Whether its individuals, communities, corporations or governments, all advocated to take part in this activity, thereby showing their support for the actions many people take to deal with the problems related to rapid climate change. As is known to all of us, an excessive amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere has been dramatically threatening human beings’ safe and comfortable existence on earth. In this case, only by changing people’s attitude toward carbon dioxide emission can we endeavor to alleviate the negative impact that it imposes on the whole world.

From my perspective, it is necessary and of crucial significance that every one of us tried our best to participate in this activity and make our own contribution to protecting our home, no matter how small or trivial our contribution seems to be. It seems to me that the result matters much less than people’s willingness to take actions to protect our earth and to change their attitude toward the severity of the outcome of the irresponsible behaviors of human beings. Many people may regard it unnecessary and even futile to close the lights for an hour at a certain time because the period of time is too short and moreover, the actions of only a minority of people will not bring about apparent changes. Yet, their opinion is seriously flawed in that they do not take into account the concept of individual responsibility and social consciousness. If every one of us can think comprehensively and dialectically before we take actions, then perhaps the earth would not have been seriously damaged today.

- Li Pei Zhao

“The more popular it is, the more attention people will pay to the environment in their daily lives. It is nothing short of a genius innovation to encourage people to protect their homes. Earth Hour is a form, but it is more than a form.

- Liang Yu Qi

Some people support that Earth Hour as a positive activity to urge everyone on earth to take action for the current dreadful situation; while others argue that people launch this activity just for show. My personal belief is that if we do it the right way, every human being will take on his or her own responsibility.

For the starters, it is this campaign that gives us a spiritual baptism which arouses our driven sense of obligation to give ourselves to protecting the environment, to protecting the earth and to protecting human beings. Imagine the countless people who turn off their electrical appliances to support this profound and meaningful campaign. Imagine cities that will be covered by tranquil moonlight, instead of dazzling neon light. Imagine… Earth Hour is nothing but an inspiring activity.

But due to people’s ignorance and innocence, a lot of us do not even know the Earth Hour, not to mention to cut off electrical appliances. However, this situation might be partly attributed to the weak propaganda strength. We have not attained enough media attention. Despite all the warm-hearted people’s effort, mainstream media in China just flicked it. In the city I live, Shanghai, for instance, although the municipal government cut off some of the landscape lamps, the only thing occurred to citizens, especially the tourists is that “oh, what a shame, I came to the Bund for those lamps, but they broke down for no reason.” Even if they show their consent to it, at the bottom of their heart, they sense that it is totally worthless. Without abundant propaganda, people is more likely to turn the cold shoulder on this campaign.

We must take action to wake up those people’s mind, to improve people’s inner quality, to expand our horizons. Earth Hour is just a stimulant for people to really penetrate our dilemma, thus uniting together to fight for the only planet we live on.

- Qing Chen

As the whale hunting season in the Southern Oceans come to an end, Militant activist Paul Watson declares it the most successful anti-whale campaign ever. He estimates that activities have reduced to kill count by at least half, or totalling some 70 - 80 million US dollars.

“Our objective always is to bankrupt them, to sink them economically and I think if we keep this kind of pressure on we will succeed in doing that. The only reason they’re continuing is I think out of sheer stubbornness.” says Paut Watson, speaking to AFP.

Meantime the diplomatic row between Australia and Japan continues, PM Kevin Rudd has issued a formal statement of taking Japan to court by the end of this year if they fail to resolve the issue diplomatically, which means no less than the reduction of whale kills in the Southern Ocean to zero, within a “reasonable” time frame.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory for Japan even if they won a case over the legal text of being able to conduct “lethal research”. Since this will “regrettably” sour relations between Japan and most of the international community. Japan is Australia’s top export market, with sales worth 55 billion Australian dollars (49 billion US) in the 12 months to June 2009, and is also Australia’s third-largest source of imports.

The diplomatic solution is still important because, because the bankruptcy and failure of the whaling industry will affect real livelihoods. There has yet however, been any real solutions put forwards which can amicably resolve the matter. Japan cannot be expected to give in purely from the involvement of a more active conservation group.

From another scientific news source across the globe in Portland, Dr. Andrew Persing, a biological oceanographer at the University of Maine in Orono, presented his research on the Industrial Carbon Footprint of the Whaling Industry at the American Geophysical Union’s Ocean Sciences meeting.

Dr. Persing descrbies whales are like the forests of the marine ecosystem, they soak up millions of metric tons of CO2 in their lifetime, and when they die, sink and gets sequestered to the bottom of the ocean. Industrial whaling equates to about 385 million metric tons of CO2 put into the atmosphere, or the destruction 130,000 square kilometers of temperate forests.

Trying to relate the two news stories together, perhaps there lies a resolution for the whaling industry to convert hunting whales into whale conservation for carbon credits and tourism.

A third news regarding the tragedy of Ms. Dawn Brancheau, a Sea World trainer for killer whales. Killer whales by the way, are not part of the whale species but Orca, a family of dolphins. As unfortunate as the accident does sound, it should remind us constantly that one should never get comfortable with dangerous animals, they already show reserve in a human environment, but are best left alone in their own.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8538033.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_surfacing_behaviour
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603336_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Annual whale slaughter since 1986

The Cap and Trade scheme is based on the rhetoric that we should ‘put a price on carbon’ and that governments do their duty of reducing the allotted permits given to industries towards a goal of reducing emissions to a theoretical sustainable limit of 350ppm. That polluters will innovate to reduce their emissions through a vast global trading scheme that allows polluters who cannot meet their caps purchase it through innovators and to pay off developing nations to ‘mitigate’ and ‘adapt’ to climate change.

It’s a scheme that, while making regulatory sense, is filled with loopholes that allows many industrials lobbyists and financiers to manoeuvre their existing corporations without vastly restructuring their business model. After all, paying off others is just another Business As Usual model.

The UN has the proposed CDM, while several other organizations have proposed various standards for carbon trading, such as the CER, VER, CCX, WWF gold standard. While the value of such markets can be an incentives for many companies to find ways to reduce carbon emissions and generate credits, and that developing nations may benefit,  there is little certainty that ‘polluter pays’ principles will be carry fully to the hilt of the law, especially among the most those with political clout. Meanwhile, all sorts of ponzi schemes will certainly pass through without being scrutinized, or slip by through creative technicality.

Far from the mere promise of acting diligently, let us recall the lack of action since the Kyoto Protocol and the current dithering at the COP15. we call on world leaders not only to act firmly upon the rule of environmental law, but also offer stronger incentives to spur genuine sustainable efforts.

Annie Leonard has managed to present the situation in an engaging manner, watch The Story of Cap N Trade

Today on RT news, from the University of Western Australia, Professor Cliff Olier of the School of Earth and Geographical sciences, represented a part of the scientific community that counters much of the ‘alarmists’ claims about climate change. In particular, rising sea levels due to ice cape and glacial melt. The professor has made himself known as an opposing voice against this theory since the 80s.

Then while it may be reportable news for us, spotting a 100 ice bergs near the waters of New Zealand and Australia may after all, not constitute as climate change related news, perhaps we are simply awed by mother nature cyclical work. If you’re driven by facts and like to challenge your opinions, perhaps you should pay heed to contradictory science made available at the COP15, the next 2 days (Dec 9, Dec 10th).

Personally, I wouldn’t debunk the accumulated facts or sentiments of the times. We do not need scientist further to explain to us the visible fact that man consumes and pollutes the environment all around him, that we’ve managed since the age of industralization to practically cover the globe, and we have always tightly contested for resources. That the formation of oil requires thousands of years and we go through that stuff at an irreplaceable rate. I could go on for many more examples of man ruining rather than respecting his environment, for me there is no doubt about the industrious amounts of CO2 we put into the atmosphere through decades of civilization, but whether man-made CO2 pumping the earth’s temperature up by 2C will cause a catastrophic change to the planet in the near future is a science you’ll have to weigh in.