"The total number (of bird species) considered to be threatened with extinction is now 1,212, which when combined with the number of near threatened species gives a total of exactly 2,000 species in trouble–more than a fifth of the planet’s remaining 9,775 species," BirdLife recently reported. The 1,212 figure represents 10 more species than were on the list last year.

That said, the organization also reported some good news: five bird species have been downlisted from endangered to threatened status, meaning their populations have begun to rebound. One such example is Kirtland’s Warbler, a small and brightly colored songbird whose limited range makes it particularly sensitive to even a slightly warming climate.

"This is a credit to the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others, who have brought this species back from the brink of extinction," said BirdLife’s Stuart Butchart. "Today, there are more than 1,200 Kirtland’s Warblers, from a low-point of 167 in the 1970s, so its future certainly looks rosier."

The Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament strongly welcomed the adoption today of a report on energy efficiency that included mandatory targets for energy savings, and urged the Council to also endorse such targets.

Speaking immediately after the vote took place in Strasbourg, Greens/EFA Group energy coordinator and MEP for Luxembourg, Claude Turmes, said:
"The EU is facing an energy crisis. But more importantly our planet’s entire climate system is at stake. With today’s vote, all of the Parliament’s political families demonstrated the importance of putting efficiency at the heart of European energy and climate policy."

The European Commission conservatively estimates that, ?without reducing comfort or standards of living, it is possible to reduce energy consumption by at least one-fifth at no extra net cost ? and in many cases negative costs?. The technical potential could be as high as 40%. The Parliament, in its vote today, requires member states to save, on average 1% of its final energy consumpt?on in the next three years. This increases to an average obligatory target of 1.3% for period 2009-2012, and 1.5% for 2012-2015.

Commenting on the targets, Turmes added:
"While we warmly welcome the results of the Parliament’s vote in favour of targets, we believe that there is huge existing energy efficiency potential still untapped. Although I am disappointed that MEPs did not follow our Group’s more ambitious proposals, we strongly call on the Council to stop simply paying lip-service and join us in adopting these obligatory targets."

"Saving energy is a win-win situation. It addresses climate change and the security of energy supply. It helps to create jobs and boosts innovation and the transfer of technologies. We should challenge the Council, and the EU Presidency, to understand these benefits and move towards ambitious mandatory energy saving targets."

President’s George Bush’s decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world’s most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.

The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month’s G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy.

In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company’s "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.

Other papers suggest that Ms Dobriansky should sound out Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on potential alternatives to Kyoto.

Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the US government’s rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under US freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case.

"Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition]," says one briefing note before Ms Dobriansky’s meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto US industry group, which was dominated by Exxon.

The papers?further state that the White House considered Exxon "among the companies most actively and prominently opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse gas emissions".

But in evidence to the UK House of Lords science and technology committee in 2003, Exxon’s head of public affairs, Nick Thomas, said: "I think we can say categorically we have not campaigned with the United States government or any other government to take any sort of position over Kyoto."

Exxon, officially the US’s most valuable company valued at $379bn (206bn) earlier this year, is seen in the papers to share the White House’s unwavering scepticism of international efforts to address climate change.

The documents, which reflect unanimity between the company and the US administration on the need for more global warming science and the unacceptable costs of Kyoto, state that Exxon believes that joining Kyoto "would be unjustifiably drastic and premature".

This line has been taken consistently by President Bush, and was expected to be continued in yesterday’s talks with Tony Blair who has said that climate change is "the most pressing issue facing mankind".

"President Bush tells Mr Blair he’s concerned about climate change, but these documents reveal the alarming truth, that policy in this White House is being written by the world’s most powerful oil company. This administration’s climate policy is a menace to humanity," said Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace’s executive director in London last night.

"The prime minister needs to tell Mr Bush he’s calling in some favours. Only by securing mandatory cuts in US emissions can Blair live up to his rhetoric," said Mr Tindale.

In other meetings documented in the papers, Ms Dobriansky meets Don Pearlman, an international anti-Kyoto lobbyist who has been a paid adviser to the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, both of which have followed the US line against Kyoto.

The purpose of the meeting with Mr Pearlman, who also represents the secretive anti-Kyoto Climate Council, which the administration says "works against most US government efforts to address climate change", is said to be to "solicit [his] views as part of our dialogue with friends and allies".

ExxonMobil, which was yesterday contacted by the Guardian in the US but did not return calls, is spending millions of pounds on an advertising campaign aimed at influencing politicians, opinion formers and business leaders in the UK and other pro-Kyoto countries in the weeks before the G8 meeting at Gleneagles.

Linking the nation’s uranium exports to international strategies to combat global warming, the Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has revealed politically contentious plans to boost Australia’s uranium exports.
Any sales would have to meet rules that the radioactive material only be used for civilian projects under the gaze of the international atomic energy watchdog and could not be re-exported.

"Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are also considering the possibility of nuclear power. These countries could become markets for Australian uranium, provided bilateral safeguards agreements were concluded with them," he says.

The Foreign Minister has used a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the strategic importance of uranium resources to confirm Australia remains committed to exporting uranium to China.

Any exports would be under a safeguards agreement, and to give strong and unqualified endorsement to nuclear energy as a legitimate tool to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

"Nuclear energy can be expected to have an important place in meeting future energy needs over the next few decades," Mr Downer says.

"From this, it is apparent that Australia’s uranium holdings are an internationally strategic resource which can only grow in significance.

"Since the whole world stands to benefit from the important issue of global warming, including through policies which give a significant place to nuclear energy, then development of this strategic resource is clearly consistent with our national and international interests."

Mr Downer’s submission puts no caveats on the idea of developing a nuclear power industry in Australia. But last night, Mr Downer’s office denied that his comments represented broad-ranging endorsement for a nuclear power industry for Australia.

"His comments were expressed in the context of developments in the global industry," Mr Downer’s spokesman said.

Mr Downer’s strong endorsement of expanding the uranium sector in Australia backs other bullish comments in recent times from the Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and the Finance Minister Nick Minchin.

Labor is also shifting ground on the issue of uranium mining, with pressure from the South Australian Government to scrap the 20-year-old three-mines policy which restricts uranium production to only three sites.

Labor’s leader Kim Beazley and resources spokesman Martin Ferguson have endorsed the Government’s plans to export uranium to China.

The mining sector is using the current parliamentary inquiry to run a strong campaign to scrap the state bans on uranium mining and to create a nationally consistent framework to allow Australia to chase high world prices.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which runs Australia’s only nu?lear reactor, has also told the inquiry that exporting uranium helps deal with global warming.

"Because nuclear power emits virtually no greenhouse gases, Australia’s uranium exports reduce global greenhouse gas emissions at the present time," ANSTO says.

"Further development and export of uranium will prevent additional emissions of greenhouse gases if used in new nuclear plants," it says.

Environmental policy integration (E?I) involves a continual process to ensure environmental issues are reflected in all policymaking. This generally demands changes in political, organisational and procedural activities, so that environmental issues are taken on board as early as possible and continuing during implementation. The product of EPI should be an overall improvement in policy and its implementation, in line with sustainable development needs.

[url=http://reports.eea.eu.int/technical_report_2005_2/en/Tech_2_2005_web.pdf]Download Reporta (*.pdf 1367 KB) [/url]

Green Week 2005 will look at all aspects of climate change and in particular at the human factor. Our way of life, production, consumption and transport need to change if we want to halt global warming.

Green Week encourages everyone to "think aloud" about how we can all change our environmental behaviour. It is aimed at local, regional and national decision-makers, businesses, non-governmental organisations and the general public. DG Environment will bring stakeholders and experts together to provide the Commission with the knowledge and views to help us further develop effective climate change policies.

In addition to a programme of conferences Green Week also has an exhibition with stands featuring best practices, projects and partnerships.

This year the intention is to make Green Week a carbon-neutral event, meaning that the activities associated with it will not contribute to climate change. As in previous years, efforts to minimise Green Week’s other environmental impacts will continue.
Help promote Green Week! Please send this website link to friends and colleagues.

? L?idée n?est pas d?être radical, mais d?aller vers plus de modération �, explique Nicolas Hulot, qui espère bien que son initiative créera un ? élan citoyen � et montrera que ? les gens sont prêts à s?engager �. Partant du constat que 50 % des émissions le gaz à effet de serre en France sont dues aux activités des particuliers, l?opération convie chacun à signer un ? pacte � à travers lequel il s?engage à opter pour une série d?actions respectueuses de l?environnement : trier ses déchets, éviter les emballages inutiles, éteindre les appareils électriques plutôt que de les laisser en veille, privilégier la marche à pied pour les déplacements courts, etc. Les volontaires peuvent s?inscrire au projet, via Internet ou par courrier, auprès de la Fondation Nicolas Hulot. L?Agence de l?environnement et de la maîtrise de l?énergie comptabilisera, en établissant une moyenne, les tonnes de CO2 qui auront été évitées grâce à ces mesures.

Figures released last week showed deforestation of the Amazon rainforest reached the second-highest level on record in 2003-2004 — an area of 26,130 square km (10,088 sq miles), driven by logging, ranching and farming interests.
Greenpeace nominated Lula, his chief of staff Jose Dirceu, Finance Minister Antonio Palocci, Agriculture Minister Roberto Rodrigues, Mato Grosso state Governor Blairo Maggi and Para state Governor Simao Jatene.

The prize will be given to "the Brazilian personality whose action or inaction were decisive in the incredible levels of deforestation in the Amazon," a Greenpeace statement said.

The concerned public can vote online (www.greenpeace.org.br/motoserra/) while environmental activists and journalists will make a "critics’ choice". The winner, to be announced on June 6, will be awarded a statue made from illegally logged wood.

"It’s a very difficult choice. All six are strong candidates," Paulo Adario, Greenpeace’s Amazon coordinator, told Reuters.

Activists say the government promotion of an agricultural boom has encouraged the pillage of the Amazon while its environmental protection efforts have been ineffective.

Mato Grosso state saw the most deforestation in 2003-2004 and Governor Maggi is known as "the Soy King" for his vast farming em?ire there. Para state leads the way in killings and other violence linked to land disputes.