If you are a regular reader of Ecolocalizer, you know that we’ve been following the effort to essentially ban toys from Happy Meals or other unhealthy fast food “meals” in San Francisco (see McDonald’s Happy Meal Toys to be Banned in San Francisco? and Update on San Francisco Happy Meal Toy Ban). The most recent news on this story is that in an article in the San Francisco Examiner by McDonald’s VP of Nutrition and Menu Strategy Karen Wells dropped quite the insult on moms and dads.

“Any objective look at our menu makes clear that our Happy Meals are frequently more balanced than either school lunches or meals served at home.”

Are you kidding? If it is somehow true that Happy Meals are more balanced that most home-cooked meals, then we really are in trouble, but I have to assume that most moms or dads would be insulted by the statement that Happy Meals are more balanced than what they serve their kids at home.

Another line in the piece really stood out to me as well: “No scientific evidence exists to demonstrate that limiting access to toys will address or solve the stated purpose of the ordinance — decreasing childhood obesity.” Seems that would be a hard thing to research without a test case. Well, if San Francisco is interested in giving this a shot, we can easily study the matter and get that info, so why don’t we see what we can learn!

I love friends — Connect with me on Facebook, StumbleUpon, Twitter, or Care2.

Photo Credit: Stéfan via flickr

In the middle of the world’s 6th great extinction, it is hard to find a lot of positive news on biodiversity and saving species — we currently have a rate of extinction the world has not seen since dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. However, at the end of the Convention of Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this last weekend, environment ministers from every country of the world except Andorra (population 83,000) and the United States came to some historic agreements and are passionate about moving forward like never before to preserve biodiversity across the planet.

“Nearly 200 nations agreed on Saturday to a sweeping plan to stem the loss of species by setting new 2020 targets to ensure greater protection of nature and enshrine the benefits it gives mankind,” Reuters reported.

Brazilian Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira, a strong force promoting action on this critical issue, said in the end, “The protocol is really, really a victory.”

Greenpeace, which is normally critical of such agreements even when others are happy with them, was even quite thrilled with the progress made in Nagoya. “This isn’t a boring protocol. It will regulate billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry,” said Tove Ryding, policy adviser for biodiversity and climate change for Greenpeace.

These nations also apparently made progress on addressing these issues while also helping the poor.

“We finally have something that is going to give great results for the environment, for the poor people,” Karl Falkenberg, head of the European Commission’s environment department, said.

Let’s hope we see more success like this in the near future and the agreements these nations came to are implemented as committed.

I love friends — connect with me on Facebook, StumbleUpon, Twitter, or Care2.

Photo Credit: European Parliament via flickr (CC license)

Brazil’s Minister of Environment, Izabella Teixeira, delivered a statement to the COP10 Convention on Biological Diversity yesterday, highlighting Brazil’s positions and priorities for the remainder of the negotiations in Nagoya, Japan.  Minister Teixeira’s statement came on the first day of the High-Level Ministerial Segment of COP10. The statement is a powerful one and something I thought was worth sharing on Ecolocalizer, so I’m including it in full here.

Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP-10/CBD)
Open-Ended Informal Ministerial Consultation
Nagoya, Japan, 27 October 2010

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to attend the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity for the first time. I have great optimism and great expectations about this Conference, but, I have to admit, I also have fears that, like in Copenhagen, the international community might get frustrated with the lack of commitment and understanding around such vital issues for the planet and its populations. That is why I came here with all enthusiasm, responsibility, flexibility and honesty to listen, to talk, to negotiate and to take decisions which are suitable to all countries. This is the same spirit I expect to find with you all here.

The time for talking is over. It is time for providing answers, solutions, actions. We are all tired of endless meetings which just postpone the solutions for the problems. We are also tired of decisions which are dissociated from real life. While that happens, over the past few years, not only has there been an absence of relevant signs of reduction of biodiversity loss but also the available indicators portray a growing deterioration of global biodiversity. Reverting this process, which in essence is a result of human activity, requires an unprecedented effort, with strong and determined responses from all global societies. Essentially, political will is required to change the patterns of the way different segments of society appropriate biodiversity resources for themselves.

This is what I bring with me: good will, political will, so that we can forge here a pact to implement the CBD and build solid partnerships among the various sectors of society. We cannot, we do not have the right to lose this opportunity if we don’t want to increase the human, social, economic and environmental costs of biodiversity loss. If we don’t want to increase the lack of credibility of the multilateral system

In the last 10 days, we had time enough to see the differences that separate us. We have now only three days to see what unites us. In only three days, we will be looking at the decisions taken at the 10th Conference of the Parties of the CBD, in Nagoya. It is up to us to decide what kind of results we will be taking home. And with which face we will be looking at our children.

We have been negotiating a Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing which is fundamental to overcome the implementation deficit of the Convention and to combat biopiracy. We have been discussing a new Strategic Plan for the period post-2010, and a new Strategy for Resource Mobilization. A central part of our future efforts must include support for national agendas to reach targets on biodiversity, ensuring country ownership and supported by predictable, additional and sufficient resources and technology.

These three elements — the Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, the Strategic Plan and the new Strategy for Resource Mobilization — are part of an indivisible package for COP-10. They should be considered, discussed and negotiated with the attention and urgency that the matter deserves.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The multilateral system is based on consensus. And we all know how consensus can be difficult when so many different social, economic and environmental realities get together. We have then two choices: either sticking stubbornly to our points of view, trying to find the perfect agreement, and probably taking many more years for that, or, alternatively, trying to listen, to negotiate, to understand the other side’s perspectives, being flexible, and achieving an agreement which might not be perfect, but it is the possible agreement.

It is with this second spirit that Brazil came to Nagoya. There is momentum for us to achieve good results in Nagoya. All Ministers I talk to reassure their spirit of compromise and flexibility. If we lose this opportunity, in the search for the perfect deal, we will be giving signs that we don’t need a deal. We can’t give the world this message.

Being here, for me, is a great sacrifice at a moment when we are concluding President Lula’s administration after eight years in power and preparing the transition to a new government. But it is also a sign of the importance Brazil attaches to this Convention.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is necessary to keep our vision on the future, so that our children and our grandchildren can, as ourselves, be the beneficiaries of nature’s overwhelming wealth.

This is what I call our ethical responsibility to the future generations. However, this vision should be based on concrete actions and on political decisions that allow us to implement, presently, the objectives, decisions and agreements to which we have committed. Otherwise, the future will only be a recollection of our good intentions, not fulfilled.

There is no more time for rhetoric, for actions dissociated from the multilateral efforts or for us to continue the game of attributing to the neighbors the greatest responsibilities.  The impacts of our lack of action can increasingly be felt upon ourselves, not upon the future generations any longer. To act now is not only a matter of political will, it is also a question of responsibility, commitment, vision, ethics and survival.

Thank you very much!

Photo Credit: Elza Fiuza/ABr via Wikimedia user Missionary (CC license)

A major report was released this week on the potential impacts of climate change on three major Asian cities. The news isn’t good.

These three major coastal cities alone (all with populations of 10 million or more) — Bangkok, Manila, and Ho Chi Minh City — could suffer billions in dollars of damage (not to mention physical and psychological trauma) from climate change. This would be equal to 2-6% of regional GDP.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and the World Bank released this report after 2 years of research on the matter.

The people likely to be hit worst by climate change are the urban poor, the report concludes.

Along with the risks, the report detailed some ways these cities can prepare for, mitigate and adapt to climate change. For example:

[S]ound urban environmental management is crucial. Land subsidence due to groundwater pumping, dumping of solid waste into city canals andwaterways, clogged drainage systems, and deforestation in the upper watershed all contribute tourban flooding. Better management of these urban environmental issues will help manage futureclimate-related impacts.

Given the damage costs associated with climate change, the report also recommends that governments of coastal megacities undertake proactive measures to address climate risks as anintegral part of urban planning. This includes developing strategic urban adaptation frameworks formanaging climate risks, strengthening institutional capacity for adaptation and implementing measures such as land use planning and zoning to help reduce urban vulnerability.

You can download the full report with much more along these lines here: Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Megacities

Photo Credits: Andrew Hux via flickr (CC license); mr.beaver via flickr (CC license)

Sunny South Africa wouldn’t be a bad place to put a big solar park, and the government there knows it.

The South African government is interested in building a 5-gigawatt solar park on land in its Northern Cape and has hired Texas-based Fluor Corporation to make a plan for how to do so.

CalFinder Solar reports that the solar park could “serve as a field test for emerging technologies in PV energy, concentrating photovoltaic PV and concentrating solar power, or CSP.”

The project is following up on a pre-feasibility study conducted by the Clinton Climate Initiative. Fluor’s task is to develop a conceptual master plan to be unveiled at the South African Solar Park Investors Conference (Oct. 28 and 29), which will be held in the Northern Cape Province.

“Upon completion of the conceptual study, a more detailed design plan will be developed,” Reuters reports. “The South Africa Department of Energy intends to establish a Solar Park Authority as a unit within the state-owned Central Energy Fund to facilitate the advancement of the project.”

South Africa’s Department of Energy predicts that the total costs for this massive solar park project could reach $22 billion (150 billion rand).

Of course, this project would come after the Mojave Desert solar project in the United States, which is expected to claim the title of world’s largest solar project until then.

South Africa’s Solar Boon

South Africa gets an astounding 1,800 to 2,200 kilowatt hours per square meter (kWh/sq m) of insolation (i.e. amount of “solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time”). The best possible in sunny California, for comparison, is 700 kWh/sq m.

I love friends — connect with me on Facebook, StumbleUpon, Twitter, or Care2.

Photo Credit: afloresm via flickr (CC license)