Sunday, November 25, 2007

TREMOVE EU-wide transport model

TREMOVE EU-wide transport model

TREMOVE is a policy assessment model analyses the cost-effectiveness of technical and non-technical measures aimed at (1) reducing emissions from the entire transport sector and at (2) improving the air quality, for 21 countries: EU-15, Switzerland, Norway, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia (the four new Member States have been selected on the basis of data availability).

Passenger and freight, road, rail, water and air transportation are included: the model covers all inland urban and interurban transport modes, and includes also maritime transport in North Sea, English Channel, Irish Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Mediterranean, together with air transport for each of these countries.

The estimations carried out by TREMOVE include a variety of policies (e.g. road pricing, public transport pricing, emission standards, clean-car subsidies, etc.), transport demand, modal shifts and vehicle stock-renewal and scrappage decisions, as well as emissions of air pollutants and welfare levels.

For more information visit the TREMOVE website.

Activity and Emissions

These sector-specific models focus on the energy, transport and respectively agricultural sector and provide support to policies such as emission standards for vehicles, subsidy policies for agriculture or carbon energy taxes. The models can account for specific environmental conditions and constraints such as carbon dioxide (CO2), and depending on the model, other greenhouse gas emissions as well as air pollutants such as particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Purpose:

  • to study the effects of different policies on emissions generated by different sectors (e.g. energy sector, transport sector, agricultural sector) so as to support the integrated assessment of cost-effective pollution control strategies meeting air pollution and climate change targets.

Models:

PRIMES (energy), used for the analysis of coherent climate strategies combining renewable energy with energy efficiency improvements and carbon capture

POLES (energy) was used for the analysis of policies to meet the EU 2 degree Celsius target for climate change

TREMOVE (transportation) was used for the analysis of Euro (5 and 6) emission standards for vehicles in the EU

CAPRI (agricultural sector) was used to estimate future livestock numbers and fertilizer use in the EU to estimate the impact on ammonia emissions.


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/models/activity.htm

Climate change

Climate change refers to the variation in the Earth's global climate or in regional climates over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes can be caused by processes internal to the Earth, external forces (e.g. variations in sunlight intensity) and, more recently, human activities.

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change" often refers to changes in modern climate which according to the IPCC are 90-95% likely to have been in part caused by human action. Consequently the term anthropogenic climate change is frequently adopted; this phenomenon is also referred to in the mainstream media as global warming. In some cases, the term is also used with a presumption of human causation, as in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" for non-human caused variations.[1] In the 1970s timeframe, this term was more often associated with the phenomena of global cooling.

For information on temperature measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change.

Contents

[hide]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Indonesia Peat Fires May Fuel Global Warming, Experts Say

November 11, 2004

As they have every dry season for the last 20 years, once lush tropical peatlands in Indonesia smoldered for weeks this year, leaving the region cloaked in a thick, carbon-rich haze.

The rainy season arrived at the end of October, squelching the flames. Even so, Jack Rieley, a peatland ecologist at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, had no time to sigh in relief. With the rains come the floods.

"Another downside is the peatlands are losing their water-retention potential," he said. "Surrounding areas, especially those downstream, tend to flood quicker now."

The downsides, according to Rieley, result from the vast chunks of Indonesia's peatlands that have been burned, logged, drained, and left vulnerable to fire. It's all part of an effort to feed a burgeoning population of more than 210 million people and jump-start an ailing economy.

Tropical peatlands consist of layer upon layer of forest debris too wet to decompose. They cover approximately 50 million acres (20 million hectares) in Indonesia, or nearly 11 percent of the country's total land area. Key areas of peatland burning include Borneo, Sumatra, and West Papua.

Rieley is the co-leader of an international project that has studied the ecology of the peatland in the province of Central Kalimantan in Borneo since 1993.

Scientists know that these peatlands serve as gigantic stores of carbon. They have accumulated woody debris for millennia, locking it up in soggy piles that in places reach 66 feet (20 meters) deep.

Now that the peatlands regularly burn, Rieley and his colleagues say these carbon stores have become carbon sources. They're rapidly increasing atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2), potentially spurring global warming.

"I am a peatland expert, not a climate one," Rieley said. "What I do know, however, is that tropical peatlands are releasing a very large amount of carbon from [storage] that is likely to be contributing to the accelerating increase in CO2 in the atmosphere."

"If other experts believe that this higher level of CO2 is propelling global warming, then of course tropical peatlands are part of that," he added.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1111_041111_indonesia_fires.html

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Air Pollution

The normal composition of the air includes:78,09% nitrogen, 20,95% oxygen, 0,92% argon and 0,03 % CO2.This gas mixion represents 99,99% of the air composition.The rest ,about 0,01% is made of other gases as Ne,He,etc.Their is also added a variety of water.
Sanitary speaking it represents a changing between the oxygen and the CO2 concentration, solutions with an important part in the exchange of gases inside the lungs.


The atmosphere pollution involves the growing of chemical solutions which are bad for living organisms.
The atmosphere polution can also affect the marine and terrestrial echosistems if the polutioners spread in water or come as rains.
It's considered that the atmosphere polution contributes anualy with aproximatly 120.000 deaths in the USA. Each year the development of industry generates billions of tones of poluent materials.

The primary polutioners are the atmosphere ones growed directly in the atmosphere, for example the soot particles, SO2 and NO.
The secondary polutioners are made of reactions between the primary ones. CO and NO are the main polutioners made from the burnings of combustible. The soot and SO2 are primary polutioners made from the burnings of fossil combustible in the energetic power stations as petroleum and coal. Each year over one billion tones of these materials get in the atmosphere composition.
An important significance in industry and transports is based on fossil combustible. During the consum of these combustible there are chemical particles expelled in the atmosphere. Eventhought a large amount of chemicals contributes on atmosphere pollution, most of them include C, S, N. The burning of C, of petroleum and benzenium is responsible for most of the atmosphere polutioners. A large amount of pollution material in the atmosphere made by the USA are products of fossil combustible and electrical power stations. Other poluent materials can have their source of emition the metal industry and the combustible refineries. These chemicals make a bound between them and also with solar radiuses with dangerous intensity.
An automobile can consume, the oxygen quantity necessary for a grown-up in year, on 1000 Km. A turboreactor with four engines consumes between New York and Paris about 35 tones of oxygen. This is the quantity a 3000 ha forest makes in one day.
A considerable influence on the polutioners spread in the air is owned by the meteorological fenomena, as the termical stratification of the air, the wind, and the rain.

Panait C
9A grade, Carmen Sylva High School

Air pollution

Toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants, are those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. EPA is working with state, local, and tribal governments to reduce air toxics releases of 188 pollutants to the environment.


Examples of toxic air pollutants include benzene, which is found in gasoline; perchlorethlyene, which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, which is used as a solvent and paint stripper by a number of industries. Examples of other listed air toxics include dioxin, asbestos, toluene, and metals such as cadmium, mercury, chromium, and lead compounds.
People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory and other health problems.
In addition to exposure from breathing air toxics, some toxic air pollutants such as mercury can deposit onto soils or surface waters, where they are taken up by plants and ingested by animals and are eventually magnified up through the food chain. Like humans, animals may experience health problems if exposed to sufficient quantities of air toxics over time
Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses) and stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants), as well as indoor sources (e.g., some building materials and cleaning solvents). Some air toxics are also released from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires.
Once toxic air pollutants enter the body, some persistent toxic air pollutants accumulate in body tissues. Predators typically accumulate even greater pollutant concentrations than their contaminated prey. As a result, people and other animals at the top of the food chain who eat contaminated fish or meat are exposed to concentrations that are much higher than the concentrations in the water, air, or soil.

Ozone depletion

Stratospheric ozone depletion is a concern because the ozone layer in the stratosphere keeps 95-99% of the suns ultraviolet radiation from striking the earth. A number of consequences can result from increased levels of UV(ultraviolet radiation) striking the earth, including: genetic damage, eye damage and damage to marine life. Increased UV radiation in the lower atmosphere, called the troposphere, can result in increased amounts of photochemical smog. Photochemical smog is already a health hazard in many of the world's largest cities.
The decrease of stratospheric ozone was first reported in 1974 and the decrease was quickly linked to the increasing presence of a class of manmade compounds called CFC's or Chlorofluorocarbons. Many countries of the world have moved to reduce the use of CFC's but because of the slow rate of air mixing between the lower and upper atmosphere it is theorized that stratospheric CFC's will stay at a significant level well into the next century.
Stratospheric ozone depletion has become very much a controversial political and economic issue as well as a complex scientific issue. Major and minor sources of chlorine, and factors which affect ozone levels are still being sorted out among a great deal of media-generated excitement and misinformation; but the link between CFC's and Ozone depletion, and the major factors creating the antarctic ozone hole, are considered by most researchers to be well established facts.
Scientific models of the atmosphere are being constructed in order to assist scientists in looking for other factors in Ozone depletion, evaluate their importance and predict what may happen to our atmosphere in the future.

Greenhouse Effect

The Earth is kept warm by its atmosphere, which acts rather like a woolly coat - without it, the average surface temperature would be about -18 degrees Centigrade. Heat from the sun passes through the atmosphere, warming it up, and most of it warms the surface of the planet. As the Earth warms up, it emits heat in the form of infra-red radiation - much like a hot pan emits heat even after it's taken away from the cooker. Some of this heat is trapped by the atmosphere, but the rest escapes into space. The so-called "greenhouse gases" make the atmosphere trap more of this radiation, so it gradually warms up more than it should, like a greenhouse (although a greenhouse actually does this by stopping warm air rising and escaping from it).
There are some natural greenhouse gases: water vapour, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone. However, over the past fifty years, production of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane has risen sharply, and a new type of chemical - the chlorofluorocarbon, or CFC - has been introduced as a refrigerant, solvent and aerosol propellant, but it is also a very powerful greenhouse gas, because it can trap a lot of radiation - one molecule of CFC is 12,000 to 16,000 times as effective at absorbing infra-red radiation as a molecule of carbon dixide
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that this rise of one degree will happen by the year 2025. This could potentially cripple the North American corn belt, which produces much of the world's grain, leading to much higher food prices, and even less food for the Third World than they already have. However, it would also mean that some countries which are further north would be able to grow crops they had never been able to before, although there is less land as you move north from the corn belt.

Ignat C
9A grade

Air pollution

The air is composed by O2 (the most of it), CO2, N and other gases. It is important for the entire nature, fauna and the human rase.
Factorys without filtration instalations pollute the air with the smoke that gets out from the chimneys. Other elements that pollute the air are the smoke from the vehicles, cigarrtes or the householder's smoke. Because of the air pollution some deseases like astm, anemia and ulcer can apear.

Industrial cities and localitys are permanently surrounded by smoke, soot and poyson gases. In this polluted environment plantes lose the green power of their leafes and don't develop any more. Birds leave the polluted zones, humans suffer because of the pollution being difficult for them to breathe, they are more tired than usually, anemia and some serious deseases can apear very easy.
Besides the other sources of pollution of the air, there are some very important factors like S, C, N, mineral pollutants, powders, radioactive substances or bacterian dust.
From this pollutants, CO is the most known air pollutant. It comes approximate 60 percents from vehicles that use as fuel gasoline and Diesel oil, and the rest from sigerurgic and petrochemical industries.

The air

The air, as the wather is one of the environment's components, that is necessary for humans, plants and animals. The oxigen from the air is absolutely necessary for our life. Because of it both plants and animals can breathe.
In big, industrial cities, the air can be very polluted by the vehicle's and factory's smoke, scraps and other pollutant factors. All this pollutant factors are very dangerous for humans. Because of the polluted air it is difficult for us to breath, and we are tired all the time.
Humans can stop the air pollution and can make things better by preventing the polluation actions. To do this humans have to permanently controle the environment's factors. The environment's protection is regulated by laws.
In all the world are international organizations, and in our country there are services that control and protect the environment's factors.

KEEP IN MIND !

Clean water and air are important for the life of animals, humans and plants.
All humans have to protect and respect their country's laws to keep the world clean.
Air's quality can be improved by planting more trees.
The smoke that gets out from the factory's chimneys reduces air's quality.
In a city if the number of vehicles is changing, the quality of the air becomes worst.
Air you classes room and your bedroms.

How to prevent air pollution

To stop air pollution, it exist some norms that show the maxim concentration of pollutants that should exist in the air and for this to be respected, some laws were made.
The most important ways to prevent air pollution are : the use of a nonpolluate technology, use the polluate elements in appropriate areas and the use of instalations that clean the air.

Meteorology and health effects

Pollutant concentration is reduced by atmospheric mixing, which depends on such weather conditions as temperature, wind speed, and the movement of high and low pressure systems and their interaction with the local topography, for example, mountains and valleys. Normally, temperature decreases with altitude. But when a colder layer of air settles under a warm layer, producing a temperature or thermal inversion, atmospheric mixing is retarded and pollutants may accumulate near the ground. Inversions can become sustained under a stationary high-pressure system coupled with low wind speeds.
Periods of only three days of poor atmospheric mixing can lead to high concentrations of hazardous materials in high-pollution areas and, under severe conditions, can result in injury and even death. An inversion over Donora, Pennsylvania, in 1948 caused respiratory illness in over 6,000 people and led to the deaths of 20. Severe pollution in London took 3,500 to 4,000 lives in 1952 and another 700 in 1962. Release of methyl isocyanate into the air during a temperature inversion caused the disaster at Bhopal, India, in December 1984, with at least 3,300 deaths and more than 20,000 illnesses. The effects of long-term exposure to low concentrations are not well defined; however, those most at risk are the very young, the elderly, smokers, workers whose jobs expose them to toxic materials, and people with heart or lung disease. Other adverse effects of air pollution are injury to livestock and crops.
Often, the first noticeable effects of pollution are aesthetic and may not necessarily be dangerous. These include visibility reduction due to tiny particles suspended in air, or bad odours, such as the rotten egg smell produced by hydrogen sulphide emanating from pulp and paper mills.

Zamfir Irina
9A grade


Air pollution

The air which we breathe it is a part of atmosphere, the blend of gas what covers the earthly ball. This blend of gas assures the life on earth and protects us of harmful ray ale sun. Atmosphere is maintained by gravitation, thus which cannot spread in the space. Atmosphere is mature from 10 different gases, in the most part from nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). That 1% remained is mature from argon, CO2, helium and neon. All these gas are neutral, and they don't react with other substances.


The natural equilibrium of air gases which maintained for millions of years, is menaces now of the man activity.
Through his activity but not only the man menaces the air safety.
Here several of the ways which the man is menacing the existence on Earth:
* Physic Pollution: It's generated of diverse radiation, especially of one nuclear accidental, one the thermal, noise and infra-sound.
* Biologic Pollution: It's created by microbiological contaminations, as an abusive entered or accidental of a species varieties or species.
* Chemical Pollution: Very diverse, he can be provoked of natural product, organic or mineral, as the substance of synthesis, which is initially in nature. Is produced with:
-derives of carbon and liquid hydrocarbons.
-derive of the sulphurs and nitrogen.
-derive of the difficult metals ( Pb, Cr).
-derive of the fluorine.
-plastic materials.

In last 200 of years, the global industrialization got to the disorder report of gases, necessary for the air equilibrium. Burn the coals and gas goes to the formation of enormous amounts of oxide of carbon and another gases, chiefly after appeared to the car to the beginning of centuries.

The hothouse effect

Existing gas in atmosphere must keep the heat produced by solar ray reflected by the earth surface. Without this, Earth would be so cold that the ocean will freeze and the creatures wouldn't survive. But of cause of pollution the proportion the "hothouse gases"is increasing then he is restrained too much heat and whole earth becomes else warm.For this reason in this century, global temperature scaled up with a half of degree and is estimated as up until to half of XXI centuries, this breed arrives at 1,5 - 4,5 Celsius degrees. From this cause, the number of those who suffer from thoracic affections, special in kid's row and old people, it is in continuous breed like the cases of skin cancer.

The holes of ozone layer

The holes in the layer of ozone were signalized for first time in the 1985 by the scientist's people who worked in Antarctic. Unfortunately, ten years late, in 1995 was noticed that above Antarctic and North Europe were holes in the layer of ozone. This phenomenon is produced due to facts as the in atmosphere is eliminated the big amounts of hydrocarbons but and another substance harmful to layer of ozone. In whole world are started campaigns which try making the governments to abandon the destruction of equatorial forests. A thing is certain: In our days we cannot expect to breathe fresh air. Freons were drubbed out of the industrial process, pursuant to pressure made by the public opinion, they being replaced by another substance. Atmosphere is in danger, pursuant it's an danger for whole the world. We must learn to protect our environment, as much for our health, quotient and for the health what surround us, because WE HAVE ONLY ONE EARTH!

Dutescu Marius
9A grade


Air pollution

Your home is your castle. A safe haven sheltered from the worries of the outside world. Or is it?
It turns out that our homes (and many other buildings) are major sources of indoor air pollution -- much of which is hazardous to your health.


Indoor air pollution has increased during the last couple of decades, partly because of our energy consciousness. We seal up our homes and offices tightly against the heat and cold. In addition, the products, furnishings and construction materials we use today are much more likely to discharge toxic substances into the air.
What Are the Pollutants?
Some of these substances are no mystery. We know what harm carbon monoxide, tobacco smoke, radon and asbestos can do. Others indoor pollutants are substances that are new or whose effects are less well-known. Hundreds of chemicals commonly found in the home may harm humans in ways we do not yet understand. We also do not know exactly what happens when some of these chemicals combine and form new substances in an enclosed environment. The dismal results of this increasing problem include cancer, asthma, poisoning, (such as lead and pesticide poisoning), viral and bacterial infections, allergies, headaches and a host of other mental and physical ailments.
Don't Leave Civilization Just Yet
Before you pack up and move into a tent, there are plenty of things you can do to improve air quality inside your home. Many of these things can be done relatively cheaply, although they may take considerable time and effort. You should also be aware that some of the everyday household products you use may be contributing to the problem. Look for less toxic products. When you must use things like pesticides and solvents, read the label carefully, use exactly as directed and try to air out your home afterward.

The first step toward improving indoor air quality is detecting pollution problems and finding their source. You may find that the solutions are as simple as increasing ventilation, properly venting your stove, having your furnace serviced or your ducts cleaned. Some solutions will be more complex

Tunescu
9A grade


Air pollution

Problem: The first thing people see, in the morning, when they walk outside is the sky or the colored sun. Is this world giving us the privilege of seeing the natural colors of the sun through all the layers of pollution within the air ? Not only are beautiful sights such as this hidden behind the pollution this world causes everyday, but an increase in diseases, infections and death occurs.


What causes pollution? What can we do to prevent it, and get rid of it? Is it fair to the children of the future to have to suffer the consequences that pollution causes? Why not take care of the problem now? Factory and business owners have the ability to prevent air pollution. Air pollution is the presence in the atmosphere of harmful gases, liquids, or solids. Air pollution, known as smoke pollution for many years, resulted from coal combustion.Smog has been a problem in coal-burning areas for several centuries. Smog finally decreased when coal combustion was replaced by oil and gas combustion. Air pollution is caused by a number of different types of pollutants. The first type, particulate matter, consists of solid and liquid aerosols suspended in the atmosphere. These arise from the burning of coal and from industrial processes. Atmospheric particles can scatter and absorb sunlight which reduces visibility. Particles also reduce visibility by attenuating the light from objects and illuminating the air causing the contrast between the objects and their backgrounds to reduce. Not only does it effect visibility, but it hastens the erosion of building materials and the corrosion of metals, interferes with the human respiratory system, and brings toxic materials into the body. The small particles cause chronic bronchitis, bronchial asthma, emphysema and lung cancer. The second type is sulfur oxides which come from the burning of coal and industrial processes. Damage to materials, to vegetation, and to the human respiratory system are caused by the acid nature of oxides. Small quantities of sulfur oxides can increase illness and mortality. The third type of pollutant is carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas against which humans have no protection. Carbon monoxide comes from the exhaust of gasoline-powered vehicles and secondarily from industrial processes Hemoglobin, which is in the blood, combines with carbon monoxide and carries less oxygen to body tissues causing health and heart effects. Some health problems come from the exhaust fumes leaking into the interior of the automobile.
How Do I Keep My Indoor Air Clean? Nine Tips to Keep Your Indoor air Clean
The quality of the air we breathe, both indoors and out, has a great impact on lung health. Lung tissue is easily damaged by pollutants in the air, resulting in increased risk of asthma and allergies, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer and other lung diseases.

1) Declare your home a smoke-free zone. Secondhand smoke can cause serious health problems, especially for children. Ask smokers to take it outside.

2) Good ventilation reduces indoor air pollution. Leave doors between rooms open most of the time for better air circulation. Open windows when possible to allow for a good supply of outdoor air. Install exhaust fans in bathrooms to remove moisture and chemicals from the house.

3) Keep humidity levels low with a dehumidifier or air conditioner, as needed. Clean both regularly so they don't become a source of pollutants themselves. Fix all leaks and drips in the home, as standing water and high humidity encourages the growth of mold and other biological pollutants.

4) To prevent carbon monoxide poisoning, have all fuel burning appliances inspected by a qualified technician once a year. Install a carbon monoxide detector near your sleeping rooms.

5) To keep dust mites and other allergens to a minimum, clean regularly. Wash bedding materials in hot water (at least 130°). Consider replacing carpet with area rugs that can be taken up and washed often.

6) Fit your gas range with a hood fan that exhausts the air outside. Use the fan or open a window when cooking to remove gas fumes.

7) Check commercial cleaning products and pesticides for toxic ingredients, and use according to manufacturers directions. Keep your home well ventilated when using these products. Consider switching to less toxic alternatives.

9) Never leave a car or lawn mower running in an attached garage or shed. Avoid the use of unvented heaters or charcoal grills indoors.

Olteanu Cristina
9A grade

http://www.lefo.ro/swea/airpollution2.htm

Impact on the carbon cycles.

The emition of carbon dioxide from cars is a major issues that distruct the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle between Biosphere and Atmosphere needs less carbon dioxide to function better. But my life now doesn't work without driving my car wishing there is much better transpotation system around pugetsound area. so what I can do now is driving as little as possible. Specifically, when I commute to school, I avoid driving around a parking lot finding a best spot. I rather go far away where I definitely can find a spot. The important thing to do this here is not about saving gas. It's about my attitude toward the environment. If my decision making is based on what is good for the environment, it became normal to avoid the crowded parking lot even if it's closer to my class rooms. With the mentality, I can refer to other things like carpooling and avoiding trafic jam.

http://kokorosenvironmentality.blogspot.com/2007/10/impact-on-carbon-cycles.html

Japan pledges $2b for climate change fight

Japan pledges $2b for climate change fight

Abdul Khalik and Kornelius Purba, The Jakarta Post, Singapore

Japan announced Wednesday it would provide US$2 billion to support efforts to overcome climate change and pollution in Asia, ahead of world talks in Bali in December.

The promise was welcomed by representatives of developing nations, as 16 leaders attending the East Asian Summit (EAS) signed an environmental pact in Singapore.

The declaration promises joint action on climate change and forest cover and promotes nuclear energy.

Japan's prime minister Yasuo Fukuda said his country's funds would support efforts toward sustainable development through the balancing of economic growth and harmful emissions.

"Japan will ... (also) conduct capacity building for some 500 trainees in the next five years for the promotion of measures against air, water and other pollution," Fukuda said in a press conference.

Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda said he welcomed Japan's plan, saying the "very positive initiative" would boost the region's ability to handle environmental problems and the impacts of climate change.

"It shows that big countries in the region, especially Japan, have taken seriously environmental issues and climate change -- and have shown intentions to take concrete action," he later told The Jakarta Post.

Indonesia joined other Asian leaders to sign the "Declaration on Energy, Climate Change and the Environment", which also addresses energy security.

The leaders together committed to work harder to develop alternative energy sources and cleaner fossil-fuel technologies as well as to improve energy efficiency and conservation.

The leaders in the declaration said atomic energy would be used in a "manner ensuring nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation".

Leaders from Southeast Asia were joined in Singapore by presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers from China, Japan, South Korea, India, New Zealand and Australia.

The declaration read: "All countries should play a role in addressing the common challenge of climate change, depending on their ability and different responsibilities".

Hassan said the declaration indicated a "similar understanding" among all the Asian countries, ahead of the 13th Conference of Parties at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held Dec. 3-14 in Bali.

In October, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Sydney, Australia, promoted its idea of overcoming climate change voluntarily -- as opposed to commitments agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol.

Australia and the United States have not signed Kyoto, citing fears the obligation to bring down emissions to their 2005 levels would be economically harmful.

In his opening remarks, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the Singapore declaration would "provide impetus for the UNFCCC meeting in Bali next month".

The declaration however included no fixed targets on cutting or limiting emissions by a specific date, after objections from less-developed Asian countries.

"Climate change has to be addressed -- but they cannot leave people in absolute poverty," Prime Minister Lee told Reuters.

Rafael Senga, the Asia-Pacific energy coordinator for the World Wildlife Fund, criticized the regional pact, calling it "empty rhetoric", AFP reported.

But he said Japan's "very timely offer will help countries like China and India achieve the targets they have set and implement the laws that they have enacted".


http://environmentaldefense.blogspot.com/2007/05/second-draft-of-declaration.html

Every generation confronts a unique challenge that tests its collective mettle. For us, that challenge is global warming.

Our online community helped draft a new Declaration of New Patriotism showing our commitment to stopping global warming. We have a goal of collecting 75,000 signatures and will deliver the declaration to Congress by July 4th. Please join our campaign by signing the Declaration of New Patriotism today.

We're also collecting stories of people from around the country who embody the spirit of the New Patriotism. If you know a New Patriot, please share their story below.

Friday, May 18, 2007

The Second Draft of the Declaration

Global warming is the crisis of our time.

As we prepare to celebrate our nation’s birthday, we renew our commitment to the qualities and values that have guided our nation for more than 200 years.

Today, we recognize that patriotism is not only about love of country. It is also about a shared commitment to the welfare of our planet.

Future generations will judge us based on our success or failure to be good stewards of the Earth. We owe our children and our children’s children nothing less than our very best effort.

We the undersigned, pledge to:

  • Be mindful consumers, by minimizing our personal global warming “footprint;”
  • Be active citizens, by pressing our elected officials to take urgent action now, and by pressing all candidates for office to commit to passing strong legislation to cut America's global warming pollution;
  • Spread the word, by educating our friends, neighbors and loved ones and making sure they recognize that each of us has a role to play in meeting this all-important challenge.

Air pollution and climate change policies in Europe: exploring linkages and the added value of an integrated approach

There is an increasing awareness in both the science and policy communities of the importance of addressing the linkages between the traditional air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Many of the traditional air pollutants and greenhouse gases have common sources, their emissions interact in the atmosphere, and separately or jointly they cause a variety of environmental impacts on the local, regional and global scales. Linkages work in two directions: there can be synergies and negative trade-offs. Thus, emission control strategies that imultaneously address air pollutants and greenhouse gases may lead to a more efficient use of the resources on all scales.

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2004_5/en

Air pollution and climate change – tackling both problems in tandem

Geneva, 31 January 2003 - Scientists and policy makers should no longer treat air pollution and climate change as distinct problems, because the two are very closely related. The recent Workshop on Linkages and Synergies of Regional and Global Emission Control, organized under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), looked at the numerous links between these two policy areas. It concluded that these links are so important that they merit close cooperation.

Air pollution affects the regional and global climate both directly and indirectly. Ozone in the lower layers of the atmosphere contributes to global warming even more than some greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol, and particulate matter in the atmosphere also has important climate impacts. However, although black carbon, or soot particles, has a warming effect, other particles, for instance sulphates and nitrates, may cool the climate. The current high levels of sulphates and nitrates mask the effects of climate change to some degree. Through cuts in sulphur and nitrogen emissions necessary to protect human health and the environment the climate impacts of the greenhouse gases may actually show more quickly. On the other hand, measures to cut black carbon emissions, for instance from diesel combustion, will have double benefits, protecting both human health locally and also the climate regionally and worldwide.

Methane has a direct negative impact on climate (it is one of the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases) and it contributes to ground-level ozone levels. Methane emissions (mainly from agriculture, energy and waste management) have grown very rapidly since pre-industrial times. Cutting these emissions will reduce health- and ecosystem-damaging ozone levels and reduce the extent of climate change.

While indications of the climate impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations can already be seen in the rise of mean temperatures and the increase in the numbers of extreme climate events (floods and droughts), most impacts are likely to happen over the next 50-100 years. Some gases, like carbon dioxide, stay in the atmosphere for a very long time, so measures to reduce emissions only start to show an effect after a few decades. In contrast, ozone, black carbon and methane can be controlled to show effects much sooner (10-20 years). Cutting these pollutants could help reduce some climate impacts while waiting for longer-term measures to pay off.

Besides such links between atmospheric effects, there is also a strong link between the sources of emissions. Energy production and transport are responsible for most CO2 emissions and much of the air pollution. Cutting energy consumption and car use will therefore have double benefits. Synergies can also be found in agriculture: cutting ammonia emissions could lead to an increase of some greenhouse gas emissions, but the same reduction levels can also be achieved by an integrated strategy that will even cut some of the greenhouse gases.

The UNECE Convention’s Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling, run by IIASA, estimates that the cost of reaching the 2010 air pollution objectives in the Convention’s Gothenburg Protocol could be reduced by at least €5 billion if European countries cut CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol (without CO2 trading). Similar results have been found for China or Mexico.

While closely related, air pollution and climate change have mostly been treated as separate problems. At the international level, efforts under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution have helped cut air pollution levels in Europe. Sulphur emissions are 60% lower than in 1980, nitrogen oxides are down by 25% compared to 1990 and other pollutants are also starting to decline. At the global scale the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has brought together more than 180 countries to agree on measures to combat climate change. More needs to be done, both to bring air pollution down to safe levels and to cut greenhouse gas emissions to halt climate change.

Taking certain climate change measures will yield additional benefits through improved local and regional air quality. Certain air pollution abatement measures will also help protect the regional and global climate. Much, though not all, is known about such links, but systematic studies are lacking. The UNECE Convention’s Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP) has begun to integrate these links into its assessment so that measures to further cut air pollution will lead to win-win situations. It is also seeking cooperation with scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to move this work forward.


For more information, please contact:

Henning Wuester
Environment and Human Settlements Division
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
Palais des Nations, office 323
CH - 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Phone: +41(0)22 917 23 63
Fax: +41(0)22 907 06 21
E-mail: henning.wuester@unece.org
Web site: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/

Ref: ECE/ENV/03/P02

http://www.unece.org/press/pr2003/03env_p02e.htm

Economic impact of climate change

When we talk about the economic impact of an event or a process, we normally mean ‘putting a monetary value on its costs and benefits’. There is good reason for this approach in that economists often advise governments on how best to spend money. Will the benefits outweigh the costs? That question requires a common unit of measurement and it tends to be what is being spent – money.

From this perspective estimating the economic impact of climate change is linked to the question: how much should we pay to abate climate change? The answer depends on how much it will cost us to do so and what the costs will be if we do nothing. The benefits of climate change abatement are the costs of climate change that will thereby be avoided. The analysis of the costs and benefits of climate change abatement has been very influential but it is controversial and may fail to reflect accurately the full economic impact of climate change.

The standard approach
Assessing the economic impact of climate change is fraught with great uncertainty even before using any specifically economic methodologies. What assumptions do you make about how severe and rapid climate change is going to be? There is a broad range of predictions of greenhouse gas emissions and then a further range of predictions about the physical effects of a given rate of emissions.

Most studies of the economic impact of climate change assume a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions and calculate the costs of its expected physical effects. They estimate that the costs of climate change will be 1-2 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP), that is, the monetary value of world output of goods and services.

Much of this research has been undertaken by American economists assessing the impact of climate change on the US economy. Their results have been extrapolated to other economies to arrive at that estimate of its economic impact on the global economy.

That climate change could cost the world 1-2% of its output may not seem a very serious problem. But most industrial economies grow at about 2.5% a year, so if this estimate is even approximately correct, climate change comes close to stopping economic growth.

Most people in industrial economies are better off in terms of material possessions than their parents were 20 or 30 years ago. It is widely taken for granted that future generations will be better off again. Climate change will upset that comfortable assumption.

Problems with the standard approach
There are major difficulties with this approach to evaluating the economic impact of climate change. These are particularly damaging when trying to extend it to low income countries.

How do you quantify non-market effects?
In industrial nations the existence of market prices makes it easy to quantify many of the economic effects of climate change. For example, if agricultural land is lost to rising sea levels, we can refer to its previous market value to calculate the cost of its loss.

But even in industrial nations many of the effects of climate change are not marketable. The flooded land might have had cultural value for its beautiful landscape. If the agricultural land was owned by a community where land tenure is traditional and where there is no market for land, flooding will prevent farmers from making a living.

Can you put a price on animal or plant life?
Another problem arises when you try to assess the damage inflicted on ecosystems over and above their value as resources for economic activities. Monetary values have been put on the loss of biodiversity through species extinction. However, if animal and plant species are thought to possess intrinsic value or dignity that ought to be respected, their degradation is a loss that cannot easily be evaluated.

How do you evaluate long term effects?
For most people £100 is worth more today than £100 next year because there is a degree of uncertainty about what might happen between now and next year. They would prefer to spend £100 rather than postpone consumption to an uncertain future. This insight underlies the idea that the expected future costs, and benefits, of an event or activity should be discounted or reduced in value.

Many economic impacts of climate change are not expected to occur until decades into the future and economists therefore reduce their costs. There is no agreement about the appropriate rate of discount to use. You could argue that using any discount rate is unfair to future generations.

How much is human life worth?
For many people in poorer countries the impact of climate change will be much more severe than the lack of continually rising living standards. Climate change will cause the deaths of many people. How should we weigh these deaths against the sacrifices that will have to be made to lessen climate change?

The standard economic approach measures the value of a human life in financial terms. A person’s expected lifetime earnings provides an estimate of the monetary value of their life. But this means that the lives of people in rich industrial nations are worth much more than those of people in poorer countries. For some researchers this is reason enough to find another way of evaluating the economic impact of climate change.

Another approach
An alternative approach is the ‘capabilities approach’ initiated by Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen. This has already been influential in shaping the way international organisations assess human progress. What matters for this approach is not a constantly increasing material standard of living, but the degree to which people are able to do things that most people would regard as valuable. In the context of human development, life expectancy, literacy rates and gender inequality as well as income have emerged as central concerns.

Using this approach to estimate the economic impact of climate change involves considering evidence about different aspects of human well-being directly, without converting every dimension of human well-being a financial equivalent. Some basic capabilities (for example being able to be adequately nourished or live in a clean and safe shelter) are directly dependent upon ecosystems for supplies of food, building materials and fuel. These ecosystems are vulnerable to climate change.

So people living in low income countries that are heavily reliant on agriculture and forestry will lose basic capabilities as the climate changes. Inhabitants of low lying coastal areas or small islands vulnerable to flooding will also lose these important opportunities. Similarly, as arid zones become deserts, the people who live there will lose out. The populations of such areas will become environmental refugees.

Major cities such as London, New York, Sydney and Shanghai could also be at risk of flooding. The rise in oil prices in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which destroyed oil facilities near New Orleans, illustrates the economic impact that storm surges could have on low lying cities. It is possible that climate change may make hurricanes more severe.

Regional impact assessments suggest that desertification already threatens many millions of people in developing countries with the loss of capability to support themselves. It is estimated that there could be 80 million refugees from flooding caused by sea level rise, while 50 million people are already under pressure from desertification to migrate to overcrowded cities with uncertain employment prospects.

The cost of lessening climate change
The question that drives the standard approach to estimating the economic impact of climate change is how the costs of that impact compare with the costs of reducing climate change. Against a loss of 1-2% of world GDP from climate change, the costs of abatement are estimated to be 1-3% of GDP, which seemingly calls into question the wisdom of climate change abatement as a strategy. However, both estimates are subject to deep uncertainty.

In any case, from a capabilities perspective weighing the financial costs of climate change against those of its abatement is not a sound basis for policy decisions. The economic impact of climate change is a humanitarian disaster or sets of disasters stretching many years into the foreseeable future. The magnitude of these disasters can only be understood in terms of widespread loss of life and loss of capabilities among survivors. It is not clear that anything is added to an appreciation of the scale of the problem by trying to place monetary valuations on these impacts.

Estimating the economic impact of climate change ultimately rests on an ethical judgement. On one side we have moderate disturbance to the upward trend of comfortable living standards for industrial countries. Weighed against this is the loss of usable land, and the consequent loss of life and basic capabilities, for millions of people in low income countries. It is a matter of evaluating inconvenience for mainly rich populations against catastrophic loss and upheaval for millions of people whose normal standard of living is already much lower.

Further reading
American Heat: Ethical Problems with the United States’ Response to Global Warming
DA Brown, published by Rowman and Littlefield

Global Warming: The Complete Briefing
J Houghton, published by Cambridge University Press

Weblinks
UNEP Climate Change External link 6 - a central source for substantive work and information resources regarding climate change

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change External link 7 - established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change

The BBC and the Open University are not responsible for the content of external websites

http://www.open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/worldaroundus/economic_impact2.html

OC burning: Images from the heart of the fire

It's a grim thought, but if you had been inside the wildfires which swept over southern California a few weeks ago (actually inside them) and survived, then this is what you would have seen.

The image was captured by a camera trap, that is to say, a camera fitted with a motion sensor that takes a picture whenever something in its range moves. Amazingly, this camera somehow made it through the fires.

Camera traps are normally used by conservationists; for instance, a few weeks ago the Zoological Society of London in the UK issued a series of candid pictures taken in patch of Sumatra forest (they're great, check them out).

This particular trap is in Orange County on the decommissioned El Toro marine corps air base, between Los Angeles and San Diego. A couple of researchers from the US Geological Survey use it and others like it to study coyote behaviour in the area.

On 21 and 22 October it caught this incredible sequence (click on the individual images to enlarge them):










At 0945, the wind picks up, and moving leaves and branches trigger the camera which takes a series of pictures, including this one at 1044.










At 0450 on 22 October a coyote runs by. It might have been fleeing the fires.










The next shot, taken at 0900 speaks for itself










Just one minute later, at 0901, the fire has passed. A few shrubs continue to burn.










The camera keeps taking a picture a minute for 10 minutes until this one, at 0910. It shows just how thick the smoke was in the 0901 picture.










The camera doesn't fire again until the following day at 1112, when a coyote walks by – difficult to say if it's the same one – in the direction that the coyote on 22 October came from.

Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter

Labels: , ,

California wildlifes: Climate change or not?

When it comes to disasters, no one does it better than California. So writes The Times of London in a poke at the massages, acupuncture, stress counselling, and lattes offered to wildfire refugees in San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium this week.

The article makes an excellent point in contrasting the care offered during natural disasters along southern California's gold coast with one of the poorest parts of the country – any "massages" in the New Orleans' Superdome after Hurricane Katrina's devastation were likely taken at gunpoint.

The winds have "turned a corner" now, but the bodies are emerging from the catastrophe which saw an exodus of up to 1 million people fleeing their homes.

On the environmental side, the Knight Science Journalism Tracker has a nice roundup on the Santa Anas: the incredibly hot, dry winds directly responsible for this and prior wildfires. Basically, desert winds barrel towards the coast in the autumn and winter, when high pressure systems further inland butt up against low-pressure zones closer to the Pacific.

NASA has been flying an unmanned drone over the entire region for the past few days and has some astonishing photos of the smoke blowing straight out to sea.

Yet what I found most interesting about the coverage of the fires is the battle brewing over whether or not climate change was responsible for fuelling the flames.

Researchers from Oregon State University explained on Wednesday how they believe increasingly catastrophic fires are a direct result of a warming climate. They argue that climate change brings cycles of warm, wet weather, followed by prolonged droughts. The former increase the fuel load by allowing lots of thick vegetation to grow. The latter cause it to dry up like a tinderbox ready to explode.

But the LA Times came back a day later saying it just isn't so. They argue – through a pair of studies in Science – that while climate change has already made some areas hotter and drier, this hasn't happened, at least not yet, in Southern California.

Finally, Salon.com weighed in with a laundry list of environmental groups crying climate change and urged them to reel in some of their spin before they end up looking like their science debunking opponents.

Phil McKenna, contributor

Image credit: NASA/EO-1 Team

Kyoto Protocol

After seven years of debate between leaders, politicians and scientists, on 16th February 2005 the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to control climate change finally became international law.

The Protocol was drawn up in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 to implement the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change

Industrialised nations who sign up to the treaty are legally bound to reduce worldwide emissions of six greenhouse gases (collectively) by an average of 5.2% below their 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.

For the protocol to come fully into force, the pact needed to be ratified by countries accounting for at least 55% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. With countries like the US and Australia unwilling to join the pact, the key to ratification came when Russia, which accounted for 17% of 1990 emissions, signed up to the agreement on 5th November 2004.

The final ratified agreement means Kyoto will receive support from participating countries that emit 61.6% of carbon dioxide emissions. The protocol is officially the first global legally binding contract to reduce greenhouse gases.

The Protocol has taken seven years to come into force because many countries felt that it did not highlight the all-important rules of how the nations would operate. 180 nations agreed on a scaled down version of the treaty in 2001. Many were reluctant to ratify until having a better understanding of the treaty. 141 parties have now ratified the agreement.

Now the agreement is law, if any of the participating countries exceed their proposed 2012 target, they will then have to make the promised reductions from the 2012 target and an additional 30% more in the next period. The EU and Japan have already promised to reduce to pollution by 8% from their respective 1990 levels.

Individually, each country has developed its own method to meet its targets. The EU has setup a market by which 12,000 factories and power stations are given a carbon dioxide quota. If they exceed this amount they can purchase extra allowances or pay a financial penalty. If they fall below the amount they can sell on the extra quota.

There are still, parties who won't sign up to the agreement. The US, the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter, says signing up would ruin the US economy and the pact wrongly disregards developing countries.

Australia, which has a large coal industry, supports the US view and has also opted out. The Australian government has instead developed its own scheme called "The National Greenhouse Strategy". This will attempt to reduce emissions by only 10.1% by 2012, which is an 8% increase on 1990 levels.

Most of the countries in the pact agree that it will be a difficult task to meet their Kyoto targets; already nations are falling behind their targets. Spain and Portugal in the EU were 40.5% above 1990 levels in 2002. Canada, one of the first countries to sign, has increased emissions by 20% since 1990, and they have no clear plan to reach their target. Japan is also uncertain about how it will reach its 6% target by 2012.

See the latest progress on Kyoto targets, as well as news and events at the UNFCCC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/policies/


Policies

car fumes Bonn Conference

In 1997 the Kyoto treaty was set-up to consider what can be done to reduce Global warming. The treaty was established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) involving most world countries with the exception of America.

Almost one decade later, as climate change increases and global warming continues to worsen, a number of nations have approved an addition to the treaty the Kyoto Protocol, in order to standardise a number of more powerful and legally binding measures.

In May 2006 the Bonn Conference saw delegates from 165 countries meet to discuss how to further strengthen international cooperation to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases and to respond to climate change impacts.

Much emphasis has been put on the promotion of economic incentives to promote action to reduce emissions - for both industrialized and developing countries.

The wide-ranging presentations of possible approaches included incentives for developing countries to mitigate climate change, ensuring cooperation on research and development and the transfer of cleaner technologies. Delegates expressed strong support for the role of the carbon market and the need to find new ways to involve the private sector in climate protection.

The Conference also highlighted issues faced by less industrialised countries who also face problems related to climate change. In Canada's Arctic region, the changes noted by the Inuit community - such as melting permafrost, changes in sea ice and the arrival of new migratory animal species - has raised the need to address adaptation measures.

It is crucial that such measures are introduced if we are are to cope with Global warming. The latest evidence collated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that the global average temperature will rise by between 1.5C and 4.5C if human activities double the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

Fortunately talks on Climate Change between the 165 countries involved are set to continue until at least 2012 when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends.

Find out more about government policies on reducing carbon emissions

Can you find ANY progress in Bush's Climate Change statement?

Burning off gas at an oil field Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, United States of America.
Burnig off gas - or reduce emissions, President Bush?
© WWF-Canon / Peter Prokosch
01 Jun 2007
Okay, so US President Bush announced a new plan on climate change. But what is actually new? And does it contain any substance?

HERE IS our WWF TEST ON BUSH AND CLIMATE CHANGE!

Does the US President announce:
  1. Strengthened legally binding caps for developed nations, the US in particular? A domestic cap and trade regime?
  2. Policies and measures, targets and timetables over and above the "technology approach"?
  3. Development and support for an international carbon market?
  4. Acceptance of Kyoto (and Kyoto+) under the UNFCCC as THE most legitimate key negotiation body?
  5. Putting bilateral and other agreements SUPPORTING (and not instead of) the UNFCCC approach?
  6. Any limit to global temperature rise? Even if it’s 2°C, 3°C, 4°C?
  7. A number on a global emission limit, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50% GHG emissions reduction by 2030, 2050, 2100?
  8. Compliance with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the US ratified and which is therefore legally binding for the US? (the UNFCCC is demanding stabilisation of emissions by 2000 based on 1990 levels).
  9. Concrete support (in $!) for developing countries' clean energy development? For fighting deforestation? For adaptation?
  10. Domestic renewable energy targets?
NOTE: for the EU we would say YES on each of these points. Japan fulfills most of them, China already some. For the US we find NO YES.

Martin Hiller
WWF Climate Change Programme
http://www.panda.org

Friday, November 16, 2007


Defeating Global Warming - the Essential thread
Various | Various | DaveLoneRanger

Posted on 12/19/2004 8:20:27 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

The following is the result of a biology class in human ecology that I took this past semester (Fall 2004) as a freshman in college. The assignment was to gather ten articles and write some commentaries about them, challenging the ideas, presenting alternative ideas, or offering original thoughts. It was entirely my idea to make the journal focus primarily on global warming, particularly as a result of the bio teacher, and how greenie “we’re killing the earth” type stuff she was believing in. (She wasn’t necessarily a sniveling liberal, or a fringe kook, I believe she sincerely believed what she taught, but the poor lady needed some antidepressants)

Like I said, the goal was to have ten articles. I began delving into the assignment, and the end result was approximately thirty-six articles, most of them relating to global warming. Some were not, and some were pro-global warming sites that I offered mild, amateur criticism of which probably isn’t good enough to use.

I mentioned this project to a few Freepers who were interested in it, so I took the time to put this together into a Freep-worthy format. The idea is for it to be the ultimate arsenal of anti-global warming/environmentalist wackos/greenie kooks who think we’re raping mother earth because we drive a Suburban. Please feel free to add to this, and hopefully both now and long after my children’s children are dead, people will look for global warming research (or perhaps global cooling will be the thing by then) and Freepers will give them this page and tell them that all they ever need was compiled by wise old Dave, who went on to be a Senator, Lawyer, and successful talk radio host before he died.

Note: Many of these articles were researched and printed out from campus computers, and so the only link I can find is the URL listed at the bottom of the page, which may or may not be complete. Most of them are, some of them are not, and some of them appear to be complete, but could be missing some end letters. If the link does not work for you, the information I give on the page should be enough to locate the article through Google or Yahoo.

“Earth’s Fidgeting Climate - Is human activity warming the earth, or do recent signs of climate change signal natural variation?” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm

“Global Warming Bombshell” http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp?p=0 (The above article appeared already on Free Republic, and I’m copying the date from the page I printed it out on, so the URL might perhaps be incomplete)

“Ice Shelf breakup challenges researchers” http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/2004-05-26-peninsula-conf_x.htm

(This article was somewhat pro-global warming, so I offer my commentary for balance:

The Global climate change theory states that the world is slowly warming up. The result of warming up would be growing warmth in the oceans. This would cause more evaporation, causing more precipitation, even in arctic areas. If the ice shelf is growing thin enough to break up, does this not mean that it is not receiving enough continuous precipitation to build itself up slowly as it has been for decades and centuries? Could not the affect of warmer water be cancelled out by precipitation?

The article indicates that the ice shelf break-off and renewal process has been going on for at least a hundred years.

I’m glad this article brings up the subject of how far back the temperature measurements (an indicator of whether or not global climate change could in fact be an extremely long-term warming/cooling trend) go. And it doesn’t hold too well, regardless of how warm it was in December 2001.

The article states that computer models do not find a pattern of warming in the Antarctic Peninsula. But computer models are obviously not the most reliable in the world, in light of the “J-curve” evidence being disproved.)

“Ozone Hole ‘Set to Shrink’” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1050495.stm

“Oil Drilling in Alaska” Sarah Anderson, LibertyHaven.com (not particularly relating to global warming, but it is related to oil drilling in Alaska)

“Glaciers Shrink, But Some Resist Global Warming” http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=26729 I remembered Rush talking about this article, absurdly presenting global warming as fact by attesting to the fact that some glaciers were NOT melting, and happily dug it up for my teacher.

“The Global Warming Scandal - The Kyoto protocol is a “brown plague”, according to Russian president’s adviser” (Previously posted on Free Republic) http://www.inauka.ru/english/article48881.html

“Global Warming: Not an Immediate Problem”

J. David Bethel, LibertyHaven.com

“Kyoto Crashing” Wall Street Journal editorial 10/28/03 - link on page is incomplete because it’s so long, but articles like that are generally removed from archives after a while. It’s possible that someone has already posted this on Freep, and you’re welcome to check, or search for it on the web. (Since I found it in November of this year, perhaps it’s still available: google the words “Kyoto Crashing”)

“Job Advocacy Group Applauds DNC Kyoto Rejection” http://www.kron4.com/global/story.asp?s=2064509&clienttype=printable

“Scientists Warn Kyoto Will Barely touch Global Warming” http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1167022004

“New Energy Bill Would Enact Kyoto Protocol” http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-28-02.html (This article is two years old, but talks about the fundamental flaws behind Kyoto)

“Car Exhaust Slows Global Warming” http://www.anova.com/news/story/sm_524431.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery (Potentially a partial link, it’s hard to tell from the page -- this one will REALLY FRY environmentalist kooks……the best solution for global warming is to rev up your SUV!)

There is more to come later, and forgive me for not having time to format the HTML - links should automatically show up.

Also check out junkscience.com, there's a lot to counteract liberal panic spin there.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1304893/posts#comment