Save Eco Destinations

Wind power

Australia’s looking up: a report recently showed how Australia could power itself with 100% solar and wind energy by 2020 using technology that is commercially available right now.

However, the federal government reached a deal to keep its renewable energy target at only 20% by 2020, while raising more near-term targets.

In any case, Beyond Zero Emissions — an Australian independent, not-for-profit NGO — released the report, “Zero Carbon Australia,” which contains a detailed explanation of how powering the country completely with renewable energy could be achieved in merely a decade. Beyond Zero Australia was founded in 2006 to help facilitate a quick transition to a zero carbon future.

“Zero Carbon Australia” says 40% of power can be generated with the use of wind and the rest from solar thermal installations (speaking of which, Denmark intends to source 50% of its power from wind by 2025). The report proposes managing variability in renewable power by using molten salt thermal storage (molten salt can store heat so that it can be retained for use for electricity during bad weather or at nighttime, when solar rays are not available).

First public solar phone in Australia

The plan estimates that energy use will jump by 40% (!) up from 228 terawatt-hours/year in the present to 325 terawatt-hours/year in 2020. This will cost some USD 32.3 billion per year, by the way — but the authors find this manageable:

“The required investment of [AUD] 37 billion/year is the equivalent of 3% of GDP. The extra money spent versus Business-As-Usual to 2020 is the equivalent of $3.40 per person per day, the cost of a cup of coffee.”

Hey, that’s nothing [for most people in Australia, I assume and hope]. It’s fantastic.

The concept’s technical feasibility now needs just one bit of help:

“What is required to make this happen is leadership from policymakers and society, with firm decisions made quickly that will allow this transition to occur.”

Naturally.

So if you’re heading to Australia anytime in the next 10 years (or if you live there!), remember to support hotels and establishments that are pushing for increased renewable energy throughout the country. Stay at eco hotels, buy locally grown food, etcetera. We have the power to change the world!

You can help Beyond Zero Emissions if you wish by making a donation here.

Following up on my recent post discussing unsustainable fish deceptively marketed as sustainably sourced, I’d like to share with you that Greenpeace has released its latest Canned Tuna Guide in its continued effort to fight overfishing across the world’s oceans. (I’ve already shared the news via Facebook and Twitter, but it’s important enough that I wanted to write about it on here, too!)

If you’re a tuna eater – whether you consume canned, fresh, or whatever kind of tuna – and you’re interested in the future of tuna stocks (which you should be if you plan to continue eating it!) check out Greenpeace’s new guide.

The guide is meant to both inform consumers – like you! — whose increasingly raised awareness on the issue is leading them to opt for sustainably sourced fish, and to hold tuna brands accountable for selling unsustainable tuna to the unsuspecting public.

This is how various canned tuna brands ranked on Greenpeace's Canned Tuna Guide

Check your supermarket to see if they carry the highest ranking brands in the tuna guide, so you can support the companies that are progressing toward environmental responsibility through the sustainable sourcing of their products.

This is how Greenpeace explains their ranking, based on an international canned tuna ranking system:

• 70%+ Good
An acceptable sustainable and equitable tuna procurement policy has been
obtained. Maintaining and improving these standards is essential.

• 40% – 69% Must improve
Initial measures have been taken to source sustainable and equitable tuna.
More concrete steps are needed to reach an acceptable standard.

• Less than 40% Very Poor
Urgent action is required to improve tuna procurement.

Criteria for the canned tuna ranking:
• If the tuna comes from overfished stocks;
• If the tuna comes from illegal vessels or companies;
• If the tuna can is labelled correctly; and
• If the tuna was fished using methods that result in high levels of bycatch.

Brands were also ranked on their:
• Commitment to not source tuna from proposed marine reserves.
• Commitment to equitable sourcing policy for tuna.

I will now shamelessly quote an article on the guide, since I wrote it and all. Here we go:

Since the beginning of Greenpeace’s first tuna ranking four months ago, Australian tuna brands have started to make ecologically sound progress. For the first time, Australians can now purchase a sustainable canned tuna brand: Fish 4 Ever, which ranked highest on the tuna guide at 86 per cent.

Fish 4 Ever uses pole and line fishing to source its entire range of tuna. It still sells overfished yellowfin tuna for 25 per cent of its range, but has vowed to move to 100 per cent skipjack tuna, the sustainable alternative.

Aldi, with a 57 per cent ranking, is the first supermarket to tout a sustainable seafood policy available online and to show support for marine reserves by not sourcing its fish from proposed Pacific high seas marine reserves. It has also publicly committed to halting the use of destructive Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs) fishing in its tuna range, which produces the bycatch of turtles, sharks and juveline tuna.

Independent retail supermarket group IGA got a 47 per cent ranking for also having introduced a sustainable seafood policy for its suppliers, while still catching its home brand Black and Gold tuna ranges with huge nets and FADs. The tuna used, however, is sustainable skipjack.

IGA has begun labelling its tuna cans to inform consumers which tuna species it sells and where it was fished.

“Before the guide came out, most people didn’t know where their tuna came from, or that turtles, sharks and juvenile tuna get killed in tuna nets,” said Greenpeace oceans campaigner Genevieve Quirk. “Since then, thousands of people have written outraged emails demanding that the tuna companies behind these brands clean up their act, and they’ve listened.”

IGA supermarkets and independent stores have also started stocking Fish 4 Ever.

“We became aware of the issues surrounding overfishing five years ago and wanted to offer Australians a sustainable option,” said Sandy Abram, Co-Founder of First Ray and distributor of Fish 4 Ever.

Soon, there won't be much Fraser River salmon left for you to fish, buddy.

Last week I wrote about the efforts of certain companies to deceive consumers into thinking they are purchasing sustainably caught fish.

If you remember, I discussed the problematic Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which offers eco-certification to fisheries across the globe and has never refused the certification to any fishery that has completed the certification process. Ahem.

Well, it turns out that the independent adjudicator has ruled in favor of MSC last Monday, which means that the endangered Fraser sockeye salmon stocks have been ruled sustainable. Environmentalists are wailing and independent salmon trollers railing.

The certifier will now submit the Final Certification Report to MSC, recommending that the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery be certified as sustainable. The certifier may issue a certificate and MSC would announce certification after a final internal MSC review of the documents takes place.

So what’s the problem?

“This certification could actually result in well-intentioned consumers buying an endangered Fraser River sockeye with an eco-label on it,” explained Jeffrey Young, aquatic biologist with the David Suzuki Foundation, one of the groups who filed a notice of objection to the MSC’s intent to provide eco-certification to the stock.

I would like to reiterate that some Fraser River sockeye stocks harvested in the fishery that is getting certified by MSC are already classified as “endangered” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and “critically endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, whose scientists consider overfishing a key threat to the stocks’ health.

Further, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) recently set up a commission to study the decline of the Fraser River salmon stock.

This is definitely bad timing for an eco-certification, don’t you think?

Next time you’re shopping for seafood, remember that MSC-certified seafood is probably not actually sustainably fished, and steer clear of Fraser River sockeye salmon.

These days, many seafood species are in decline and numerous stocks have already been depleted by overfishing. Various types of tuna and the Fraser sockeye salmon stocks in British Columbia, Canada, are all species under severe threat.

Part of the problem is fraud – and when eco-certifications are awarded without due consideration, without being truly warranted, everyone suffers (that is, the fish and those of us who care for the planet).

The London-based Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) offers eco-certification to fisheries across the globe. It has never refused the certification to any fishery that has completed the certification process. Fishy, isn’t it? And we’re not the only ones who think so. But I’ll talk more about the MSC when I discuss the sockeye salmon stocks below.

Atlantic bluefin tuna

Tuna

I’ve already blogged about the plight of tuna – bigeye, bluefin, and others – and the efforts of environmental groups like Greenpeace as well as those of entire countries who have called for an international ban on the tuna trade, focusing on bluefin tuna in particular. This call, by the way, has been futile. Some blame Japan and say officials from that country threatened representatives of poor African and Asia-Pacific nations at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) meeting in Qatar last March, which was a complete failure. Whatever the case, tuna thus remains without official protection.

Fraser sockeye salmon - photo from TreeHugger

Fraser sockeye salmon

This time I want to discuss the plight of the Fraser sockeye salmon stocks in British Columbia on Canada’s Pacific coast.

The MSC has just has just certified three Canadian salmon fisheries as sustainable. As consumer awareness about seafood sustainability is growing worldwide, lots of companies are coveting and applying for the MSC label, which makes their seafood gain popularity in the market. You, Save Eco Destinations reader, may be one of the people who makes efforts to purchase environmentally grown or harvested foods. And you should be aware that the MSC is trying to fool you.

Sockeye salmon fished from the Skeena and Nass Rivers and from Barkley sound on Canada’s Pacific coast will now be sold with MSC’s coveted eco-label worldwide. But Dr Craig Orr, executive director of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, believes this is, to put it bluntly, crap. He thus vowed that his organization will be supervising the fisheries to make sure MSC standards are being followed.

“The MSC has just granted eco-certification to three fisheries that routinely overharvest threatened and endangered salmon stocks,” said Orr. “As disturbing as this is, the MSC has placed several conditions for improvement on these fisheries, and we will be watching closely to see if these conditions are enforced.”

Earlier this year, his organization plus two other conservation groups from BC – the David Suzuki Foundation and SkeenaWild Conservation Trust — filed a notice of objection to the MSC’s intent to give the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery eco-certification.

The certification was thus put temporarily on hold pending the verdict of an independent adjudicator, whose decision is expected by Saturday, July 10.

“We objected to the Fraser River certification because we believe it does not meet the MSC’s own minimum standards for certification, and that the management of the fishery is so dysfunctional that the conditions of certification are very unlikely to be met within reasonable timelines,” explained Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild conservation trust. “Overfishing is a serious concern in the Skeena, Nass, and Barkley Sound fisheries, but the situation is not as dire there as it is on the Fraser,” he noted.

Under the MSC’s third-party certification process, firms hired by fishing industry “clients” decide if a fishery meets the MSC’s criteria for eco-certification. Again, I would like to note that no fishery has ever been refused certification after having finished the MSC assessment process and no objection to a certification has ever been upheld.

The three Canadian sockeye salmon fisheries were assessed by the independent organization Moody Marine Ltd, reported CBC News.

Some Fraser River sockeye stocks harvested in the fishery that is about to be MSC certified are classified as “endangered” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and “critically endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, whose scientists consider overfishing a key threat.

A commission of inquiry by the Canadian Government recently targeted the Fraser fishery because of a major collapse of the fishery and prevalent concerns over mismanagement.

“Eco-certification can provide a powerful incentive for improvement in the way we manage our fisheries,” declared Aaron Hill of Ecologist Watershed Watch, “but it becomes meaningless when you set the bar too low, and certify unsustainable and mismanaged fisheries. It becomes fraud.”

The assessment for Fraser River began in 2009, when only 1.4 million sockeye salmon returned despite the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) forecast of up to 10.6 million, reported Vancouver Sun.

“It was a catastrophe,” said Sto: lo First Nation fisheries adviser Ernie Crey. “No one knows what happened to those ‘missing’ fish.”

MSC-certified seafood

Why the MSC’s certification means nothing

The MSC eco-label isn’t even good enough to meet the sustainability policies of some supermarket chains. Really. Retailer Waitrose refuses to carry MSC-certified hoki from New Zealand.

“The fact that the sustainability policy of one of the UK’s largest food retailers could not be met by fish carrying the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) eco-label proves the council’s ineffectuality,” Greenpeace said last year.

Supermarket chains in the U.S. and Europe have refused to carry New Zealand’s orange roughy, a species that is MSC-certified even though it is endangered. This fish is harvested by bottom trawling, which is bad news for seabed communities and is one of the most environmentally destructive fishing methods in existence.

“This shows that even MSC certification is no guarantee of sustainability,” said Greenpeace New Zealand’s oceans campaigner Karli Thomas.

Greenpeace also believes Friend of the Sea (FOS), another eco-certification scheme, is unreliable. FOS even offers eco-certification for farmed fish. Imagine that! I won’t even get into how wrong that is (in this post).

Greenpeace believes that no certification system for sustainable seafood currently exists that is 100% reliable.

Further, Professor Daniel Pauly at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia and the principal investigator of its Sea Around Us Project accused the MSC last year of acquiescing to pressure from the Walton Family Foundation and Wal-Mart and being complicit to a scam.

“At first, the MSC certified only small-scale fisheries, but lately, it has given its seal of approval to large, controversial companies. Indeed, it has begun to measure its success by the percentage of the world catch that it certifies. Encouraged by a Walton Foundation grant and Wal-Mart’s goal of selling only certified fish, the MSC is actually considering certifying reduction fisheries, with the consequence that Wal-Mart, for example, will be able to sell farmed salmon shining with the ersatz glow of sustainability. (Given the devastating pollution, diseases, and parasite infestations that have plagued salmon farms in Chile, Canada, and other countries, this ‘Wal-Mart strategy’ will, in the long term, make the MSC complicit to a giant scam),” he wrote.

FYI, here are other fisheries hit by the MSC

“The Atlanto Scandian herring fishery is PFA’s third fishery to achieve MSC certification: its North Sea herring and its North East Atlantic mackerel fisheries were certified in 2006 and in 2009.” – FIS reported on July 8.

Others include Alaska flatfish, Eastern Canada swordfish, Norwegian cod and haddock, North Pacific albacore tuna, and the Aker BioMarine krill (Euphausia superba) fishery has been in the Antarctic waters of the Southern Ocean.

So what can you do?

Here are some neat recommendations (except for the MSC one).

Keep up the fight!

Inambari River, Peru

Peru and Brazil signed a pact last month to build six hydroelectric dams in the Peruvian Amazon — and the indigenous peoples in Peru as well as the environment will have to suffer the calamitous consequences.

Populations will be displaced and ecosystems disrupted if these projects are realized, environmentalists say.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Peruvian President Alan García signed the pact in question.

Peru has thus committed to deliver a permanent percentage of electricity to Brazil for 30 years. Also, if anyone wants to back down, this will only be possible 15 years into the agreement, according to Peruvian Energy Vice Minister Daniel Cámac. The idea is that Peru will get all the electricity it needs out of the deal, although it hasn’t yet decided how much it will require.

But not everyone thinks this makes sense.

“What is the point of signing a pact without having determined if this is what we need as a country?” asked lawyer César Gamboa, director of the NGO Law, Environment and Natural Resources (DAR). “Why don’t we conduct the studies before we make commitments we can’t back out of?”

The idea of the pact, born in 2006, is to generate 6,000 megavolts (mv) (note: 1 mv = 1 million volts) through the construction of generators in Peruvian turf that will prioritize internal supply and allow for the sale of surplus energy to Brazil, the official version goes.

On the other hand, engineer Alfredo Novoa says this is BS. The director of the NGO ProNaturaleza said,

“Peru doesn’t need energy projects in the Amazon to cover its demand. There is a 22,000 mv potential in the Andes and thousands more along the coast. Why more?”

Professor of the Institute of Electrical Engineering and Energy at the University of Saão Paulo Célio Bermann said the plants won’t meet Peru’s energy needs. Further, the agreement will irrevocably harm the Peruvian Amazon’s ecosystems.

“Yet the energy that will be produced will serve the interest of international and Brazilian mining, and metallurgy companies that are ever-expanding in the Amazon. The power will not go to meet the needs of everyday Peruvians or Brazilians,” he stated.

Moreover, it is still unclear where these generators will be built – it may happen in the Andes instead of the Amazon, Cámac told.

Oy.

Two problems

Asháninka

Mariano Castro, former executive secretary of the Peruvian National Environment Council and lawyer with the Peruvian Society of Environmental Rights (SPDA), said the dams will not ensure clean and renewable energy for Peru.

“On the contrary, it will impose a series of negative environmental and social impacts such as displacement of indigenous people and deforestation in at least five departments of Peru, putting at grave risk the future of the Peruvian Amazon,” Castro said.

One of the controversial projects is to take place in the Inambari River, located in the Amazonian limits of the Cusco, Madre de Dios and Puno regions in the southeastern part of Peru. This would be the largest hydroelectric plant in the country and the fifth-largest in Latin America.

The other is the Paquitzapango Project in the Ene River in Junín, home of the indigenous asháninka population.

Three other projects exist in the pact. The building of all five entails an investment of between USD 13.5 million and USD 16.5 million.

A more important cost will be that paid by the indigenous peoples. More than 4,000 inhabitants of the Inambari region and up to 10,000 in Paquitzapango would be displaced. To make matters worse, the unfortunate asháninka of Paquitzapango were already displaced during the internal Peruvian armed conflict of 1980-2000.

Peru’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise by 5.9% as a result of the project.