Final deal at Copenhagen climate conference omits greenhouse gas targets, deforestation plan

In the end, the Copenhagen climate conference “took note” of, rather than approved, the agreement essentially brokered by President Obama with the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) major emerging economies plus Japan and Europe. Strong dissent was voiced by Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia, who were outraged industrial countries didn’t commit to strong, specific targets.

UN Sec.-Gen. Ban Ki-moon, who gaveled the final consensus Saturday morning after a night of debate, said afterward this accord was an essential first step and must lead to a legally binding agreement next year.

Dropped from the document in the final hours was a plan to pay countries to avoid deforestation.

The “breakthrough” accomplished in Obama’s meeting Friday with the major economies was agreement that they would all report their emissions cuts (or in the case of emerging economies, their actions) for international scrutiny. The president extended his visit by 6 hours to jawbone with leaders of major economies, then took off because of the blizzard targeting on Washington.

What was in the final document?
• Recognition that world temperature increases should be kept to 2 degrees Celsius (though they dropped the term “from pre-industrial levels,” allowing for an additional 0.7 degrees).
• $30 billion for poor countries to adapt to climate change over the next 3 years, with a goal of $100B a year by 2020.
• Industrialized countries must list their targets for cutting GHG, while major developing economies such as BASIC, Mexico and South Korea, must list actions taken to reach specific goals.
• A method for international verification of emissions.

What wasn’t in it?
• Agreement on specific, significant targets for cutting GHG, either short-range or long-range
• A plan to pay 40 countries to curb deforestation, which accounts for between 15-20% of emissions (and puts Brazil and Indonesia in the top 5 emitters).
• A date for reaching a legally binding agreement.

Countries that agreed with the Copenhagen Accord were asked to sign it.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer told reporters, “We should have done better.”

Pledges made to date will not limit temperature increases to 2 degrees. More like 3 degrees.

The U.S. role
Despite Obama's important role in brokering an agreement, some blamed the weak accord on the U.S. for failing to come in with a climate bill at home signed, sealed and delivered. And if the U.S. had committed to, say, 20% cuts (from 1990) by 2020 like other industrialized nation, the agreement would likely have been much stronger.

So our Senate held back not only the U.S., but the entire world, which is a crying shame. One note: Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the global warming denier who’s ranking member of the Environment Committee, had pledged to take a “truth squad” to Copenhagen to tell world leaders there’d be no U.S. climate bill. Apparently there was no squad and he spoke to no leaders. Let’s hope those he reached saw him as the annoying gnat that he is.

So, what now? Another year of tedious, fractious worldwide negotiations and a concerted effort to pass a meaningful bill here, while each country works toward its goals at home. I know you’re probably exhausted with signing petitions, sending money and demonstrating for the health care fight, but gear up for a new challenge in January. We need a decent climate change law. The world is depending on it.

(Sources: NRCD switchboard, Yahoo News/AP, BBC, Guardian. MSNBC)

What did Hillary's $100B offer at COP15 mean?

(Photo of Clinton with U.S. negotiator Todd Stern at COP15 from Flickr and photographer Andy Revkin)

When I woke up this morning to the news that Hillary Clinton had announced in Copenhagen that the U.S. would raise $100 billion a year for poor countries to fight and adapt to climate change, I was amazed that Barack Obama hadn’t saved such big news for his speech tomorrow.

Here’s what she said, when she arrived last night, or was it this morning? The half-day time difference really throws me.

“The United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address climate change needs of developing countries.”

A lot of qualifying terms there: work with others, toward a goal, jointly mobilizing…. It wasn’t exactly a declaration that the U.S. government, perhaps with bonus money thrown in by Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other Wall Street fat cats (and maybe some help from Mr. Bill’s Foundation connections) would put up all the money.

As I began to parse the language and read more reports, some things became clearer – i.e. that she was sent to offer a carrot to African and other very poor nations to use a stick on China and India to allow their emission cuts to be monitored.

She noted such a fund was only for the poorest countries (i.e. not China) and it depended on a climate agreement including verifiable commitments to cut emissions or carbon intensity (i.e. China).

Other things became less clear – i.e. how much of the $100B will come from the U.S.? How much public and how much private? Will the billions already pledged by Japan, the EU and others for the next three years be part of that fund? Are we simply echoing a pledge by Europe to help set up a worldwide $100 billion fund for the long term?

According to U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the pending climate bill here contains $5B a year in proceeds from auctioning cap-and-trade allowances that would go to developing countries. Others are suggesting some of the money could come from $60B in annual subsidies for fossil fuels.

Whatever the case, response by other countries and environmentalists is positive and seen as perhaps the “breakthrough” the climate talks needed to avoid a failed conference. It suggests a long-term commitment by the U.S.
This may be the only way Obama can “lead,” given the stinginess of the Congress in committing to cut emissions.

Although poor countries say they need much, much more than $100 billion as droughts ravage some countries and rising seas threaten to obliterate others, their point person at the conference, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, acknowledged they would accept $30B in the short term, $50B by 2015 and $100B by 2020.

Some of this money would help avoid deforestation, which causes about 20% of the world’s greenhouse gases. (Did you know the world is losing an acre of forest every second? I read that in Al Gore’s new book, “Our Choice.”)

An agreement to pay countries to avoid clearing their forests for agriculture has been one of the more likely outcomes of this conference.

World leaders are starting to arrive. We’ll see what the coming day brings (it’s already getting to be evening Thursday in Copenhagen).

(Sources: Sierra Club, Greenwire, Washington Post, LA Times, climateprogress.org)

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 101

(Photo of coal power plant in Germany from Flickr and photographer davipt/Bruno Rodrigues

Nearly 200 countries head to Copenhagen this weekend, in an effort to forge a “political” climate agreement – to be followed in 6-12 months by a “binding” agreement. It is far from certain what the outcome of this Dec. 7-18 United Nations Climate Change Conference will be.

The UN’s chief climate executive Yvo de Boer hopes to see:
• Deeper emissions targets from industrialized countries.
• Reductions or actions pledged by developing countries.
• A “prompt start” fund for clean energy, adaptation and deforestation reductions – with rich countries pledging $10 billion a year over the next 3 years.
• A decision about the structure of a legally binding agreement to follow next year.

Individual pledges
Some industrialized countries have individually stated targets for emission cuts by 2020.
• Norway was the most ambitious, offering to cut 40% (from 1990 levels).
• The EU pledged 20% (from 1990), going up to 30% if others did the same.
• Japan pledged 25% (from 1990).
• Australia said 15% (from 2000).
• The U.S. said 17% (from 2005). (We are already down 8.5% because of the economic slowdown.)
• Canada followed the U.S. lead, though its parliament wanted a 25% cut (from 1990).
• Russia pledged 25% (from 1990), though it’s already down about 34% based on economic problems, so could increase its emissions under this pledge.

The overall pledged reduction from industrialized nations for 2020 is somewhere in the range 11-15%, far below the 25%-40% developing countries expect from the “rich countries.”

Developing countries
Some developing nations also have announced goals, often measured against BAU (business as usual) projections. They all want to grow economically, but will cut “intensity” or amount of emissions per economic unit.
• China pledged 40-45% reduction in intensity.
• Brazil said 36-39%, and an 80% cut in deforestation.
• South Korea pledged 30% below forecasts (from 2005 levels).
• Indonesia said 26% from BAU.

About 70 heads of state have said they will attend, including Obama, who will be there Dec. 9 on his way to Oslo for the Nobel ceremony; president Hi Jintao of China; Prime Minister Gordon Brown of UK; and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia.

Terminology
Some issues and acronyms you should know about if you plan to follow this conference, knows as Cop15:

MRV = monitor, record and verify. Obama pushed this concept as a necessary component of any agreement. Some developing countries are wary of it, without any funding to help them keep track of their emissions.

BASIC = The four biggest polluting developing countries: Brazil, South Africa, India and China. Under the Kyoto treaty they didn’t have to set targets. Now they threaten to walk out if rich countries demand too much of them.

REDD = Reduced emissions from deforestation. This is a big issue for rainforest countries that want credit for not cutting down trees and financial help to replace farming and livestock that are replacing the forests.

Trust – This is not an acronym but a serious problem between the have and have-not countries.

All this plays out against the backdrop of recent reports that climate change is happening more rapidly than anticipated – fulfilling the worst-case scenario in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

Stay tuned. This is important stuff. We’re all in it together.

(Sources: Sierra Club, BBC, Reuters, ClimateWire, NRDC, climateprogress.org)

Amazon rainforest destruction surges

(Photo of logs on the Amazon River from Flickr and photographer P.C. Loadletter)

News Update: Illegal logging increased 228% in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest in August, compared with the same month a year ago, according to the country’s National Institute for Space Research, which monitors deforestation by satellite. This after three years of declining deforestation. Officials blame upcoming elections, with mayors allowing illegal logging in the hope of winning votes. Another cause is the increase in global food prices, which spurs clearing of land to raise cattle and grow soy for export. Deforestation is a major source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Sources: New York Times/AP, Greenwire)

Undisturbed forests store more carbon than logging plantations to help fight global warming

(Photo of old growth eucalyptus tree from Flickr and photographer Tony from Sidney)

News Update 1: A new Australian study says natural forests, with their taller trees and larger canopies, store 60% more carbon than plantation, or industrial, forests. They also store more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in its 2007 report. Researchers at Australian National University found that in addition to growing larger, untouched trees grew older and stored carbon longer than trees cut down on a rotating basis. Biomass and soil store about 3 times as much carbon as that in the atmosphere, the report said, and 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere came from past deforestation, while 18% of annual carbon emissions now are from deforestation. (Source: Reuters)

Deforestation: inevitable as population surges?

(Photo of deforestation in Brazil from Flickr and photographer [cas]/Sotto)

Weekly Angst: World population growth, up from 6 billion to 9 billion (that’s 50%) in the first half of this century will likely lead to cutting down forests to provide more food, fuel and timber, two new reports say. The Rights and Resources Initiative, a global coalition of environmental and conservation NGOs (non-governmental organizations) expects land the size of 12 Germanys will to be cleared between now and 2030.

“Arguably we are on the verge of the last great global land grab,” said Andy White, co-author of one of the reports, called “Seeing People Through the Trees.” And this is going to cause conflict, as well as global warming.

Governments still own most of the forests, said the second report, “From Exclusion to Ownership,” but have been unable to prevent industrial incursions. In Brazil, soy and sugar cane for biofuels are likely to take another 247 million acres from the Amazon rainforest by 2020.

There are several problems intersecting here.

Population growth and economics
First is the rapid and relentless growth of population on the Earth. In 1950 the population stood at just 2.5 billion. By 2000 it was 6 billion, more than double. This week it is 6.7 billion and by 2050, the UN estimates, the number will reach close to 9 billion (8.9B if you want to be exact).

So not only are developing countries trying to lift their people out of poverty with their own industrial revolutions, but there are increasingly more people to lift. More food, more fuel, more plastics, more cars and more electricity will be needed. (China, by the way, points out that without its one-child policy its population would be far bigger than it is.)

Then there’s the difficulty of maintaining forest in its natural state when money is to be made from clearing it to plant crops, grow cattle and sell timber. Most of the forest likely to be cleared is in developing countries, the reports said.

The Amazon rainforest
The Amazon rainforest is a case in point. The largest in the world, it is often called “the lungs of the world” because it consumes CO2 and produces 20% of the Earth’s oxygen. It contains 1/10 of the carbon dioxide stored in land ecosystems on the planet.

After 3 years of declining deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (due to enforcement and the low price of soybeans), the tide turned last summer, and an estimated 1,096 square miles were lost in May alone.

Brazil is No. 4 in emission of greenhouse gases, not because of fossil fuel plants, but mainly (70%) because of deforestation.

Brazilian officials, under world scrutiny, say outsiders, including NGOs, are grabbing their land, stealing medicinal plants, spying and logging illegally. They say they fear the outside world is after their considerable resources.

Other forests at risk
The Amazon isn’t the only place forest is disappearing. Parts of Asia are losing more than 10,000 square miles of forest every year.

And Canada is logging its boreal forests (mainly evergreens) at such a rate that, combined with permafrost melt, it could produce a “carbon bomb,” according to Greenpeace. A report by the University of Toronto, “Turning up the Heat,” said a 1993 study showed Canada’s large swath of boreal forests stored 186 billion metric tons of carbon (27 times what the world emits from fossil fuels in a year), two-thirds of it stored in the soil. When trees are destroyed, not only is carbon released from them, but also from the soil that is exposed.

The province of Ontario last week promised to preserve 55 million acres, or at least half, of its pristine boreal forests from future development, keeping it as an undisturbed ecosystem and carbon sink. What about the other half? Chainsaw massacre?

More research, more regulation
The interaction between forests and climate change is complex. Droughts can damage forests and so can wildfires and pests brought on by warmer temperatures. The Amazon is threatened by increasingly frequent droughts. A Smithsonian research study going on now on an island in the Panama Canal suggests that as temperatures rise, trees slow their growth and absorb less CO2. There also is the issue that trees, as they get old, reach a point where they don’t take in as much carbon.

Clearly there needs to be more research, and a worldwide agreement to save or replace the forests we have – and not lose more. World officials meeting in Bali last December agreed credits should be given for saving rainforest, a step in the right direction. The details need to be worked out between now and 2012, when a post-Kyoto agreement would begin. And likely the wealthy nations are going to have to pony up.
(Sources: Thomson Reuters, PlanetArk, Greenwire, ClimateWire, State of the Planet 2006-2007, U.S. Census Bureau)

China’s CO2 emissions 14% higher than U.S. in 2007

(Photo of coal stored in Beijing power plant from Flickr and photographer kafka4prez/JJ W)

News Update 1: China emitted 14% more carbon dioxide last year that the U.S., according to a Dutch report published last week. China, which passed up the U.S. in 2006, saw its emissions rise 8% year over year, while those in the U.S. grew 1.8%. China’s emissions came mostly from burning of fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas; its electricity is 80% coal-fired. China was responsible for 24% of new CO2 emissions, compared with 21% from the U.S., 12% from the EU’s 15 oldest countries, 8% from India and 6% from Russia. The U.S. still ranks highest in per-capita emissions however – with the typical American's carbon footprint 19.4 metric tons. Russia is next with 11.8 tons, followed by the EU 8.6, China 5.1 and India 1.8. The study did not include carbon emissions from deforestation. (Source: Greenwire)

Deforestation puts snakes on the plain

(Photo of anaconda boa constrictor from Flickr and photographer Pierre Pouliquin.)
Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest of Brazil in driving snakes into a nearby city in search of a new habitat. The EPA there has captured 21 snakes, including a 10-foot anaconda, in the city of Belem, near the mouth of the Amazon River. Illegal loggers, developers, farmers and ranchers cleared about 2,700 square miles in the last 5 months of 2007 alone, as demand for corn, soy and cattle puts pressure on forest land. Here's another good reason to keep the rainforest intact. (See MSNBC)

Global Warming win short-lived

Weekly angst: The victory didn’t last very long. A comprehensive energy bill to curb Global Warming passed the House on a 235-181 vote Thursday afternoon. But by Friday morning, opponents had defeated a cloture motion in the Senate, and negotiations were under way to strip the bill of some of its main provisions in order to get the 60 votes needed for passage and have a prayer of getting the president’s signature.

Likely to survive are the 35 mpg corporate fuel economy (CAFE) standards and the biofuels section (though that may be changed). Most likely to go are the requirement for private power plants to get 15% (actually just 11%) of their power from renewable sources like wind, solar and biomass by 2022 and the shift of $21 billion in tax breaks from oil and gas to renewable energy development and efficiency.

But without those provisions, how the devil will we make the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy quickly enough to prevent catastrophic warming? Big oil, coal and power plants won this round and we lost. The fossil fuel economy is barely dented.

The cloture vote, which showed the votes aren't there to prevent a filibuster, put most Democrats on the right side of the issue and most Republicans on the side of fossil fuels. There were some exceptions. GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (Maine), Norm Coleman (Minn.), Arlen Spector (Pa.), Gordon Smith (Ore.) and John Thune (S.D.) voted with the good guys. (Collins, Coleman and Smith have tough re-election campaigns against Democrats next year). And Dems Evan Bayh (Ind.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Richard Byrd (W.Va.) voted with the bad guys. If you live in any of their states, let them hear from you.

What was in the House bill
In addition to the 35 mpg CAFE standard for cars and light trucks combined in 2020, and the 15% RES for large investor-owned electric power plants (4 percentage points of which could come from buying offsets) the same year, the bill included:
• A nearly 5-fold increase in biofuels, to 36 billion gallons in 2022, with 21 billion from “advanced” (mostly cellulosic) fuels that cut GHG 50-60% (as opposed to corn, which cuts very little).
• A $21 billion tax package with $13 in new taxes (or eliminated tax breaks) for oil and gas, and incentives for energy efficiency in buildings, appliances, furnaces and lighting, renewable energy sources and plug-in hybrid cars.
• Increased testing of carbon capture and sequestration, the main hope for “clean” coal.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was credited with tough negotiations (mainly with fellow Democrats) to get such a strong bill approved.

The importance of CAFE
The 35 mpg CAFE standard would cut oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels a day in 2020, or the equivalent of taking 28 million cars off the road. This is the first move to raise mileage standards since the oil crisis of the 1970s. In fact, by 1988, with the crisis behind us, the auto companies were building larger cars again and were allowed to meet a 27.5 mpg standard, not the scheduled 28.5. That, of course, didn’t include SUVs, which are classified as light trucks and have a 22 mpg standard. Why is CAFE politically acceptable this year? We can probably thank the lofty price of oil. People are ready to save money at the pump. And the auto industry and UAW were won over by concessions granted to their champion, House Energy Chair John Dingell (D -Mich.), in the form of flex-fuel credits and money to retool.

Efforts to salvage renewables and taxes
Sen. Energy Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Friday they would negotiate through the weekend in an effort to find some middle ground and salvage the RES and tax portions of the bill – at least partially. They need an additional 7 votes. While 20 states already have their own renewable electricity standards, the Southeast and some Midwest states are concerned they don’t have enough wind to meet the standard. One GOP Senator suggested a much smaller tax package might be OK’d. A chief opponent, the retiring and ill Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.), ranking member of the Energy Committee, wants nuclear loan guarantees in the bill and reportedly prevailed on fellow Republicans to oppose the bill passed by the House.

Bush veto threat
A final concern, of course, is a presidential veto. Bush doesn’t like the $13 billion in oil and gas taxes or the renewable fuels provision. He wants to include coal-based transportation fuels (which release more CO2 than gasoline) and to pre-empt state laws on alternative fuels. Many in Congress would like to see CAFE standards and energy efficiency, at least, signed into law.

Next step
The aim is to come up with a bill that can pass the Senate with at least 60 votes, and has some chance of getting the president’s signature. Once passed by the Senate, it will have to go back to the House for a vote. Leadership wants to accomplish this before the planned Congressional recess on Dec. 22.
(Sources: PlanetArk, Greenwire, E&E News PM, The End of Nature by Bill McKibben)

Congressional round-up

Lieberman-Warner bill passed out of Boxer's committee
In another milestone this week, the Senate passed its first mandatory cap-and-trade bill out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Works Committee by an 11-8 vote. The compromise bill, which most environmentalists think is too weak, and opponents think is too strong, will now go to the floor for what promises to be a lively debate, though no one is saying when. The bill covers 80% of the economy, mandating 70% in GHG cuts by 2050. The vast majority of allowances would be given to industries that will be affected, with only a small portion auctioned. Fee credits will be phased out by 2031.

News in brief

Green economy will result in more jobs, studies say
The move from a fossil-fuel to a “green” economy will have a net worldwide job gain, according to a new UN report. In addition to “green collar” jobs, there will be construction, transportation, engineering, manufacturing and sustainable agriculture and forestry jobs, the report said. In Brazil, the ethanol business has created a half-million jobs, and in China 150,000 are employed in solar heating. The jobs will more than make up for layoffs in old fossil-fuel industries, showing a small net gain, the report said. A second study, by the American Solar Energy Society, estimates that in the U.S., policies favoring renewable energy sources and energy efficiency could produce 40 million new jobs and $4.5 trillion in new revenue by 2030. Most of the jobs, 32 million, would be in efficiency measures such as retrofitting buildings, while 8 million would be in the renewables sector, with solar, wind, ethanol and hydrogen cells seeing the most growth. (Source: Greenwire)

Tropical zones expanding as the Earth gets warmer
Tropical regions are pushing north and south toward the poles at a rate much faster than expected. In the past 25 years, they have moved 2.5 degrees latitude, or 140-330 miles, according to a study in the journal Nature Geoscience last week. Climate models had predicted it would take 100 years to move just 2 degrees. The expansion brings with it a shift in high-altitude wind and rain patterns, and affects agricultural zones and water availability. (Source: Greenwire)

Skiers, marchers, bikers protest against climate change
Protestors called attention to Global Warming Sunday in 50 cities around the world. In Berlin, a sculptor carved a polar bear in ice at the Brandenburg Gate. In Auckland, 350 formed “Climate SOS” by lying in the grass at a park. In Taipei, 1,500 marched with signs saying “No carbon dioxide.” In Manila, hundreds rallied with windmills on their heads. In Helsinki, 50 skied on asphalt streets saying, “Give us our snowy winters back.” And here in the U.S., 50 took a polar bear plunge into Walden Pond. (Source: Associated Press)

News from Bali

Climate scientists lose patience, plead for radical action
More than 215 leading climate scientists, some of whom have taken no stance up to now, petitioned the delegates at the Bali UN climate conference to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The petitioners come from more than 2 dozen countries. “The science community is basically fed up,” one signer from Canada told the Associated Press.

Other headlines this first week of the Dec. 3-14 190-nation conference:
* Saving rainforests is a high priority but one about which there is disagreement. The conference is likely to launch pilot projects trying two approaches – trading on the carbon market and using a fund to compensate countries for stopping slash-and-born. Deforestation was not in the Kyoto Protocol but causes 20% of GHG worldwide. Many want it in the next international treaty.
* Carbon capture is not on the Bali agenda. The technology is still unproven and would cost about $1 billion per plant, though ultimately it may be the answer to low- or no-carbon use of coal. Perhaps carbon capture and storage will be part of future talks, Yvo de Boer, top UN climate official, told Reuters.
* The U.S. delegation continues to oppose mandatory cuts of GHG, and made light of the passage of the first cap-and-trade bill from committee onto the Senate floor last week. The National Environmental Trust blasted U.S. greed and waste, saying the country is responsible for 27.8% of cumulative Global Warming.
* Host country Indonesia planted millions of trees to offset the estimated 47,000 tons of carbon dioxide caused by the 12-day conference. The estimate includes air transport to and from Bali. Hosts also eliminated cars from the conference site and provided 200 bicycles for ministers to use if they didn’t want to walk. (Sources: PlanetArk, AP, India Times)

Xtreme weather watch

Rainfall and snowstorms are now more severe. Since 1948, the number of intense storms has increased between 22-26% in the U.S., a new report from Environment America shows. New England and the mid-Atlantic states have been hit the worst. Mass., R.I., Vt., N.Y. and La. have all seen an increase of more than 50%. Climate scientists say this is consistent with Global Warming because warm air holds more moisture. For more, see http://environmentAmerica.org. (New York Times)

Did a cyclone just hit the Northwest? Heavy rain and hurricane-force winds of up to 129 mph hit Oregon and Washington in back-to-back storms last Sunday and Monday. In Bremerton, Wash., rainfall was recorded at 11.78 inches. The storms, which washed out roads, caused mudslides, and resulted in at least 5 deaths, were among the worst in memory. More than 100,000 people were without electricity. One Portland resident noted, “This was really a hurricane – or cyclone – and we never get those here.” (AP)

The cyclone that smacked low-lying Bangladesh last month left a huge humanitarian crisis, the UN said last week. Some 2 million residents need immediate help to save their lives. They need food, shelter, drinking water and sanitation. A total of 8.5 million were affected, more than a half-million homes were completely destroyed and 1.5 million livestock were wiped out. Cyclone Sidr hit with 155 mph winds and a 5-foot storm surge Nov. 15. International aid so far tops $143 million. (PlanetArk)

Take Action

In this season of packages and bags and wrapping paper, think green. Carry one or more canvas or reusable bags with you to put your purchases in. Tell store clerks to keep their paper and plastic bags. Use recycled wrapping paper. And when possible re-use packaging that comes to you from online or catalog items.

Make a year-end donation to environmental groups that do research and fight the good fight for all of us – in Congress, statehouses, elections and courts. They include the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense, World Wildlife Federation and Union of Concerned Scientists. And that doesn’t exhaust the list, if you have another favorite. Without them, there would be little, if any, progress.