Why 100 Global Locations Are Highlighted In Photos

While browsing the magazine section at Borders I found a Newsweek Special Edition issue with nature photos. Thinking it was one of those end of the year Favorite Places photo spreads, I picked it up to see where people had traveled last year. One hundred places worldwide, to be exact.


But then the rest of the title rose up on the cover photo of a blue-green volcanic atoll in the Pacific:  “100 Places to Remember Before They Disappear".   

Now, that’s a bold title!  Though I knew pretty quickly that this was related to climate change, my next thought was that mainstream media had actually taken up this scenario. 

Newsweek International had, indeed, published this beautiful magazine from a book and the photo exhibition of the same title. All the photo locations have some probable upcoming fate due to climate change mechanisms. The original photo collection was based on sites noted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change data before the Copenhagen Conference last fall.  

The array of formats that have shown these 100 Places include the traveling photo exhibition, the hardcover book, the website and the newspaper stand magazine.  Check the project for the complete background, as well as the 100 gorgeous photos. The interactive world map is especially insightful.

Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek International Editor, points out that the world sites represented by the photos all take on their own peculiar set of climate change challenges.  Each occupies a “narrow ecological niche.”   Population distributions inherit a variety of climate patterns related to sunlight and rain and winds and temperature.  

The places photographed are not about policy or science.  They are about the people and habitations as we know them and appreciate them now.  They are a reminder that there is a world out there beyond our own daily lives.  Climate change becomes a story about beautiful places to preserve.

As usual, it is up to the “developed” world to make itself aware of cultures and the lands beyond its own.  Ethically, we owe the rest of the world in terms of climate change. 

I am awed that this project has taken off worldwide.  I applaud the courage to reveal places of challenge and the issue of the climate change charge.    

“UNLESS,” said the Lorax.

Short History of UN Involvement In Climate Change

Just what is the history of international cooperation in terms of tackling greenhouse gas build-ups and other global challenges?  


The United Nations, naturally, has taken the lead.  There are four itemized “purposes” for the existence of the UN outlined in its 1945 charter.  Nearly all pertain to health and peace-keeping and cultural respect, but item three mentions specifically, “To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems...”  Indeed, we are now into global health problems which have a good chance of straining peace. What better institution than the UN to pull members to the discussion table.


(The UN, itself, has a wealth of information within its expansive web pages. A few are listed here, but take some time to check through other sections of culture, peace and science.)


After initial concerns from scientists during the ’60’s and ’70’s, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988 to assess climate change.  Their report was published in 1990.


In 1992, environmental summits were held in Rio de Janeiro to address biodiversity, desertification and climate change.


The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change began its work in March of 1994. The participating nations were “encouraged” to sign on to the stipulations and timelines set by this body as regarding greenhouse gases.


The UNFCCC (above) issued a further Protocol in Kyoto in 1997, "committing and legally binding" nations to reduce gas emissions outlined in the previous convention.  The US government made it clear during that period that it would not ratify the Protocol.  Documents and articles of the time indicate why the government, including both the White House and the Senate, conditionally supported Kyoto, but refused to ratify.  


In brief, the US was concerned that “developing” countries were not being held accountable to the extent of the developed world.  (Think about that argument in terms of who created this problem...) The US was very concerned about the implications this treaty would have on our domestic economy.  The Protocol, however, does recognize that developed countries are essentially responsible for most of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally.

Green = Ratified Kyoto Protocol