(June 22*) Tory axe hits ‘muscle and bone’ of climate science, Elizabeth May says

JANE TABER

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:44AM EDT

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is accusing Stephen Harper of letting ideology dictate job cuts to climate scientists at Environment Canada. And she is calling on Environment Minister Peter Kent to reverse them.

“What is clear to me is that the cuts are not in fat,” Ms. May said. “This is cuts into muscle and bone.”

Ms. May, who spoke to The Globe after holding a news conference Wednesday, is referring to 46 scientists in the climate-research area – all term employees – who were recently given their one-month notice.

The federal government is on a cost-cutting exercise, trying to identify areas where savings can be made in the hopes of saving $4 billion annually. But Ms. May says particular this staff reduction goes too far.

“If you are looking to make cuts in the federal civil service I would be the last one to say that you couldn’t find places you could cut that didn’t absolutely cripple programs,” Ms. May said. “But removing all the term scientists from important research in climate?”

She says the government is “disproportionately targeting” climate-change research. “And the only reason I can see for that is ideological. I don’t think it’s the minister. I think it comes from the top but it means that climate is a target of cuts,” she charged.

The Prime Minister and his government have expressed some skepticism about the science around climate change. But Ms. May said Wednesday that without these scientists and the research capacity they provide, “Canada will be in a much worse situation.”

Some of these scientists, she said, research scenarios on how the country can cope with snow loads, wind loads, floods and other common weather-related hazards facing Canadians this summer. “This is not research into whether climate change occurs or why it occurs,” she said.

Ms. May acknowledged, however, that she has not yet spoken to Mr. Kent about the reason for the cuts.

Contacted by The Globe, the Environment Minister’s director of communications said “no indeterminate or permanent Environment Canada employees have been laid off.”

But Melissa Lantsman conceded the department has “advised contract employees that they will not automatically receive permanent job status after three years of contract service.”

“Notice was given to all such employees in an effort to ensure complete transparency,” she said, noting the measure came into effect on June 1 and will continue to May 31, 2013. “Managers can continue to use term employment where appropriate. However, the department is introducing a significant change to the way in which we manage term employment.”

In the past, Ms. Lantsman said this practice was automatic. But that has changed because of the economic climate. “We need to ensure that we are being prudent with taxpayer money,” she said.

* Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-axe-hits-muscle-and-bone-of-climate-science-elizabeth-may-says/article2070874/

* color added by the blogger

(June 20*) Price of solar panels to drop to $1 by 2013, report forecasts

• Duncan Clark
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 June 2011 12.14 BST
• Article history

The government's decision to cut feed-in tariff rates for solar panels has been criticised as 'highly damaging'. Photograph: Sean Yong/Reuters

Prices of solar panels are falling so fast that by 2013 they will be half of what they cost in 2009, according to a report from Ernst & Young that argues solar electricity could play "an important role" in meeting the UK'srenewable energy targets.

The average one-off installation cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels has already dropped from more than $2 (£1.23) per unit of generating capacity in 2009 to about $1.50 in 2011. Based on broker reports and industry analysis, the report forecasts that those rates of decline will continue, with prices falling close to the $1 mark in 2013.

At present, solar PV is economically viable in the UK for homeowners, businesses and investors only because of government subsidies given out via feed-in tariffs (Fits). But the new analysis suggests that falling PV panel prices and rising fossil fuel prices could together make large-scale solar installations cost-competitive without government support within a decade – sooner than is usually assumed.

The report was commissioned by the Solar Trade Association (STA)from Ernst & Young's energy and environmental infrastructure advisory unit in response to the recent shake-up of Fits, which saw government support for large solar systems significantly reduced. This was a result of the government's decision to cap the total that could be spent via Fits and weight the limited budget in favour of domestic and other small-scale installations.

The chairman of the STA, Howard Johns, said the new analysis backed up the industry line that government support for all types of solar systems in the next few years made good economic sense as it would build capacity and enable unsubsidised solar to be as widely deployed as possible as prices come down. "This reinforces the case we have laid out in our Solar Revolution strategy," he said, "and it comes from an independent consultancy."

The report coincides with new data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance that show a drastic 28% month-on-month drop in the spot price of high-grade silicon, the raw material used in most PV panels.

The conclusions of the Ernst and Young report contrast with the view of the government's advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which recently argued that solar remained too expensive to warrant serious consideration in the short term and that Britain should instead "buy in from overseas later".

The lead author of the Ernst & Young report, Ben Warren, said the CCC's view failed to consider the wider economic benefits of solar. "Being a laggard has never been very successful in terms of capturing the greater share of the value added for the economy … if you create a sustainable market, you will achieve cost savings and drive economic benefits in terms of tax income and job creation."

To compare the relative cost of solar – usually described in terms of the dollar price of each watt of peak capacity – and other energy sources, analysts consider factors such as upfront expenditure, fuel prices, maintenance and discount rates to calculate the "levelised" cost of each unit of energy. The report predicts that, with continued support in the short term, the levellised cost of large-scale solar will be no higher than retail energy prices by 2016-19. This suggests that within 10 years companies with large electricity demands will find it cheaper to install unsubsidised solar than to buy energy via the grid in the traditional way.

In the meantime, a full assessment of the costs and benefits of supporting solar should recognise that generous subsidies help unlock new sources of capital that can speed up decarbonisation of the energy supply, according to Warren.

"The energy market is starved of capital – and it won't all come from utilities and banks," Warren said. "There's a desperate need to engage with institutional investors."

In the runup to the announcement of the Fits cuts, climate minister Greg Barker told the Guardian that Britain had underestimated the potential of solar energy and in light of falling prices he hoped to find "new pathways" for supporting large-scale solar developments.

Retrieved from http://ht.ly/5lHDz

* color and emphasis added by the blogger

(June 17*) Bolivia’s Indigenous social movements call for urgent action at UNFCCC talks in Bonn, Germany

JUNE 17, 2011 · 1:52 AM

Instead of trying to agree on a global deal that will actually stop climate change, governments are more worried about privatising Mother Earth.

Press Conference Webcast:

http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/110606_SB34/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=3622&theme=unfccc

“Our Mother Earth is ill. The development model of unlimited economic growth and overconsumption has broken the balance between human beings and the environment” said indigenous leader Rafael Quispe.

“The countries negotiating in Bonn for the last two weeks are out of touch with reality. Climate change is affecting us now with more floods and draughts. As indigenous peoples we are one of the groups most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change”.

“Unless the peoples of the world unite the consequences of climate change will be much worse”, said indigenous leader Lauriano Pari.

“We call on Annex 1 parties to sign a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in Durban that is legally binding, coercive and with the capacity to penalise Parties. We reject the attempt by developed countries to prolong the life of the Protocol to then replace it in 2020 by a treaty that merges the Kyoto Protocol with the Long-Term Group on Cooperative Action.”, underlined Lauriano Pari.

The Developed countries and their allies are not serious about reducing their emissions. They want to use existing markets and create new ones to pay others so that they take no action to confront the climate crisis. And now they want to put a price on “blue carbon” in the oceans.

All outcomes of the Kyoto Protocol must recognize and respect the rights of native indigenous peoples, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and with the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent.

“In order to achieve a net reduction of carbon emissions REDD plus cannot be financed by market-based mechanisms or used in carbon offsetting. Instead funds should come from developed countries and innovative funding sources should be explored. For example, by establishing a new mechanism for a tax on financial transactions that would generate funds without any conditionality”, added Lauriano Pari.

Forests are not providers of environmental services as some United Nations agencies and NGOs see them. Forests have multiple values, uses and functions and shall not be considered only as carbon sinks. There needs to be a study on the potential impact of issuing emission-reduction certificates on the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular the impact on land rights, collective rights, and traditional livelihoods.

“It is clear the current proposals on the table in the climate change negotiations are not enough to stop climate change. We propose the model of living well in harmony with Mother Earth as the way forward to re-establish the balance between humans and nature. We believe Mother Earth has rights. She owns us. We do not own her. This is why we have developed a proposal for a Law of Mother Earth that will be approved soon in Bolivia”, said Rafael Quispe.

Notes to editors: A webcast of the full press conference at Bonn UN climate change talks is available here

Retrieved from http://climate-connections.org/2011/06/17/bolivias-indigenous-social-movements-call-for-urgent-action-at-unfccc-talks-in-bonn-germany/

* color added by the blogger

(June 17*) Samsung hasn't received 'one cent from Ontario'

Published On Fri Jun 17 2011By Tyler HamiltonEnergy and Technology Columnist

Cheol Woo Lee is feeling betrayed these days.

The senior vice-president of Samsung C&T understands why Ontarians are getting frustrated by higher energy bills, but he’s disturbed that his company is taking much of the blame.

He’s embarrassed that Samsung – its well-known brand and international reputation—has become a political punching bag to win votes. The unfolding drama is being watched closely at the company’s headquarters in South Korea.

“We haven’t received one cent of money from Ontario,” said Lee, chatting over coffee at a downtown hotel. “We’ve only been spending money—and big money so far. Why do we have to be blamed or criticized?”

He was talking about the well publicized but often mischaracterized “Samsung deal,” frequently referred to in the media and by Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak as that $7-billion “sweetheart” deal signed back in January 2010 by the McGuinty government.

Hudak has said he will kill the deal if elected in October. Even if Hudak is bluffing, Lee said irreparable damage has been done. “The comment has affected our projects seriously. Our partners, our investors, are considering very seriously whether Samsung can manage the situation.”

You’d think, the way it has been framed, that Samsung stands to get $7 billion from the deal, but in fact it’s the other way around – the agreement requires that a Samsung-led consortium deliver $7 billion in investment to Ontario.

This will involve developing 2,000 megawatts of wind power projects, 500 megawatts of solar, and arranging for a manufacturing supply chain that will provide wind turbines and solar panels for those projects. In all, Samsung’s efforts and promised investments are expected to deliver 2,140 direct jobs and 13,860 indirect jobs.

In return, the company gets a premium – called an “economic development adder” – that’s expected to amount to $437 million during the first 20 years of operation of its wind and solar projects. That works out to about $22 million a year, on top of feed-in-tariff rates that apply to all solar and wind projects.

Getting that adder is conditional on Samsung reaching certain milestones related to investment, manufacturing and job creation. Manufacturers must maintain their operations for a certain period of time. A certain number of jobs must also be maintained.

Part of the controversy is that, at the moment, the details of those conditions have not been disclosed. Lee assured that they soon will be, but only after the company completes final negotiations with some suppliers.

For making its investment commitment, Samsung has also been guaranteed priority access to Ontario’s transmission system, an arrangement that other project developers waiting in the queue consider unfair.

At the heart of the debate is whether a company, any company, deserves to get a premium or special treatment for taking on a big chunk of risk and making substantial guarantees to deliver certain economic benefits.

Is such an approach really uncommon? Have not all political parties, provincial or federal, engaged in such deal-making?

Whether in the form of hidden tax benefits or upfront incentives, big industry – from the auto sector to forestry – have long enjoyed such perks. The difference is that these deals are usually the outcome of hostage negotiations designed to save old-industry jobs, not create new-industry opportunities.

The $427 million that Samsung stands to get also needs to be put into perspective. The federal Conservative budget, for example, is throwing another $405 million at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to cover “anticipated losses” and basically keep the crown company on life support.

This is just for one fiscal year, and it follows past years of similarly large support payments. About $300 million in 2010, more than $800 million in 2009, and so on… Yet Hudak’s energy strategy depends heavily on building more nukes—from one sweetheart deal to another.

For its part, Samsung seems to be following through. The Korean industrial giant and its partners, including Korea Electric Power Corp., have so far spent more than $100 million to get the ball rolling.

They struck an agreement with CS Wind that will see a wind tower manufacturing facility established in Windsor that will create an estimated 700 jobs. They hooked up with Siemens Canada to build a wind-turbine blade manufacturing facility in Tillsonburg that will create 900 jobs.

They most recently partnered with SMA Solar Technology, which through a contract manufacturing deal with Celestica will make solar inverters for Samsung’s projects. That will create more employment opportunities at Celestica’s facility in Don Mills.

“We organized this investment, and we induced this investment,” said Lee, adding that construction and hiring has already started, though it has slowed since Hudak threatened to kill the deal. “Our manufacturing investors are concerned about whether they should continue.”

Samsung has also signed land lease agreement with about 400 landowners, many of them farmers that are counting on the extra income.

I asked Lee why the FIT rate alone, which is quite generous, wasn’t enough of a draw for Samsung? Why did the company need the adder? Samsung, like everyone else, could have come into the province and developed projects on a case-by-case basis, a less risky and more manageable approach.

The adder, Lee said, covers the guarantees that Samsung has been prepared to make in terms of bulk investment and job creation. If it doesn’t hit its milestones, it doesn’t get the adder.

He also pointed out that Samsung is subject to the same uncertainty with respect to regulation and the feed-in-tariff program’s two-year review.

Like other developers, Samsung has been bogged down by bureaucracy at the environment ministry, which has been slow to issue renewable energy approvals. Without them, projects can’t proceed.

And if, after a two-year program review this fall, feed-in-tariff rates are lowered for solar and wind projects, Samsung – like everyone else – can only apply for the lower rates.

At the moment, the company has no power-purchase agreement with the Ontario Power Authority, though that is expected to come shortly for the first 500-megawatt phase of its projects. The remaining 2,000 megawatts, broken down into four more phases, will be subject to the new – and likely lower – tariff rates, said Lee.

Lee is comfortable with those conditions. It’s the political uncertainty that has Samsung, partner investors, and suppliers nervous. Having worked 30 years with Samsung C&T, many of those years dealing with developing nations with volatile regimes, Lee said he is surprised by recent developments.

“Even dealing with African countries we didn’t have this kind of situation. Normally, we enter into undeveloped countries and we take out insurance,” he told me.

“But Canada? It’s one of the G7 countries. So no, we didn’t consider this outcome. Our relationships, our reputation, our credibility are on the line if this contract is terminated.”

So would Ontario’s international reputation as a place to do business, all to save enough money each year on our hydro bills to buy a cup of coffee at Tim Hortons.

Tyler Hamilton, author of the upcoming book Mad Like Tesla, writes weekly about green energy and clean technologies. Contact him at tyler@cleanbreak.ca

Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/1010519--samsung-hasn-t-received-one-cent-from-ontario

* color and emphasis added by the blogger

(July 13, 2009*) Why so much noise about wind?

JOHN HOWARD, WARREN BELL, ALAN ABELSOHN AND CATHY VAKIL

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Published Monday, Jul. 13, 2009 4:29PM EDT

Life is full of choices. We look at two alternatives and pick the best. To reach our decision, we look at evidence, seek advice from experts and consider the pros and cons. Some prefer the cheapest option, while others look at the long-term investment. But choices about public health and the environment have far-reaching consequences. This is why our choice of energy sources is so important. We must consider the full implications of all the options in order to make an informed decision.

Ontario is weaning itself from its addiction to coal, due to the high health costs. Every year, according to the Ontario Medical Association, the province's coal plants kill 668 people while causing 1,100 emergency-room visits and more than 300,000 minor illnesses. For hundreds of thousands of people, this is real suffering. These costs are not factored into electricity bills. As for nuclear, estimates of the potential suffering and loss of life in a disaster are horrifying. The cost of even one nuclear disaster would have health and financial implications beyond any comparable tragedy in Ontario history. Fortunately, the threats from nuclear and the health costs of coal are avoidable.

The solution is not a new one. For centuries, energy from the sun and wind has been powering human societies, and these sources continue to fuel the modern lives of people around the world. Ontario can play a major role in mainstreaming these technologies in North America. Through the new Green Energy Act, Ontario has chosen to pursue an aggressive renewable-energy policy, recognizing that renewable energy will fuel the world's future economy. But the act itself has recently come under attack. Unjustifiably, wind turbines are becoming public health enemy No. 1.

We would like to set the record straight on the main health-related objection to turbines: noise.

Yes, noise is a health concern. At certain levels (such as jet engines or heavy industrial machinery), it can be harmful. At lower levels (such as highway traffic or incessant cricket chirping), it can be an annoyance. It also plays an important role in the background (such as when wind rushes through trees). As a society, we must balance the public good with the threat to public health and the environment. Turbine blades and moving parts do create noise. But how noisy is too noisy?

In Ontario, public health is protected from wind turbine noise by government guidelines. The Ministry of the Environment has set a maximum allowable level for turbine sound, based on the best available information. These guidelines restrict turbines to noise levels similar to those of a quiet room in surrounding homes. This typically results in residential setbacks of 400 metres, which allow for the use of these technologies without unnecessary suffering for those living around them.

While the ministry has recently proposed to increase these minimum setbacks to 550 metres, there are those who argue, unscientifically, that two-kilometre setbacks are necessary. This seems overly restrictive compared to the 50-metre setbacks required for Ontario highways, which are significantly more dangerous to public health and the environment, and often noisier.

Turbine opponents argue that ultra-high-frequency noise travels farther than audible sound, often quoting a study from England's Keele University. Wind opponents conveniently ignore the study author's rebuttal to claims that this noise is audible to humans. Peter Styles, author and former president of the Geological Society of London, has written that infrasound generated by wind turbines “can only be detected by the most sensitive equipment, and again this is at levels far below that at which humans will detect the low-frequency sound.”

The fact remains that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that wind turbines are themselves harmful to human health. A handful of Ontario MDs have made assertions to the contrary, insisting that anecdotal evidence from studies with non-representative samples constitute binding and thorough research. Fortunately, others in the province's medical profession have been less susceptible to these arguments. David Colby, acting medical officer of health for Chatham-Kent, recently observed that, “Although opposition to wind farms on aesthetic grounds is a legitimate point of view, opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence.”

This is not to say that noise is not a nuisance or that it won't cause undue stress if turbines are improperly sited. Indeed, the setbacks exist to protect public health and must be maintained. More health studies will be important, we may never fully understand the effects on health and the environment. We must use our current understanding to make the best decision when a choice needs to be made.

The time for that choice is now. Do we allow our health to suffer by continuing to rely on coal? Do we gamble on nuclear? Or do we choose a less harmful path toward renewable energy? How do we compare a simple annoyance and obstructed views with the suffering of hundreds of thousands? Our diagnosis is clear - Ontario needs renewable energy, including wind turbines.

Dr. Howard and Dr. Bell are chair and past founding president, respectively, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Dr. Abelsohn and Dr. Vakil are CAPE board members.

Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-so-much-noise-about-wind/article1216749/

* color and emphasis added by the blogger

*(June 10*) CLIMATE JUSTICE FOR SUSTAINABLE PEACE IN AFRICA - A message from African faith leaders to the COP17

by We Have Faith - Act Now for Climate Justice on Friday, June 10, 2011 at 2:17am

A message from African faith leaders to the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), from 29 November – 9 December 2011 in Durban, South Africa.

You must treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents. It is loaned to you by your children. – Kikuyu proverb

Introduction

Africa is a continent of the faithful. We gathered as African faith leaders at UNEP in Nairobi, Kenya on 7th and 8th June 2011, to discuss climate change and how it will be addressed at COP17.

Scientific reports indicate that climate change may well be the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced, with, on current targets, probable increased global warming of 2.5⁰C to 4⁰C by 2100[i] – widely agreed to be disastrous. Yet progress in international negotiations has not matched the scale of the crisis. There appears to be a deadlock between competing political and economic interests from various power blocs. We believe that to break this deadlock, new perspectives are required.

Firstly, economic and political processes have to be based on ecological principles, and not vice versa. There can be no infinite economic or population growth on a finite planet.

Secondly, there is a profound need for a renewed moral vision for the future of humanity and indeed of all life. We debase human beings by seeing them only as economic instruments, and debase the sanctity of life by commodifying it.

We must realise that well-being cannot be equated with material wealth. The quality of life is not dependent on the quantity of material things or growth measured by GDP. Instead, our standard of living depends on our standard of loving and sharing. We cannot sustain a world dominated by profit-seeking, rampant consumerism and gross inequalities, and an atmosphere of competition where the powerful take advantage of the weak without caring for the well-being of every form of life. Development cannot be sustained if the affluent project themselves as examples to be copied by everyone else, and if the poor model their lifestyles on such examples.

These insights draw from the rich moral and spiritual traditions on our continent and elsewhere in the world. Despite the historical violence and disorganisation that Africa has suffered and inflicted on itself, these insights have been transmitted to us by our ancestors who believed in the harmony of vital forces, between human beings and the rest of creation.

In our African spiritual heritage and our diverse faith traditions, trees, flowers, water, soil and animals have always been essential companions of human beings, without which life and being are inconceivable. We express this in different ways through our understanding of the world as God’s own beloved creation, and our sense of place and vocation within it.

Our ways of thinking and feeling deeply influence the world around us. As we find compassion, peace and harmony within ourselves, we will begin to treat the Earth with respect, resist disorder and live in peace with each other, including embracing a binding climate treaty. We pray that compassion will guide these negotiations.

1. 2. Our commitments as faith leaders

Our African people and nations have to overcome the temptation of seeing ourselves as victims, who have no role and responsibility to play in reversing the current situation – we are part of the solution.

As African faith leaders, our responsibilities will be to:

• Set a good example for our faith communities by examining our personal needs and reducing unsustainable consumption.
• Lead local communities to understand the threat of climate change and the need to build economies and societies based on a revitalised moral vision.
• Draw on our spiritual resources to foster crucial ecological virtues such as wisdom, justice, courage and temperance, and to confront vices such as greed in our own midst.
• Acknowledge that climate change has greatly affected already vulnerable people (such as women, children, the elderly, the poor and the disabled), that it worsens existing inequalities and that this places an obligation on faith groups to stand in solidarity with the victims of climate change disasters, showing care, compassion and love.
• Plant indigenous trees and promote ecological restoration.

1. 3. Our message to all world leaders

As citizens, we are asked to put our trust in representatives at COP17 to decide upon our common future. We have no doubt that the Durban COP must decide on a treaty – and second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol – that is fair, ambitious and legally binding, to ensure the survival of coming generations.

We therefore call on you to:

• Commit to the principle of inter-generational equity, the rights of our children for generations to come, and to the rights of Mother Earth as outlined in the Cochabamba declaration.
• Refute the myth that action to cut emissions is too expensive, when it is far cheaper than the long-term costs of inaction.
• Acknowledge that investments in sustainability are a better guarantor of peace than military spending.
• Abandon Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of prosperity in favour of indicators that include human wellbeing, equality and the external environmental costs of human economies.
• Set clear final targets for phasing out the use of all fossil fuels, and deep interim reductions in carbon emissions that support the target of no more than one degree of global warming.
• Ensure that there is sufficient climate finance for adaptation in Africa, additional to existing development aid and that it is governed inclusively and equitably under the United Nations.
• Channel sufficient and predictable climate finance and technology from the historic polluting nations, in recognition of their ecological debt, to enable Africa to leapfrog into an age of clean energy technology.
• Close the gap between wealthy countries’ pledges to cut warming emissions and what science and equity require.
• Assign for wealthy countries emission quotas that are consistent with the full measure of their historical responsibility.

1. 4. Our message to Africa’s political leaders

We further urge African political leaders, as many of you are members of our faith communities, to take these particular measures:

• · To regain a united voice and abandon expedient allegiances with blocs that are scrambling to appropriate Africa’s natural resources.
• · Recognise in all policy statements that our long-term social and economic interests require the stability of our biophysical environment today.
• · Prioritise measures and adopt policies to resolve environmental degradation in our nations.

• Acknowledge and pre-empt the violence at all levels that climate change and environmental degradation is already fueling on the continent.
• Adopt and enact land policies that ensure equity and justice for all.
• Resist the approval of transactions with exploitative corporations that would cause serious environmental damage.
• Promote indigenous tree planting and protection of existing forests, lakes and rivers.
• Build much greater capacity within long-standing teams of climate negotiators.
• Greatly improve communications within and between African governments, and consultation with civil society, including faith communities, on issues of climate change.

1. Conclusion

Every human generation is faced by particular challenges and opportunities. If we do not secure a stable climate for the sake of future generations, we will be held accountable by them and judged by history.

On this very critical issue of climate change, we must not fail. Every lost moment increases an irreversible threat to life on Earth.

8 June 2011:– This communique was compiled jointly by 130 faith leaders representing Muslim, Christian, Hindu, African traditional, Bahá'í and Buddhist communities from 30 countries across Africa.

For more information, please contact:

Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI):

Bishop Geoff Davies (Cape Town): +27 83 754 5275, geoff.davies@safcei.org.za,www.safcei.org.za

All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC):

Rev. Dr. Andre Karamaga (Nairobi): (254-20) 4441483, k.andre@aacc-ceta.org

www.aacc-ceta.org

Programme for Christian-Muslim Relations in Africa (PROCMURA):

Rev Dr Johnson Mbillah (Nairobi): generaladviser@procmura.org

www.procmura.org

[i] Joeri Rogel, Claudine Chen, Julia Nabel and others, “Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and its global climatic impacts— a snapshot of dissonant ambitions”, Environmental Research Letters 5 (2010).

Retrieved form http://www.facebook.com/notes/we-have-faith-act-now-for-climate-justice/climate-justice-for-sustainable-peace-in-africa-a-message-from-african-faith-lea/203795679664740

* color and emphasis added by the blogger