(Reuters) - A court in Ecuador has rejected an order by arbitrators that an $18 billion pollution ruling against Chevron should be frozen, but the judges referred an appeal by the U.S. oil company to the country’s Supreme Court.

A year after the landmark decision against Chevron, a panel working for The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration told Ecuador last week to take all necessary measures to suspend enforcement of the award at home and abroad. But in a ruling made public on Monday, the court that has been considering the case in the remote Amazon jungle region of Sucumbios said Ecuador should not comply with that order.

“A simple arbitral award … cannot force judges to infringe the human rights of our citizens,” said the court, adding that abiding by the panel’s order would be unconstitutional and would lead to the breach of international human rights conventions.

The court said it had accepted an appeal filed by Chevron, however, and referred it to the Supreme Court in the clearest sign yet that the litigation, which has already run nearly 20 years, could drag on for more years. The plaintiffs say The Hague panel’s ruling will not affect their plans to collect on the $18 billion award in other countries where Chevron has assets.

Read the rest at Reuters

This mostly covers carbon, but you may find it interesting: 

Register here

Industry written bill protects farmers who illegally logged rainforest prior to 2008. Rouseff claims she will veto…

“The death of these shamans represents not just a tragic loss of life, but the loss of a huge body of knowledge about rainforest plants and the crucial role shamans play in traditional medicine and spiritual guidance in indigenous communities.”

More from the article:

…the mayor, who is an evangelical Christian, ordered the killings on hearing that the shamans planned to form an association. He said the mayor’s brother was known in the area as a matabrujos or witch killer.

“For Protestant sects, the shamans are possessed by the devil; a totally sectarian, primitive and racist concept,” he said.

Shamans in the Peruvian Amazon use psychoactive plants such as the jungle vine ayahuascafor spiritual ceremonies. As early as the 16th century, Spanish and Portuguese missionaries described its use by native people in the Amazon as the work of the devil.

“Until now the death of 14 curanderos who are the depositaries of Amazon knowledge wasn’t worth the attention of the press,” Rumrrill said. “That’s an expression of how fragmented and racist this country is. A centralised country which continues to look at its interior with total indifference.”

The National Institute for the Development of Andean, Amazonian and Afro-Peruvian Peoples estimates that there are around 330,000 indigenous people in Peru’s Amazon region, about 1% of the country’s population of more than 29 million.

Gregor MacLennan, Peru programme coordinator for the NGO Amazon Watch, said: “The death of these shamans represents not just a tragic loss of life, but the loss of a huge body of knowledge about rainforest plants and the crucial role shamans play in traditional medicine and spiritual guidance in indigenous communities.”

It’s the hypocrite’s dilemma - how do first world developed countries convince developing countries not to ruin their environments, while continuing to ruin their own? It’s a really interesting question to me, especially when I engage heavy thinkers of environmentalism. Should children in, say, rural China have the same opportunities as I do? If yes, then how, without burning massive fossil fuels? 

Idealists are challenged by this notion - solar, buy local, eat more veggies, etc., offer very little if anything by way of full-scale, effective economic development strategies. The occasional, short-term, small-scale project offers hope and educational opportunities, but they’re not remotely making a difference with respect to lowering GHGs. Recall my recent post that nations are burning more fossil fuels faster than ever, despite the dearth of so-called green policies in developed nations. See, IEA: Highest carbon emissions ever recorded.

I understand that this is not an easy pill to swallow. It’s saddens me when I discuss with energized friends (just to take one example) that buying local increases ghgs (one of many studies).

Reality is that fossil fuels will be burned exponentially. A good chunk of the Amazon is going to be chopped down, like it or not. And the result is that developing countries will become richer, faster. Switching to full blown carbon economies are the only proven way to develop nations, improve health, and end poverty at scales that matter.

The hypocrite’s dilemma is coming to the fore. McKibben unwittingly demonstrates this when he asks, How can the U.S. can become energy independent without scraping away boreal forests?  

The problem? If you could somehow burn all the oil in Alberta overnight (which, thank God, you can’t) Hansen’s team calculates it would raise the planet’s concentration of CO2 by 200 parts per million — that is, our current 390 parts per million would become almost 600 parts per million, a level not seen since the Miocene Era, about 25 million years ago. But, forgetting the overnight scenario, even just bringing the tar sands steadily online — adding a big new stream of carbon to the atmosphere — would make the already hugely difficult job of phasing out emissions essentially impossible. As Hansen wrote in early June in a letter to fellow scientists, “if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over.” The game, in this case, being the planet.

The answer is that we’re really not interested in changing our lifestyles. 

Source: HuffPo