A big green taxi took my love away May 23, 2007

(Image from The Daily Telegraph)

In news this morning, New York’s famous taxis will be made into hybrid vehicles by 2012, according to Reuters and The Daily Telegraph.

“NEW York’s 13,000 yellow taxis are going green, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg ordering the entire fleet to be hybrid by 2012.

Announcing the initiative on NBC’s Today Show, Mr Bloomberg said it was part of the city’s long-range plan to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 per cent by 2030.

“There’s an awful lot of taxi cabs on the streets of New York City obviously, so it makes a real big difference,” said Mr Bloomberg, who is often touted as a potential independent US presidential candidate.

“These cars just sit there in traffic sometimes, belching fumes.”"(The Daily Telegraph: City’s yellow cabs turn green, 23 May 2007)

Chinese organisation Xinhua News Agency also featured the story, saying that

“Currently, there are just 375 fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles among the 13,000 taxis rolling on city streets. That number will increase to 1,000 by October 2008 and will grow by about 20 percent each year until 2012, when every yellow cab will be a hybrid.

Hybrid vehicles run on a combination of gasoline and electricity, emitting less exhaust and achieving higher gas mileage per gallon.

Some taxi drivers who already drive hybrids said they are good for business.

“If I have to put like 30 dollars on a regular cab, with the hybrid I would put about 10 to 15 dollars,” a driver told a local TV channel.”" (Xinhua News Agency: NYC taxis to go entirely hybrid by 201, 22 May 2007)

Hybrid cars are something I believe could really take off in the next 10 or so years. I’ve certainly started seeing them more on the roads in Sydney City. I’d almost classify this story as human interest, because its not an entirely significant step towards combating global warming. There is however the value of prominence, with the mayor of New York stepping in to take action, and currency due to the popularity of being “eco-friendly”. I’m still not sure however what the article is doing as feature news for a Sydney paper.

Four degrees toastier May 22, 2007

I was listening to Triple M tonight on the way home, to hear I’d missed out on a vital piece of information from today’s news. Apparantly, a US report was released today that said CO2 levels were three times higher than what was predicted previously, and this century will see a global temperature increase of 4 degrees, not 2 degrees. I don’t know about anyone else, but this is the scariest thing I’ve heard in a long time. Please excuse the long quote here, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the main culprit in global warming, have increased three times faster in recent years than they did in the 1990s, international climate researchers reported today.

And human-induced warming may have been responsible for an unprecedented observation reported Monday by a second group of scientists, who said that for the first time in 30 years of U.S. satellite monitoring of Antarctica, there is “clear evidence” of snowmelt on some of the continent’s highest and coldest areas.

The carbon dioxide study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that the annual rate of increase for emissions of the main greenhouse gas in 2004 was 3 percent — triple the 1 percent rate during the 1990s.

“This new finding simply highlights the magnitude of the challenge we face,” said Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University. “The bottom line is that we need to make the world more carbon efficient, but in many parts of the world we’re going backwards.”

The study was led by Michael Raupach of the Australian government science agency, who is also the leader of the Global Carbon Project, which analyzes the world’s output of carbon dioxide. Field and climate scientists from France, Germany and Britain also participated.

The scientists concluded that without stronger action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the United States, Europe and Japan, the rate of increase will inevitably climb each year.

The rate of carbon dioxide emissions is climbing most rapidly in developing countries, notably China and India. But “it’s important to remember that the developed economies, with only 20 percent of the global population, still emit nearly 60 percent of all the fossil-fuel carbon dioxide released each year,” Raupach said in an e- mail message to The Chronicle…

Snowmelt was found only 310 miles from the South Pole, where ice had been thought to be all but permanent, and at elevations as high as 6,600 feet, where it has always been extremely cold.

In several areas, the scientists said, the spacecraft’s radar found evidence that the snowmelt continued for as much as a week at a time, with temperatures rising to 41 degrees, before freezing weather returned. ” (San Francisco Chronicle: Increase in carbon emissions seen tripling since ’90s / Antarctic snowmelt is shown in new data, 22 May 2007)

I read this as soon as I’d gotten home, just to check if Triple M had got all their facts straight. I couldn’t find the story anywhere on the Australian sites I usually visit, but Factiva turned up a speel from Reuters..

“”A major driver of the accelerating growth rate in emissions is that, globally, we’re burning more carbon per dollar of wealth created,” CSIRO scientist Mike Raupach said in a statement.

“It means that climate change is occurring faster than has been predicted by most of the studies done through the 1990s and into the early 2000s,” he said.

Raupach led an international team of carbon-cycle experts, emissions experts and economists, brought together by the CSIRO’s Global Carbon Project, to quantify global carbon emissions and demand for fossil fuels.

The report found nearly 8 billion tonnes of carbon were emitted globally into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in 2005, compared with just 6 billion tonnes in 1995…

The CSIRO report found Australia’s per capita emissions were amongst the highest in the world due to a heavy reliance on fossil-fuel generated electricity and a dependence on cars and trucks for transport.

“That means that we have quite a way to go in terms of reducing our emissions to bring about CO2 stabilisation,” said Raupach. “Our own improvements in the energy efficiency of the economy … have been not as rapid as improvements in other developed countries.” ” (Reuters: World growth spurs faster climate change -report, 22 May 2007)

So there’s quite a few news values here. The main one I think is impact/consequence. So many people are concerned about what will happen as a result of global warming, and the report that was released today did little to ease their fears. There’s also the value of currency, because the issue is very topical at the moment. I am sure however that even if global warming were not topical, the report would still attract attention worldwide. I wonder if it was slipped into television bullitins tonight? There’s something about it on the ABC website, so I’m assuming they did include it (or will in their late news).

Lack of water, lack of electricity May 22, 2007

I have recently been introduced to the phrase “brownout” – basically what it is is a blackout as a result of a lack of water. Ok, so coal is used is to heat the water, which turns the turbines, which creates electricity. But when there is no water… There is no electricity. The issue was first sparked in summer a few months back, where for a period of about a week (during a heatwave) Sydney kept having these “brownouts” because the system couldn’t handle everyone turning on their air conditioners. The Courier Mail reported yesterday that

“THE drought could soon start interrupting Queensland’s power supply, the Federal Government warned yesterday.

Water Minister Malcolm Turnbull said all coal-fired power stations risked running low on water and brownouts were possible.

“Coal-fired power stations use water for cooling,” he said.

“If you get a shortage of water, the power station has to curtail operations.” ” (The Courier Mail: Drought could put homes in the dark, 21 May 2007)

New South Wales it seems will also experience brownouts if there is no significant relief from the drought soon. Australian Associated Press sourced an interview with Greens senator Bob Brown, who said

“Greens leader Bob Brown said 30 per cent of the eastern seaboard’s energy need could be met with better efficiencies and renewable energies that don’t require water.

“What we are seeing here is that the very core of the climate change problem, burning coal, is now being hit itself by climate change,” Senator Brown said.

“It requires huge amounts of water, and yet both Labor and Liberal want to export more coal, and burn more coal in this country.”" (Australian Associated Press: NSW: Water shortages threaten power supply, 19 May 2007)

This got me thinking about about geothermal production of electricity again – hot rocks.

Hot rocks have been posed as the replacement for coal, as they are naturally heated, don’t consume many resources, and don’t pollute. But would they still be viable in a situation of drought? The Advertiser in South Australia seems to think so, but South Australia get more rain than here on the east coast. The Advertiser reported that gas and electric company Beach Petroleum “spent $10 million for a share of the Paralana hot rocks project north of the state with Petratherm.” (The Advertiser: Forward-thinking Beach in the market for hot rocks, 18 May 2007).

Then there’s the possibility of solar electricity, which, like wind energy, doesn’t rely on a water supply to generate power.

by Cathy Wilcox (The Sydney Morning Herald)

The Daily Telegraph however criticised solar power, saying it was still too expensive for most households to install.

“ENVIRONMENT Minister Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t need a state-wide survey showing him solar energy is unpopular — he already knows.

The Saturday Daily Telegraph can reveal the reason the Federal Government didn’t make its $150 million solar rebate scheme any bigger was because there was not enough demand for solar panels.

“If demand exceeds our expectations then obviously we’ll review [the scheme],” he said. “To date shortage of money has not been an issue. [Solar panels are] still pretty expensive.”

It costs the average Sydney-sider between $14,000 and $40,000 to install a solar system and link it to the electricity grid.” (The Daily Telegraph: Solar still too costly, 12 May 2007)

South Australia continues to be the leader in green energy, holding the largest number of wind energy farms, and investing the most in geothermal energy. Furthermore, According to The Advertiser, South Australia has the cheapest solar energy nation wide.

“INSTALLING solar panels has never been cheaper in Adelaide, with the Federal Government’s expanded solar rebate scheme cutting the cost to almost a third.

Solar energy stores have urged homeowners to “get in before they miss out”.

They have been inundated with inquiries since this week’s announcement that the rebate scheme would be doubled to $8000.

For a $13,000 system, to supply up to 2kW of power, the rebate will cut the out-of-pocket cost to $5000. The old rebate was $4000.” (The Advertiser: Rebate causes a solar stampede, 11 May 2007)

I found it amazing how the price of the solar panels affected media coverage so significantly. I guess it shows the value of currency, because of the global warming and brownout issue. The drought, global warming and electricity consumption are also issues of impact – quetions like “How will global warming affect me?” are raised pretty often. There is an aspect of hype surrounding it however. I’ll end this entry with a quick snippet from an article in The Sydney Morning Herald- I thought it demonstrated really clearly a lot of people’s attitude to the whole issue.

“It is 6pm, already dark, on a winter night. You arrive home from work and unlock the front door. You turn on the light switch. Nothing happens. The house remains in darkness. No switches are working. The fridge is off. So is the TV and the computer. You go into the street and see other homes are in darkness.

You curse yourself for not having bought candles. You curse the government that is supposed to maintain the basics of life. In an instant, everything that has been taken for granted is open to doubt.” (The Sydney Morning Herald: Powerless against mother nature, 21 May 2007)

Very dramatic.

Harry Potter and the Recycled Paper May 21, 2007

I know its not a very serious issue, but I thought I’d mention that the final Harry Potter book – Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows – will be printed on recycled paper. Queensland’s Courier Mail said back in march that

“THE 12 million US editions of the seventh and last Harry Potter book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows are to be printed on partially recycled paper. The books, set for release on July 21, “will be printed on paper that contains a minimum of 30 per cent post-consumer waste fibre,” publisher Scholastic said.” (The Courier Mail: Harry’s Seventh Goes Green, 22 March 2007)

Buffalo News in New York also picked up on the printing, as did The Sydney Morning Herald here in Sydney (but not until yesterday, whereas everywhere else reported it over two months ago). Times Union furthermore reported that

“A “deluxe” edition of the new book, which has a first printing of 100,000, will be printed on paper that contains “100 percent post- consumer waste fiber.”

In 2005, when “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” came out, Greenpeace and other environmental groups complained that Scholastic wasn’t using enough recycled paper and urged consumers to buy copies from the Canadian publisher, Raincoast Books. ” (Times Union: Potter Goes Green in ‘Hallows’, 21 March 2007)

I see a few interesting angles in these stories. There’s the conflict angle, where you have Greenpeace up against publisher Scholastic. There’s the angle of currency, where you could focus on the move for more publishers to adopt “green printing” and use recycled paper. Which reminds me about somethig I forgot to put in yesterday’s entry – Live Earth tickets will also be printed on recycled paper. For the Harry Potter books, there’s even been a bit of comparison drawn between printing in the US, and how their recycled paper is being outsourced to Australia for the books. The Sydney Morning Herald took this anti-America slant, saying

“Conservationists are concerned about why the recycled paper is coming from a mill in the US rather than from Australian suppliers. Allen & Unwin paid $3million for their recycled paper from the Dirigo Paper Company in Vermont.

David Shirer, spokesman for Australian Paper, the only maker of recycled paper in Australia, said it was a shame the publishers weren’t using Australian recycled paper.” (The Sydney Morning Herald: Harry, a global eco-warrior for the times, 20 May 2007)

So again, its the news value of conflict – Australia vs America. It interested me how people’s opinions of recycled paper have changed so much in the last 10 years or so ago. I remember when people were disgusted at the concept of re-using paper. I still laugh whenever I read packages of toilet paper that say, “100% recycled paper”!

The last Harry Potter book is due to be released on 21 July.

After effects of IPCC in Bangkok May 21, 2007

As I mentioned in a previous entry, the International Panel on Climate Change recently gathered in Bangkok to discuss the details of their report, which highlighted the effects of global warming, and strategies against it. French newspaper Agence France Presse reported today some of the after effects the summit had on the local government:

“Bangkok’s governor on Monday vowed to turn the Thai capital into a green city using clean energy and biofuel in an effort to help tackle global warming and make the metropolis more pleasant.

Galvanised by his recent trip to New York for a summit of large cities concerned with pollution, Governor Apirak Kosayodhin launched a five-year action plan starting this year to improve the city’s environment and lessen pollution.

Bangkok’s 5.5 million cars would be regularly checked for the level of carbon dioxide they emitted, he said, with heavy polluters made to improve.

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) had started working with gas stations to recycle used cooking oil into biodiesel, he said, with one station already equipped with the environmentally friendly fuel.

Waste management systems would also be improved as part of the plan, while buildings would be made to switch to more energy-efficient technologies, such as energy-saving lightbulbs.” (AFP: Bangkok launches green plan, 21 May 2007)

 I was furthermore surprised to see that Bangkok adopted a version of Earth Hour on 10th May – I can’t believe I missed it! The Organisation of Asia-Pacific News Agencies said,

“The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) kicked off Wednesday a campaign in the capital of 10 million to reduce impact of climate change with mixed responses.

Millions of lights across the metropolis were turned off by the capital’s observant world citizens for 15 minutes from 7 pm as part of a City Hall campaign to raise public awareness of the contribution of electric lighting to severe global warming. The event was designed to encourage the public to change lifestyles to help reduce an otherwise developing catastrophy.

However, the success of the campaign has yet to be confirmed. Many visitors and shopkeepers on Khao Sarn Road, one of five locations where the activities were broadcast live, knew little about the campaign.” (OAPNA: “Lights off” campaign in Bangkok combats global warming, 10 May 2007)

So it seems to event had the same effectiveness – and media response – to what was seen in Sydney. My main interest in Bangkok however is it’s link to the IPCC summit.

Live Earth May 21, 2007

I was quite excited on Friday morning as I waited patiently for the clock to tick over to 9:00am. Why? I was purchasing tickets to Live Earth, a concert being held in July to promote awareness about global warming. Tickets to the day even cover the cost of public transport to the event. After buying my tickets, I soon saw interviews popping up everywhere, from radio news bullitins to JTV and Video Hits on Saturday morning.

“Live Earth will be a legendary music event – 9 concerts, over 100 headlining music acts, 24 hours of music across all 7 continents broadcast to over 2 billion people.” (http://www.liveearth.org)

So I was wondering if the mainstream media have warmed to the idea, or if they just dismissed it like they did with Earth Hour a few months back – with only SMH (Earth Hour’s official sponser) backing it up. The first article I found was from Sunday Mail, which said,

“ROCK legend Roger Daltrey has blasted the July 7 Live Earth concerts, saying burning more oil would do more to solve climate change.

The Who’s singer questioned the value of the event, saying a better idea would be to “burn all the oil” to force world leaders to act. He told London’s The Sun newspaper: “We have problems with global warming but the questions and the answers are so huge I don’t know what a rock concert’s ever going to do to help.” ” (Sunday Mail: Climate Gig Gets Blasted, 20 May 2007)

(The Who: Roger Daltrey far left)

I thought this was interesting, because the paper (based in Adelaide) has recognised the value of prominence – that is, the value of Roger Daltrey – and has stirred in a twang of conflict. It’s almost a cross-breed between a celebrity gossip column, and hard news. Roger Daltrey Vs The World.

I found similar vibes of dissent from The Sunday Age:

“FIRST, we rocked to feed the world. Then we rocked to raise money to rebuild after the tsunami. Two years ago, the pop stars massed to rock against debt recovery in the Third World. At least, I think that’s what Live 8 aimed to do. Not that it made any difference.

And now we’re asked to put our hands in the air like we really care about the environment at Live Earth, a multinational phantasmagoric series of stadium concerts on July 7, with the grand aim of “raising awareness of global warming”… That’s not only a waste of time but a gross indulgence. It’s just a green rubber bracelet to string on your arm next to the white rubber band that will magically make poverty history, and the yellow one that cures cancer… It strikes me that the amount of goodwill, money, political nous and energy being funnelled into these concerts could be put to better use lobbying some of the sponsors – and participants – to rein in their own consumption.” (The Sunday Age: Live Earth: useful as a green bracelet, 20 May 2007)

Donal Lynch from Ireland’s The Sunday Independant held similar views of cynicism, this time directed at Bob Geldof:

“How maddening for Bob Geldof. Summer is here and a big pop jamboree is going to take place in London and he’s not a part of it. This time it’s Al Gore’s big climate-change concert, which is being dubbed Live Earth, that’s making the headlines and Bob is not happy, claiming that the name is so similar to Live Aid that his office is getting loads of calls wondering if he’s involved. But of course he’s taking it with his usual good humour, ranting that Gore’s concert is pointless and claiming “we’re all fucking conscious of global warming”.

There, there diddums; nobody’s ignoring you. We haven’t forgotten that you’re public do-gooder number one. I’m sure when Madonna and Coldplay and the others realise what a terrible mistake they’ve made in supporting this “good cause” they’ll come crawling back.”" (The Sunday Independent: Sir Bob and the Live Ego saga, 20 May 2007)

So it seems that yet again, there is little support for the event, other than that coming from the official sponsers. Most of the articles focus on conflict (Bob Geldof Vs Al Gore), and through their sarcasm write-off the seriousness of the effort against global warming in a style similar to that of human-interest stories. The concert is still a month and a half away, no doubt there will be more hype as it draws nearer.

So I found one of the main news values with the Live Earth issue was prominence – who said what about whom. Also, as the concert is held worldwide, its an issue of the reach of the issue, rather than the impact (i.e breadth rather than depth).

Wind Energy May 20, 2007

A man came into my work today and started talking about hot rocks (geothermal stuff). It got me thinking about alternative means for energy production, so I checked the SMH website (sorry for the constant coverage, they’re set as my homepage) this morning. Wind energy seems to have also popped up on the radar again, this time because its believed the wind turbines can be placed high up in the atmosphere – producing far greater amounts of electricity than they can on down here on the ground.

“Wind power is potentially the perfect energy source, but existing wind farms struggle to generate enough electricity to seriously threaten coal or nuclear power options. Now a coalition of international scientists has proposed a network of flying wind turbines located five kilometres above the planet’s surface and capable of powering cities. Tethered to the Earth with carbon fibre cables and positioned in jet streams, the hovering generators could create up to 60 times more power than equivalent wind turbines on the ground. ‘`Southern Australia seems to be one of the best site in the world, if not the best, for this wind resource,” said Australian wind energy campaigner Bryan Roberts.”(The Sydney Morning Herald: Flying power stations, 18 May 2007)  

I did a search in Factiva and found an article from South China Morning Post, which is an English paper based in Hong Kong.

“The nation’s installed wind power generation capacity grew 105 per cent last year to 2,599 megawatts (MW). Although only a drop in the bucket compared to the national power generation capacity of 622,000 MW, it is expected to double again this year to 5,000 MW, according to National Development and Reform Commission Energy Research Institute deputy director Li Junfeng. China was the world’s fifth largest nation in installed wind capacity, up from 10th in 2004, said Tsinghua University senior visitor scholar Eric Martinot.”(South China Morning Post: Wind energy capacity set to double this year, 20 May 2007) 

I found further support of wind energy in the UK’s Bath Chronicle, which featured a story about a village named Colerne and the program Ecolerne.

“Ecolerne is an initiative that promotes sustainable living in the village. It is researching to see whether a wind turbine could provide low-cost, clean energy for the whole village. “(Bath Chronicle: Eco group’s bid for wind energy for whole village, 18 May 2007)

 Furthermore, Xinhua News Agency, China, reported that the Spanish Government has given Morrocco 100 million Euro in order to build a sustainable wind energy park, named Tanger Wind-Energy Park. Also, American newspaper Platts Commodity News wrote that an official from Horizon Wind Energy said that the US can quadruple their output of wind-generated energy by 2015.   According to the Australian company Auswind, Australia currently has 817 wind farms nationwide, with another 6000 proposed for the future. New South Wales is currently home to only 17 of the 817. I was amazed to find so many articles on wind energy, and all within the past fews weeks. I suppose it goes with the news value of currency, as global warming and ecological sustainability are valued so highly lately.

Update on the rain May 19, 2007

Just an update on yesterday morning’s post, more papers picked up the news of rain today. The Daily Telegraph in Sydney published an after-effects story today, entitled “Farmer’s rain prayers answered“.

 Something I’ve noticed is that the stories about the rain the last few days are mostly human interest, and have so far said little about any indication of an ease on water supplies, or even the effects the rain has had on local environments. For example, the picture accompanying the Telegraph article seems to imply that the rain is only a problem for farmers – who are more obviously affected – than residents of greater Sydney.

During the drought, the Sydney metropolitan media have largely relied on the stereotype of the ”Aussie Battler” for farmers. The images I’ve noticed popping up are mostly like this, showing a couple with small children – mostly anglo-saxon looking. As a suburban girl myself, I’ve been fed this image for most of my life – I just wonder if all farmers conform to this stereotype, and if not, why don’t we see more of them?

Falling like rain May 18, 2007

I was delighted last night to hear that there’s been some good news out west for the farmers. It seems theres finally been a significant downpour, which could hopefully be (should I say it) the beginning of the end of the drought.

This is the satellite image from the Bureau of Meteorology website, at 4:30pm on Thursday:

 So as you can see there was an abundance of rain falling all around the state last night, which is expected to move east across the state today. Journalists absolutely lapped it up, especially on the evening news bullitins last night. The ABC‘s 7:00 news ranked the rain at number two, and featured a journalist in southern NSW as the first drops of rain fell. Channel Ten as usual used Tim Bailey to break the news, leathery grin and all.

The Daily Telegraph featured the story this morning on their front page online, buried underneath a few rows of advertisements. I was amazed however that in every story I read or saw, everyone had the same outlook – the rain was bringing absolute joy to people all across the state.

“It started raining at 6pm on Wednesday and in the following 12 hours his New South Wales property received more than 60mm – more than a third of his annual rainfall in a single night.

Horses are knee-deep in water, the cattle yards are flooded and the sheepdogs, too young to have seen such a downpour, are puzzled as they try to skirt the pools of muddy red water.

“It was a drought here on Tuesday, now look at it,” said Mr Hughes. “There’s more water than you will see in your whole life. It is sheer joy. It is absolutely beautiful. It is the high without the hangover.” “

(The Daily Telegraph: From drought to drenched in two days, 18 May 2007)

The Sydney Morning Herald also featured the story on their front page online, and like the Telegraph, captured a sense of heightened joy from the farmers.

(Photo: Terry Smith, The Sydney Morning Herald: See link to article below)

“Some areas received their best rain in years. Coming from the west, the front delivered 34 millimetres to Pooncarie in the 24 hours to 9am yesterday, 32 to White Cliffs, 44 to Tibooburra and 13 to Wilcannia. While most areas west of the Great Dividing Range were being tipped to get 20 to 50 millimetres by this morning, the front should contract to the north-east corner of the state by this afternoon.

At lunchtime, Terry Smith from Scarsdale station outside Broken Hill, said: “We’ve had almost 2.5 inches (63.5 millimetres). It’s about a quarter [of the area's average annual rainfall]. It’s bloody good rain. There should be a few smiles around today. This will set up my pasture … right through until Christmas time. All my dams should be full now, which gives me water for 12 to 18 months.”

Numbers at saleyards fell sharply as farmers across the state chose to hold on to their livestock given the promise of further good rainfall.”

(The Sydney Morning Herald: Wonderful wet: at last, it’s raining dogs out west, 18 May 2007)

Even the press in the Northern Territory were interested, with The Sunday Territorian reporting good rainfall in White Cliffs and Broken Hill. I guess the drought has the majority of the country in its grip at the moment, and good news anywhere can bring hope to people in other areas. So the predominant news value I have found is impact, rather than proximity. There’s also a dash of timeliness thrown in there, because the rain only means something because of the drought. If it were published five or so years back when dam levels were higher and the situation was less dire, people would not have paid attention.

1 billion people displaced May 16, 2007

An article popped out of yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, in their newly developed “Earth Watch” section. The article, named “Climate may force 1 billion from their homes“, focuses on the study of a British Charity, Christian Aid, and the effects of global warming.

(Image from SMH article)

“A BILLION people – one in seven people on Earth today – could be forced to leave their homes over the next 50 years as the effects of climate change worsen an already serious migration crisis, a new report from Christian Aid predicts.

The report, based on the latest United Nations population and climate-change figures, says conflict, large-scale development projects and widespread environmental deterioration will combine to make life unsupportable for hundreds of millions of people, mostly in the Sahara belt, South Asia and the Middle East.

The report, published yesterday, cited case studies in Sudan, Colombia, Mali and Burma as big causes for concern.

According to the development charity, the world faces its largest movement of people forced from their homes.

“Forced migration is now the most urgent threat facing poor nations,” said the report’s lead author, John Davison. “Climate change is the great, frightening unknown in this equation.”" (The Sydney Morning Herald)

 I thought it was a good attempt by the Herald to sum up the possible impacts of global warming in a few sentances. I was surprised however to find that several other newspapers had covered the announcement made by Christian Aid internationally. The Irish News released a similar article, named “Billions of people will flee effects of warming”. I find it interesting that both headlines are pun-free, and speak straight to the point. I guess with something as important as 1 billion misplaced people, headlines don’t need frills. Newspapers worldwide released similar articles – The Financial Times of the UK had an article entitled “Charity warns of looming ‘forced migration’ crisis,” on 14 May. Their version takes more of an angle of who-to-blame:

“While migration forced by conflict and natural disasters has received considerable attention, the charity’s report highlights what it says is an the increasing number of people made homeless by large-scale development projects.

It says international lending institutions, such as the World Bank and the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, have failed to pay sufficient attention to the rising threat, even as its impact is likely to be exacerbated by climate change. ” (The Financial Times)

The Herald-Sun also ran the story “Desperate home truths A billion people displaced in 40 years, report says”, with the Hobart Mercury running again a similar story. Furthermore internationally, the Scottish Daily Record wrote “No home for 1bn”. English news services Independent and Morning Star Online also ran with the story.

This is one of the few stories I have found that managed to look at global warming on a global scale. The fact that Christian Aid were able to put an actual figure forward – 1 billion people – I thought was the main reason the story was picked up by so many news agencies worldwide.