Feminist Electrification is about Health Care!

Posted on December 13, 2018 by christashute

The United Nations Climate Action Awards were announced on December 11 at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP24). One of the 15 Momentum for Change awards went to EarthSpark International for their work on energy poverty. Globally energy poverty is understood as a lack of access to modern energy services. As I discuss in my October 14 blog, over three billion people rely on wood, charcoal, or dung for cooking resulting in more than 4 million deaths per year from household air pollution. Electrification IS about health.

EarthSpark recognizes this crisis and also the disproportionate affect on women in rural areas. Women tend to be the ones that travel hours and hours per day collecting fuel. They also tend to be the ones tending and breathing these smoky fires for cooking. The EarthSpark winning project has a gender lens they refer to as “feminist electrification.” The projects range from small-scale clean energy projects such as solar lanterns and efficient cooktops to their current project creating 80 community scale microgrids in Haiti to bring electrification to these rural communities. These types of projects help address many of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

There are still 1.2 billion people without access to electricity. 1.2 billion people that can’t refrigerate food, cook on a stove, run a light to read by, or charge a phone to communicate (yes most rural communication is by cell phone). We have an opportunity to leverage today’s technology to bring smart infrastructure to these communities while we equalize gender opportunity. Let’s build it right the first time!

Adaptation and Gender Issues

Posted on December 11, 2018 by Isabelle Blouin

Article 7 of the Paris Agreement sets the global goal of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response to climate change.

Section 7.5 of the Paris Agreement further clarifies that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based, on local knowledge systems, among other things, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions.

Today at COP24, two side events—Advancing Gender Equality through National Adaptation Plan processes: A straightforward consideration or a complex challenge? and The Global Adaptation Goal and the Importance of Gender Transformative Resilience Finance—emphasized that National Adaptation Plan (“NAP”) processes need to be developed and implemented in a gender responsible manner, pursuant to the Paris Agreement.

In 2017-2018, the NAP Global Network prepared a report entitled Towards Gender-Responsive National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Processes: Progress and Recommendations for the Way Forward, in the general context of having a better understanding of how developing countries are integrating gender considerations in the NAP processes (the “NAP Global Network Report”).

In its report, the NAP Global Network reiterated the recent decisions under the UNFCCC that have emphasized the significant linkages between climate action and gender equality (e.g. the 2014 Lima Work Programme on Gender and Climate Change). In 2015-2016, the UNFCCC recognized that the NAP process is an opportunity to integrate gender consideration. More generally, it further highlighted that gender equality is recognized as a universal human right and is at the center of the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030.

It is important that NAP processes integrate socio-cultural issues such as gender in order to be effective. As pointed out by the NAP Global Network Report, work has been done on that front in many countries, but there are still many challenges in order to be able to do so successfully.

More specifically, the Report indicates that many countries have made an effort to integrate gender considerations in their NAP documents. However, certain obstacles in integrating gender issues in adaptation measures exist, such as institutional barriers which can limit dialogue and collaboration between gender and climate adaptation actors; information gaps, including sex-disaggregated data related to climate impacts and adaptation needs; and gender analysis of adaptation options, barriers and opportunities.

The NAP Global Network made a series of recommendations to stakeholders who are called to develop and implement NAPs including:

Committing to a gender-responsive NAP process going forward
Using the NAP process to enhance institutional linkages between climate change adaptation and gender equality
Improving gender balance in NAP-related institutional arrangements
Undertaking gender-balanced and inclusive stakeholder engagement for NAP processes
Using gender analysis and stakeholders’ inputs efficiently

The NAP Global Network Report also underlines that investments in country capacity building on gender adaptation need to be more significant.

The Log-istics of Carbon Dioxide Removal

Posted on November 16, 2018 by torihellwig

Trees are the coolest source of CO2 Removal on the planet.

Trees and vegetation are known to help cool ambient air temperatures through evapotranspiration. If left undisturbed, forests can also be a vital source of carbon storage. Estimates from the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA 2015) show that the world’s forests and other wooded lands store more than 485 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon: 260 Gt in the biomass, 37 Gt in dead wood and litter, and 189 Gt in the soil.

In the most recent IPCC Special Report Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the world’s leading climate scientists assess the pathways the global community can pursue over the next few decades to prevent overshoot of warming beyond 1.5°C. The fact that all pathways to limit global warming to 1.5°C require mitigation via some form of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is not to be overlooked. But these removal amounts vary across pathways, as do the relative contributions of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and removals in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector. BECCS sequestration is projected to range from 0-1, 0-8, and 0-16 GtCO2/yr, in 2030, 2050, and 2100 respectively; the AFOLU-related measures are projected to remove 0-5, 1-11, and 1-5 GtCO2/yr in these years. These contributions appear meager, and they are… but every little bit counts in this climate.

A reasonable argument can be made for increased investment in and use of CCS to achieve emissions reductions. The SPM makes it clear that forests alone won’t be able to make a significant numerical difference in reduction of CO2 from the atmosphere. And as the New York Times aptly points out, “the world is currently much better at cutting down forests than planting new ones.”

On the surface, CCS seems like a logical outgrowth from the nature of GHG emissions production. The IPCC’s Special Report on Climate Capture and Storage (SRCCS) describes CCS as a mitigation activity that separates CO2 from large industrial and energy-related point sources, which has the potential to capture 85-95% of the CO2 processed in a capture plant. Direct Air Capture (DAC) technologies like ClimeWorks remove CO2 from the air. Proponents argue that DAC is a much less land-intensive process than afforestation: Removal of 8 Gt/CO2 would require 6.4 million km² of forested land and 730 km³ of water, while DAC would directly require only 15,800 km² and no water.

However, as our blog has cautioned readers in the past, CCS requires significant financial investments from industry and government and are only regionally accessible. Only places that have sufficient infrastructure and political support can pursue this path of technological sequestration, leaving underdeveloped countries at a major disadvantage. A recent report published in Nature Research further emphasizes that BECCS will have significant negative implications for the Earth’s planetary boundaries, or thresholds that humanity should avoid crossing with respect to Earth and her sensitive biophysical subsystems and processes. Transgressing these boundaries will increase the risk of irreversible climate change, such as the loss of major ice sheets, accelerated sea level rise, and abrupt shifts in forest and agricultural systems. Above all else, CCS ultimately supports the continual burning of fossil fuels. CCS technology may capture carbon, but it also has the potential to push us over the edge.

Mitigation has historically been the focus of the FCCC and other collaborative climate change efforts. Global climate change policy experts are familiar with the binding language associated with activities related to mitigation in the multilateral environmental agreements: Article 4(1)(b) of the Convention calls for commitments to formulate, implement, publish and update national programs containing measures to mitigate climate change; and Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) calls for Annex I Parties to account for their emissions reductions in order to promote accountability and activity guided by mindful emissions production. In the waning hours of the KP, the Paris Agreement has become the new collective rallying document, whose ambitious emissions reduction target has inspired the likes of the IPCC to offer us pathways to get there.

If we are not currently on track towards limiting GHG emissions well-below 2°C in the grand scheme of the FCCC, why not insure some success, however small, buy securing CO2 in forests, not CCS? Forests are a well-established CDR technology that do not have the associated risks with CCS. While the most recent UN Forum on Forests report kindly reminds us that forests are also crucial for food, water, wood, health, energy, and biodiversity, the SPM upholds that mitigation contributions from carbon sequestration technology are numerically minuscule in the face of the large-scale change necessary to avoid CO2 overload. A much more engaged energy overhaul is needed.

The ideal SPM pathway states that afforestation can be the only CDR option when social, business, and technological innovations result in lower energy demand and a decarbonized energy system. A more middle-of-the-road scenario achieves necessary emissions reductions mainly by changing the way in which energy and products are produced, and to a lesser degree by reductions in demand. This speaks to the need for a broad focus on sustainable development rather than continuing business as usual. Regardless of the pathway, forests need to be preserved, whether it be for carbon sequestration, their cooling effects, or merely beauty.

Sometimes there is no turning back.

Energy Justice: Mitigation, Adaptation, AND Sustainable Development Goals in the IPCC Special Report

Posted on October 14, 2018 by christashute

Over three billion people rely on wood, charcoal or dung for cooking, with primarily women spending 15-30 hours per week collecting these resources. Household Air Pollution (HAP) results in over 4 million deaths a year. The second most impactful climate change pollutant is black carbon and HAP contributes 25% of black carbon. Clearly, we can integrate mitigation, adaptation, AND sustainable development.

The first sentence of the Global Warming of 1.5°C IPCC Special Report references the Paris Agreement’s enhanced objective “to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.” (Article 2) The IPCC report references and builds on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) approved and adopted by national leaders in September 2015. The SDGs consist of 17 goals and 169 targets developed as a sustainability framework. Top goals include the elimination of poverty and hunger; an increase in health, education, and gender equality; and access to clean water, sanitation and affordable energy. Additional goals address economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, sustainable cities and responsible consumption, life below water and on land, climate action, peace, justice and strong institutions, and partnerships for the goals.

The IPCC report highlights one of the largest differences between 1.5°C and 2°C as the disproportionate impact on poor and vulnerable populations, furthering inequities. However, addressing these inequities through sustainable development can also become a positive. One bright spot in an otherwise dire report is the potential for significant synergies between sustainable development with mitigation and adaptation strategies. But ONLY IF we think about the issues holistically and find mechanisms to cooperate internationally. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement recognizes “the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches” and mentions supporting and promoting sustainable development in Paragraphs 1,2,4, and 9. A failure to consider mitigation and adaptation strategies in the context of sustainable development and the SDGs could result in the opposite effect of creating long term negative impacts on the health and survival of those populations that contributed the least to the problem and have extremely limited resources to weather the consequences.

Let’s strengthen our sustainable development goals through enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions and provide some accountability with some teeth in Katowice.

Small Island Developing States Fishing for Adaptation Solutions

Posted on October 17, 2017 by nicole

For Small Island Developing States (SIDS) like Fiji, climate change adaptation requires immediate action. As my colleague Val analyzed previously, fish stocks are depleted and international tensions are rising as each nation attempts to protect the fishing economy it still maintains. When the Ocean Conference met in June of 2017, participants recognized the crucial role oceans play as a climate regulator and the impact the changing environment would have on food and nutrition. This will be particularly impactful on SIDS as fisheries fade; those nations now cast for ideas in alternative food options. Some SIDS have hooked on aquaculture as an adaptive strategy.

The average consumption of seafood in the world is roughly 20 kg/capita/year with 70% of SIDS exceeding that global average. That, with the rising ocean temperatures, the migration of fish out of their previously habitable areas and the unsustainable fishing practices, creates a massive deficit in global fish markets when measured against demand. This mismatch creates the perfect atmosphere for aquaculture development.

In 2015, the total aquaculture production of SIDS was 71,893 tons, with Cuba manning the helm with around 30,000 tons. Overall, most nations produced less than 100 tons of aquaculture and the diversity of SIDS creates a particular problem with the implementation of any “one-size-fits-all” program. Branching off of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)’s FAO program, Palau, Nauru, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) formed the Micronesian Association for Sustainable Aquaculture (MASA) in November of 2015. MASA’s goal is to facilitate region specific cooperative programs and assistance in order to meet demand and reduce market reliance on fish.

Implementation of these adaptation techniques is an issue that runs through COP 23 and is recognized also by the Oceans Conference. The Oceans Conference emphasized the need for sustainable development goals (SDG14), and a Blue Economy to support and finance ocean initiatives. It specifically mentioned the strengthening of sustainable economies with reference to aquaculture within their action plan. Based on that action plan, the Seychelles raised roughly $40 million towards their SDG14 and their INDC places a heavy emphasis on sustainable fisheries and adaptation to ocean climate change. This funding will have a substantial impact on their ocean economy. But funding is challenging to acquire. With the Green Climate Fund (GCF) increasing fund accessibility for least developed countries (LDC) for adaptation plans, this could present an opportunity for many nations who have already implemented or are in the process of implementing aquaculture plans to acquire necessary funding. While the GCF does not specifically address aquaculture as an adaptation strategy, several nations, including SIDS like Vanuatu and Tuvalu, have already included in their GCF proposals aquaculture adaptation strategies.

With the current momentum aquaculture development has gained in SIDS, COP 23 has the unique advantage for aquaculture and sustainable fishing measures with Fiji at its helm. While the focus of the Paris Agreement was the mitigation of effects to reduce the overall rise in temperature, adaptation still remains a strong focus for the countries that are feeling the most significant of those effects. Aquaculture has worked its way into the economies of many nations and will hopefully further alleviate the burden that climate change is having on SIDS.

The New Urban Agenda and the Important Role of Cities in Achieving Climate Goals

Posted on October 21, 2016 by Amy Pickering

Dhaka, Bangladesh Source: UN Phto/Kibae Park

Dhaka, Bangladesh Source: UN Photo/Kibae Park

On October 20^th, 167 countries adopted the New Urban Agenda, a document setting global standards for achieving sustainable urban development. The document was adopted at the close of the third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development, or Habitat III. The New Urban Agenda calls for equal opportunities, cleaner cities, carbon emission reductions, respect for the rights of migrants and refugees, improved stakeholder connectivity, and accessible green public spaces. Joan Clos, UN-Habitat Executive Director and Habitat III Secretary-General, described the agenda as a “vision for a better and greener urban future, where everyone has access to the benefits of urbanization.” Through the document, city leaders have committed to increase renewable energy, provide greener public transportation, and sustainably manage their natural resources.

Why does sustainable urban development matter? When Habitat I convened in 1976 just over one third of the world’s population lived in cities. Today, half the world’s population (3.5 billion people) live in cities, a figure that is expected to grow to 70% by 2050. Climate change poses a threat to human health and well-being as well as to urban economic and social infrastructures. Additionally, while the world’s cities occupy just 3% of the Earth’s land, they account for 60-80% of energy consumption and 75% of carbon emissions. Rapid urbanization also poses immediate environmental threats by compromising fresh water supplies, sewage systems, living environments, and public health. In light of these risks, cities must leverage urban planning principles in order to develop sustainably.

The New Urban Agenda seeks to bolster international efforts to address the impacts of climate change and to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cities play a key role in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and as such they will be essential to help countries reach targets set forth in the Paris Agreement. As the first Habitat meeting since the creation of the Sustainable Development Goals and the ratification of the Paris Agreement, climate change was a major concern. Ban Ki-moon, in his opening statements, noted the profound effects urban pollution and urban consumption have on the environment. He stressed the need to transform towns and cities through better urban governance, as well as through planning and design, as ways to transform the world. Likewise, the threat of climate change and the need for mitigation and adaptation measures is woven throughout The New Urban Agenda. The agenda calls for measures to reduce disaster risk, build resilience and responsiveness to natural and man-made hazards, and foster mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Additionally, it supports access to funds, including the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the Adaptation Fund.

The New Urban Agenda is not without its critics. Criticisms included concerns that the agenda guidelines are too vague and aspirational for cities to implement, that current financing is insufficient to effectively support agenda standards, and that there are not enough mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing progress. Critics also worried that the document does not reflect all voices within the global community. It appears UN-Habitat attempted to address this concern by hosting Habitat III in Quito, Ecuador. It was the first meeting to be held in the global south, which was significant considering the disproportionate impacts climate change has on developing countries in this region and that an estimated 95% of the world’s urban expansion will occur in the developing world. There have also been concerns that the agenda is weakly interlinked with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, as it does not directly link any standards to specific targets in either document.

It seems unclear what kind of impact the New Urban Agenda will have on addressing climate change in the coming decades. However, with the momentum of international efforts, including the Sustainable Development Goals, the ratification of the Paris Agreement, and the recent developments under the Montreal Protocol, the New Urban Agenda could provide enough motivation for city leaders to put the environment on their agendas. With the right support, cities could be a driving force in helping the world achieve global climate goals.

Linking SDGs and COP21

Posted on January 2, 2016 by tbach

Taylor Smith ’14, member of the VLS COP19 delegation, now works for the U.N. and contributed this post connecting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the COP21 negotiations.

“Any true sustainable development must address the scourge of climate change,” UN DESA’s Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo said just weeks before the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) opened in Paris on 30 November. The relationship between climate change and development are clear, with climate change aggravating already existing threats to people and the planet. This is also why so many of the newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have targets linked to climate.

I was a member of the VLS COP19 observer delegation in Warsaw, Poland and also a Master of Environmental Law and Policy student 2014. I now work as a Sustainable Energy Consultant at United Nations Headquarters in New York. I am located in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development- Water, Energy, and Capacity Development Branch (yeah, it’s a mouthful).

A good portion of my daily work focuses on follow-up tasks related to the post-2015 development agenda, also known as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Here is a little background information for you dedicated readers:

In September 2015, Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as a direct follow-up to the outcome of the Rio+20 Conference in 2012 when Member States committed to reinvigorating the global partnership for sustainable development and to working together with major groups and other stakeholders in addressing implementation gaps. The 2030 Agenda includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 accompanying targets. Among other thematic areas, Member States identified energy as one of the priorities.

Sustainable energy is a key enabler of sustainable development for all countries and all people. Countries will not be able to achieve their development goals without access to reliable and affordable sustainable energy services. Energy is critical to tackling poverty eradication, while decarbonizing energy is central to mitigating climate change. Energy powers opportunities. It transforms lives, economies and countries.

As a result of the key role that energy plays in sustainable development, a stand-alone goal for energy now exists: Energy SDG 7 is to “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all”. Goal 7 contains five targets, two of which are means of implementation.

Target 7.1

By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services

Target 7.2

By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix

Target 7.3

By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency

Target 7.a (Means of Implementation)

By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology

Target 7.b (Means of Implementation)

By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small-island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their respective programmes of support.

As you can see, it’s fairly straightforward how the targets of the Energy SDG 7 align with the UNFCCC in many ways. In fact, there are so many parallels that Resolution 70/1 (Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) of the General Assembly explicitly acknowledges that the United Nations Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

What I notice as the primary difference between UNFCCC objectives and Energy SDG 7 is that the first is primarily concerned with carbon reductions while the latter has an emphasis on energy for sustainable development. 1.2 billion people worldwide still lack access to modern energy services. Think about that while our world leaders negotiate a low-carbon pathway to the future! *mind blown*

Even though climate change is often portrayed as an environmental problem, it is also an economic and political issue. In my field of work, sustainable energy development is about reconciling the basic human right of access to energy services (for hospitals, schools, and clean cooking technologies etc.) with the need for rapid increase in renewable energy production and consumption to combat anthropogenic climate change.

For the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, the conference aims to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate. The goal is to keep global warming well below 2°C. I hope that implementation of the COP21 outcome is ambitious enough to provide greater motivation for clean energy development and distributed renewable energy in my field of energy for sustainable development in low-income countries.

Food Security Will Require Collaboration (not just a combination of raspberry and chocolate)

Posted on September 27, 2015 by linda

“If it’s melted, it’s ruined”; raising awareness for climate change by raising a cool spoonful of a creamy treat. That’s a tall order for Ben and Jerry’s new flavor of ice cream “Save Our Swirled”, which they revealed at the UN climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany in early September. While admirable, and admittedly every bit of positive publicity helps, it ironically belies one of the most serious consequences of climate change – food insecurity for a vast proportion of the world’s population. Acknowledging the critical nature of nutrition to our survival and our absolute dependence upon climate for food production, the UNFCCC established as its objective under Article 2 to stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system …. to ensure that food production is not threatened.”

Test your knowledge about the Sustainable Development Goals – Take the QUIZ.

But a luscious creamery and the UN Executive Secretary aren’t the only significant combination of interests that are going to need to join forces in order to satisfy the mandate set forth in The Rio+20 Declaration and Working Group that prepared the Sustainable Development Goals and the outcome document “The Future We Want”. [Note that food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture are particularly addressed in paragraphs 108-118.] It is the culmination of those efforts that have just been adopted by the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in New York this weekend (September 25-27). It calls for all countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, to implement this plan in an integrated, swirled up way; well, the UN officially used the term “indivisible” in paragraph 18. While Sustainable Development Goal 2.4 links food security to climate change by requiring that by 2030 countries have sustainable food production systems and resilient agricultural practices in place that will strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, the FAO notes well that “issues related to food and agriculture are comprehensively integrated among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” All the ingredients exist in the various SDGs to discover a success recipe for food security.

“If it’s melted, it’s ruined”. Most often people think about sea level rise or glacial melt when thinking about climate change, but forget about the devastating effects on fisheries. The newly released World Wildlife Fund report indicates that species like tuna, mackerel and bonito may have declined as much as 74% in the last 40 years. Climate change has profound effects on the health of marine food production which can be the mainstay of food security for some populations. SDG 14 addresses the need to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources”. Melting polar ice and sea level rise can also affect coastal and low-lying field arability. For rice paddies, a global staple, this will have devastating effects. The world’s food supply is in dire straits with the poorest countries to be hit hardest and soonest. That is the point underscored by the UN Sustainable Development Agenda. All countries and all peoples have a right to food security in order to achieve their full potential.

Perhaps what Ben & Jerry’s newest ice cream flavor teaches us most about climate change and food security is that it will take a mixed balance of many factors to find the proper combination to get the solution right. It wasn’t a straight-forward “vanilla” response from the ice-cream company[i], and so the response for food insecurity will also have to be a multidimensional one. SDG 2 is a broad call to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, but it will will require contributions from a variety of sectors to achieve that goal. Perhaps we need to think in terms of “Common but Differentiated Vulnerabilities” with regard to food insecurity. This appears to be the approach taken by the Global Policy Report: “Where Rain Falls: Climate Change, Food and Livelihood Security, and Migration”. Populations can make “informed, resilience-enhancing decisions” if they are supported by sustainable policies that are adaptable to the local situation. At a time when humanity is facing a migrant / refugee crisis of unprecedented proportions, we cannot allow an exacerbation of the problem due to climate change food insecurity issues. We must address the agricultural adaption strategies where possible to ease the dramatic impacts to attempt to preserve livelihoods.

___________________________________________________________________

[i] Indeed it was a Raspberry Ice Cream with Marshmallow & Raspberry Swirls & Dark & White Fudge Ice Cream Cones response! [http://www.benjerry.com/flavors/save-our-swirled-ice-cream]