial activity – were never signatory’s of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The only positive outcome of the 2011 Durban Climate Conference is that the “lucrative” business of carbon credits born out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol can still be able to maintain their bottom lines thanks to “token agreements” reached in the very last minutes of the Durban Climate Conference when it comes to how much polluters must pay to continue to pump out carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into our overloaded sewers in the sky in order to maintain their industrial bottom line. After all, we’re technically still in a global economic recession, aren’t we?

The 2010 Nagoya Biodiversity Conference: No New Ground Broken?

Despite of providing "undocumented" trillions of dollars to the global economy, are the powers-that-be squandering the world’s biodiversity at our own peril?


By: Ringo Bones



2010 has been very much dominated by the US-China Currency War, joblessness issues and the vanishing middle class, not to mention lack of “social mobility” that has always been the hallmark of the post World War II global economy, but is our powers-that-be been ignoring the issue of biodiversity for so long now that it threatens all mankind? Though biopiracy concerns had been seriously discussed – i.e. multinational pharmaceutical companies profiting from herbs used by indigenous folks without cutting them a share of the profit, governments around the world seem to lack the political will to legislate and enforce binding agreements on how to maintain their various countries biodiversity and environmental protection.

A healthy biodiversity probably contributes ¼ of the global GDP – same as the consumer electronics industry – and yet the trillions of dollars contributed by a healthy biodiversity in the agricultural sector had been ignored at everyone’s peril. Most crops are very dependent on various insects for pollination and fruit-bearing, while some can only thrive when the microbiological diversity of the soil they are growing on is at optimal levels. And recent studies have shown that a healthy biodiversity also plays a part in sequestering carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the soil ands out of the atmosphere when they can exacerbate global warming. If the important steps to secure biodiversity are taken in 2010, maybe results – for the better – will start to show in 2011.

Crude Oil Spill Control and Mitigation Technologies: An Arrested Development?

From the 1979 era “world’s worst” crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to the BP Deep Water Horizon spill of April 20, 2010, has crude oil spill control and mitigation technologies moving sideways for over 30 years?


By: Ringo Bones


When it comes to the worst ever industrial accident scenarios with the greatest environmental impact being prophesised by environmentalists during the past 50 years, nobody would have predicted that crude oil spills would claim their title as the top undisputed industrial disaster with the greatest environmental impact. Nuclear fission power plant accidents and chemical spills were predicted as the most probable industrial accidents that could irreparably ruin the environment and drive humanity to extinction. Yet now, it is a toss up between crude oil spills and irreversible global warming and climate change related environmental disasters caused by our insatiable “addiction” to crude oil that may spell the end of mankind. Similar crude oil spills had happened before, but the methods of mitigation and control stayed the same for 31 years despite of the increase of our consumption for the black stuff.

Back in July 3, 1979, a Mexican crude oil well named Ixtoc I began spewing crude oil in the Gulf of Campeche. By the middle of August 1979, millions of gallons of crude stretched nearly 1,000 miles (1,600-km) towards Texas and Louisiana, threatening a number of fragile wildlife habitats and a popular resort area on Padre Island. Attempts to contain the slick with booms continued into the fall of 1979, while crews worked to cap the well. Although relatively little of the crude oil reached the United States back then, more than 5 miles (8-km) of beaches were contaminated, and some of the spill remained adrift. And the full scope of such environmental disaster took years to fully assess.

Back in July 21, 1979, what could have been then the largest crude oil spill in history via supertanker mishap was narrowly averted when two supertankers filled with crude oil collided and burned at the eastern edge of the Caribbean Sea, just north of the island of Tobago. Timely cleanup response and favourable sea currents prevented extensive crude oil contamination of lucrative Caribbean beaches and thus averted what might have been – back in pre Exxon Valdez supertanker accident days – the largest crude oil spill via supertanker in history. Two supertankerfuls worth of crude oil burned at virtually 0 miles per gallon mileage rating.

Prior to the Exxon Valdez crude oil spill of 1989 and the BP Deep Water Horizon spill of April 20, 2010, the Gulf of Campeche - and potentially the Tobago coast collision of two oil supertankers of July 21, 1979 – were considered the worst crude oil spill in history. The Ixtoc I off the Gulf of Campeche contaminated the Gulf of Mexico with more than 100-million gallons (378.5-million liters) of crude oil. Back in 1979, the full environmental consequence of the tragedy was only assessed several years later.

Booms, caps, top kill and controlled burning, it seems that crude oil spill control and mitigation technologies seems to have stayed the same since 1979. And yet we are drilling offshore wells that are even too deep for helium-oxygen mix saturation divers to maintain at ever greater numbers just to satisfy our insatiable demand for crude oil. Due to our failure – and our government’s indifference to energy use conservation programs – we are transporting crude in ever greater quantities via supertankers whose spill control and mitigation measures remained unchanged for over 30 years. No, Mother Nature won’t be killed off via nuclear waste and polychlorinated biphenyls, crude oil will be the death knell for all of us.

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: A Much Politicized Environmental Issue?

Dubbed by far-right talk radio pundit Rush Limbaugh as “Obama’s Katrina”, is the Deep Horizons offshore oilrig disaster become a political rather than an environmental issue?


By: Ringo Bones


This particular environmental disaster was supposedly to remind us the urgency of lowering our carbon footprint, but unfortunately it devolved into something that can be used against the fiercest critics of US President Barack Obama. With extreme-right talk radio pundit Rush Limbaugh calling it “Obama’s Katrina”, will this disaster be the start of a conservative right-wing environmental movement in America? Not to mention that a few weeks before the disaster President Obama gave the o.k. for a proposed offshore crude oil exploration in the US East Coast.

With a carbon footprint probably just a notch below that of Paris Hilton without even enjoying the said indulgence, Rush Limbaugh will probably be the oddest environmentalist America has ever seen. Will the former Alaska governor Sarah Palin be starting her very own campaign to save the polar bears? Unfortunately, the last time the conservative far-right of America showed their environmental concerns was probably back around 1987. When they criticized the money spent in the Farm Aid concerts headlined by Guns N’ Roses and Poison would bear better results when used in greenhouse gas emissions reduction research and global warming studies. Or of their critique of McDonalds buying beef raised on the clear cutting of the Amazon Rain Forest just because these cows are 5 US cents cheaper per head than the ones raised in America near the end of the 1980s.

Politics or not, the Deep Horizons offshore oilrig disaster not only resulted in the loss of 11 oilrig workers but also the long-term environmental devastation of the Gulf of Mexico’s fragile ecosystem. With the oil leak ten times more than previously thought, this environmental disaster now threatens the livelihoods of oyster and shrimp fisheries of the state of Louisiana. Even the Biloxi Bay Chamber of Commerce had raised concerns over the livelihood impact of a widespread environmental disaster in slow motion.

During the course of the investigation, British Petroleum – the oil company that owns the Deep Horizons offshore oilrig – points the blame at TransOcean. While TransOcean points the blame at Halliburton – the company that provides the oil drilling equipment, while Halliburton returns the favor by blaming TransOcean. The endless finger pointing has started to peeve President Obama because it might allow BP to get away from paying punitive fines.

On the safety aspect of things, BP has been blamed for lax safety concerns for a Texas oil refinery explosion a few years ago. Unfortunately, the involvement of Halliburton in this latest Gulf of Mexico oil spill that could potentially be bigger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 would probably allow BP to escape scot-free from this investigation. Especially when you consider the way former US Vice President Dick Cheney runs Halliburton like his very own Mafia. The people involved in the fishing industry of the state of Louisiana and Mississippi will be getting a raw deal, just like the fishing folks of Prince William Sound 20 years before.

Earth Hour: An Exercise In Futility?

Started as a way to spread awareness about climate change, does the observance of Earth Hour nothing more than an exercise in futility?


By: Ringo Bones


Remember that Native American Chief who shed a tear after witnessing drive-by litterbugs that became an environmental awareness icon of the late 1960s and early 1970s? Well, he’ll be crying double after knowing that the most easily “greenable” and “carbon neutral ready” industry – namely electricity generation – has been undermined from becoming truly environmentally friendly by our elected officials who are now beholden by the fossil fuel conglomerate. Knowing this piece of crucial info, is turning our lights for one hour this coming Saturday, March 27, sending the right message to our “carbon enslaved” elected officials that we are serious about climate change and global warming?

The polling precinct would have been a better venue of expressing our stance on climate change and global warming. And yes, I still do freely chose to switch off lights and forego Internet use for an hour this coming March 27 after a couple of weeks of rescheduling my itinerary. But I too have doubts whether turning our lights for one hour during Earth Hour will be seen by our elected officials who are now in too deep with the fossil fuel industry lobbyists as our statement of concern for caring more for our environment.

Since most of my electrical needs for my Internet and entertainment needs are met by off-the-grid power generation with my makeshift solar photo-voltaic and discarded submarine battery power source, I still chose to switch off on Earth Hour. Just because our local elected officials had been dragging their feet when it comes to plans to start carbon neutral electricity generation. But given that climate change skepticism has become intellectually fashionable these days – especially when coupled with neo-Nazism, then maybe we should express our concerns for global warming in other fronts. Not just during Earth Hour but also during election time. If the Australian environment minister, Peter Garret, managed to embroil himself in that Gunns pulp mill debacle, then maybe we should all be electing leaders who are not beholden by polluters.

Is the Climate Change Issue Getting Too Political?

From cabinet ministers conducting official meetings in odd places to elected global warming deniers getting an ego boost from leaked e-mails purported to reveal global warming as a hoax, is the climate change issue becoming too political?


By: Ringo Bones


Maybe it was the news about The Maldives’ cabinet ministers conducting one of their official meetings 5 meters underwater in scuba gear to highlight the dangers of a sea level rise caused by global warming back in October 16, 2009. Or was it the iconic Nepalese cabinet ministers meeting in the Mount Everest base camp to highlight the dangers of global warming endangering the Himalayan freshwater supply by accelerated glacial melting that lasted just 5 minutes due to hypoxia concerns. Or was it the leaked e-mils purportedly to prove that climate change, global warming, and all that environmental claptrap are nothing more than Marxist-Leninist socialist propaganda out to destroy the White Anglo-Saxon Christian way of life. Whatever it is, it seems like politicians now have the loudest voice when it comes to the climate change issue and its subsequent resolution.

Probably the most damaging to the scientific validity of the overly politically driven climate change debate was those leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia. Where climate researchers Professor Phil Jones and Professor Kevin Tremberth managed to embroil themselves in a climate change scandal over the use of “value-added data. Not surprisingly, the issue of the leaked e-mails suggesting that climate change is a hoax was enthusiastically embraced by that famous climate change and global warming denier Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Boosting the ego of a known climate change denier is probably the last thing everyone on the planet earning less than 25,000 dollars a year of getting a fair deal out of the on-going UN-sponsored Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Given that the coal and crude oil lobbyists of America had managed to fund a “mercenary science” team to deny the existence of global warming for over 30 years due to their almost inexhaustible warchest. Making their demagoguery pass off as legitimate science in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill. Thus making climate change deniers like the famed Republican Senator of Oklahoma manage to make the consensus of the final agreements reached in the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen tailored more to suit industry. Making the people who live on less than a dollar a day living in climate change prone regions victims of the political demagoguery of Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and their ilk.

Even though the UN-IPCC still defends that the science done on climate change and global warming during the past 20 years still has a valid data. I just don’t think that is still enough to convince the politicians at Capitol Hill to formulate effective measures to tackle the problem of climate change by the world's leading producer of unnecessary greenhouse gases – the United States of America. Worse still, the crude oil and coal lobbyists of America even successfully achieved to make global warming denial a part of Evangelical Christian canon during the Bush Administration, making the global fight against climate change an uphill battle – both literally and figuratively.