The video, which features exploding-kids, has been removed from the companies website, but not from the rest of the internet…

Love it or lump it, it certainly gets it’s message across. Call me creepy, but I had a little chuckle. Perhaps more at the expense of the backlash than the video itself.

I’ve been absent from Earth Feed for awhile now, mostly preparing to launch this film and this exhibit. There is, however, new content in the works! Including a brand new Earth Feed podcast. Details on how to subscribe on iTunes to follow…

This is a few months old now, but frankly, the content is ancient. Why is it mission critical when it’s in our own backyard, but business as usual elsewhere?

Nigeria is in my top five place to report from. Top five. In fact, it might even occupy position number one.

Obama addresses the nation

“For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires.

“Time and again, the path forward has been blocked – not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candour.

“The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1bn of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf [of Mexico], we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.”

Renewable energy? Addiction to fossil fuels? These are not the words of an American President, and mark a firm departure from the disaster of the previous decade. Or do they? In 2006, George W. Bush made similar observation of America’s addiction to oil. Yet here we are, four years later, listening to the same song and dance.

Actions speak louder than words. Obama’s address was decidedly vague, and it remains to be seen exactly what future energy policy will look like. The BP Oil disaster has certainly put the issue back on the map and in the minds of the American people. But until I see acres of wind farms and a solar heater on the roof of every suburban American home, Mr. Obama will remain, for me, a little more vanilla that tiger stripe.

Still, this is the man who managed Health Care reform, a feat so many before him had failed. Maybe he’s got some tricks up his sleeve yet.

The explosion is said to have been cause by a sudden bubble of methane gas. Impossible to predict. But certainly a probable outcome of drilling. Reason should dictate that such an explosion would cause the oil tanker to sink. And that sealing a hole in the ocean floor would be challenging at best, and impossible at worst. Reality is dictating the worst.

Here’s what I don’t get; We’re all born with common sense. We know that error happens. We know what the fall out of possible error is. And yet our governments continue to invest in unsustainable energy sources. What if this had been a nuclear tailing pond, which must stand undisturbed for 100,000 years to neutralize the effects?

Errors happen. Maybe it’s time we start accounting for that in initial plans.

Ok, so today’s Earth Day, the day where we all celebrate the Earth and champion for its protection. A day where we can sit around and congratulate each other on cleaner rivers and less acid rain. A chance to lament recent failures, and cry concern over the current climate crisis. One day a year that’s completely focused on our own pale blue dot.

Or is it?

Forty years ago, Earth Day was launched by Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson. His goal was to draw attention to environmental issues. At the time, passion for earth issues was just picking up. Rachel Carson had published her seminal essay, Silent Spring in 1962. The late 60’s brought a number of major oil spills that further catalyzed public opinion on the environment. 1971 marked the year of mercury poisoning in Minimata.

Point is, at the time there was a lot going on to shake public perception. People cared. Awareness mattered.

Here’s my question; Forty year on, do we still need more awareness? Arguably the environmental movement is at its all time peak in popularity. People are more aware of issues of biodiversity and climate change than ever before. When does all this awareness cease to be productive and just become self-congratulatory hype between those who were already in the know?

Moreover, what does Earth Day mean to those outside the minority world? A lot of the clean up in North America has occurred by shipping toxic industry’s offshore. We know about e-waste in Ghana, uranium-tailing ponds in Kyrgyzstan, lead poisoning in the Dominican Republic. The western world continues to call on developing nations to do more to curb CO2 emissions, to clean up toxic industry, yet it’s western owned companies that are often creating the mess to begin with.

There are a lot of people on this Earth. If only a handful are celebrating Earth Day, congratulating their own “awareness,” is it really a day worth celebrating at all? And if our only solution to clean up is to ship industry out of our own backyard and into another, arguably we’re not as aware as we’d like to believe. We are, in fact, just blind.

Is it just me, or is the Pope trying to capitalize on the current currency of the environmental movement to revamp his decidedly stale and unpalatable image?  I’d cast stones, but he’s hardly the first.  Green washing your public image and declaring yourself an “environmentalist” is certainly in vogue these days.   Perhaps it’s time to make it official.

Pope goes eco-chic

By now you’ve probably heard the news – Obama will attend the Copenhagen negotiations.  While his nation is still reluctant to set firm targets (making the intire summit a waste of time,) at least he’s giving it the ol’ college try.  But for today’s post, I thought we might shift our attention away from the big wigs (China, India, America,) and towards the little guys.  Their voice won’t resonate with the same power at the climate talks, but their situation is dire and deserves out attention.  It’s been said time and time again that global warming will have a disproportionate impact on the world’s poor.   As we count down to Copenhagen let’s pause and reflect on some of the headlines of the day that exemplify this.

Climate Change to hit Pacific Island Food Security
Forests, Food Crops and Fisheries in the south pacific will all come under threat as sea levels continue to rise and cyclones and droughts intensify as a result of the changing climate.  The region already relies on imported food and fuel – how will it continue to develop under these intensified conditions?

Warming hits roads and pipelines in Canada North
The term “development” usually implies poverty alleviation in a tropical climate.  But some of Canada’s poorest communities are located north of the 60th parallel. Melting permafrost is undermining building foundations and threatens roads, pipelines and communications infrastructure.  Five trillion dollars worth of infrastructure is believed at risk.  How will this impact northern communities?

Climate change to hit water-scarce Arab world hard
The middle east has maintained a low profile during the lead up to the Copenhagen summit – perhaps because security concerns still reign supreme in the region.  However a new report outlines how a warming climate is likely to hit the water-starved Arab world harder than many other parts of the globe and threatens to slash agricultural output in the area.   How will civilians adapt to the increased water scarcity?  What will this mean for peace and security in the region.

All three of these stories appeared in the last 24 hours.  I wonder what the headlines might look like in the next 24 years, if we don’t take action now?

The 17-member body, which produces 80 percent of global emissions, will try and find common ground on the climate issue prior to Copenhagen (where a new UN climate agreement will be hashed out, in case you’re out of the loop).

They key point of contention: setting a base year for emissions. While the G8 has committed to a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2050, the 50 percent of what has yet to be determined. Many developing nations (most notably India) would like to see a base year of 1990 for the new climate agreement. This would require developed nations to make significant emissions reductions, leaving more space for countries like India to continue to expand their carbon emissions without exceeding the overall global reduction.  (India has already stated unequivocally that it will not be party to the climate treaty.)

But Japan is having none of it, and is pushing for a more recent base year.

It’s an interesting debate to be sure.  Certainly we’re all in agreement that carbon must be cut, but at what cost?  As Dinesh Patnaik, a top Indian negotiator put it, “We are not keen on numbers like 50 percent reduction by 2050 by (rich) countries, which will freeze the existing imbalance in the distribution of the carbon space.”

Carbon space is what has allowed the west to prosper.  Is it fair to punish developing nations, just as their economies are gearing up for action. Moreover, is a climate agreement that doesn’t involve India, which in 2007 was responsible for eight percent of global emissions (and growing) worth having at all?

Pressure on rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions could mean government-branded sacks of food aid could take a back seat to things like more efficient wood-burning cooking stoves for rural Mexicans.

Of course that’s not really true. Green aid will more likely take the form of carbon offsets.  Developed nations will be able to ‘write off’ the high levels of CO2 they produce by providing aid for green development initiatives overseas.   Many western governments (though not Canada) view this as a win-win situation: They can meet both their international aid and environmental commitments in one fell swoop, without making any actual cuts to their carbon emission.  According to Anthony Cary, Britain’s high commissioner to Canada:

“That’s a sensible way to go because economics suggest that you should drive investment to where you can get the biggest gains in terms of the atmosphere, and that’s often going to be in developing countries.”

Developing countries are exempt from setting concrete target emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The argument follows that developed nations are carbon emitters, where as developing nations aren’t, and forcing target emissions could potentially curb their development goals.  “Green aid” provides the solution, tying rich and poor nations to a global framework for reducing CO2 emissions.

Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM’s) are the manifestation of green aid at work.  CDM’s allow developed nations to invest in projects in developing nations that reduce emissions without making costly cuts to their own CO2 output.  They are traded online, at the CDM Bazaar. Under this framework, I continue to live in a smoggy mess, while the aforementioned Mexican enjoys a high efficiency wood stove he didn’t ask for and maybe doesn’t want.  And anyway, as the BBC reports, between 20% and 60% of CDM projects do not save any additional CO2.

Perhaps Mr. Cary is right about “driving investment to where you can get the biggest gains,” but I wonder if there’s more at stake than economic gains. The earth doesn’t hedge it’s bets the same way the market does, and at the end of the day one ton of carbon is still one ton of carbon. Whether it come from the United States or Uruguay makes little difference.