Google adds new tool to help prevent deforestation

Google unveils new tool to aid reforestation

Google Inc. today seized the occasion of the International Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to demonstrate technology it’s developing to track changes in the earth’s forests.

As nature’s perfect carbon dioxide sponge, trees have featured prominently in the debate over the appropriate response to global warming underway in Denmark.

Deforestation is an enormous contributor to climate change, pumping some 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. On the other hand, tree planting efforts are seen as a highly promising and cost-effective carbon offset strategy.

The United Nations‘ proposed REDD program — Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries — would provide financial incentives to nations that take steps to protect their forests. But the complicated formulas require accurate monitoring of forest growth over time.

Here’s where Google comes in. Its free Google Earth service already provides forest imagery over a given time period. What it lacked was the ability to accurately measure the changes.

Meanwhile, scientists Greg Asner of Carnegie Institution for Science and Carlos Souza of Imazon had created software that generates forest cover maps from satellite imagery. But they were wanting for that imagery and computational processing power.

The two have teamed up in one of those “you got your chocolate in my peanut butter” moments of aligned interests.

Google.org, the company’s non-profit arm, said in its blog today:

What if we could offer scientists and tropical nations access to a high-performance satellite imagery-processing engine running online, in the “Google cloud”? And what if we could gather together all of the earth’s raw satellite imagery data — petabytes of historical, present and future data — and make it easily available on this platform? We decided to find out, by working with Greg and Carlos to re-implement their software online, on top of a prototype platform we’ve built that gives them easy access to terabytes of satellite imagery and thousands of computers in our data centers.

This image shows deforestation during the last 30 days (marked in red) in Mato Grosso, Brazil, as tracked by the prototype tools.

Google.org

The red marks deforestation “hotspots.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?&entry_id=53288#ixzz0ZKVZLGPM

Related articles by Zemanta

• Google unveils new tool to aid reforestation (seattlepi.com)
• Google unveils breakthrough technology to monitor deforestation (guardian.co.uk)
• Copenhagen: Google Launches Forest Monitoring Tool (earth2tech.com)

Farmers plant trees to fight deforestation

Image via Wikipedia

Note:  We have our Brazil Contest, where you can win a framed photograph from National Geographic Photographer Peter Guttman, going on until December 15, 2009.  Just leave a comment to be eligible.  Details at http://ecoadventuretravel.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/its-here-the-brazil-contest/. (~Robert)

The Washington Post had a wonderful article about changes in Brazil to help protect the environment.  I thought it would be interesting for the readers here:

For nearly 20 years, Luiz Alberto Bortolini cleared trees and planted soybeans as fast as he could, one of many pioneers who turned this barren outpost into prosperous farmland.

Now, he and hundreds of other successful farmers are replanting trees as part of an ambitious initiative to reduce deforestation. Their goal — to set aside one-third of their farms for native vegetation — is revolutionary in a region long resistant to environmental controls.

“It had to happen, as soon as possible,” said Bortolini, 50, who now has a 6,200-acre farm. “This is in the farmers’ interests because the farmer is the one most dependent on the environment.”

The initiative, driven by the market and by new pressure from regulators, comes as the government considers proposals to dramatically reduce the rainforest destruction that has made Brazil a leading producer of greenhouse gases. Earlier this month, Brazil said it would cut emissions by up to 38.9 percent from projected 2020 levels, a pledge designed to encourage other countries to take major steps at next month’s global warming summit in Copenhagen.

“I think what they are moving towards is essentially a no-deforestation position by 2030,” said David Cleary, who oversees conservation strategies in Latin America for the Nature Conservancy, an international conservation organization. “It’s way, way beyond any commitment that Brazil has made in deforestation before.”

Already, deforestation has fallen by half in Brazil since 2006, as the threat of sanctions against ranchers and better enforcement of environmental regulations curbed the fires and chain saws used to raze trees across the world’s biggest rainforest.

Still, a swath of forest the size of Connecticut was destroyed last year. Environmentalists also worry about road-paving projects in the Amazon and about the construction of hydroelectric dams in the wilds. Meanwhile, a group of lawmakers is lobbying to loosen the country’s forest code, an environmental-protection law that requires farmers in the Amazon to set aside 80 percent of their land for native species.

“This is a good illustration of the stark contradictions at play within Brazil’s business-friendly and conservation-minded policy circles,” said Christian Poirier, Brazil program coordinator for Amazon Watch. Nascent projects such as the town of Lucas’s initiative, he said, are “threatened by forces that seek to dilute the code and by extension dilute Brazil’s commitments to reduce emissions going into Copenhagen.”

But there are communities in Brazil where farmers and ranchers are working with environmentalists to implement projects balancing development with environmental conservation.

They are driven by a new reality: buyers of agricultural products, from soybeans to meat, increasingly require producers to certify environmentally friendly practices. Lucas farmers, who sell to multinational giants such as Cargill and Bunge, were quick to understand.

“Farmers there, like farmers anywhere, are quite conservative — they are not environmental angels,” said Cleary of the Nature Conservancy. “But they move when they feel it’s in their interest to move.”

Among the first to take heed in Lucas was Marino Franz, who like many farmers here migrated north from Brazil’s more populous south.

He arrived in 1980 and scraped by as a field hand. Today, he has a 25,000-acre spread and owns a plant that refines soybeans into ethanol. He is also the mayor.

“I noticed the concerns European consumers had regarding the environment,” Franz said. “They were worried about soy imported from Brazil.”

Lucas officials reacted by joining with the Nature Conservancy to develop a proposal to bring farmers in line with forest code regulations, which were rarely observed here and elsewhere in Brazil.

In this region, once a mosaic of savannahs and forests, farmers have to set aside about 35 percent of their land for native vegetation. As an alternative, they can pay to protect unspoiled woodlands far from their state as compensation for past deforestation, an option several farmers said they prefer because of the challenges and costs of replanting trees.

Luciane Bertinatto Copetti, the town’s agriculture and environmental secretary, said authorities first mapped the region’s 670 farms using satellite imagery and then met with each property owner. Those farmers, she said, have collectively agreed to participate in the replanting effort, which began a few months ago.

That farmers would even consider such a proposal — which offers no financial assistance — until recently would have seemed preposterous in a state of hardy individualists.

Barely a generation ago, settlers came here to Mato Grosso, which literally means “thick brush,” encouraged by the government, which offered low-interest loans and cheap land. Many struggled, living in tents and toiling in oven-hot fields, far from railway lines and paved roads.

“When we arrived here, there were no laws so there were no instructions from government institutions,” said Bortolini, the farmer. “Each one did whatever he thought he could do.”

Today, Mato Grosso is an agricultural powerhouse, and Lucas is one of its most prosperous towns.

The population in town hovers above 50,000, twice what it was in 2000, and 485 businesses opened this year. In a way, Lucas could be mistaken for any American farm town — big, wide streets, mom-and-pop stores, new public schools and dealerships selling John Deere tractors.

Among the first farmers to start replanting was Darci Eichelt, 45, who took up here in 1986.

On a recent morning, he drove his pickup truck along a dirt road through green fields of soybeans. He stopped and walked to a clump of trees. A year ago, they were about three feet tall, he said. Now, some have reached 10 feet.

“Can you imagine all this in 10 years?” he said. “It’s going to be beautiful.”

 

<!–[if gte mso 10]>

Abbas:

At the website page located at: http://www.expertlawfirm.com/criminal_defense/burglary.html

Please replace the existing content at that site with the following:

Burglary Attorneys and Burglary Lawyers in Southern California

Robert Miller and Associates attorneys have experience in handling burglary cases in Southern California. If you or someone you know has been charged in Southern California with burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, felony theft, or possession of burglary tools, we can help.

Under the law, California Penal Code section 459, burglary is committed when entering a building with the specific intent to steal something or commit a felony. All the State needs to prove is that you had the intent to steal something or commit a felony when entering a building. The prosecution does not have to prove

that you actually stole something or committed a felony.

For example, you could be found guilty of burglary for entering a building with the intent of vandalizing it. You could also be found guilty of burglary even if there was no evidence that you stole property if the State can prove you had the intent to steal something when you entered the building.

There are two types of burglary under California law:

• First degree burglary, which is always a felony and a strike; and
• Second degree burglary, which can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony and is not a strike.

First degree burglary happens when a burglary is alleged to have been committed in an inhabited dwelling (i.e. a home). The penalties for this crime, under the statute, can be probation, two years, four years or six years in state prison. (Note that when you are granted probation this means you could serve no time or get up to 365 days in county jail as a condition of your probation, along with other terms). If probation is denied then you are sent to state prison for a minimum of two years to a maximum of six years.

Moreover, residential burglary is always a ‘strike.’ When you have a strike, you must serve 85 percent of any jail or prison sentence. Strikes also have potentially immense ramifications if future felonies are committed. If another felony is committed by a person with one strike, he/she will serve no less than 80 percent of any jail or prison time and the potential prison sentence will be doubled. For example, if you have a prior residential burglary and then get another residential burglary, your maximum sentence doubles from six years to twelve years. If you have two strikes and commit any type of future felony you can spend the remainder of your life in prison (three strikes and you are out for the rest of your life!).

In sum, first degree burglary or residential burglary are serious criminal charges. Moreover, the District Attorney and the courts are very protective of homes, and will, in most cases, want actual incarceration,  when someone has been charged with burglarizing a home. Therefore, Miller and Associates criminal defense attorneys will always try to reduce the first degree burglary charge to the much less serious commercial or second degree burglary to avoid potential jail time in these types of cases.

Second degree burglary is any burglary that does not take place in an inhabited dwelling place, commonly called commercial burglary. Commercial burglary usually takes place in businesses. You can be charged with commercial burglary when you have the specific intent to steal something from a store when you walk in the door. Typically, commercial burglaries will be charged as misdemeanors when the value of the property taken is less than $400.00. If the value is over $400.00, then the burglaries will be charged as felonies. So, you can be charged for misdemeanor commercial burglary when stealing something as little as a pack of gum. The maximum penalty for misdemeanor commercial burglary is one year in the county jail, although the penalties are often much less. If the value of the property is over $400.00, you will most likely be charged with a felony.  However, Miller and Associates can reduce the felony to a misdemeanor in some cases. The penalties for felony commercial burglary can be probation (up to one year in the county jail) or 16 months, two years or three years in prison. Since commercial burglary is not a strike people will be allowed to serve just 50 percent of any prison sentence.

The Key Issue for Burglary is Intent

Can the State prove that there was an intent to steal? If the State can’t prove intent to steal, then charges will most likely be dismissed or the defendant will be found not guilty at trial. If the State has problems with proving intent to steal, then the case can be dismissed or settled for reduced charges with potentially zero jail or prison time.

If intent to steal can be easily proven by the evidence, then there is still hope to avoid any actual jail time. The key factor in this case is to show remorse and to pay back Full Restitution to the victim(s). What was taken must be given back or paid for by the defendant in order to get a reduced punishment and hopefully reduced charges as well.

Other key factors to consider in these cases are whether the defendant has a prior criminal record for theft. If the defendant has a prior record for theft, especially burglaries, punishment will typically be more severe. If there is no prior record, then punishment can be greatly reduced. Miller and Associates gets probation for the vast majority of its clients; with probation comes the opportunity to have community service, home arrest, or work project as opposed to actual jail time.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for burglary, get professional representation from an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights by contacting our firm.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Brazil celebrates 45% reduction in Amazon deforestation (guardian.co.uk)
• Massive blackout leaves Brazil on edge (nationalpost.com)
• Why Going Green – and the Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen – Matter Now More than Ever (takepart.com)
• By Degrees: Paying to Keep Trees Up in Brazil (nytimes.com)

Why did Thomas Friedman visit Brazil?

(A note from Robert:  During this month we are promoting our Brazil contest, we present the following story from redd-monitor.org).

Why did Conservation International invite Thomas Friedman to go to Brazil? By Chris Lang, 12th November 2009  Friedman  Thomas Friedman’s most recent column for the New York Times comes from Tapajós National Forest, Brazil. His trip was organised by Conservation International and the Brazilian government (Friedman doesn’t say who paid). Conservation International could not have chosen a better journalist to back up their pro-carbon market ideology. Friedman, author of The World is Flat and Hot, Flat and Crowded, firmly believes that markets are the solution, regardless of the question. Even better, Friedman is incapable of putting forward an argument. He doesn’t even try. He simply makes statements and assumes that because he’s made them they must be true. His latest offering “Trucks, Trains and Trees“, reveals his genius for taking a complex issue and rendering it as complete gobbledygook.  Friedman’s story is straightforward enough: Man flies from the USA to the Brazilian rainforest. The rainforest is full of trees. Saving the rainforest will allow man to continue flying.  Matt Taibbi, the journalist who recently described Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid“, points out that Friedman doesn’t actually do anything except write books and newspaper columns. “So in my mind it’s highly relevant if his manner of speaking is fucked,” Taibbi writes. Taibbi has taken apart Thomas Friedman’s manner of speaking on several (very entertaining) occasions.  “No matter how many times you hear them, there are some statistics that just bowl you over,” Friedman starts his article. The statistic he’s talking about is the “roughly 17 per cent” of global emissions coming from deforestation. That statistic doesn’t bowl me over. It became a cliché several years ago. Clearly, Friedman hasn’t heard this statistic very often, which perhaps indicates how much research Friedman did before writing this article. Last week, Friedman’s friends at Conservation International signed a statement that states “The best current estimate would be about 15% if peat degradation is included.” Without peat degradation (Friedman does not mention peat in his article) the figure is more like 12%.  Friedman continues:      “It is going to be a long time before we transform the world’s transportation fleet so it is emission-free. But right now — like tomorrow — we could eliminate 17 percent of all global emissions if we could halt the cutting and burning of tropical forests.”  To Friedman, then, “right now” is the same as “like tomorrow”. Perhaps he’s never had to negotiate with a five year old child who is threatening to throw his wallet down the toilet. Otherwise he would recognise the difference between “Give me the wallet, right now” and “Give me the wallet, like tomorrow”.  Friedman can see no way to change the world’s transportation fleet overnight, so he suggests we forget that inconvenient source of emissions. But stopping deforestation? Easy. So why don’t we do it “right now – like tomorrow”?  In the next sentence Friedman explains what we have to do to stop all deforestation:      “to do that requires putting in place a whole new system of economic development — one that makes it more profitable for the poorer, forest-rich nations to preserve and manage their trees rather than to chop them down to make furniture or plant soybeans.”  So all we need is a “whole new system of economic development”. Why didn’t Friedman tell us how to stop deforestation decades ago? Friedman, the great proponent of globalisation and neo-liberalism, has gone anti-capitalist. No really. Here’s what he says next: “Without a new system for economic development in the timber-rich tropics, you can kiss the rainforests goodbye. The old model of economic growth will devour them.”  The genius of Friedman is that just as we’re trying to wrap our heads around whatever it is he’s talking about, he throws a Friedmanism at us. “The only Amazon your grandchildren will ever relate to is the one that ends in dot-com and sells books.”  I suspect that the vast majority of the grandchildren of readers of the New York Times relate to the Amazon rainforest through books, TV programmes and the internet. Most of them will not be invited by Conservation International to fly there. How does anyone “relate to” an ecosystem covering 5.5 million square kilometres in nine countries? What is Friedman talking about?  Taibbi makes fun of Friedman’s ability to screw up, not sometimes, but always: “He has an anti-ear, and it’s absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius.” Taibbi’s right. Why on earth did Friedman add the words “and sells books” to the end of his sentence about the Amazon? How many readers of the New York Times don’t know that the website Amazon-dot-com sells books?  Friedman tells us he’s gone to Brazil “to better understand this issue”. But Friedman writes by talking to himself. Here he is flying over the Amazon:      “Flying in here by prop plane from Manaus, you can understand why the Amazon rainforest is considered one of the lungs of the world. Even from 20,000 feet, all you see in every direction is an unbroken expanse of rainforest treetops that, from the air, looks like a vast and endless carpet of broccoli.”  Who considers the Amazon rainforest “one of the lungs of the world”? Friedman isn’t telling. Trust me, Friedman says, if you flew over the Amazon, then you too would know why the Amazon is considered to be one of the lungs of the world.  But if the Amazon is one of the lungs, where is the other one? The Congo, Indonesia, Siberia, Canada? How much forest do you need before it becomes a lung? How many lungs does the world have?  Friedman tells us he flew over “an unbroken expanse of rainforest treetops”. Crikey. What did Friedman expect to see while flying above the biggest area of rainforest in the world other than treetops? Skyscapers? Spaghetti junction? The Star Ship Enterprise?  The combination of “vast and endless” is another Friedmanism. The Amazon is vast, but it is not endless. If Friedman thinks it’s endless, that’s because he’s forgotten that when his plane took off from the USA, he was not in the Amazon rainforest.  Here’s what Friedman learned when his plane landed (he doesn’t tell us how the plane got through the unbroken expanse of treetops, or the endless carpet of broccoli, but apparently it did):      “What you learn when you visit with a tiny Brazilian community that actually lives in, and off, the forest is a simple but crucial truth: To save an ecosystem of nature, you need an ecosystem of markets and governance.”  Friedman doesn’t tell us what he saw or heard in the community to reach this conclusion, apart from one villager who told him “We were born inside the forest. So we know the importance of it being preserved, but we need better access to global markets for the products we make here. Can you help us with that?” (That, incidentally, is the only quotation in the article from anyone living in the Amazon.)  Friedman does not explain what on earth he’s talking about when he says “an ecosystem of markets and governance.” Perhaps this is the “new system for economic development” that he mentioned earlier on. José María Silva, vice president for South America of Conservation International, tells Friedman that “You need a new model of economic development — one that is based on raising people’s standards of living by maintaining their natural capital, not just by converting that natural capital to ranching or industrial farming or logging.” So now we have Friedman and Conservation International saying the same thing about economic development. On planet Friedman, that makes it true. No need for anything pesky like arguments or evidence.  Friedman tells us that “Brazil has already set aside 43 percent of the Amazon rainforest for conservation and for indigenous peoples. Another 19 percent of the Amazon, though, has already been deforested by farmers and ranchers.” He doesn’t tell us where those numbers come from, he just tells us that 38% of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest is still “up for grabs”.  Then Friedman reveals that he’s not gone anti-capitalist after all. In fact, his “whole new system of economic development” looks a lot like CO2lonialism:      “The more we get the Brazilian system to work, the more of that 38 percent will be preserved and the less carbon reductions the whole world would have to make. But it takes money.”  This, then, is Friedman’s solution. Brazil has to stop deforestation so that the rest of the world can carry on polluting.      [W]e need to make sure that whatever energy-climate bill comes out of the U.S. Congress, and whatever framework comes out of the Copenhagen conference next month, they include provisions for financing rainforest conservation systems like those in Brazil. The last 38 percent of the Amazon is still up for grabs. It is there for us to save. Your grandchildren will thank you.  Needless to say, Friedman doesn’t explain how “we” are supposed to influence the U.S. energy-climate bill or the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Or what “we” are supposed to do to “save” the 38 per cent of the Brazilian Amazon that is “still up for grabs”.  Trading forest carbon, which seems to be what Friedman is proposing as a solution (although not explicitly), would create a vast loophole allowing business as usual (at least for the countries and corporations that can afford to buy the carbon credits – the same countries and corporations that created the climate problem in the first place).  On planet Friedman, as long as the “vast and endless carpet of broccoli” is still there, there’s no need to “transform the world’s transportation fleet so it is emission-free”. And on planet Friedman there’s no meaningful discussion of the issues involved. Presumably that’s why Conservation International invited Friedman to go to Brazil.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Modern model of economic growth is devouring world’s rain forests (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Friedman, Zakaria, and Gergen all Converge on SMU Campus for 2009 Tate (smudailymustang.com)
• Friday Face-Offs: “Kids” – 4th Place (hermenaut.org)

Brazil gets the Olympics – but what does it mean for biodiversity?

Image via Wikipedia

Note:  Our blog’s contest, for a chance to win photographs of Brazil, starts November 15th.

You don’t normally associate biodiversity and conservation with cities, but Rio de Janeiro is an exception. Its extraordinary topography means steep hill slopes and mountainsides are still forested: not the least of the issues associated with the growth of favelas, Rio’s hillside slums, is that their expansion corrodes this green mantle.

Rio’s forests are a remnant of the Atlantic Forest that once covered most of coastal Brazil and stretched as far inland as Paraguay. Only 7 percent is left, making it much more threatened than the Amazon and even more biodiverse, since the surviving fragments act as refuge areas for species that once had much wider ranges. This makes what survives of the Atlantic Forest extraordinarily important. One of Latin America‘s oldest national parks, Tijuca National Forest, sits entirely within the city’s boundaries, a natural treasure greater than any of its beaches. What does the Olympics mean to all this? In short, a mixed bag.

There will be big environmental benefits. The thing that first strikes visitors arriving at Rio’s international airport, after the dilapidation of the airport itself, is the stench when you step outside the terminal. This toxic olfactory cocktail comes from the chemical plants and oil refineries that line Guanabara Bay, together with the sewage produced by the 5 million inhabitants of the Zona Norte, where tourists never go but half of Rio’s population lives. Gagging on your way into town is an appropriate introduction to the contradictions produced by our glamorous international profile.

With the eyes – and, more to the point, the noses – of the world upon us, something will finally be done: serious sewage treatment and pollution control is coming. Maybe by 2016, for the first time in generations, it will even be possible to swim in the bay. One shudders to think what will happen to the yachting crews otherwise.

But beyond the bay, things are more ambiguous. The coming construction boom will provide alternative employment to the young men in the favelas who would otherwise move into our biggest growth industry after oil: narcotrafico. This boom will tamp down violence from criminals and the police (there’s a big overlap between the two). The easy headlines about the risks posed by violence in Rio are misleading: nobody, from the drug lords down, has any interest in choking off the multidimensional bonanza the Olympics promises to be.

And therein lies a problem: after having been stable for 20 years, the city’s population is likely to jump again as the boom attracts migrants from all over Brazil, which means expanding favelas and more human pressure on that precious Atlantic Forest.

This will be most acute in the southern beachside neighborhoods of Barra, Recreio and Vargem Grande, which were booming for years even before the Olympics. Many of the new sporting facilities in Rio’s bid, including the Olympic village, will be built here. As recently as the 1970s this area was still largely undeveloped, the stupendous beach of Barra fringing an unspoiled expanse of mangroves, coves and headlands ending in Barra da Sepetiba, a scalloped and shifting promontory of dunes and beaches pointing 12 miles into the Atlantic and the glorious (now rapidly overdeveloping) coastline south of Rio.

This oasis of nature so close to a megacity couldn’t last. From the late 1970s, a gigantic real estate boom saw Barra transformed into a depressingly Americanized complex of malls, highways, condominiums and apartment blocks. As the only reasonably flat area with land available anywhere in the city, it was inevitable this area would be earmarked for Olympic development, but the key issue is what impact this will have on the coast’s surprisingly strong zoning and development controls.

Rio’s governments, appalling as they often are, occasionally get some things spectacularly right – the 40 percent drop in driving deaths since a well-enforced ban on alcohol and driving began last year is a current example. In the late 1990s, in the nick of time, a municipal park called Prainha put the coast immediately south of the real estate boom off limits to developers, preserving the two stunning beaches of Prainha and Grumari and linking them up to the still pristine coastline around and including Barra da Sepetiba, long preserved by the Brazilian Navy, to whom the promontory belongs. Ironically, a few months before the success of the Olympic bid, the developers had managed to get the zoning laws in Prainha relaxed. Now, with blood already in the water, the level of development is about to spiral. It could well spiral out of control – and if it does, the last piece of properly preserved coastline within the city’s boundaries will go.

Those of us who know and love Rio feel torn. On the one hand, there’s no denying this is a great city with a great talent for spectacle, and it has all the potential to stage a great world event like the Olympics, perhaps more memorably than has ever been done before. But Rio is a memorable place in other, less positive ways. Many local politicians would shock even Tony Soprano, and their corruption and incompetence has mismanaged the city into the ground. Many of its well-known problems are directly traceable to the city’s dreadful politics. With Brazil’s international image on the line, the federal government may have to step in.

The stakes for Rio’s environment are even higher. An image taking a hit is, in the final analysis, a trivial thing – but once a coast or a forest goes, it almost never comes back. Fingers crossed.

Full disclosure – I was asked to participate in our Brazil contest by the public relations firm for the Brazilian Tourism Board.  No compensation was made to me.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rio 2016 (americablog.com)
• I.H.T. Special Report: Business Travel: An Influx of Business Wealth in Rio (nytimes.com)
• You: ‘Villain’ of Brazil-Paraguay war ‘was misunderstood’ (guardian.co.uk)

Brazil takes the lead in climate change policies

Note:  You can enter our Brazil travel contest starting November 15th, at the following link:  http://ecoadventuretravel.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/its-here-the-brazil-contest/

As reported by Nature, the nation of Brazil appears poised to give the rest of the world a primer in what climate leadership looks like, which should come in handy in inspiring other nations to step up and follow suit when the time comes to roll up their sleeves and get some real work done.

Brazil has already made major strides in addressing rates of deforestation in the Amazon basin, and the current news Nature delivers is that it is setting sights squarely on its greenhouse gas emissions as we approach COP15. Nature describes the still-developing, not officially announced initiatives reportedly being pieced together by the Brazilian government as “the most significant step yet by a developing country going into December’s United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.”

The primary source of excitement surrounding Brazil’s nascent initiative is its apparent intent to leap well over the bar set for it as a developing nation. Current climate change constructs leave for fully industrialized nations the challenge of capping and reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, while developing nations are encouraged to reduce the growth in their greenhouse gas emissions, and to work toward low- and no-carbon technologies as they are able and as such greener technologies are supported directly by wealthier nations.

Nature reports that Brazil is mulling over a comprehensive program that will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a full third from projected 2020 levels, which would represent a nearly 10 percent drop from 2007 emissions.

Details are reportedly under discussion by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his cabinet this week, with the possibility for an official policy statement or proposal set to appear over the next few days.

It’s here – the Brazil Contest

A few months ago, as some of the more loyal readers know, I was contacted on behalf of EMBRATUR, the Brazilian Tourism Board, about a potential contest or giveaway on the Eco Tourism Blog, based on my prior posts about destinations and sustainable activities, so I thought this may be of interest.

To spread the word about Brazil’s natural beauty, I partnered with the public relations firm representing EMBRATUR, to give away signed and framed photographs of the Brazilian Amazon by award-winning photojournalist Peter Guttman to my readers. A magazine reviewer recently proclaimed, “View the world through Peter Guttman’s eyes once and chances are you’ll want to wear those glasses for the rest of your life.”  The photos available were displayed as part of the annual meetings at the United Nations last year.

Here’s photos I took of the beautifully (and solidly) framed, heavy, high gloss photo:

Here are the contest rules:

The contest starts November 15th, 2009.  I am asking readers to write in with their best adventure or outdoor vacation memory, experiences with South American travel or the one place they’ve always wanted to travel to in the world.

I only accept submissions on the blog itself, which means you’ll need to register.  (Registration is free, and I take your privacy seriously.  Your email will never be used for any other purpose than to contact you, and will never, ever, be sold to anyone).

The contest ends at midnight PST on December 15, 2009, and I’ll promptly ship the photographs out immediately.

For your reference, the value of each photo is about $800, and they are professionally framed, 16- by 24-inch photos.

Facts about the Amazon

-          Sixty percent of the Amazon rainforest is contained within Brazil.

-          The Amazon welcomed nearly 500,000 tourists in 2008

-          The Amazon represents more than half of the planet’s remaining rainforests and comprises the largest and most species-rich tract of tropical rainforest in the world.

-          The Amazon boasts 324 mammals, 2,500 species of fish and 1,800 different species of birds.

-          The Amazon is in the running to be one of the New Seven Wonders of Nature and can be voted for online at http://www.new7wonders.com/.

Good luck to you!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tuesday Travel Trivia (Week 53): Now with awesome prizes! (gadling.com)
• Gisele Bundchen UN Ambassador: Takes On Brazil President Over Amazon (huffingtonpost.com)
• Press Release: Scorpions – Amazonia: Live In The Jungle DVD (2009) artwork & release dates announced (heavymetaladdiction.com)
• Ecosystem erosion quickening, scientists say (cbc.ca)

Facts about the Amazon

Image via Wikipedia

I thought it might be fun to visit some facts about an amazing river — The Amazon.

Facts about the Amazon

- Sixty percent of the Amazon rainforest is contained within Brazil.

- The Amazon welcomed nearly 500,000 tourists in 2008

- The Amazon represents more than half of the planet’s remaining rainforests and comprises the largest and most species-rich tract of tropical rainforest in the world.

- The Amazon boasts 324 mammals, 2,500 species of fish and 1,800 different species of birds.

- The Amazon is in the running to be one of the New Seven Wonders of Nature and can be voted for online at http://www.new7wonders.com/.

Look for some exciting news in our blog coming up soon…!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Amazon Deforestation Drops 46% In One Year (treehugger.com)
• Deforestation of the Amazon from 2000-2008 (neatorama.com)
• Explorers discover ‘lost world’ in Papua New Guinea (gadling.com)
• Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford’s Forgotten Jungle City (takepart.com)
• Homeworking (crossword) : English (ukscams.co.uk)