Ecological issues - Is world really ready to go green?

Many environmentalists believed when Obama was elected that this would be the start of the "new green revolution" where ecology would be at least equal to industry if not above. After couple of months we can clearly see that green revolution is distant future thing, and not something that miracle man Obama will achieve overnight. I said already before how Obama is first of all politician, and then everything else (including environmentalist), and politics is game of interests, and art of negotiation. Sadly these negotiations are still in favor of industry.

All you have to look at the latest Climate bill that barely passed the first hurdle, namely the House of representatives. With so many concessions to industry and still it barely passed the first hurdle. If scientific estimates of required greenhouse gas emissions cuts prove to be right than this climate bill will really be useless because it is nowhere near the required cuts, especially for short-term targets. And yet Obama celebrates this bill as the historical one. Well when you look at the traditional U.S. dependence on fossil fuels than this bill really looks monumental, because even with such small CO2 emission cuts (17 % by 2020) this still represents a move away from fossil fuels, something that was not imaginable during the Bush era. So this is definitely the step in the right direction, small step however but still in the right direction.

In reality our hopes were too high because we expected "green revolution" to happen overnight, and all the politics can offer us in this time are grounds to build on. Are these grounds strong enough it still remains to be seen, and Copenhagen deal later this year could give us a quick action to this interesting question. Of course we are far from the reality where politics accepted ecology as the ultimate guide for important international agreements but ecology has finally stepped out of the shadow where it was captured for so long. Of course that top spot under the light still belongs to industry and economy but at least ecology is getting some shiny rays from time to time.

What green revolution really requires is the green way of thinking and this is something that is still not possible in western society. Our civilization is too much covered in greed to accept radical changes that are needed for green revolution. Our "green way of thinking" only applies to green color of dollar. Nor grass nor forests aren't green enough in our eyes when compared to almighty dollar, and money is still the main force that rules the world.

Before the green revolution we need to create global ecological conscience and this is something that will take time. But how much time do we have with so many different ecological problems? I would say not too much, and we should really get our values straight as soon as possible. Or else? Let me just say that once we run out of time all the money in the world won't be enough to get us out of the trouble.

Why are forests and rainforests so important to humanity?

Forests and rainforests around the world are still disappearing at an alarming rate, and in general very little has been done to prevent deforestation in developing countries. World seems to be constantly forgetting how important forests and rainforests really are, and so rapid deforestation continues in many parts of the world.

Many people are not aware that forests play extremely important role in regulating climate, and because of their carbon-sinking ability they act as natural weapon against climate change. Currently, rainforests absorb around 20 percent of the total CO2 emissions every year, but sadly heavy deforestation is also releasing an extra 17 percent of CO2 emissions each year. Deforestation has really become large source of CO2 emissions, in fact it is the third biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions so it is really no wonder that many environmentalists describe deforestation as "one of the biggest threat to the global climate".

Deforestation is worst in Africa, Amazon, and Indonesia. For instance if current rates of deforestation are about to continue in Amazon in years to come, more than half of the Amazon rainforest will be lost in the next 25 years. The last thing world needs in fight against climate change is deforestation, what we really need is reforestation, and rich countries should really ensure funds for reforestation in poor countries.

Deforestation is taking heavy toll in Amazon rainforest. If current rates of deforestation continue in less than 25 years more than half of the Amazon rainforest will disappear.

Global climate deal looks to be couple of months away but still there are not enough talks about rainforests and forests protection. CO2 emissions that origin from deforestation are not negligent and should be really treated the same as industrial CO2 emissions. The solution for climate change is not only clean energy sector but also to stop deforestation and ensure funds for reforestation. Let me remind you that forests are not only nature's weapon against climate change, they also store water, regulate rainfall and not to mention how they provide a home to over half of the planet’s biodiversity.

By destroying rainforests and forests we are really heading towards one very bleak future - future in which humanity could pay extremely high price for not caring enough for our planet. The only question that remains to be answered is "how much of our abuse can our planet still take?"

Deforestation in Africa - Uganda

All recent studies show that deforestation is worst in Africa. Deforestation is among the biggest ecological problems in Africa, and one of the areas worst hit with deforestation is the east African country Uganda. Latest study showed that in less than 20 years time (since 1990) Uganda lost one third of its forest cover. In the beginning of 90s Uganda had more than five million hectares of forest cover but in less than 15 years time (by 2005) Uganda lost more than 1,5 million hectares of forests.

The main reason for such huge deforestation is the same like in many other African countries, namely the rapid grow of human population. As the population grows humans need more room for their farms and following infrastructure, and forests are cleared to make the necessary space. If by any chance Uganda's government fails to stop this excessive deforestation Uganda will be forest-free by 2050.

Many of you probably know that Uganda is one of the poorest African countries with mostly rural population. This African country is so poor that only 10 percent of its population has access to electricity while remaining population depends upon firewood for cooking needs. Increased Ugandan population is heavily clearing remaining forests because they practically need wood to survive. There are more than 31 million people living in Uganda so this mean that more than 25 million people need firewood for cooking, and if you add to this the fact that Uganda has one of the world's highest population growth rates you can clearly see how serious this deforestation problem really is.

The worst deforestation in Uganda is happening around the capital city Kampala. People want to be as close as possible to Kampala which has resulted in the expansion of built-up areas in near Kampala. This expansion in urbanization has caused area around Kampala to lose more than three quarters of its forests in the last 20 years, and if this continues area around Kampala will soon be forest-free.

Deforestation in Africa is not only ecological problem but also very important political question that rich countries will need to answer very soon. Africa is not capable to protect its forests without the aid from rich countries, and rich countries should really ensure much more funds for Africa. Unless this happens poor African people will be forced to continue with further destruction of their forests because this is the only way for them to survive.

Polar bear parks - Solution to save polar bears?

Polar bears have over the years become the endangered animals everyone is talking about, mostly because of climate change problem in Arctic. Arctic ice is melting fast, leaving less and less available habitats for polar bears which resulted in major polar bear population decline in the last 25 years. According to many estimates if current ice melting trend continues by the end of this century polar bears will disappear from Arctic. What can we do to save them?

One of the better ideas is definitely the latest Russian plan. Russia is about to create a new 1.5 million hectare park in the Arctic between the Barents and Kara seas that should give polar bears more industry-free area. Would these sort of parks be enough to save polar bears from extinction? Yes but only under one condition, namely that industries are kept far away from polar bear habitats, and that world finally agrees to adequate climate deal that would ensure these park remain cold.

World will soon have to make the decision about what is more important, polar bears or industry? If industry continues with its excessive emissions even parks won't be enough to save polar bears because temperatures will continue to rise, melting more and more ice, and polar bears really need ice to survive.

Arctic governments need to recognize the importance of polar bears, and many other Arctic animals that need ice to survive. Industry-free parks are definitely the move in the right direction but this is still not enough to ensure survival of the world's largest carnivores. Without global climate deal this will be nothing more than one good idea that had potential but sadly did not work in the end.

There's no global warming since some glaciers are growing instead of melting?

Many global warming deniers love to hear anything that could imply that there's no such thing as global warming. The latest example that could be used to their defense is Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier that doesn't follow global warming trend, and is constantly growing. Scientists cannot explain why Perito Moreno is showing completely different pattern than most of other glaciers, but on the other hand nobody has ever said how all glaciers should react exactly the same to climate change.

Does this example really show that there's no global warming and climate change? Very unlikely because this is really an exception and not a general rule, and you can find much more places on our planet where glaciers are melting than the ones where they are actually expanding. Arctic, large parts of Antarctica, Himalayan glaciers and many other examples show that there is indeed a rise in global temperature, and that this example with Perito Moreno is really some strange exception that still awaits scientific explanation.

We mustn't forget that climate change is global phenomenon, and that we need to look at things at global level, and if we indeed take a global look we can sadly see that global warming is already a reality. Climate change is not all about ice melting but also about extreme weather events like flooding and droughts that have recently become much more frequent than they used to be. I would really love that science is wrong in this case and that there's no such thing as global warming and climate change bud sadly much more evidences can be gathered to support global warming theory than to deny it.

All current climate change models predict that worse is yet to follow, and that we could see so much more of climate change by the end of this century. Glaciers melting will not only cause significant sea level rise but also water scarcity in many corners of the world. We can still escape the worst if world agrees new climate deal and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, at least this is what science suggest us.

I really do not see a reason why science would lie in this case. What good would science have by making up such a story? Therefore I do not understand people that deny climate change. What proofs do they offer? For one their proof that global warming doesn't exist there is at least ten proofs that climate change is really happening. Call me pragmatic or whatever but to me numbers are the ones that count the most. And numbers definitely support global warming theory.

In any case take a look at this nice video. It will give you much more insight into Perito Moreno glacier, one of the few glaciers that isn't feeling the "global warming heat". At least not yet.

Endangered animals - Sumatran elephant

Sumatran elephants are the smallest of all Asian elephants. These elephants can be only found on Sumatra, and latest estimates say how there are only between 2200-2700 Sumatran elephants still living in a wild. The reasons why Sumatran elephants are extremely endangered is mostly because of habitat loss. Indonesia has major deforestation problem , and many forests in Indonesia have been turned to plantations which leaves these beautiful animals with very little space to live in. Not only that without forests there's not enough space for Sumatran elephants but also there is not enough food because Sumatran elephants are herbivores, and their diet mostly consists of of bananas, ginger, bamboo and leaves.

The less habitats Sumatran elephants have the more difficult is for them to survive. Less space means also more conflicts with humans which often results with elephant deaths by poisoning. And of course there is also the poaching problem. Sumatran elephants have very valuable tusks, and whole tusks can achieve price up to $3000, which is very large sum of money for many people in Indonesia. Tusks are even more valuable when you consider that only male Sumatran elephants grow tusks.

Sumatran elephants are mostly endangered due to habitat loss as the result of excessive deforestation in Indonesia

In latest poaching incident (first week of June 2009) one male Sumatran elephant was found dead in a pulp plantation in Riau province, Sumatra, and in the last three months six other Sumatran elephants were killed by poachers while two were found with no tusks. Without their tusks elephants are having difficulties getting enough food because they need tusks to pry bark and dig up roots. Poachers usually use poisoned fruit to kill these helpless animals.

How to save remaining Sumatran elephant population from going extinct? If current rates of deforestation continue in Indonesia I really can't see nothing that could prevent extinction of these beautiful animals. The more forests disappear in Indonesia the more elephants will be lost, because they need forests for food and shelter. With no food elephants are often driven to farms to find necessary food and as you can imagine farmers really don't love idea of elephants feeding on their crops which lead to frequent conflicts and many elephant deaths.

What would really be needed to solve this problem is some sort of solution that would ensure living space for both humans and elephants. One of the very important steps in achieving this was the founding of Tesso Nilo National Park in Riau in 2004, but this is still not enough because forests are still rapidly disappearing in Indonesia. And without stopping deforestation there's really no chance of stopping Sumatran elephant population decline.

Are current conservation efforts enough to save many animals from going extinct?

There are lots of scientists and environmentalists working really hard to protect many animals from going extinct but are these conservation efforts enough? Are we really gonna lose many animals and plants in years to come or will science find the answer on how to protect them from extinction. What is really happening to our planet that so many animals are brought to the brink of extinction? Are we the ones to blame?

The reasons for so many endangered animals in the world are connected with ecological problems of the modern world. World is facing many different ecological problems that are becoming stronger and stronger, and this is what causes decline in population of many animal species. Animals are losing their habitats because we need more and more room for ourselves, and this is what creates huge biodiversity loss in many parts of the world. The other ecological problems play their negative part too; most notably climate change that is giving animals very little time to adapt to changed climate conditions. And there are of course deforestation and pollution, both oh which contribute to endangered animals problem.

Being surrounded with so many different ecological problems makes conservation efforts even more difficult because these ecological problems are becoming stronger and stronger. All hard work can be lost in almost one blink of an eye if something unpredictable happens, and modern ecology is sadly full of negative surprises these days. Take mountain gorilla conservation for instance, mountain gorillas live in area of often military conflicts and one short civil war between government and rebels could wipe out entire population in matter of days.

Still the most difficult challenges remain habitat loss, poaching, and climate change. Habitat loss can happen due to many different reasons but all these reasons have one origin, namely us, the humans. As the world population keeps on growing humans need more space for their houses, farms, industries, and this is leaving animals with very little room, and some species need large areas to survive. Take tigers in India for example, tigers need large areas to hunt their prey, and because of constant habitat loss in India their hunting areas are getting smaller and smaller, which causes frequent conflicts with local population, and results in many deaths on both sides.

Poaching is still very profitable business in many African countries, and in some parts of the Asia, and the more endangered animal is, the better price will be achieved on the black market. This situation has led to many organized poaching gangs that are undermining conservation efforts in many African countries. Poachers really have not much to fear of, governments are often corrupted, there's no political will to stop them, and even if they get caught they often get away with minimal sentences.

The latest big problem that makes conservation efforts difficult is also the climate change. As climate change impact becomes stronger and stronger, it also leaves many animals very little time to adapt. This will eventually lead many species into extinction unless world does something to stop further strengthening of global warming impact.

So what's the conclusion? Lots of environmentalists, scientists, and many other people that care for our planet are doing all they can to protect many animals from extinction. But they can not succeed in this mission unless world starts to clean this tremendous environmental mess that has been created over the years. Unless world starts solving ecological problems current conservation efforts will be insufficient because magnitude of ecological problems is too big factor to be ignored. In order to do so ecology needs to have politics on their side, and this is something that we are yet waiting to happen.

Ecology, politics and poor people

When it comes to conflicts between ecology and politics there is usually only one winner, namely the politics. But what this has to do with poor people? Everytime ecology loses against politics we see a rise in certain ecological problem, and the ones that suffer the most are poor people. Take a look at Africa for instance. Africa will be worst hit by climate change problem, with droughts and higher temperatures likely to cause even more problem to already poor and starving population in Africa.

We are really taking about one of the biggest ironies in history of humanity, namely that poorest have to suffer the most because of mistakes done by rich countries. Industrialized nations are the ones mostly responsible for pollution, global warming, and many other ecological problems but they can at least search for solutions in science, technology, sustainable management, etc. This is luxury that poor countries do not have because they don't have money. And without money nothing can't be done in "civilized world".

Poor countries are basically depending upon mercy and good will of rich countries. They need money, technology, and knowledge from rich countries to work on solutions for their ecological problems. But since ecological problems no longer have regional character, and have really expanded to global level, it is not enough for rich countries to only help themselves, rich should also help poor because of interconnection between ecological problems on global level.

And although rich countries have become aware that they need to ensure more funds to poor countries funding is still a big problem, especially in times of recession when rich countries have only one priority - revive their economies. And in the meantime poor people have to wait, wait for some other "better times" when there would be enough money for them. The one thing that rich countries are constantly forgetting is that poor people also need to survive. In order to do so poor people are exploiting and destroying nature just to make some money.

With not enough food and no money in their pockets people really don't care much for nature and environment. You really can't explain to poor people why they shouldn't destroy their forests and rainforests or why they shouldn't hunt endangered animals because they care only for their survival.

As long as poverty remains in so many countries around the globe, global ecological conscience will not be strong enough to prevent the world from buying one way ticket to environmental disaster. We should remember all the time that by helping poor, developing countries we are also helping ourselves. Environmental mess that we created is really big, but it can also become much bigger unless politics makes decisive action. But can we really trust politics?

Deforestation - Definition and meaning

What is deforestation? The most simple definition would be cutting down trees in forests and rainforests so this is really a form of forest destruction that is usually done by logging and/or burning of trees. Why are people clearing so many forests and rainforests around the globe? The biggest factors that contribute to deforestation are farms and cattle pasture. In many countries of the developing world population is growing, and as the population grows people need more and more room to expand so many forests are cleared out, and on once forested areas now are mostly farms and savannas.

The biggest reason for concern are old tropical rainforests that are disappearing really fast. These ancient forests absorb large quantities of CO2 which not only regulates climate but also helps in slowing the global warming impact. Rainforests and forests are not only important because of their role in climate they are also areas of extremely rich biodiversity with lots of unique plants and animals that need forests to survive.

Deforestation is also giving significant impact to climate change problem. The more forests disappear the less carbon emissions they sink but what is even worse is often use of slash and burn techniques. By using slash and burn techniques we are constantly releasing huge CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Industry and cars are not alone as leading causes of global warming, one major factor is also deforestation. One study showed that in just 24 hours time deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York.

Deforestation has reached an alarming rate in many countries around the world but three areas hit the most by deforestation are Amazon rainforest, Africa, and Indonesia. In these three areas condition is really no longer alarming, it is really already in critical zone. Deforestation is really one of the biggest environmental evils that happen on this planet, and if current trend continues with somewhere around 16 million hectares of forests disappearing each year, our planet will head into a real environmental disaster in years to come.

About half of the forests that once covered the earth are already gone, and we are definitely not doing enough to protect the ones that remain. Our forests and rainforests mean so much to us but most people still do not understand how important forests really are. What we definitely need is some very quick solution to stop deforestation. Will this solution turn out to be forest funding, or something else it really doesn't really matter. As long the forests are saved.

Rhino poaching taking heavy toll in Zimbabwe

Rhinos are still one of the favorite targets for poachers as the latest example in Zimbabwe shows. We already talked about rapid decline in rhino population, and how three out of currently left five species are listed as critically endangered. The current rhino situation in Zimbabwe is alarming. In the last 12 months more than 100 rhinos were killed in Zimbabwe. This is the result of big money offered by Chinese black market to poachers because in China rhino horns are famous as traditional medicine, and are also used for ornamental dagger handles in some countries of the Middle East.

Poaching gangs in Zimbabwe are well organized, and they are also taking full advantage of the fact that country is currently experiencing total economic collapse where nobody respect current laws, and where people are actually doing everything it takes to get to money. All environmental experts agree that rhino situation in Zimbabwe is critical. The remaining number of rhinos in Zimbabwe is somewhere between 400 and 700, and not so long ago there was more than 1000 rhinos in this African country.

In one year more than 100 rhinos were killed in Zimbabwe

If current poaching trend continues Zimbabwe could soon lost all rhinos, and many believe that government isn't taking this situation seriously. Some even say that there are some corrupt ministers in the government that also share profits from rhino poaching. Government is of course convincing public that is doing all what it can to prevent poaching but that is really far from truth. It's true that they have de-horned some rhinos and moved them to safe areas but large number of rhinos still remains a fairly easy target for poachers. But since the horns regrow this is really of very little use to save the rhinos because process has to be repeated periodically to be successful.

Poachers have different methods of horn removing. Poachers use an axe, brutally disfiguring rhino's face. And the worst part is that poachers don't reverse the tranquillizer, so in most cases rhino dies from overheating. Even if poachers do get caught most of them are freed on minimum bail because country is so poor that there is even not enough fuel to drive poachers to court.

It has to be also said that government did introduce army and police in conservation areas and national parks to protect the animals, but this action hasn't turned into success because some soldiers even became poachers themselves, and some are not doing their duty just to get their share of profits.

It is very difficult to tell what is needed to save rhino population in Zimbabwe. Government said many times how it sees ecotourism as major factor that will revive economy in Zimbabwe but this will be very difficult if current decline of wildlife continues because there won't be any animals left to attract the tourists.

Tiger conservation efforts - Less tourists means more tigers?

Driven by the numbers that say how tiger population in India dropped from 3,642 animals in 2002 to just 1,411 in 2008, government-run National Tiger Conservation Authority has decided to ban tourists from entering the areas of the 37 national tiger reserves in India.

National Tiger Conservation Authority definitely got its reasons for such decision as tiger habitats are disturbed by vehicles, noise, garbage, and most of all their habitats are shrinking because tourism needs more and more facilities. One bad example of tourist activity happened one month ago when small tiger cub was run over by tourist vehicle in Bandhavgarh tiger reserve. In some reserves tigers have become extremely tolerant to people and vehicles which makes tiger poaching much easier.

But there's also a downside to this latest decision. Some experts think that without tourism poaching problem would become much bigger because area with no tourists will give poachers free hands to hunt these beautiful animals. We mustn't forget that tiger skin can achieve price up to $10,000 in China's black market.

There are also some examples that show how this tourist ban isn't such a good idea because across some parks where tourism was allowed tiger population increased in last couple of years while in reserves with no tourists tiger population experienced tremendous decline because of more poaching in these areas.

Ecotourism guided by strict wildlife laws and science can help tiger conservation efforts

My opinion is that this sort of ecotourism can help tiger population but it definitely has to be regulated more strictly, meaning that tigers have to have enough room just for themselves so they feel like they are in the wildness. Without strictly regulated ecotourism I really fear to what could happen to tiger population in India because to poor people in India poaching may seem like a rather profitable business.

Poverty is the reason why India definitely needs money from ecotourism though ecotourism alone won't be enough. India needs combination of ecotourism with much stricter wildlife laws and sustainable management of parks under the guidance of scientists. Only under these conditions tigers in India will have the decent chance to survive.

Is ecology less important than industry?

It shouldn't be but it is. Money is more important than environment and industry is more important than ecology? Why is that? Well it has a lot to do with our system of values where materialism rules. Money does not only make monkey dance it also makes the difference between important and less important. Money and our own greed have pushed ecology on sidelines leaving only few idealists to fight for "green cause". The rest of the pack is more interested in getting rich because that's the "right style of life".

Instead of teaching our children to respect our planet, and care for every living creature on Earth we really teach them how to become greedy, pointing the value of money above anything else. We really live in illusion that our planet can take care of itself no matter what we done to him but this is sadly not the true. Yes our planet is capable to defend itself but only up to a certain point because the environmental mess we have created over the years is simply too big. Is this stopping us from creating even bigger damage? Of course not.

So what if there are less and less available water resources across the world. So what if climate change will cause extreme weather events in years to come. So what if we chop down our forests. So what if our air, rivers and oceans are polluted. Does these all really belongs to "so what" category? Most of you would probably answer no it doesn't but what would happened if big bucks were at stake in the whole story? Would you still think how ecology and environment is much more important than money if for instance someone offers you hefty sum just to keep quiet about ecology? Or would your lips be sealed for all times?

This is really the biggest problem in this whole ecology/industry story. The problem of wrong values or to put it more precise the problem that the wrong values like money have become the right values. Industry is only one form of money so question ecology vs industry is really ecology vs money. And in this game, with our current values there can be only one winner- money.

Can this state of mind change in years to come. Yes it can but this won't be easy. Changing the values of one entire society is never easy to do and it usually takes a lot of time. But how much time do we still have to make necessary changes? Not much if you ask me. And the more we wait the worse it will be, and we may even reach the point of no return and enter the worst possible scenario. The one of total environmental disaster.

Do we really have to see the worst to know what our priorities are? If this is the true then we really haven't evolved much since the time we used to live in caves. What has really happened with moral responsibility of civilized society?

So many ecological problems, so little solutions

Current situation with our planet is more serious than ever before in our history. World is today facing a battle against variety of different ecological problems, and the worst thing is that we are still not prepared enough to win this battle. Why aren't we still prepared? Mostly because many think there is still enough time left to think of possible solutions. Modern world is really modern in lot of things but when it comes to ecology not much has changed in the last 300 years, ecology is still miles behind economy, and almighty dollar still rules the world.

Thing that frightens me the most is not really the fact that there are so many ecological problems, what really frightens me is the fact that all these problems are closely connected and that we cannot solve one by one. It's really all or nothing situation? Why is that? It is because humans are responsible for all these problems, we are really origin of all ecological problems. For instance many believe how climate change is the most serious ecological problem in history of humanity but in order to fight against climate change we also have to fight against deforestation and pollution because these two ecological problems influence final magnitute of climate change impact.

Increase in the average Earth's temperature and the upcoming climate change that goes with it have potential to cause previously unseen environmental disaster but yet many people think this is nothing more than a ghost story that isn't happening. The same goes with pollution. We are dumping waste into our rivers, sea, oceans; our air is more polluted than ever because of excessive CO2 emissions, and yet you still have the feeling like we don't care enough to change all of this. Take a look at alarming deforestation rate across many parts of the world or at ever-increasing number of endangered animals. This should really be more than enough to do something but somehow it isn't. Well at least not for politics that is.

Politicians are still far more worried about how to stop financial crisis, or how to keep the oil prices at reasonable level instead of protecting our planet. Yes they do talk a lot, promising quick and decisive action but once chips are down they stand still or in the best known political manner postpone decision for better times. They should have learned by know that there won't be better times unless we do something right now to ensure them. Talking won't get us out of this terrible environmental mess, what we really need is global action.

First big test is only couple of months away. Copenhagen, later this year will tell us answer to the question whether world has learned something from past mistakes. Is world finally ready to cut greenhouse gas emissions and agree new climate deal that would prevent further strengthening of climate change impact? Ecological problems have lately become so strong that only united world can fight against them, regional actions are not enough. If the world agrees new climate deal then this would finally mean that we have actually learned something from past mistakes. And most importantly that countries can put aside their differences when it comes to big ecological issues. And trust me climate change problem is the biggest ecological issue of all time. Why? Because it is connected with all other ecological problems giving them more dimensions and making them much more difficult.

This interconnection between ecological problems is making this challenge so big. They are all so closely connected that is really impossible to fight one by one and succeed. But how to fight all of them in the same time? That's a tough question. International climate deal could be good starting point, especially if it includes measures to not only fight against climate change but also against pollution, deforestation, and other ecological problems.

As you can see the big test is only couple of months away. Will we see a start of completely new ecological era or yet another big disappointment? Politics has given us many false hopes by now and another big disappointment would likely kill all our future hopes. But is politics aware of this? We'll soon see.

Indonesian rainforest worths more than palm oil?

We already wrote about major deforestation problem in Indonesia, mostly because of pulp and paper production. In Indonesia, forests clearance is taking heavy toll to make room for palm oil production on deforested land. Palm oil has recently become an important feedstock for biodiesel production, and many people decide producing palm oil driven by high profits.

What people seem to be forgetting all the time is that profits can't be more important than the rainforest conservation, regardless of current palm oil price. Rainforests are areas of richest biodiversity on our planet, and they need to be preserved at any cost. They are not only home to vast number of different animals and plants, they also protect us from climate change by sinking large quantities of CO2, and without them climate would become totally unpredictable.

But sadly people in most cases use only their economic side of brain while ecological side of the brain remains somewhere in the corner, far away from the sight, driven in the dark by the almighty dollar. Money sadly still rules the world, and thinking anything else is still nothing but uthopia. But luckily latest study showed that it can be more profitable to keep Indonesian rainforest rather than having palm oil plantations because payments to reduce CO2 emissions from the forests could generate even bigger profits than palm oil production on deforested land.

Oscar Venter from the University of Queensland was the lead author of this study that tried to find out if protection of the forests is as profitable as palm oil production. What his team of scientists did was compare the earnings from palm oil production to amount of payments to reduce carbon emissions, so called "carbon credits". The team came to conclusion that if carbon credits could be sold for $10 per one tonne, conservation of the Indonesian rainforest would be more profitable than clearing land for oil palm plantations.

Deforested land is often used for palm oil plantations.

Tropical rainforests are disappearing at an alarming rate but this still hasn't stopped deforestation in many corners of the world. People are not driven by ecological conscience but by high profits, and they make their decisions upon what is more profitable in given moment. Palm oil plantations are currently very profitable but as this latest study showed conservation can become even more profitable, and perhaps this will turn out to be crucial thing that would save our forests and rainforests.

If you look at the present carbon prices world doesn't stand the chance to fight against deforestation but investing billions of dollars into forest conservation that would help developing countries make a fair profits out of their forests could do the trick. Of course under the condition that this money doesn't end up in corrupted politicians' pockets instead coming people that need it the most. Forest funding idea to preserve our forests and rainforests has great potential but it could also very easily backfire. But on the other hand everything that has at least some chance of success in fight against deforestation is definitely worthy to give it a shot. Don't you think so?

Elephant poaching in Africa

Animal poaching is still sad reality in many African countries. Among animals mostly affected by poaching are certainly elephants despite the fact that trade in ivory was banned almost 20 years ago (1990) after poaching decimated elephant populations in much of African countries. But elephant poaching problem still exists with latest incident happening in north Kenya.

Poachers have killed 20 elephants across north Kenya in just two weeks time, all because of precious ivory. The way poachers kill those poor animals was brutal because elephants were first shot and then stripped of their tusks. Some believe that this latest poaching activity is the result of increased demand for ivory in South America and Asia.

Elephant poaching has long history in Africa. The worst years were between 1979 and 1989 when extremely high demand for ivory caused tremendous decline in elephant population. During this bloody period elephant population was cut to half with somewhere around 1,3 million elephants in 1979, and by 1989 this number fell down to less than 700,000. In this period poachers used to kill whole elephant families leaving dead elephant bodies across many African countries.

This was alarming sign responsible for Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)that banned ivory trade back in 1990. Though this Convention helped in stabilizing number of current elephant population, elephant massacres are sadly still happening in Africa. Of course, all this because of ivory.

Well organized gangs of poachers exist in many African countries. These gangs of poachers have created very strong black market driven by high profits. As long as ivory remains so valuable it will be difficult to stop these elephant massacres from happening because to many people money is much more important than lives of these beautiful animals.

Will Emperor penguins survive?

Emperor penguins are usually called king penguin species. This is because they are the largest of all penguin species. Emperor penguins can reach 122 cm (48 in) in height, and can weigh anywhere from 22–37 kg (48–82 lb). These penguins live only in Antarctica, needing ice for survival. Ice melting due to global warming could soon create very large problems for Emperor penguins, especially if temperatures continue to rise in Antarctica.

Two studies, one in 2007 by French team of scientists, and the other in 2009 by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution showed that Emperor penguins could be pushed on the brink of extinction by the end of this century, with a decline in population of more than 95 percent. This, of course, if global warming continues its current trend in years come.

Some environmentalists believe that Emperor penguins should be protected by Endangered Species Act because of their current decline trend. Condition is still not alarming but it does give many reasons for concern. Climate change effect has already started affecting Emperor penguins because drift of sea ice are causing colonies to migrate to new locations in search for food.

Climate change is perhaps the biggest threat to Emperor penguin population but not the only one. Lately tourism has also become big threat as Antarctica is becoming popular tourist destination. Humans are causing destruction of penguin habitats, and are also disturbing penguin breeding colonies. Industrial fisheries are also becoming big problems since this means less fish for penguins.

The most affected Emperor penguin population lives in Terre Adélie region. These penguins have experienced population decline of 50 % in recent years mostly because prolonged warm period which caused serious ice melting. Current total number of the whole Emperor penguin population is somewhere at around 200,000 breeding pairs. This number may seem big to some people but over the last past 50 years Emperor penguin population declined by more than 50 %. Further decline would be a real disaster.

Climate change problem in Africa

Africa is already the hottest continent but once climate change impact becomes even stronger temperatures will be even hotter, and drought is likely to threaten already inadequate food supply. World will soon come to a point where countries will have to work on how to adapt to climate change, and Africa is not an exception. But in order to adapt to climate change Africa needs funds, and this cannot be done without the help from developed countries.

Africa is still trying to do all what's in their power to adapt to climate change and extreme weather events. Latest evidence that supports this is Nairobi Declaration. African Ministers of the Environment have finally agreed to mainstream climate change adaptation measures into national and regional development plans, policies and strategies. It looks like Africa is becoming more and more aware of climate change problem, and wants to enforce certain measures into new climate regime that would mean better adaptation to climate change.

This Declaration should result in different programmes that would help Africa achieve sustainable development, something that never really existed in Africa. Though this really sounds hopeful it is still nothing but some letters on the paper. In order to really achieve not only sustainable development but also ecological awareness Africa will first need to find the solution on how to alleviate poverty because as long as people in Africa remain hungry things will not change, regardless of politics and laws.

Can Africa alleviate poverty without the help of rich countries? Definitely not. Rich countries are still not doing enough to ensure enough food for Africa, and millions of people across the Africa are still starving. How to explain to hungry people that they need to protect their environment when only thing they think of is food, and how to survive? Rich world is living in one big sin, sin of not caring enough for poor people.

Climate change problem in Africa is really big one because Africa will be mostly hit with global warming but as long as African people remain hungry this big problem will mean very little to them. Can rich world finally show that hidden face of humanity and help eliminate poverty in Africa? Or are we gonna, like usual, care only for ourselves?

Air pollution - China's biggest ecological problem

China has recently, due to heavy industrialization become a synonym for air pollution. Recent economic boost in China is mostly connected with coal fired power plants that are responsible for not only excessive air pollution but also for huge CO2 emissions that cause global warming.

Though China is aware of its tremendous air pollution problem it is still not doing enough to solve it. China wants to continue its economic growth at any cost, and this would mean even bigger air pollution in years to come. Why? Because coal is still one of the cheapest, easily available fuels, and renewable energy sector is at least couple of decades away from becoming competitive enough with fossil fuels. In such situation coal is likely to remain dominant fuel in China for many years to come.

China's government is aware that China's air is of worst quality in the world, source of many respiratory diseases that cause death to many Chinese people. But to China industry is more important than environment and people, and as long China's economy grows all victims are being easily forgotten. What really counts in China is economic success.

In 2007. China overtook U.S. and became world's largest polluter, and by the current looks of it China plans to remain world's largest polluter for very long time. Extreme pollution in China is also contributing to acid rain problem. Acid rains are creating big water pollution problem, especially in south areas that are often hit by frequent acid rains.

The recent study showed that more than one third of China's cities have air quality below internationally accepted health standards, and by WHO estimates more than 500,000 people in China died last year because of air pollution. Air pollution is causing not only many deaths but also many miscarriages and also lower IQ rates among population.

Can China solve air pollution problem? Highly unlikely, at least for next couple of years. Solving air pollution problem in China would either mean giving up on rapid industrialization or creating strong renewable energy sector. Neither of these two options is currently acceptable for China; first one would stop China's economic boom, and second one isn't really a option because renewable energy sector has only started developing a few years ago. In such situation China's air pollution problem is likely to become even more serious in years to come.

Take a look at this video for more insight into China's air pollution problem.