Global Warming Issue

Scientists Issue Bali Climate Change Warning

2007-12-14T23:34:00.000-08:00

ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2007) — More than 200 leading climate scientists have warned the United Nations Climate Conference of the need to act immediately to cut greenhouse gas emissions, with a window of only 10-15 years for global emissions to peak and decline, and a goal of at least a 50 per cent reduction by 2050.

The roll-call of top climate researchers includes five University of East Anglia scientists: Prof Corinne Le Quéré (also of the British Antarctic Survey), Prof Andrew Watson, Dr Dorothee Bakker, Dr Erik Buitenhuis and Dr Nathan Gillett.

The signatories warn that if immediate action is not taken, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, with coasts and cities threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species in serious danger of extinction.

The researchers, who include many of the world's most acclaimed climate scientists, have issued the 'Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists' in which they call on government negotiators from the 180 nations represented at the meeting to recognize the urgency of taking action now. They say the world may have as little as 10 years to start reversing the global rise in emissions.

Prof Le Quéré said: "Climate change is unfolding very fast. There is only one option to limit the damages: stabilise the concentration of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"There is no time to waste. I urge the negotiators in Bali to stand up to the challenge and set strong binding targets for the benefit of the world population."

The Bali Declaration emphasises the current scientific consensus that long-term greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450ppm CO₂e (450 parts per million measured in carbon dioxide equivalent).

Building on the urgency of the recent Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on 17 November in Valencia, Spain, the declaration calls on governments to reduce emissions "by at least 50 per cent below their 1990 levels by the year 2050".

The Bali Declaration endorses the latest scientific consensus that every effort must be made to keep increases in the globally averaged surface temperature to below 2 degrees C. The scientists say that "to stay below 2 degrees C, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years".

The critical reductions in global emissions of greenhouse gases and the atmospheric stabilisation target highlighted in the Bali Declaration places a tremendous responsibility on the Bali United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Negotiations at Bali must start the process of reaching a new global agreement that sets strong and binding targets and includes the vast majority of the nations of the world. The Bali Declaration concludes:

"As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement."

Dried lake bed. Scientists warn that if immediate action is not taken, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, with coasts and cities threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species in serious danger of extinction. (Credit: iStockphoto/Selahattin Bayram)

Adapted from materials provided by University of East Anglia.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206105136.htm

Welcome to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali

2007-12-14T23:31:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali

The Conference, hosted by the Government of Indonesia, is taking place at the Bali International Convention Centre and brings together representatives of over 180 countries together with observers from intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, and the media. The two week period includes the sessions of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, its subsidiary bodies as well as the Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol. A ministerial segment in the second week will conclude the Conference.

What is needed is a breakthrough in the form of a roadmap for a future international agreement on enhanced global action to fight climate change in the period after 2012, the year the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires. The main goal of the Bali Conference is threefold: to launch negotiations on a climate change deal for the post-2012 period, to set the agenda for these negotiations and to reach agreement on when these negotiations will have to be concluded.

http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data

2007-12-14T23:27:00.000-08:00

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data

In accordance with Articles 4 and 12 of the Convention, and the relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties, Parties to the Convention submit national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories to the Climate Change secretariat. These inventory data are provided in the annual GHG inventory submissions by Annex I Parties and in the national communications under the Convention by non-Annex I Parties.

The GHG data tables contain estimates for:

CO₂ - Carbon dioxide
CH₄ - Methane
N₂O - Nitrous oxide
PFCs - Perfluorocarbons
HFCs - Hydrofluorocarbons
SF₆ - Sulphur hexafluoride

The data contain the most recently submitted information, covering the period from 1990 to the latest available year, to the extent the data have been provided. The sources and availability of data are provided in "Information on data sources".

http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php

United Nations Climate Change Conference - Bali, 3 - 14 December 2007

2007-12-14T23:20:00.000-08:00

United Nations Climate Change Conference - Bali, 3 - 14 December 2007

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressing delegates at the opening of the High-Level segment

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Alternative Energy Afghanistan: Solar Energy for Rural Use

2007-12-14T22:49:00.000-08:00

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has said that it has approved a $750,000-dollar grant to develop solar energy technology for use in isolated rural areas in Afghanistan.

The grant, financed by the British government, would demonstrate how solar energy could enhance the quality of life in poor, remote villages which could not be connected to wider power grids, the ADB said in a statement issued from its headquarters in Manila.

Most of Afghanistan’s population have no access to modern energy sources like electricity and gas and are forced to rely on traditional fuels like firewood. This depletes the country’s forests, damaging the environment.

However the country has a great potential for solar power since the sun shines for about 300 days a year in Afghanistan.

The grant will be used to provide solar energy systems to communities on a pilot basis and to train ten people from different ethnic groups as solar energy technicians at a training centre in India.

Upon returning to Afghanistan, they would train ten additional people from their communities.

It's hoped that solar energy systems in Afghanistan cam be used to provide lighting for literacy programs, provide water for clinics and to power water pumps and irrigation systems.

http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2005/01/spanish-electric-utility-company.html

Clean Coal or Dirty Coal?

2007-12-01T23:19:00.000-08:00

When President Bush said “America is addicted to oil”, he could also have said that America is addicted to coal.

Most Americans are not aware of the sheer scale of current coal use in the United States. Over 50% of electricity is generated from coal with 20 pounds of coal per a person being burnt every day to generate electricity.

While questions are increasingly being raised about remaining oil and gas reserves, we are assured that there is plenty of coal left to burn. Indeed in a talk to a meeting of builders and contractors at the Capital Hilton on June 8, 2005 President Bush asked the audience,
"Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?"

Hopefully readers will spot this obvious gaffe. The figure quoted by the coal industry is 250 years of reserves, not 250 million years. The energy illiteracy of the average person is worrying enough, but in our political leadership it is a real cause for concern.

There are an estimated one trillion tons of recoverable coal in the world, by far the largest reserve of fossil fuel left on the planet. The United States has over 25% of the world’s recoverable coal reserves. An important point to remember when considering how many years of coal we have left is that these figures are based on current rates of consumption and do no take into account growing demand for electricity. Since 1980 coal use for power generation has increased by over 75%.

A good percentage of the coal that’s left is too dirty to be burned in conventional power plants and much of its buried in inconvenient places. In 1974 the USGS published an estimate of the recoverable reserve base at 243 billion tons. This however failed to take into account real world restrictions on mining: state and national parks, roads, towns, proximity to railroads, coal quality, losses during mining and geologic limitations. When these are factored in less than 50% of the coal estimated as “recoverable” in the 1974 study was available for mining. This fails to taken into account how much is economically recoverable at market prices. In a 1989 study by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Kentucky, at $30 a ton 22% of coal was economically recoverable. The author Tim Rohrbacher wrote “a strong argument can be made that traditional coal producing regions may soon be experiencing resource depletion problems far greater and much sooner than previously thought”.

Recently there has been a rise in suggestions that America should replace its addiction to oil, with diesel fuel made from American coal. There is currently in place a Coal-to-Liquids Tax Credit of $0.50/gallon in place until 2023. The idea has been around for a long while, in the second world war it was used by the Germans to make Nazi oil from coal when their supply of normal gasoline was cut off. I remember when I first started researching peak oil I realised after awhile if things got bad that coal rich countries might turn to making Nazi oil in desperation when petroleum depletion started to bite. Of course calls to start building Coal to Liquids plants aren’t proof that petroleum depletion is well advanced, but I hardly see it as a source for optimism.

Fischer-Tropsch pilot plant

You don’t need to be an expert on coal liquefaction to realise that it’s a bad idea as this article on AutoblogGreen shows. It’s expensive, uses lots of water, produces double the carbon dioxide when compared to regular petroleum use and produces diesel when the vast majority of the U.S. car fleet runs on gasoline. Over at the Ergosphere, the Engineer Poet crunches the numbers and compares coal to liquids versus electric vehicles. He calculates that to replace the United States petroleum consumption at current rates would take 214 four billion dollar coal to liquid plants (that’s not far off a trillion dollars in investment) and the mining of an additional one and a half billion tons of coal a year, in addition to the one billion tons already being mined for electricity generation. It should be noted that the high percentage of electricity currently produced from coal is not an argument against electric vehicles, this is something I have covered in detail elsewhere on this blog. Electric motors are inherently more efficient than the internal combustion engine. It is far easier to control emissions from large power plant, than from the exhausts of thousands of cars. Electric vehicles are not reliant on one source of energy and in the longer term polluting non-renewable sources of electricity can be replaced by clean alternative energy.

The coal industry’s promotion of the idea that America has a vast reserve of coal is slowing the transition to clean renewable sources of energy. In addition to tv spots showing child actors extolling the virtues of coal, the industry has spent heavily to get the ear of the political establishment. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company spent over 5% of its revenues on political contributions, for comparison Exxon Mobil and General Motors spent a fraction of one percent.

In seeming return for such generosity, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included five billion dollars of subsidies for the coal industry.

Virtually every power plant built in America between 1975 and 2002 was fired by natural gas. However between 1970 and 2000, the amount of coal America used to generate electricity tripled.

Now with natural gas prices rising steeply, U.S. power utilities are expected to build the equivalent of 280 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity power plants between 2003 and 2030. China is already constructing the equivalent of one large coal burning power plant a week with two thirds of energy production coming from dirty coal. 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China. India is the third largest producer of coal in the world, also getting over two thirds of its energy from coal. If these new coal plants are built, they will add as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as has been released by all the coal burned in the last 250 years.

Acid run off from coal mining

Coal’s sale price may be low, but the true costs of its extraction, processing and consumption are high. Our use of coal leads to ravaged mountains, air pollution from acidic and toxic emissions and fouled water supplies. Coal mining is massively more invasive than oil or gas drilling. Coal burning power plants account for more than two-thirds of sulfur dioxide, 22% of nitrogen oxides, nearly 40% of carbon dioxide and a third of all mercury emissions in the United States. Results of the largest mercury hair sampling project in the U.S. found mercury levels exceeding the EPA’s recommended limit of one microgram of mercury per gram of hair in one in five women of childbearing age tested. Each year coal plants produce about 130 million tons of solid waste, about three times more than all the municipal garbage in the U.S. The American Lung Association calculates that around 24,000 people a year die prematurely from the effects of coal fired power plant pollution.

Techniques for addressing CO2 emissions exist, although the will to quickly implement them lags.

The techniques electric utilities could apply to keep much of the carbon dioxide they produce from entering the atmosphere are known as CO2 capture or geological carbon sequestration. This involves separating the CO2 as it is created and pumping it underground to be stored.

Until recently I wasn’t aware that all the technological components needed for carbon sequestration are commercially ready (according to an article in September’s Scientific American magazine) as they have already been proven in applications unrelated to avoidance of climate change. However integrated systems have yet to be built on a commercial scale.

Capture technologies have been deployed extensively throughout the world both in the manufacture of chemicals (e.g. fertilizer) and in the purification of natural gas. Industry has gained experience with CO2 storage in operations to purify natural gas, principally in Canada, as well as using carbon dioxide to boost oil production, mainly in the United States.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated in 2005 that it is highly likely that geologic locations worldwide are capable of sequestering at least two trillion metric tons of CO2 - more than is likely to be produced by fossil fuel consuming power plants this century.

Carbon sequestration is not without risk. The two main risks are sudden escape and gradual leakage of carbon dioxide. In 1986 at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, Africa carbon dioxide originating from a volcano killed over 1,700 people. However according to IPCC this is unlikely for engineered CO2 storage in carefully selected, deep porous geologic rock formations. In regard to gradual leakage the IPCC estimated in 2005 that in excess of 99% of carbon sequestered is “very likely” to remain in place for at least one hundred years.

Studies indicate that 85%-95% of the carbon in coal could be sequestered using existing power generation technologies.

A key point is that fundamentally different approaches to carbon capture would need to be pursued for power plants using the old pulverised coal technology as opposed to the newer integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). IGCC plants use heat and pressure to cook off impurities in coal and convert it into a synthetic gas, this gas is then burnt in a turbine. These plants are 10% more efficient than conventional plants, consume 40% less water, produce 50% less solid waste and burn almost as cleanly as natural gas plants.

Although building IGCC power plants is slightly more expensive (10%-20%), IGCC is likely to be the most effective and cheapest option for carbon capture.

In an IGCC plant designed to capture CO2 the syngas exiting the gasifier, after being cooled and cleaned of particles, would be reacted with steam to make a gas made up mainly of CO2 and hydrogen. The CO2 would then be extracted and pumped to a storage site. The remaining hydrogen would be burned to generate more power. Captured carbon dioxide can by piped up to several hundred miles to a suitable geologic storage site.

A recent study found that for carbon capture in a saline formation one hundred kilometers from a power plant would cost an additional 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (over the generation cost of 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for a coal IGCC plant that vents carbon dioxide), making a 40% premium. With coal generation costing 6.6 cents for a kilowatt hour, this would make wind power cheaper than coal and with technology advances could also provide a boost to other renewable energy sources (e.g. concentrating solar power).

However electricity producers are rushing to build conventional coal pulverisation power plants, just as they rushed to build coal plants without sulfur scrubbers prior to legislation coming into force. This is short-sighted as it is more expensive, more energy intensive and less effective to attempt to capture carbon from conventional coal power plants. It is highly likely that having built these plants, that the coal industry would expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for the additional expense. Of the one hundred or so plants being planned or under construction in America only a handful use IGCC technology.

Proposed Design for FutureGen

FutureGen, is the Department of Energy financed one billion dollar zero emissions plant intended to turn coal into electricity and hydrogen. Proposed in 2003 and backed by a consortium of coal and electric companies, it is not due to come online until at least 2013. Many in the industry consider this date to be dubious nicknaming the project NeverGen. It is intended to make it look like the coal industry is doing something, while actually doing very little and in the process putting off changing how coal plants are built for a decade or two. Indeed in its Coal Vision report(pdf), the industry does not plan on building “ultra-low emissions” plants on a commerical scale until between 2025 and 2035. According to the report “there is considerable debate about the need to reduce CO2 emissions”. The report also states that “achieving meaningful CO2 reductions would require significant technical advances”.

The report further states “large scale and long term demonstrations of carbon sequestration technologies over a geographically and geologically diverse range of... sites are needed before making any policy decisions concerning carbon management”. The coal industry wants sequestration to be demonstrated not only in the United States but additionally “similar assessments need to be conducted internationally”. In terms of who should pay for these demonstrations the report writes “the government must play a significant role”.

It sounds that if the coal industry has its way, it won’t be using carbon capture for many decades.

Instead of waiting until 2013 or even 2035, the coal industry could be building IGCC power plants with carbon capture now. The rush to build conventional coal pulverisation plants is extremely short sighted as these plants could be operating for the next fifty years or more.

In the first instance I advocate maximising our use of clean renewable energy. At the moment wind power is being used to generate only 0.5% of electricity in the United States. Using existing technology wind power could cost effecively generate a significant portion of many countries electricity supply. Significant sums of money should also be invested in making solar power and wave power more cost effective, as well as investments in energy long shots such as cellulosic ethanol and fusion power. If we are going to continue to use coal as global society as a major source of energy, which seems pretty much inevitable for at least the next few decades in key countries such as the United States, China & India, then we should be building IGCC power plants with carbon capture and retiring existing dirty coal plants now. If there are unforeseen problems with carbon capture, we need to find out now rather than in a few decades time. The coal industry's business as usual attitude is simply not acceptable.

Jeff Goodell in his recent book “Big Coal” concludes, “coal gives us a false sense of security, if we run out of gas and oil, we can just switch over to coal… the most dangerous things about our continued dependence on coal is it preserves the illusion that we don’t have to change our thinking”.

Further Reading:
“Big Coal” by Jeff Goodell
“What to Do About Coal?” in Scientific American September, 2006

http://alt-e.blogspot.com/

2007-12-01T23:06:00.000-08:00

Brief Analysis of Climate Change Report

Here’s my brief analysis of and comments on the recent IPCC working group report on Mitigation of Climate Change released from Bangkok, Thailand as it relates to alternative energy.

Energy Efficient & Net Zero Energy Buildings

Energy efficiency and renewable energy are rightly held to be a key ways to reduce carbon emissions. Buildings, both residential and commercial, are a significant emitter of greenhouse gasses.

Solar hot water heating can be used to provide up to 70% of annual hot water needs for homes, it can also be used in commercial buildings that require significant hot water such as gyms and nursing homes.

Geothermal (ground source heat pumps) is a lesser known source of alternative energy which can be used to both heat and cool buildings in a highly efficient way and is suited both to residential and commercial buildings. It can also be used to provide hot water. As bore holes and/or trenches need to be dug for geothermal to be installed, it is particularly suited to new builds.

Electricity can be provided from renewable sources via the grid (e.g. wind power) or off-grid it can be generated using for example solar photovoltaic panels (PV).

The use of insulation, natural light & shade, low energy lighting, motion detection lighting etc. can further reduce energy usage.

As noted in the report appropriate building codes can minimise carbon emissions from buildings.

Alternative Energy = Energy Security

The report notes that nations seeking energy security (security of supply) can help achieve it using alternative energy. Nations lacking their own fossil fuels resources should be concerned with the negative impact reliance on fossil fuels can have on their economies. By increasing utilisation of alternative energy resources, nations can increase their energy security.

Transport Policy & Fossil Fuels Subsidies

I was disappointed by the report’s lack of vision on transport. It correctly notes that past increases in efficiency in internal combustion engine (ICE) design have been used to increase power rather than fuel efficiency meaning vehicle carbon emissions have continued to climb. This trend has even continued into hybrid vehicles with performance being favoured over fuel economy (e.g. Lexus hybrid cars). Mention was made of making increased use of biofuels, which can actually significantly increase carbon emissions (see this post on Palm Oil Biodiesel). The glaring emission, is the need for a fundamental shift from the internal combustion engine to electric vehicles. I got the impression the report in trying to build consensus was avoiding treading on any toes. Perhaps that’s why it recommended only reducing rather than eliminating the subsidisation of fossil fuels.

Research and Development + Technology Transfer

India and China will soon be at the top of the list of carbon emitting nations. The report wrongly suggests that because many new power stations are being built in developing nations, they will be using new energy efficient designs and technologies. While new power stations may be more efficient than those built decades ago, for cost reasons less efficient technology is usually used (for more details see this post on Clean Coal). The report notes there have been low levels of investment in research and development. Investment is needed now and much more should be done to aid the transfer of the most energy efficient technologies between nations.

IPCC working group report on Mitigation of Climate Change (pdf link)

http://alt-e.blogspot.com

TREMOVE EU-wide transport model

2007-11-25T21:35:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-25T21:25:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-25T21:20:00.000-08:00

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.

[hide]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Indonesia Peat Fires May Fuel Global Warming, Experts Say

2007-11-25T20:34:00.000-08:00

John Roach
for National Geographic News

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

Air Pollution

2007-11-21T22:18:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-11-21T21:55:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-21T21:49:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-21T21:47:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-21T20:30:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-21T20:27:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-21T20:03:00.000-08:00

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 ⁶ - a central source for substantive work and information resources regarding climate change

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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

2007-11-21T19:53:00.000-08:00

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, fires, wildfire

California wildlifes: Climate change or not?

2007-11-21T19:51:00.001-08:00

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

2007-11-21T19:37:00.000-08:00

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.

(The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites)

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

2007-11-21T19:30:00.000-08:00

Policies

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?

2007-11-21T18:58:00.000-08:00

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:

Strengthened legally binding caps for developed nations, the US in particular? A domestic cap and trade regime?
Policies and measures, targets and timetables over and above the "technology approach"?
Development and support for an international carbon market?
Acceptance of Kyoto (and Kyoto+) under the UNFCCC as THE most legitimate key negotiation body?
Putting bilateral and other agreements SUPPORTING (and not instead of) the UNFCCC approach?
Any limit to global temperature rise? Even if it’s 2°C, 3°C, 4°C?
A number on a global emission limit, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50% GHG emissions reduction by 2030, 2050, 2100?
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).
Concrete support (in $!) for developing countries' clean energy development? For fighting deforestation? For adaptation?
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

2007-11-16T18:57:00.000-08:00

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

Forests

2007-11-16T18:49:00.000-08:00

The National Research Council (2001) concluded that there may be significant regional transitions associated with shifts in forest location and composition in the U.S. due to climate change. Climate change is likely to alter the geographic distribution of North American forests, including regionally important tree species, such as New England sugar maples and boreal forests in Alaska.

The effects of climate change on forests in the U.S. and other parts of the world will depend not only on climatic factors but also on stresses from pollution (e.g., acid rain); future trends in forest management practices, including fire control and demand for timber; and land-use change. It is difficult to separate the influence of climate change from these other pressures.

Climate change effects on forests are likely to include changes in forest health and productivity and changes in the geographic range of certain tree species. These effects can in turn alter timber production, outdoor recreational activities, water quality, wildlife and rates of carbon storage.

Climate Factors

In general, forests are sensitive to climatic variability and change. Climatic factors that influence forest health-temperature, rainfall, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases and extreme weather and fire events—are changing and are expected to continue changing due to human activities.

The following climate factors are likely to play an important role in determining future forest conditions:

Air temperature
Precipitation amount and seasonal distribution
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations
Frequency and severity of wildfire events
Climatic variability and the frequency and severity of extreme events
Indirect effects on pollution levels such as tropospheric ozone

Top of page

Temperature and Precipitation

Changes in temperature and precipitation are expected to change forest location, composition, and productivity. Climate change is likely to drive the migration of tree species , resulting in changes in the geographic distribution of forest types and new combinations of species within forests. In North America, many tree species may shift northward or to higher elevations. (IPCC, 2001)

The IPCC noted, "Some species do occupy sites that are on the limits of their physiological tolerance, and if climate change takes local climate beyond that threshold, clearly they will not be able to persist at that site. However, there is mounting paleoecological evidence of vegetation types persisting through significant climate changes."

Top of page

Tree Growth and CO2 sequestration

Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE ) experiments suggest that tree growth rates may increase with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, but these effects are expected to saturate over time as tree communities adjust to increased CO2 levels.

Climate change effects that influence tree growth will also alter rates of carbon storage (or sequestration) in trees and soils. Increased carbon sequestration would remove more CO2 from the atmosphere (a negative feedback that lessens climate change), whereas carbon losses through forest disturbances would result in more CO2 entering the atmosphere (a positive feedback that strengthens climate change).

Top of page

Fire and Disease

Changes in forest disturbance regimes, such as fire or disease, could also affect the future of U.S. forests and the market for forest products, such as timber. Increased temperatures could increase fire risk in areas that become drier due to climate change. These changes could compound existing fire risks (IPCC, 2001). Climate change could also promote the rapid increase of diseases and pests that attack tree species. Such disturbances may be detrimental to forests themselves, but may have a lesser impact at the market level due to salvage operations that harvest timber from dying forests (Shugart, et al., 2003).

Top of page

Implications for North America

The IPCC concluded that, for North America as a whole (IPCC, 2001):

Climate change is expected to increase the geographic range and productivity of forests over the next 50-100 years. However, extreme and/or long-term climate change scenarios also create the potential for widespread forest decline.
Climate change is likely to cause changes in the nature and extent of several disturbance factors, such as fire and insect outbreaks. Of particular interest in North America are changes in fire regimes, including an earlier start to the fire season, and significant increases in the area experiencing high to extreme fire danger.
The long-term effects of fire will depend heavily on changes in human fire management activities.

Top of page

References

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, James J., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Leary, Neil A., Dokken, David J., and White, Kasey S. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1032pp.
National Research Council (NRC), 2001. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Shugart, Sedjo and Sohngen, 2003. Forests & Global Climate Change: Potential Impacts on U.S. Forest Resources (PDF, 64 pp., 1328 KB, About PDF) ). Pew Center for Climate Change.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/forests.html

Fire

2007-11-16T18:38:00.000-08:00

Air Hot caused Burning my forest ( Indonesian Forest)

2007-11-16T18:22:00.000-08:00

Factories that burn fossil fuels help to cause global warming.

concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-87019/Factorie...

2007-11-16T18:14:00.000-08:00

Dry/Ice: Global Warming Revealed

by Drunvalo Melchizedek

What you are about to read is going to change your world forever, this I can promise you. I actually apologize that I have to be the one who brings this unsettling news, but you must know if you wish to survive, for what is coming will either be DRY and heat or ICE and freezing.

Global warming has been in the news for over 40 years, and by this time we have become complacent. Our scientists have come to the agreement that global warming will eventually cause major changes and problems in the world, but in their way of thinking it will be 50 to 100 years before we will actually have to deal with the effects.

The general idea is that global warming will be slow and the world will find time to discover the solutions to the problems.

New powerful evidence strongly suggests that this scenario is simply wrong, and we had better prepare for another more abrupt possibility.

DISCOVERY MAGAZINE

One of the first hints that something may be different than what we are being told (especially here in the US) was published in Discover magazine in September 2002 with the cover announcing “Global Warming Surprise, A New Ice Age”, “Oceanographers have discovered a huge river of fresh water in the Atlantic formed by melting polar ice. They warn it could soon bury the Gulf Stream, plunging North America and Europe into frigid winters.”

That was almost two years ago, and no one listened. Life goes on oblivious to the incredible danger approaching.

ENGLAND & SIR DAVID KING

Then in January 2004 enter Sir David King. Sir King is the Prime Minister of England’s chief scientist. Sir King went to Mr. Blair and told him of the impending worldwide disaster and that they needed to tell the world of what was about to happen.

Tony Blair told Sir David King to be quiet and not speak. But Sir King felt that this was simply too important for him to say nothing, so in January of this year he deliberately went around Mr. Blair and went straight to the American journal Science where he published his information and concern.

Sir King said in this article, “In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism.”

England placed a gag order on Sir David King, and now he is not even allowed to discuss this subject publicly without threat of detention.

AMERICA & THE PENTAGON

A month later in February 2004, the Pentagon became involved, which has stirred the world to action.

The Pentagon has been studying Global Warming for many years because of its possible national security problems associated with the kind of changes that could present themselves to the world through Global Warming.

A special study was conducted through one of the Pentagon’s departments, the Office of Net Assessment, which is directed by Andrew W. Marshall, 83, who has the responsibility of identifying long-term threats to the United States.

Mr. Marshall went to a US based think-tank called Global Business Network to compile the possibilities of Global Warming on US national security. A study was completed in October of 2003 and released to the Pentagon, which was looking at this problem from the point of view of what is the worst that could happen. It was named “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.” The summary went far beyond what most Pentagon experts had expected.

Realizing the incredible possibilities of this study, Mr. Marshall made a decision to publicly report this and other information to the American people. And probably because of President Bush’s stance on Global Warming, which is beyond negative, he also decided to go around the president, and he published his information and concern in Fortune magazine on February 9th 2004.

In his article in Fortune, Mr. Marshall explains how the melting North and South poles and glaciers from around the world are composed of fresh water and within this fact is the basis of the impending global weather disaster.

The Gulf Stream or scientifically referred to as North Atlantic thermohaline conveyor is a stream of warm water that comes from south of the equator and flows over the surface of the ocean toward the north where this warm water keeps Northern America and Northern and Western Europe from freezing. It also holds most of the world’s weather patterns in the way we are used to.

Then as this Gulf Stream cools down, it drops to the bottom of the ocean and returns as a river in the ocean to the south where it warms up again and rises to the surface and then returns to the north one more time in a continuous convection current. It is a huge three dimensional figure eight.

The motor that keep this warm water flowing is found in the north where the Gulf Stream drops to the bottom of the ocean. It is the salt density of the ocean that causes this river to drop and pulls the warm water up from the south.

Now that the poles are melting and fresh water is flowing into the Atlantic Ocean and the salt density is decreasing, the Gulf Stream does not drop quiet as far, which results in a slowing down of this Stream. The Gulf Stream has been dramatically slowing down now for at least ten years.

As the Gulf Stream slows down, the warmth is not brought to the North Atlantic region, and the weather patterns begin to change for they are dependent on this warmth to keep a balance.

THE MELTING POLES

The Bush Administration

During the Bush administration when discussions have been held on the melting of the North & South Poles, this government and US corporate entities alike have stated that the world’s scientists are all wrong on their conclusions that say there is great danger, and have led the American public to believe there is no real problem at all.

However, George W. Bush was the focus of attack by Sir David King when he wrote his article in Science, for the world’s greatest scientific minds, at least one thousand seven hundred of them with the Union of Concerned Scientists say that Mr. Bush is ill informed at the least.

Since the US government is 25% of the CO2 pollution in the world that is creating Global Warming, a discussion of Mr. Bush’s Global Warming policies is paramount. Perhaps one of the best articles that summaries Mr. Bush’s position will be found in the ROLLING STONES magazine article of May 19, 2004 by Tim Dickinson. What follows in italics is a portion of this article.

Given the imminent threat from global warming, even the Bush administration might be expected to launch a War on Heat. After all, as a candidate in 2000, George W. Bush vowed to "establish mandatory reduction targets" for carbon-dioxide emissions, saying he would make the issue a top priority.

Once Bush became president, however, reducing carbon emissions was the first promise he broke -- and his record has been all downhill from there. Only two months after taking office, the administration withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the global treaty that the United States signed in 1997 to set strict limits on greenhouse emissions. Instead, Bush instituted a voluntary emissions plan that has been an abject failure: So far, only fourteen companies have pledged to curb their CO2 output.

The president also folded the interagency group that monitors climate change into the Commerce Department -- led by Secretary Don Evans, a former oil and gas executive. And he called for additional climate research that would delay any meaningful regulation for at least another decade. "We do not know how much our climate could or will change in the future," Bush declared in a speech in the Rose Garden. Such statements spurred an open letter signed by twenty Nobel laureates, who blasted the administration for having "consistently sought to undermine" public understanding of man's role in global warming. (Bush's science adviser refused to be interviewed for this article.)

Then the censorship began. In September 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency released an air-quality report that - for the first time since 1996 - included no mention of global warming. Seven months later, the White House made wholesale revisions to the climate-change chapter of the EPA's "Report on the Environment," playing down human influence, deleting references to the health impacts of global warming and inserting climate data funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. The EPA withdrew the altered chapter, acknowledging in an internal memo that it "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."

Even some Republicans have been astounded at Bush's meddling in EPA affairs. "What seems constantly evident with George W. Bush is that EPA is expected to take its marching orders from the White House on regulatory matters," says Russell Train, who headed the agency under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. "During my time, I never had that happen. Never." Train, a recipient of a Presidential Medal of Freedom from the elder Bush, calls the administration's approach to global warming "totally wrong" and "irresponsible."

Bush can rely on key Republicans in Congress to block any efforts to curb pollution and stave off disaster. Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, dismisses global warming as a "hoax." In a speech last July, Inhofe compared the IPCC to the Soviets and extolled the virtues of what he called a "CO2-enhanced" world. "It is my fervent hope," he concluded, "that Congress will reject the prophets of doom who peddle propaganda masquerading as science in the name of saving the planet from catastrophic disaster."

From another point of view in the same article we hear: “They (the Bush Administration) do not have a credible plan, either domestically or internationally, for addressing the problem (Global Warming), says Michael Oppenheimer, a climatologist at Princeton University. They (the Bush Administration) argue that they don’t want to address global warming, he says, ‘because the science is shaky’. And that approach is indefensible, because the science isn’t shaky.”

The North Pole Melting

Let’s look at the facts. Two summers ago the North Pole completely melted for the first time in history that we know of. Both private and military ships floated directly over the actual North Pole as it was completely water. This area has never been seen to be less then ten feet of solid ice.

Greenpeace a few years ago announced that the North Pole’s winter to summer snow pack had receded by around three hundred miles, but no one listened.

And today, as I am writing this article, we are witnessing the Alaska fire that has consumed over one million acres of forest. This fire is burning in an area that is always wet with rain or snow until now. And this fire, as you will understand in this article is directly related to the melting of the poles and the Gulf Stream.

But finally the Pentagon, thanks to Andrew Marshall, has told the truth in the Fortune magazine on February 9th. The Pentagon shows a satellite photo of the North Pole in 1970 and then in 2003, which reveals that, according to the Pentagon, 40% of the North Pole has melted in just 33 years. And it is melting faster and faster now. The Pentagon has now proven that all these government statements that the poles are not melting were simply a lie. And it is a lie more damaging than anything that Bush’s Iraq war could possibly throw at the United States.

The South Pole Melting

In the South Pole a couple of years ago Larsen A ledge broke off, which surprised many scientists. At that time we were told by the scientific personnel that were studying this event that it was no big deal since this ice ledge had only been connected to the South Pole for about the last ten thousand years.

And these same scientists also added that Larsen B ledge that was behind Larsen A ledge would never melt as it has been there for many ice ages. Yet last year, Larsen’s B ledge broke off and went to sea. These same scientists said that it would take six months to melt because of its immense size, but again they were wrong. It melted in a mere 35 days, and more significant, it rose the entire world’s oceans by almost an inch.

Now with Larsen’s B ledge gone, an incredibly enormous ice shelf called Ross’s Shelf is exposed and the only thing holding Ross’s Shelf from sliding into the ocean was Larsen’s B ledge. According to my sources, Ross’s Shelf is now cracking.

If Ross’s Shelf were to slide into the ocean, it has been estimated that it would raise the entire world’s oceans by sixteen to twenty feet. And that, my friends, would change the world, as almost every coastal city in the world and many islands along with the county of Holland would be underwater. Perhaps it will take an event like this to wake up the world to become serious about Global Warming.

THE ANCIENT PAST

1300 AD

The Pentagon in their study of what is now happening in the North Atlantic ocean, has looked into the past to see when this slowing down or stoppage of the Gulf Stream has happened before and what actually took place at those time in the world’s weather patterns.

In actual fact, this North Atlantic ocean slowing or stoppage has happen hundreds of times before in the past going back hundred of millions years, but in our recent past of the last 10,000 years, it has only happened twice.

The most recent time was in the year 1300 AD, and at that time it simply slowed down. It never actually stopped. And why it slowed down, scientists are at the moment theorizing. They don’t really know why.

It resulted in abrupt global climatic weather changes that never returned to normal for 550 years. This period of time in our history has been named the “Little Ice Age” because of the havoc it caused to our weather and the dramatic cooling that resulted.

What the Pentagon has realized is that at that time of the “Little Ice Age”, the East Coast of America became extremely cold, while the middle and Western areas of the United States became so dry that the Midwest became a dust bowl and the mountain forests burned to the ground, just as they are doing right now today, for you see, this slowing down of the Gulf Stream has been going on today for about ten years. It also affected Europe dramatically as their weather changed completely during the “Little Ice Age”.

A study of the Anasazi Indians of the 14th century is enlightening. In Chaco Canyon in New Mexico the Anasazi completely disappeared, and where they went no one is sure. But one of the reasons that has emerged from the study of the New Mexico environment for their leaving the area is that soon after the turn of the 14th century, Chaco Canyon went into a drought where they didn’t receive a drop of rain for 47 years! 47 years of drought will definitely cause anyone to move. No water, no life.

The archeologists who presented this study didn’t know why the drought happened, but it is clear why it happened with the information of the Gulf Stream slowing down just before this period. And this is exactly what the Pentagon believes is about to happen here in America, Canada and Europe as we speak.

We may think that this current drought in the US West is going to stop soon, but the earth’s history with the Gulf Stream suggests strongly that it will continue for about another 40 years before it begin to regain balance.

8200 Years Ago

However, the Pentagon report believes that the Gulf Stream, from everything they know, is not just going to slow down, but rather it is going to stop. And the last time this happened was 8200 years ago.

And according to the Pentagon, from their research, this is a much more dramatic scenario. When the Gulf Stream stopped 8200 years ago, it soon left Northern Europe under a half mile of ice, and New York and England quickly endured weather similar to Siberia.

Further it resulted in a true “Ice Age” that lasted about 100 years, and so you can see why the Pentagon is so worried. According to Andrew Marshall, like Sir David King, he says that this Gulf Stream problem is a greater threat to US national security (and other countries’) than all of the world’s combined terrorism. Really, when you think about it, terrorism is nothing compared to the stopping of the Gulf Stream. It’s not even close.

Realize that without stable weather conditions, the growing of food becomes almost impossible, and according to the Pentagon, this could become such a huge problem for the world in the near future, that wars will begin to form all over the world, not for oil or energy, but for food and water.

And with whole countries having to evacuate, if this were to happen, such as Finland, Sweden and Denmark, which will be under ice, and many other countries for other reasons, this enormous immigration is what will cause the most threat to national security, again according to the Pentagon report.

This is why Andrew Marshall and Sir David King wanted the world to know about what was coming so that the world could begin to prepare for the inevitable.

THE US SENATE

Then in March 2004 the US Senate became aware of what the Pentagon was saying and they appropriated 60 million dollars to the study of ABRUPT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES. This offers hope that soon the US Senate will begin to tell the world of these coming climate changes.

THE UNITED NATIONS

In June 2004, ending on June 29th, a meeting was held at the United Nations to consider what to do about Global Warming and the Gulf Stream. 154 countries participated with the result that the only thing they could figure out what to do was to eliminate the use of oil and gasoline as soon as possible.

There are those who believe that if we continue to lower the CO2 levels, that possibly we can slow down the problems, and, of course, we must do everything we can. This is important for there are ocean currents other that the North Atlantic that are in every ocean, and if they all were to stop or slow down, Earth would all most certainly enter a true ice age. And history has shown that if that were to happen, our civilization would not return to a warm period again for 90,000 years.

But really, to change or increase the current of the entire Atlantic ocean to bring it back to “normal” is beyond the possibilities of the human race and all of it’s technologies. It is too late, by the estimate of most of the world’s scientists, to alter the course of what is about to happen. All we can do now is prepare for the shock. And preparation is essential, which is the main message of both Sir David King and Andrew Marshall.

NASA PREPARES

On July 13th, 2004, NASA launched a satellite, the first of three, that’s whole purpose is to study Global Warming. Besides the study of the ozone, another huge problem associated with Global Warming, these satellites will monitor the temperature and salt density of the oceans. Perhaps we will at least be able to monitor the rapid changes and predict what will happen next.

SOME UNUSUAL WEATHER CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED
SINCE THE GULF STREAM SLOWED DOWN

In March 2004 the world saw a major hurricane hit the coast of Brazil. This is the first time in all recorded history that a hurricane has struck land in South America.

In May 2004, the United States witnessed 562 tornadoes in a single month, breaking all records. A few of these tornadoes were recorded in Seattle, Washington. Never has a tornado been seen in Seattle.

Eastern Canada in the winter of 2003/2004 just had one of the coldest winters on record.

For several years forest fires have been burning around the world. The list would be extensive. The north part of Australia is on fire. Alaska, as we have already mentioned, is burning. Unprecedented!
The entire Western United States is under fire, jumping from region to region, with the US government announcing that this is the worse drought in 500 years. Really, the fires are worldwide.

France and Europe had a heat wave in 2003 that caused 15,000 people to die in France and 30,000 through-out Europe simply from the intense heat caused by Global Warming and the Gulf Stream.

Argentina this month July 2004, had the greatest storm they have ever seen in their history.

Mexico’s weather is so strange and wet in some regions that mold/fungus is forming on their crops. (And in other regions they are having a drought) As weather patterns begin to change more and more radically, food growth will become one of our biggest problems.

The coral reefs of the world are dying because of Global Warming, and this is threatening most of the islands in the oceans, including those in the Pacific. Anyone living on most islands will probably have to leave sooner or later because of their fresh water being corrupted with salt ocean water. Definitely they will have to leave if the oceans rise much higher.

Further, it was reported on NPR this morning, July 16, 2004, that fifty percent of the CO2 that has been released in the atmosphere from our technological society has ended up in our oceans and this in turn is dropping the PH to the acidic. This in turn is actually dissolving the coral reefs and killing them along with vast numbers of other life forms in the oceans.

These are problems simply off the top of my head. If one were to get serious and really research all the strange weather problems of the last ten years (the years the Gulf Stream slowed down) one would begin to be truly aware of the coming abrupt global climate weather changes that we must all adapt to if humanity is to continue on Earth.

THE 40-FOOT WALL

In the Pentagon report it suggests that the United States build a 40-foot wall around the entire country to keep out people who are immigrating and trying to escape world weather problems. The Pentagon believes that food and water will be the biggest problem, and since the US has the money to buy food, they believe we will be best able to resist this particular problem longer than most countries. People will want to come here just to get food.

This sounds like something out of a weird movie, but in fact the US government has already begun the construction of this wall between the US and Mexico.

SIDE NOTE: Speaking of movies, The Day After Tomorrow, which was recently released is based on this information of the Gulf Stream stopping. However, Hollywood exaggerated the results of the storms so much that most people simply thought it was fantasy. It is not fantasy, it is really happening, but will it happen as this movie predicts? And in this movie you saw massive amount of Americans fleeing to Mexico to escape the extreme cold weather.

I just spoke with a US military person about two weeks ago who is involved in the construction of this 40-foot wall. In the discussion, with him about the Gulf Stream, which he was unaware of, he said, “Oh, now I understand. You see, the wall is straight up and down on the Mexican side, but it has steps and ladders on the US side to get over the wall and into Mexico. I never could understand why the government was doing this.”

THE CHANGING OF THE SHAPE OF THE GULF STREAM

In the Pentagon report they said that they believed that the stoppage of the Gulf Stream would probably happen in three to five years from October 2003. This was their best guess, and admittedly it was only a guess and a theory.

But what they didn’t know, because it was beginning at the actual time of their release of their report, was that the Gulf Stream was beginning to change shape. The change of shape of the Gulf Stream is the beginning of the breakdown and stoppage of this warm water current and the end of our civilization as we know it.

I have this information from two sources, both of which do not wish to be named right now, but both of them are world famous scientists.

If this is true, then all the effects and timing of the Pentagon report have to be shifted closer to the present by three to five years.

I don’t know if this is true, but in the vein of holding nothing back, this info is placed in this article. The actual proof will follow if it will be given to me.

FROM MY HEART TO YOURS

As I became aware of this information, I didn’t know what to do or if I should write this article. But because I believe in and love humanity, I finally realized, like Sir David King and Andrew Marshall, that I must speak out, for knowledge is power.

And when the time comes for us all to make life decisions, my prayer is that we all go inside where God resides and listen to our inner Heart. If we trust in ourselves and the presence of Divine Guidance, we will all know exactly what to do and where to be.

May God bless us all in what is about to come.

Dry/Ice: Global Warming Revealed
Updates, Corrections and Clarification

www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/ann_dryice.htm

thetimetocare

2007-11-16T18:02:00.000-08:00

I figured a little education on how global warming is caused and the effects it could have on us would be beneficial to help you begin helping others. Remember, the world is not perfect but doing your part will keep it at its peak. Another interesting note, most new cars today that run on diesel fuel also run on a new fuel called biodiesel which is a byproduct of vegetable oil. Within the next few years, biodiesel should be making its way into gas stations across the country. It reduces environmentally hazardous emissions by up to 80%.

thetimetocare.blogspot.com/

CantorCO2e Adds Voluntary Carbon Markets to EmissionsTrading.com

2007-11-08T00:02:00.000-08:00

San Francisco, CA, October 3, 2007 – CantorCO2e has today announced the launch of a web-based marketplace that provides its clients with information about multiple domestic and international projects, creating real carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) offsets. Prices, quantities, and brief descriptions of the projects are now available online for registered users at www.emissionstrading.com. Clients can also respond on-line to bids and offers.

"Participants in today's voluntary greenhouse gas markets have a challenging task," said CantorCO2e's co-CEO Josh Margolis. "Companies seeking to build a green brand must have access to real reductions that are derived from defined projects. Of most interest are emission reductions from distinct projects that have a pedigree, a history, a story, and which meet rigorous standards.”

“Our buyers want to support carbon reduction projects that have both a story and a particular character. They simply cannot afford to transact offsets that are neither distinct nor real. For some buyers, the quality of tons is a secondary goal to mitigating their carbon footprint. For others, the quality of the carbon reductions is paramount. Our voluntary markets are for those who need to know the who, what and why of the tons before they buy.”

The importance of voluntary carbon markets is growing with each year.

According to a recent report on the voluntary carbon markets, more than 20 million tons of CO2e were traded voluntarily in the first six months of 2007. Mr. Margolis noted, “This is up from about 24 million tons in all of 2006 and only 8 million tons in 2005. The pace of growth in the market continues to be substantial, and we may see hundreds of millions of tons trade voluntarily by 2010.”

CO2e tons offered through CantorCO2e’s marketplace include those derived from the United States and internationally. Project types include:

Methane capture and avoidance
Biomass power generation
Wind farms
Hydroelectric power
Energy efficiency
Forestry
Carbon capture and storage
Fuel switches
Industrial gas switches
Transportation efficiency improvements

Many of the emission reductions available through CantorCO2e are derived from pre-registered Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects and are verified, or are verifiable, to the Voluntary Carbon Standard, as well as other international and US standards. These tons are being used by corporations seeking to lighten their carbon footprint. Some are looking to build a carbon portfolio in anticipation of the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) or California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), authored by Fran Pavley and signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. Others are seeking to avoid projects being slowed by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) interventions. Consumer product corporations are also seeking to build a green brand by inviting their customers to offset the carbon associated with units produced. More detailed information about CantorCO2e’s voluntary carbon markets can be found here.

About AB 32 (The Global Warming Solutions Act)

AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, is the nation's first economy-wide cap on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Signed into law in 2006, AB 32 represents the first enforceable state-wide program to cap greenhouse gas emissions from major industries, with penalties for non-compliance. The new state law caps California's greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2020. Unlike the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the Northeast, which is aimed at purely Electric Generating Units (EGUs), the California law will target all major emitters, and include all six gases associated with global warming, not just CO2. For more information on the GHG law, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) website is www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.

About CantorCO2e

CantorCO2e is a leading global provider of financial services to the world's environmental and energy markets, offering finance, consultancy, advice, technology, and transaction services to clients engaged in using energy and managing emissions across the world.

CantorCO2e helps people and corporations across the world to manage the financial aspects of their energy and environmental choices. In North America and Europe, this means providing brokerage services to the energy and environmental commodity markets. Elsewhere, this means bringing expertise, finance and technology to projects that reduce emissions.

CantorCO2e serves all of the world's principal emissions markets, including the Kyoto markets (CDM, JI and the European Trading Scheme), the US compliance markets, and the voluntary carbon market. We help entities transact via electronic trading screens, recorded telephone lines, auctions and negotiated contracts. As well as emissions, we broker 'new' energy, such as renewable energy, ethanol and Biodiesel. We advise equity investment funds on carbon finance, introduce investors to projects, and structure forward sales to enable project developers to fund their investments. We help 'clean-tech' technology developers to manage their intellectual property, to develop their licensing strategies, and to roll out their technologies through our global network.

CantorCO2e is headquartered in London and San Francisco and has fourteen offices across five continents. This global yet local presence across the world, together with the unique experience of our staff, enables us to provide a level of service that few can match. For more information please visit www.cantorco2e.com.

About Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.

Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. is a leading global financial services firm. The Cantor Fitzgerald franchise includes institutional equity and fixed income sales and trading, investment banking, private equity, and asset management and other businesses and ventures. For nearly 60 years, Cantor Fitzgerald, a proven and resilient leader, has been committed to delivering a unique brand of unparalleled product expertise, innovative technology and customer service to its clients around the world. For more information, please visit www.cantor.com.

Contact:

Melanie Gordon-Felsman
Cantor Fitzgerald
(212) 610 2314
mgordon@cantor.com

Carbon market aims to slow global warming

2007-11-07T23:51:00.000-08:00

This story first appeared as part of CNN.com's "Changing Earth" special report in 2005.

(CNN) -- Hot air is now for sale.

Greenhouse gases are being bought and sold on the open market by countries concerned about climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to curb global warming, created the market in greenhouse gases to reduce emissions of methane, carbon dioxide and other gasses heating up the planet. The trade has gained steam since the Kyoto treaty entered into effect in February 2005.

Greenhouse gases -- prime culprits in global warming -- trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Since the middle of the 19th century, human agriculture and industrialization have poured a huge amount of them into the atmosphere, where they have captured enough heat to initiate climate change -- about 0.6 degrees Celsius during the past century, according to the United Nations. More warming is expected, but the exact amount is highly contentious.

The Kyoto Protocol, with more than 140 nations on board, aims to use market forces to rein in emissions by creating a market in greenhouse gasses. Under the pact, participating countries may emit a specific quantity of the gasses, and can sell off excess "credits" for profit.

That's attracting a lot of business, brokers say.

"I think that even conservatively we have the market doubling from 78 million to 150 million tons [of greenhouse gases] between 2003 and 2004," said Richard Rosenzweig, managing director at Natsource, a New York brokerage firm.

The World Bank estimates that funds offering mitigation investments are worth about $1.5 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal. Investors are funding projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, like hydroelectric dams and renewable energy plants, and earning investors credits to offset emissions from factories and power plants.

The biggest buyers -- Japanese companies and the Dutch government -- are snapping up credits offered in regions such as Asia and Latin America.

The United States proposed the market plan for the Kyoto Protocol when it first signed the treaty in 1998. It withdrew in 2001 arguing that the treaty failed to appreciably slow global warming or include developing nations. Despite initial resistance, it has been embraced by Europe and Japan as an affordable way to slow climate change.

The world currently emits about 28 billion tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases, known as GHG, each year, according to the United Nations. Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries must cut emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

The United States is responsible for 7 billion metric tons, about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, but is not party to the Kyoto Protocol's restrictions.

Although trading volumes have doubled annually in recent years, Rosenzweig said, a global bazaar in GHG is still a long way off. The major markets are isolated to Canada, Japan and the European Union, accounting for about 3 billion tons of emissions reductions under Kyoto.

"What is really happening is every nation is going off and doing what they would have done anyway under the umbrella of Kyoto, but operating unilaterally," said David Victor, director of the Energy and Sustainable Development program at Stanford University.

Still, these domestic markets could leave a significant mark on the international economy. According to Ilex Energy Consulting of Oxford, England, meeting greenhouse gas reductions is expected to cost European industry several billion dollars during the next three years, through updating technology or buying emissions credits.

The Kyoto Protocol also gave a wake-up call for companies unfettered by emission limits. Major companies are drawing up contingency plans for future regulations on carbon dioxide.

The Investor Network on Climate Risk, a shareholders organization, recently sent petitions to twenty-five corporations in the oil, automobile and energy industries, asking them to disclose global warming risks, according to The Nation magazine. Instead of silence, several companies, some of which once publicly lobbied against predictions of global warming, acknowledged the threat posed by climate change and made plans to deal with possible future regulations.

American Electric Power, a coal power utility, said U.S. controls on carbon dioxide would likely arrive within the decade, and it was already investing in emissions reductions.

Harnessing the market

Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol argue that market-based approaches are required to tamp down rising greenhouse gas emissions because every sector of the economy, from agriculture to aerospace, contributes to the problem.

Elliot Diringer, international strategies director with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said economic incentives -- backed up by government rules -- are indispensable.

"Whatever we do has to be done through the marketplace," Diringer said. "Only the market can mobilize the resources and expertise to get the job done, but the market needs direction from the government ... The government lays out the goal, and the market figures out the best ways to get there."

One of the most successful examples of market-driven pollution reduction is the U.S. trading program for nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxide set up in the 1990s. The Acid Rain Program had cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 38 percent in 2003 and was the inspiration behind Kyoto's trading approach.

However, some countries, such as Australia and the United States, say the costs of implementing the treaty and reducing carbon dioxide create a dangerous drag on their economies without substantially reducing global warming. The United States withdrew from the treaty in 2001, citing concerns over domestic economic growth and exemptions for rapidly developing countries like China and India.

The United States has one of the highest per capita rates of emissions of GHGs, at about 6.6 tons per person, according to the Environmental Protection Agency data from 1995. It also generates about a quarter of the world's economic activity.

Carbon Trading: Practical Solution to Global Warming or Corporate Greenwash? A Debate

2007-11-07T23:45:00.000-08:00

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will vote today on a bill promoting carbon trading, which sets greenhouse gas emissions limits and allowances for each industry and then creates a system to trade the allowances. Critics argue that carbon trading actually delays the crucial process of big polluters reducing their emissions. We host a debate between Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense and Daphne Wysham of the Institute for Policy Studies. [includes rush transcript]

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will vote today on climate change legislation written by Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Warner. The bill is called “America’s Climate Security Act.” It aims to combat global warming by using a cap-and-trade system popularly known as carbon trading. This involves setting greenhouse gas emissions limits and allowances for each industry, and then creating a system to trade the allowances.

Under the Kyoto Protocol countries can trade emissions credits and companies can earn credits by paying for emissions-reducing and clean energy projects in developing countries. Despite the US government’s opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, California, New York and New Jersey embraced carbon trading Tuesday as they joined European governments, Canadian provinces, and New Zealand to launch a forum known as the International Carbon Action Partnership. Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore and institutions like the World Bank and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change also support carbon trading as a viable market-based solution to fight global warming. But critics argue that carbon trading actually delays the crucial process of big polluters reducing their emissions.

Rising Tide North America is one organization that opposes carbon trading. Activists from this group disrupted a Carbon Markets Insights conference held in New York on Monday. Posing as delegates, they took to the stage and denounced carbon trading as “a sham approach to the fossil fuel crisis.”

Protesters or “Greenwash guerrillas” from Rising Tide North America, intervening at a carbon trading expo in New York.

Today, we host a debate on carbon trading. Joining me here in Washington, DC are two environmentalists, both committed to fighting global warming.

Annie Petsonk. International counsel with Environmental Defense, a leading national environmental advocacy organization. She has participated in the development of climate policy since the inception of the climate treaty talks and works to develop international laws that provide economic incentives for environmental protection. Annie Petsonk supports carbon trading.

Daphne Wysham. Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She is also the founder and co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network and a member of the Durban Group for Climate Justice. Her research drew attention to the disproportionate ratio of fossil fuel investments by international financial institutions like the World Bank. Daphne Wysham is opposed to carbon trading.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to carbon trading. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will vote today on climate change legislation written by Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Warner. The bill is called “America’s Climate Security Act.” It aims to combat global warming by using a cap-and-trade system popularly known as carbon trading. This involves setting greenhouse gas emissions limits and allowances for each industry and then creating a system to trade the allowances.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, countries can trade emissions credits and companies can earn credits by paying for emissions-reducing and clean energy projects in developing countries. Despite the US government’s opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, California, New York and New Jersey embraced carbon trading Tuesday, as they joined European governments, Canadian provinces, and New Zealand to launch a forum known as the International Carbon Action Partnership. Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore and institutions like the World Bank and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change also support carbon trading as a viable market-based solution to fight global warming. But critics argue carbon trading actually delays the crucial process of big polluters reducing their emissions.

Rising Tide North America is one organization that opposes carbon trading. Activists from the group disrupted a Carbon Markets Insights conference held in New York Monday. Posing as delegates, they took to the stage and denounced carbon trading as “a sham approach to the fossil fuel crisis.” This is a clip of their presentation at the conference.

ACTIVIST 1: We have a very special guest for all of you here as the cutting edge of market-based solutions to climate change. We present to you a deed to the next frontier that is literally over all of your heads.

ACTIVIST 2: “This indenture made on the 30th day of October in the year of our lord two thousand and seven on behalf of the secretary of the sky bestows the full and rightful ownership of all parts of the atmosphere to the Carbon Traitors of Carbon Market Insights.” Generations of the future --

ACTIVIST 1: -- are begging you now --

ACTIVIST 2: -- renounce this treachery --

ACTIVIST 1: -- for this [inaudible]. So sick this idea, offset your illusion.

ACTIVISTS 1 & 2: There’s no market-based fix for offset pollutions.

AMY GOODMAN: Protesters, or as they call themselves “Greenwash guerrillas” from Rising Tide North America, led away after intervening at the carbon trading expo in New York.

Well, today, we host a debate on carbon trading. Joining me here in Washington, D.C., two environmentalists, both committed to fighting global warming. Annie Petsonk is international counsel with Environmental Defense, a leading national environmental advocacy group. She has participated in the development of climate policy since the inception of the climate treaty talks and works to develop international laws that provide economic incentives for environmental protection. Annie Petsonk supports carbon trading. Daphne Wysham is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She is also the founder and co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network and a member of the Durban Group for Climate Justice. Her research drew attention to the disproportionate ratio of fossil fuel investments by international financial institutions like the World Bank. Daphne Wysham is opposed to carbon trading. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

Annie, why don’t you start off by saying why you support carbon trading? And explain it in the process.

ANNIE PETSONK: The global warming problem is an urgent one, and we don’t have time to continue putting global warming pollution into the atmosphere. If we want to get countries, companies and local communities to look for and implement effective opportunities to cut greenhouse gas emissions, wherever they can find them -- in the home, in the office, in the school -- we’ve got to give people economic incentives so that it becomes in their financial self-interest to cut global warming pollution now. That’s what carbon trading does. Implemented effectively, it can be a huge help, along with other policies, in getting our nation to step up to the plate, take some leadership and tackle this problem.

AMY GOODMAN: But explain exactly how it works.

ANNIE PETSONK: Sure. In cap-and-trade, every polluter is given a mandatory limit on their greenhouse gas emissions. You get a certain amount of pollution; that’s all you’re allowed to emit. Essentially, the government opens a bank account for you and puts a certain amount of allowances to emit pollution in your bank account. If you can find a way to reduce your pollution below your allowable level, you have some extra pollution allowances that you can save for the future or to sell to someone else. If someone comes to you and says, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea for how you can cut emissions,” you can implement that idea, save emissions and then essentially have a valuable commodity that will be increasing in value in the future, since we have to cut a lot more pollution in the future, in order to prevent global warming from really becoming dangerous. And that gives you an economic incentive to look wherever you can to find better, cheaper, faster ways of cutting global warming pollution. So you need two things: a mandatory cap on emissions, put there by government, and an incentive program that allows anybody to come up with better, cheaper, faster ways to cut pollution and make money.

AMY GOODMAN: Daphne Wysham, what’s your problem with it?

DAPHNE WYSHAM: Well, you know, this is a nice abstraction, but what we should be looking at is how carbon trading is playing out in reality. If you look at the EU emissions trading system that was up and running -- has been up and running for several years, we see that emissions are actually up for greenhouse gas emissions, as are profits. Profits are up for the nuclear industry, for the coal industry, and the average consumer is paying more.

Now, the EU emissions trading system, they’ve begun to make changes in that system; however, essentially what carbon trading does is it turns the earth's carbon cycling capacity into property that is to be bought and sold in a global market. And by turning carbon into a commodity, we’re essentially taking the earth's ability to support a climate conducive to life and human societies and passing it into the same corporate hands that are destroying the climate.

So, you know, one of the problems with the parameters of the climate debate is that for too long NGOs have been sort of promoting solutions that have been operating in a vacuum of, you know, analysis of other issues, fundamental issues around who profits, who pays, democracy, power. All of these sorts of things are rarely debated. And as a result, we have a very narrow sort of political space in which we’re now discussing how we move forward on the issue of climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: But explain exactly how it works. I mean, ExxonMobil is given a certain amount of carbon credits, allowed to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases, and if they want to do more, who do they trade with?

DAPHNE WYSHAM: Well, they can trade -- it hasn’t taken place yet domestically, because we don’t -- what we have is basically -- the US is not signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. But ExxonMobil can trade with itself, if it has operations in a developing country, eventually. For example, Chevron is now pushing for gas flare reduction projects in the Niger Delta to count as carbon credits under the CDM. Now, this is a process that’s illegal. It’s been illegal in Nigeria.

AMY GOODMAN: You mean the gas flares?

DAPHNE WYSHAM: The gas flaring, yeah. And the international community and other institutions have been putting pressure on Nigeria to stop this gas flaring. However, if this carbon credit moves forward as planned, Chevron and the World Bank and some other major international corporations will actually profit from reducing gas flares, essentially getting a profit for doing what should be illegal.

AMY GOODMAN: Annie Petsonk?

ANNIE PETSONK: We’ve had great experience with cap-and-trade for controlling air pollution in this country since 1990, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act amendments. We put a cap on acid rain pollution and adopted this kind of system to cut acid rain pollution from coal-fired power plants. So, in that program, we essentially put the training wheels on the bicycle and learned how to ride the bicycle. That program has cut acid rain pollution far faster than industry and many environmentalists predicted could be done. And it’s done so at a fraction of the cost that people projected.

Setting up a carbon trading system for the world and for the United States is more complicated. There are more polluters. I agree with Daphne that companies should not be allowed to get credit in a developing country which has no caps on emissions for doing what they were supposed to do anyway. That would be like me saying to you, “Amy, I was planning to eat some cheesecake next week, but I’m not going to eat as much cheesecake as I was actually planning to do. I was going to break my diet and eat a little extra. And I’ll sell you my extra cheesecake credits.” You would then ask me, “Oh, Annie, how much cheesecake were you actually planning to eat next week?” And, of course, I’ll tell you I was planning to eat it breakfast, lunch, and dinner and sell you my extra cheesecake credits for what I don’t actually eat. We don’t like that system. We don’t think it’s a workable system. And one of the reasons why we're looking forward to the markup in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today is that the bill now being considered there doesn’t create that system. It’s better than that.

AMY GOODMAN: Daphne Wysham?

DAPHNE WYSHAM: I tend to disagree with that perception, as do quite a few number of groups. Friends of the Earth has recently produced an analysis on the windfall profits in the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, and according to their calculations, 38% of the giveaways, the free giveaways in this bill, would benefit the fossil fuel industry over the lifetime of the program. That’s -- and roughly $268 billion of that would go directly to the coal industry alone.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what the giveaways are.

DAPHNE WYSHAM: Well, you know, one of the failures of the EU emissions trading system is that they essentially -- the governments essentially gave the right to pollute to certain industries. They set the tap high, and as a result industry was able to emit as much as they had been emitting in the past and make a profit buying and selling these emissions rights. Similarly, in this -- and there was no auctioning.

Now, in the current Lieberman-Warner bill, there is some auctioning, but about 50% of all of the permits are just being given away for free. Now, these permits are valuable. They are basically being turned into a commodity. So now what we have is essentially the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, the coal industry, is one of the largest beneficiaries of the Lieberman-Warner bill. And an additional $522 billion will potentially go to what they call zero and low carbon energy technologies. Now, if we are optimistic, we would say, “Wonderful! That’s going to go to renewables.” However, the legislation is vague. It could go to either the fossil fuel industry for carbon capture and storage, which is a very expensive and unproven technology, or it could go to the nuclear energy. And that is not specifically ruled out in this legislation.

So we have problems with this also because it essentially is a tax on the working poor. It’s not a tax on the very corporations that are causing the problem.

AMY GOODMAN: How is it a tax on the working poor?

DAPHNE WYSHAM: Well, because we will see the windfall gains. Instead of having those go to, say, subsidize an increase in the price of power or to public transportation or to other incredibly important solutions to the climate problem, we will see billions and billions of dollars worth of profits going back to the very industries that are causing the problem.

AMY GOODMAN: Annie Petsonk?

ANNIE PETSONK: We believe that the Americas Climate Security Act that’s going to be voted on this morning in the Environment and Public Works Committee is a very good first step. Is it perfect? No. Are senators moving to improve it? Yes. Senator Lautenberg announced yesterday he wants to broaden the coverage of the bill so that more parts of the economy come under that cap on fossil fuel emissions. We think that’s a good thing. He’s also proposing to put into the bill a provision that says, let's look at how much global warming we’re seeing. You know, the governors of the Southeast states are meeting today here in Washington to try to figure out what to do about their dwindling water resources in the face of the worst drought the Southeast has ever seen. We’ve got to act now; they recognize that.

AMY GOODMAN: Atlanta could run out of water.

ANNIE PETSONK: Atlanta could run out of water. So what Senator Lautenberg has proposed to do is to put a provision in the bill that requires Congress to keep looking back at the science and see: if those caps on pollution need to be tightened, it will tighten them. The bill does start out, for about half of the polluters who are covered, by making them purchase allowances, not get them for free. And over time, it increases the amount they have to purchase, and it reduces the amount that the government gives them for free. That’s a sensible approach. Could it be faster? Yes. But it gets us started, and that’s the most important thing, because we don’t have time to wait.

DAPHNE WYSHAM: Can I just -- you know, I think it’s important to take some specific examples. I think it’s instructive to look at, for example, the World Bank, which I have been monitoring for over ten years now. Now, they have invested over fifteen times as much in fossil fuels as renewable since 1992. Originally, it was a hundred to one. Now, they are getting into the carbon trading market. The US Treasury back in 1997 said this is a clear conflict of interest for a financial institution to both profit from financing fossil fuels and profit from carbon trading. They're actually charging somewhere on the order of 13% commission on all carbon trading transactions. Now, what the World Bank could have done and should have done instead of getting into the carbon trading market is they should have set a higher energy efficiency standard, they should have stopped subsidizing fossil fuels, they should at the very least be calculating their climate footprint, which they are not doing. So they’re calculating the carbon credits, but they’re not calculating the carbon debits.

Now, if you globalize that particular model and look at how that would play out with bank after bank, whether it’s Citibank or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or other public or private banks, you see how these banks are going to be gaming the system. They will be profiting from selling -- from giving loans to the likes of Chevron, and then they’ll be profiting again from charging a commission on the CO2 that is captured from those operations in developing countries or potentially in the US.

So, you know, what I think people need to understand is, yes, the time is urgent. We need to take action very soon on this issue. However, we need to learn the lessons from the failures of the EU emissions trading system. And the bill that’s on the Senate floor this morning is not the best way to move forward. It’s a corporate giveaway, and we need to do better. Boxer needs to hear from people on this.

AMY GOODMAN: Last word, Annie Petsonk, on this. Is this just a corporate gift, a subsidy, a giveaway?

ANNIE PETSONK: If America doesn’t take the lead, beginning to tackle our global warming pollution -- excuse me -- other nations won’t either. I strongly support getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies for big coal-fired power plants in China and India and in the US. We’ve got to start. We cannot afford to delay. This bill is not a corporate subsidy or giveaway. It’s a first step in getting America on a track to a cleaner energy future and a safer climate.

AMY GOODMAN: Fifteen seconds, Daphne Wysham, then what’s your alternative, since you are so critical of this?

DAPHNE WYSHAM: Well, I think, you know, what we have is a political opportunity here. We know that the President is going to veto any kind of legislation that comes from the Senate. He has made clear his opposition to any kind of legislation --

AMY GOODMAN: Even Lieberman and Warner?

DAPHNE WYSHAM: Even Lieberman and Warner. So why aren’t the Democrats -- why are they just -- why are they kowtowing to Bush? Why aren’t they pushing forward the most aggressive piece of legislation that they can get as a benchmark and say this is what we’re going to be pushing for in the next administration? And, you know, we can do better. We should be debating these issues. We should be setting much more stringent targets, at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This bill gets us nowhere near that. And so, that’s my concerns with it.

AMY GOODMAN: Daphne Wysham and Annie Petsonk, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense, Daphne Wysham, thanks so much.

DAPHNE WYSHAM: Thank you.

ANNIE PETSONK: Thanks, Amy.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/01/1344243

CARBON MARKETS PARTNERSHIP TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING

2007-11-07T23:31:00.000-08:00

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

2007OTP0167-001386

Oct. 29, 2007

Office of the Premier

International Carbon Action Partnership

LISBON, PORTUGAL – A coalition of European countries, U.S. states, Canadian provinces, New Zealand and Norway today announced the formation of the International Carbon Action Partnership (www.ICAPCarbonAction.com) to fight global warming.

ICAP will provide an international forum in which governments and public authorities adopting mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade systems will share experiences and best practices on the design of emissions trading schemes. This co-operation will ensure that the programs are more compatible and are able to work together as the foundation of a global carbon market. Such a market will boost demand for low-carbon products and services, promote innovation, and allow cost effective reductions so as to allow swift and ambitious global reductions in global warming emissions.

The groundbreaking international and interregional agreement was signed today by U.S. and Canadian members of the Western Climate Initiative, and northeastern U.S. members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, as well as European members including the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, and the European Commission. New Zealand and Norway joined on behalf of their emissions trading programs.

Leaders attending the summit included: President José Sócrates, Council of the European Union and Prime Minister of Portugal; European Commission President José Manuel Barroso; Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey; Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York and Premier Gordon Campbell, British Columbia. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, participated with video messages.

ICAP will open lines of communication for sharing valuable information, such as research, effective policy initiatives, lessons learned and new developments. By working together to establish similar design principles, ICAP partners are ensuring that future market systems, in conjunction with regulation in the form of enforceable caps, will boost worldwide demand for low-carbon products and services, provide a larger market for innovators, and achieve global emissions reductions at the swiftest pace and lowest cost possible. The new partnership supports the current ongoing efforts undertaken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which all ICAP members agree has a central role in fighting global warming.

Global warming is a problem that requires a global solution. ICAP will facilitate such a global solution by:

* Rigorously and accurately monitoring, reporting and verifying emissions and working to determine reliable sources appropriate for inclusion in a globally linked program.

* Encouraging common approaches and furthering partners’ ability to link together to expand the global carbon market, helping to prevent leakage.
* Creating a clear price incentive to innovate, develop and use clean technologies.
* Encouraging private investors to chose low carbon projects and technologies, generating the flow of money needed to support a shift to a low-carbon future.
* Providing flexible compliance mechanisms that ensure reliable reductions at the fastest pace and lowest cost

The following signatories and/or participants of the event said:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, United Kingdom: “The launch of the International Carbon Market Partnership is a truly significant step forward in the global effort to combat climate change. Building a global carbon market is fundamental to reducing greenhouse gas emissions while allowing economies to grow and prosper. Trading emissions between nations allows us all to reach our greenhouse gas targets more cost-effectively. And it therefore allows us to reduce emissions more than we could by acting alone.”

Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey: “My background as the former head of Goldman Sachs has given me a unique perspective on many market-based solutions to important public problems, such as environmental degradation. But it is my life in public service that has helped me understand that it will take the courage and commitment of a core set of leaders, like those of us gathered today, to drive implementation of smart, feasible, and measurable policies needed to address an issue as urgent as global warming.”

Premier Gordon Campbell, British Columbia: “Tackling global warming requires international co-operation and collaboration unlike anything we have seen before. It is vitally important that as we design our own market systems we co-ordinate with other provinces, states, nations and continents. The partnership we have signed today opens the door, for the first time ever, to jurisdictions around the globe to share ideas and new technologies, and ultimately will lay the foundation for a compatible market-based system to trade carbon offsets and credits worldwide.”

John Hutton, secretary of state for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform, United Kingdom: “This initiative is an extremely important contribution to the global effort to solve the urgent problem of climate change. Business tells us they want clarity on what they will be asked to do, and that they prefer a market-based approach. That is why the global carbon market will be fundamental in the move to a low carbon economy, and why ICAP is such a valuable forum, with its practical emphasis on collaborating and sharing experience and expertise.”

For more information, please visit www.ICAPCarbonAction.com.

-30-

Media

contact:

Mike Morton

Press Secretary

Office of the Premier

250 213-8218

For more information on government services or to subscribe to the Province’s news feeds using RSS, visit the Province’s website at www.gov.bc.ca.

Climate Change: An Inconvenient Globalist Scam

2007-11-03T14:00:00.000-07:00

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=856

Climate Change: An Inconvenient Globalist Scam Saturday May 05th
2007, 2:40 pm

Rajendra Pachauri and the United Nations have issued a solemn
3deadline2 on 3climate change,2 otherwise we face 3a worldwide
disaster,2 according to the Telegraph. Ban Ki-Moon, the recently
installed secretary general of the UN, dispatched envoys to the
four corners where they seek 3advance agreement from heads of state
on the principles of a post-2012 climate change treaty, negotiations
for which begin at a meeting in Indonesia in December,2 resulting
in a cobbled together 3son of Kyoto2 treaty.

Of course, you and I will not have a say in this treaty, as it will
be determined behind closed doors by the likes of Rajendra Pachauri
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC
reports, issued by a 32,000-strong network of UN scientists and
energy experts2 (i.e., they are bankrolled by NGOs, foundations and
corporations) are 3authoritative2 and 3widely cited in almost any
debate related to climate change.2

Naturally, these 3scientists and energy experts2 know best, and so
it makes sense IPCC meetings are open only to members of the World
Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment
Program. As usual, the United Nations will be dictating to us, the
squalid (and over-populated) commoners.

Well, this commoner has big problems with the United Nations, the
IPCC, and its gaggle of bureaucrats and scientists sucking on the
foundation grant teat. First and foremost, the United Nations is
dedicated to world government, thus any solution to any number of
problems, more than a few contrived in advance, will necessitate
more globalism, more authoritative government, more orders haughtily
issued from on-high. Second, the IPCC9s scientists, to my satisfaction,
have yet to demonstrate climate change is the result of human
activity and carbon emissions.

3Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the
current debate over global warming difficult to fathom,2 writes
Martin Keeley, a geologist. 3To expect permanent stability in climate
patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the
complexity and instability of weather
. If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.2 Keeley takes issue with the IPCC9s 3hockey stick2 temperature curve for the last millennium, a set of statistics the IPCC used as the foundation for Kyoto.

3In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously
accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and
initial skepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism
and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does
it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the
public at large,2 writes John L. Daly. 3This never happened with
[Dr. Michael] Mann9s Hockey Stick9. The coup was total, bloodless,
and swift as Mann9s paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical
approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12
months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.2

Al Gore used this 3hockey stick2 data in his film, An Inconvenient
Truth. It is now widely accepted as gospel truth, never mind schlocky
research passed off as fact, even though two Canadians with expertise
in statistical analysis, Stephen McIntyre and economics professor
Ross McKitrick, 3found considerable errors in the way the data was
collated,2 according to the Cooler Heads Coalition.

McIntyre and McKitrick, in a paper published by Geophysical Research
Letters, 3were unable to replicate Mann9s results either by re-running
his calculations once the errors were corrected or by constructing
their own data set from the original sources. Their reconstruction
of the Mann et al. data set from the original sources shows clearly
that there was a period of greater warmth than the last century in
the 15th century, and that the spike is not unprecedented. They
have suggested that Mann should account for the discrepancies.2 In
response, Mann accused the Canadians of engaging in a 3political
stunt2 and dismissed their research.

As Bjxrn Lomborg discovered, criticism to this entrenched orthodoxy
will not be tolerated. Lomborg is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen
Business School and a former director of the Environmental Assessment
Institute in Copenhagen. Lomborg authored The Skeptical Environmentalist:
Measuring the Real State of the World, a book arguing that certain
aspects of the global warming orthodoxyincluding overpopulation,
declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water
shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issuesare
unsupported by analysis of relevant data. In response, the IPCC9s
Rajendra Pachauri compared Lomborg to Adolph Hitler.

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, notes that taking a
stand against the IPCC dominated orthodoxy can be a career killer.
3Twenty years ago, climate research became politicized in favor of
one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study
of the effect of greenhouse gases,2 Calder writes for the Times
Online. 3As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative
and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their
research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at
least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who
doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay
of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate
research go almost unreported.2

Of course, the 3rebellious spirits essential for innovative and
trustworthy science2 are not invited, as the point here is to
stampede people into accepting global government, lest we all fall
victim to 3a worldwide disaster2 of biblical proportion. 3For
complete control of the masses a dictatorship is not necessary,
although it does expedite the process. The collective moulding
begins early in life, sustained and refined throughout one9s formal
education; a universal curriculum of manipulation can transform and
achieve a complete paradigm shift for a whole generation,2 writes
Terry Melanson.

Climate change, now making the rounds with increasing urgency and
no shortage of fear mongering, represents a 3control of the dialogue2
that will ultimately lead to the 3inevitably to hegemony; defined,
succinctly, as the power of ideas exercised by a dominant or
privileged social group over subordinate social groups. Hegemony
is the aftermath of the Hegelian Dialectic, the outcome of the ends
justify the means9 maxim. The people have not submitted to this
power, they consent to itthough it is clearly not in their own best
interest. Hegemony is a form of control in which those who have
power maintain their position, not through force, but through the
elaboration of a particular ideology or world view. This form of
social control is long lasting, it is an effective, and patient,
tactic,92 Melanson continues, citing the late Antony Sutton.

Mary Burdman is a bit more blunt: 3The real agenda of what can only
be called climate terrorism,9 will be using this hoax to impose the
kind of 9state of emergency9 used when the Nazis took power in
Germany, as the German newspaper Die Welt has just warned. This
crew is not only after everyone9s pension; they are using green
propaganda to target a generation of children, as Godzilla was used
to frighten young Baby Boomers about the atomic age. The Scotsman
reported Feb. 23 about a recent study which revealed that half of
over 1,000 British children between the ages of 7 and 11 lose sleep
because of exaggerated fears about global warming. It is no coincidence
that the British government is sending Al Gore9s film hoax An
Inconvenient Truth,9 to all schools in the country.2

Quoting the UN9s Biodiversity Treaty, Tom DeWeese writes: 3The goal
of Sustainable Development is to transform the world into feudal-like
governance by making NATURE the central organizing principle for
our economy and society
. The plan is to change your way of life to fit into the new global society. According to Sustainable Development policies, air conditioning, convenience foods, single-family housing and cars are among the products, habitats and modes of transportation that have already been determined to be unsustainable9
There has never been a single vote in Congress to create Sustainable
Development. It9s all done through cleverly rearranged wording of
existing programs and budgets, using UN treaties as guidelines.2

Steven Yates adds:

Agenda 21 is the bible of the sustainable development movement. A
horribly written, longwinded tract consisting of 40 chapters of
various lengths covering everything from land, water and waste
management to urban planning to biotechnology, it purports to offer
a comprehensive new paradigm for life on planet Earth. The basic
idea behind sustainable development was spelled out back in 1987
by the little-known Brundtland Commission. The Bruntland Commission
definition: 3development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.2 This innocent sounding phrase came to carry with it the
implication that there are too many people living and working in
an environment of finite resources to permit 3unsustainable2 economic
freedoms. Behind the idea of sustainable development is the idea
that we have a choice:

adopt 3voluntary2 central planning (with the UN at the helm) to
integrate economics and ecology within a globalist perspective or
face ecological disaster a few decades down the pike

According to Angus Reid, all the scary propaganda, much of it based
on junk science (as noted above), is working like a charm, although
not fast enough for green careerists over at the World Wildlife
Fund, an NGO that receives funding from the Ford Foundation, a
3philanthropic2 organization connected to the CIA.

3Many adults in the United States are willing to make some economic
sacrifices in order to help reduce global warming, according to a
poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 75 per cent of respondents
would pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable
sources like solar or wind energy,2 the polling organization reports.
3In addition, 92 per cent of respondents favor requiring car
manufacturers to produce cars that are more energy efficient, but
only 38 per cent support an increased federal tax on gasoline.2

3They are the biggest culprit and they are the biggest offender of
climate,2 complained World Wildlife Fund member Stephan Singer.
3The United States should take climate change seriously.2

No doubt most of us here in America will 3take climate change
seriously2 after we are crowded into Malthusian 3sustainable2
ghettoes resembling something out the dystopian science fiction
film Soylent Green.

Addendum: Sunday, May 6

I admit borrowing the 3Soylent Green2 analogy from Alan Watt and
Cutting Through the Matrix. Alan releases more or less daily audio
3blurbs2 on a variety of subjects, mostly related to the ongoing
and long term effort to impose world government on an unsuspecting
and dumbed-down public at large. Below is a link to his talk
containing the 3Soylent Green2 reference.

Please visit Alan9s web site and give him your support: Cutting
Through the Matrix.

Kyoto9s Crisis Creation = Conservation = Capital9s Elation and
Public Starvation, April 27, 2007:

Sizzling year. Torrid decade. Blistering future?

2007-11-03T13:56:00.000-07:00

5 FEB 1999 When the global warming debate first heated up in the late 1980s, scientists warned that the Earth our grandkids walked might be cooking like a fried egg on an El Paso sidewalk. The prediction ran like this: Gathering levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would trap heat, causing a rapid warming and damaging the atmosphere, the oceans and the economy.

Measurements at weather stations around the globe show these global average temperatures in degrees Celsius, relative to the 1951-1980 average (about 14°C). Recent data is better than older data. Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

And our grandchildren could face drought, fire and flood -- essentially a list of biblical catastrophes. These days, after 18 straight months of record temperatures, the concern is not about the next generation. It's about next year. And 18 record-setting months are only one of the warning signs.

	1998 saw the 20th straight year of above-normal surface temperatures, 0.4 degrees F hotter than 1995, the previous record.
	In 1998, the hottest year since scientists began keeping track of such things in the mid-1800s, global temperatures were 1.04 degrees F above the average for 1961-1990.
	The 10 warmest years in the 150-year history of recorded temperatures have all occurred since 1983.
	In Alaska and other polar regions, the permafrost is melting and whole forests are dying due to an increase of insects associated with the warming.

.
Now that El Niño has dissipated, 1999 could be cooler than hyper-hot 1998. Will that be the start of a downward trend, or will the warming resume? Will the future bring more disasters like Hurricane Mitch, the murderous storm that devastated Central America? (More frequent and more furious storms, after all, are a predicted consequence of warming.) Will the future bring more deadly heat waves like the one that killed thousands in India in 1998? Will it see more catastrophic fires like those that scorched Indonesia and Amazonia last summer?

There is no proof we're on the verge of dangerous -- let alone catastrophic -- warming. Climate varies, after all, just like weather. The American Geophysical Union, a group of earth scientists, warned last week that warming is a predictable consequence of putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "There is no known geologic precedent for the transfer of carbon from the Earth's crust to atmospheric carbon dioxide, in quantities comparable to the burning of fossil fuels, without simultaneous changes in other parts of the carbon cycle and climate system."

One cause of worry is recent evidence that climate is less stable than once assumed. A few thousand years ago, the average temperature apparently soared by 9 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit in just five years -- at least in Greenland.

That's what we call mighty flighty
As The Why Files digs out from yet another snowstorm, the idea of selling snow shovels and swapping skis for swim suits sounds soothing. But global warming, caused by an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide, is a distinctly discomforting thought, since it's likely to bring rising sea levels, droughts and fires that disturb agriculture, economies and ecosystems alike.

Is the ongoing heat wave the long-sought "signal" of global warming? And what's this business about abrupt changes in past climates? So slip on your shades, slap on some sun screen, and scurry along on an electronic expedition to the heart of the warming debate.

http://whyfiles.org/080global_warm/index.html

Indonesia: Papua's forests and global warming

2007-11-03T13:47:00.000-07:00

Papua is the size of California and is almost entirely covered by vast stretches of virgin rain forest spread over 41.5 million hectares -- or 23 percent of Indonesia's total forested area of 180 million hectares.

But some 22 million hectares of these forests are classified as production forests, rather than conservation areas.

Indonesian control over the territory of Papua has seen the region's forests suffer deforestation at the hands of foreign and domestic private companies.

First, during the Soeharto regime, Papua's forests were targeted by logging industries authorized by the Jakarta-based central government.

Up until 2001, as many as 40 logging companies -- none of which were owned by the indigenous Papuans -- were active in Papua, with permission from the central government.

The timber companies, without any interference, were able to cut down trees in Papua and sell them to foreign countries.

According to Greenpeace, more than 25 percent of Papua's natural forests has been sold by timber firms exporting to Japan, the U.S., European countries and China.

Second, as the timber business is worth billions of dollars annually, Papua's forests have also been targeted by illegal logging companies.

Pressure on Papua's forests has progressively increased due to overseas demand, notably from China.

In 2003, some 7.2 million cubic meters of timber was reportedly smuggled out of Papua.

An investigation carried out by the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) revealed "illegal logging in Papua typically involves the collusion of the Indonesian military, the involvement of Malaysian logging gangs and the exploitation of indigenous communities".

Due to deforestation in Papua, both legal and illegal, Indonesia has been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the country with the fastest pace of deforestation in the world. (The Jakarta Post, June 4, 2007).

Indeed, Papua's forests have contributed approximately US$100 million to the central government annually.

Third, despite the government's efforts to combat unauthorized logging activities, Papua's forests continue to suffer from illegal logging. Furthermore, Papua's forests are now being targeted by the palm oil industry as well as the timber industry.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has already asked Papua's governor Barnabas Suebu to open up five million hectares of land for conversion into palm oil plantations, in a drive to increase biofuel production and reduce state spending on domestic petrol subsidies (The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 10, 2007).

The government of Malaysia, the world's largest palm oil producer, invited Suebu to see for himself how palm oil plantations can spur economic growth.

Plantation companies from Jakarta and Malaysia have been running out of space in other parts of Indonesia. Meanwhile, European demand for biofuel remains strong, therefore Papua's virgin forests will continue to be targeted by palm oil producers.

China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and its Indonesian partner, PT. Sinar Mas Agro Resources &Technology, have announced they signed an agreement with Jakarta to invest $5 billion over eight years to develop palm oil plantations in Papua.

PT Sinar Mas is expected to clear some 1,2 million hectares of Papua's rain forests in Boven Digul, Merauke and Mappi regencies to make way for palm-oil plantations.

Meanwhile, a Korean company in collaboration with a national company, is also planning to fell trees to clear the path for palm oil plantations.

So, it is clear that some millions of hectares of Papua's virgin forests will be deliberately cleared by government-authorized palm oil companies.

In other words, deforestation in Papua for the sake of the palm oil industry is being permitted by the government.

The government and the palm oil companies should be reminded that rain forests play a key role in maintaining the world's environmental balance. They need to realize that deforestation in Papua causes not only environmental damage to the western half of the island of New Guinea, but also affects global warming.

As the government destroys more and more hectares of Papua's forests in the name of economic growth, a global warning on deforestation is urgently needed and should be raised by parties in Papua, Jakarta and from other nations.

Clearing our ancient forests to make way for economy-boosting palm oil plantations is not the only way to enhance economic growth in the country. The government should seek other ways to improve economic growth in Papua, and in general, Indonesia.

The writer is a lecturer at the Fajar Timur School of Philosophy and Theology in Abepura, Papua.

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=85527

Global Warming the Young Peoples Trust for the Environment

2007-11-03T13:39:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Global warming is the increase of average world temperatures as a result of what is known as the greenhouse effect. Certain gases in the atmosphere act like glass in a greenhouse, allowing sunlight through to heat the earth's surface but trapping the heat as it radiates back into space. As the greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere the Earth gets hotter.

Causes

One of the main greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2). As trees grow they take in CO2 from the air. When the wood dies the CO2 is returned to the air. Forest clearance and wood burning (such as happens in tropical rain forests) is increasing the latter half of the process, adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Deforestation is now out of control. For example in 1987 an area of the Amazon rain forest the size of Britain was burned, adding 500 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. The loss of the forests also means that there are fewer trees to absorb CO2.

The recent fires in Indonesia, with more than a million hectares of forest ablaze, thanks to fires set deliberately by logging companies, are likely to have an effect on global climate, but the more immediate effect has been the cloud of smog which enveloped much of south-east Asia during September and early October 1997.

However, as large a contribution as deforestation makes , it causes less than half the yearly total of CO2 , the rest comes from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. These fossil fuels are burned in cars, power stations and factories of the wealthier nations such as the USA, Western Europe and the USSR.

Televisions, lights and computers use electricity that is created mainly from burning coal. Every time we switch on a light we are adding to the greenhouse effect. Cars are also major sources of CO2. The average European is responsible for nearly 2.5 times as much atmospheric carbon as a Latin American. The concentration of CO2 has increased 25% since the industrial revolution, half of this rise has been in the last 30 years. It is expected to double within decades.

Other Greenhouse gases

CO2 contributes about 50% to the greenhouse effect. The other greenhouse gases are methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide (N2O)

Methane - is released during coal-mining activities, oil exploration and when vegetation is burnt during land clearance. The main source of methane though is agricultural activity. It is released from wetlands such as rice paddies and from animals, particularly cud-chewing species like cows. The problem with methane is that as the world population increases, agricultural activity must increase and so emissions of methane will also increase. Since the 1960s the amount of methane in the air has increased by 1% per year - twice as fast as the build up of CO2 .

Nitrous oxide - comes from both natural and man-made processes. Man influenced sources, which represent about 45% of output to the atmosphere, are mainly: fossil fuel combustion, as in power stations; use of nitrogenous fertilisers; burning rain forests and human and animal waste. N2O contributes about 6% to the greenhouse effect at the moment.

CFCs - found in fridges, air conditioners, aerosols etc. are extremely effective greenhouse gases. Although there are lower concentrations of CFCs in the atmosphere than CO2 they trap more heat. A CFC molecule is 10,000 times more effective in trapping heat than a CO2 molecule, methane is about 30 times more effective. Methane molecules survive for 10 years in the atmosphere and CFCs for 110 years. It is this that causes people to want to ban them completely.

Feedback Process

CO2 - about half the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is absorbed by the oceans. It is taken up by minute sea creatures or dragged to the ocean depths by the circulation of water. Recent research suggests that as the earth heats up, the oceans will be less efficient in absorbing CO2 , leaving more in the atmosphere and so adding further to global warming.

Methane - as global temperatures become greater, so large quantities of methane stored in the frozen tundra of the north may be released. Also methane trapped in the sea bed may be freed by temperature rises.

As the world warms it causes feedback processes. Increases in temperature cause the liberation of CO2 and methane which then cause further warming. Another feedback mechanism arises through higher air temperatures evaporating more water and so providing more cloud which both traps heat from below and reflects back sunlight from above. As the world warms, the effect of clouds could become more and more significant.

EFFECTS

If no action is taken the greenhouse effect could lead to a rise in average global temperatures of between 1.5-4.5 degrees Celcius as early as the year 2030. These rises will be greater towards the poles and less at the tropics. There will also be more warming in winter than summer. Such increases will make the world hotter than it has been for more than 100,000 years. The rise will also be faster than ever before; a rise of 3 degrees Celcius after the last ice age took thousands of years. By the end of next century temperatures could have reached those of the time of the dinosaurs and it is doubtful if humans could survive. The effects are already showing - the ten hottest years since the 1860's have been in the last 15 years.

Storms - storms and hurricanes will become more frequent and stronger as oceans heat up causing more water to evaporate. Evidence is building up at an alarming rate. In September 1991 Japan was hit by Typhoon Mireille, its worst for 30 years. Then in September 1993 it was hit by Typhoon Yancy - the 13th that year, and the worst for 50 years. In January 1993 barometric pressure around Shetland dropped to its lowest recorded level, 915 millibars. The oil tanker Braer broke up in the resulting storm. In March 1993 the 'Storm of the Century' hit America, causing $1.6 billion in damage from Canada to Cuba. In December 1993 hurricane-force storms caused Britain its worst flooding for 40 years.

Droughts - continental heartlands will dry out more in summer. In 1988 the US suffered its worst heat wave and drought for 50 years. It cannot be proved that this was due to the greenhouse effect but it does give us some idea of what to expect in the future.

Floods - sea levels are already rising at a rate of 1 to 2mm each year due to expansion of the top layer of the oceans as they warm and the melting of the polar ice caps. The predicted rise by 2050 is between 20 and 50cm. This will cause increased flooding in coastal areas and river estuaries such as Bangladesh and the Nile Delta. London and many other British coastal cities will be threatened also. It is now a priority to strengthen Britain's sea defences.

What can be done?

It is important to slow the warming as much as possible. This means using less fossil fuel, eliminating CFCs altogether, and slowing down deforestation.

This can be achieved best through energy conservation, including better use of public transport and cleaner, more efficient cars; and energy efficiency by greater use of gas which produces less CO2 than coal and oil, and through renewable energy such as solar power. We need to stop destroying rain forests (deforestation) and start replanting trees (afforestation) to soak up carbon dioxide.

A United Nations panel has estimated that we need to reduce global fuel use by 60% immediately in order to stabilise the climate. Current commitments by those governments participating in CO2 reduction will only lower global CO2 by 4 - 6%. Although the developed industrialised nations still produce most CO2, the rapidly developing nations of South America and Asia are increasing their CO2 production at a much higher rate, and by 2010 they will overtake the West as the main producers of CO2.

The developing countries are reluctant to participate in any CO2 emission reduction plans, arguing that they did not create global warming and that it is the responsibility of developed countries to cut their own emissions or to support developing countries with financial aid. Oil producing countries - including a significant lobby in the US - are also reluctant to have their sales reduced and have protested against action on climate change.

Nuclear Power - does not produce CO2 so could replace other forms of energy. It is necessary though, to find an effective means of safely disposing of the radioactive waste that can remain dangerous for hundreds to thousands of years.

Alternative Energy - more funding is required for research and development of alternative pollution-free energy sources such as solar, wave and wind energy.

Visit the Wood Land Trust's Carbon Balanced website for other ways that you could help halt climate change.

http://www.ypte.org.uk/docs/factsheets/env_facts/glob_warm.html

Study Links Global Warming, Severe Droughts in Indonesia

2007-11-03T13:37:00.000-07:00

By Chad Bouchard
Jakarta

As Indonesia copes with one of its driest rainy seasons on record, a climate change study indicates global warming will lead to prolonged and more severe droughts in Indonesia and Australia in the future. Chad Bouchard reports from Jakarta.

A farmer carries buckets of water collected from a drying pond in Rembang, Central Java, Indonesia

Climate experts say new evidence suggests Indonesia's seasonal rains will diminish as global temperatures continue to rise.

That could mean a devastating blow to the country's tropical agriculture and spark more haze-producing wildfires each year.

A new study used samples of coral to track rainfall patterns from more than 6,000 years ago. The study was published a few days ago in the journal Nature.

Study co-author Nerilie Abram says the new data suggest an unexpected link between monsoons and droughts in countries surrounding the Indian Ocean.

"And so the implication is that with monsoon strengthening we expect that parts of Asia and India, where you receive monsoon rainfall, are likely to get wetter. But the knock-on effect is that parts of Indonesia and Australia are likely to get dryer," said Abram.

This year's drought in Indonesia is caused partly by a natural cycle of cooling in the Indian Ocean much like the El Nino phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean.

But droughts or heavy rainfalls generated by that warming cycle will increase if average global temperatures continue to rise. Many scientists think global warming may be caused in part by increasing emissions of gases from burning fuels such as oil and coal. They recommend cutting those emissions to halt the rise in temperatures.

Abram is a paleoclimatologist who works with the British Antarctic Survey at Cambridge, in the United Kingdom. In a phone call from Cambridge, she said recently that the coral study shows droughts also are shifting to a different time of year.

"And that the peak of drought could actually shift so that it falls at the time of year when this area receives its most rainfall," added Abram. "So that sort of change could have quite a critical effect on agriculture in the area, and actually change the way that we need to try and adapt to these events."

Millions of impoverished Indonesians in rural areas depend on subsistence agriculture, which could be harmed by drier weather.

In the past several months, the severe drought was blamed for massive forest fires in Indonesia, which caused thick smog and health problems in neighboring countries.

http://voanews.com/english/archive/2007-01/2007-01-21-voa6.cfm?CFID=213505298&CFTOKEN=33338244

Why Asia Is Ignoring Global Warming

2007-11-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

In the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, traffic moves as slowly as blood through a corpse. Streams of motorcycles part for SUVs and diesel-spewing buses, and everyone gets nowhere fast. The air is clogged from the vehicle exhaust and from the frequent forest fires that break out around Indonesia. Once home to some of the most extensive rainforests in the world, Indonesia is now losing trees at a faster rate than any other nation in the world, to flames but also to rampant logging. Since equatorial trees soak up carbon dioxide when they're alive and release the gas when they're cut down or burned, Indonesia's rapid deforestation is the main reason why this country of 245 million is the third-biggest carbon emitter in the world after the U.S. and China. But like other developing countries, the Indonesian government says it needs to focus on economic growth to raise its people out of poverty — and that likely means that trees will be cut, cars will be added and carbon emissions will only go up.

A factory near the beach in North Jakarta spews smoke.

Keep Indonesia in mind as the world digests the third and final chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest assessment on global warming, which was released Friday morning in Bangkok. While the first two sections made for depressing reading — nailing down the scientific basis for global warming and laying out nightmare scenarios of the havoc climate change could wreak — the last chapter is comparatively optimistic. Drawing on the work of thousands of scientists vetted by officials from over 100 countries, the IPCC reported that future carbon emissions could be controlled using current technology like nuclear or renewable energy — and that it could be done without bankrupting the global economy. "Measures to reduce emissions can, in the main, be achieved at starkly low costs, especially when compared with the costs of inaction," said Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), one of many prominent international environmental officials who attended the Bangkok press conference for the report's release. European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimos drilled home the message: "There is no excuse for waiting."

But while the technological path to climate-change action is clear, the politics are getting even more complicated. As economic growth shifts to the developing world — especially in Asia — so will future carbon emissions. So whether the world can effectively combat climate change will be determined by countries like Indonesia and India — and especially China, which could pass the U.S. as the world's top carbon emitter any day. European nations have staked out bold positions on carbon cutting, and even in the U.S. momentum is gaining on real climate-change legislation. But if growing developing countries choose to ignore global warming, even the most radical actions from the developed world could be rendered meaningless.

The worrying news is that over the past several months, China in particular has begun to replace the U.S. as the main obstacle to stronger climate-change action. During the IPCC negotiations that took place this week in Bangkok, Chinese delegates — with the support of India and other developing nations — tried to tone down the report, pushing to remove the most ambitious possible targets for future carbon-emissions levels. That move failed, but it's unlikely to be the last time China and India drag their feet on climate change. And as long as those two nations send out signals that they're unwilling to consider substantial global-warming action — especially anything that could result in mandatory targets on emissions — even green Democrats in Congress will have a difficult time defending carbon controls at home. "It ought to be clear that the developed world will not move without something from the developing nations," says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

But at the same time, she adds, "there's no chance of getting China unless the U.S. steps up." That leaves the world, well, stuck in a Chinese fingertrap. Because developing nations have emphasized that they can't afford to jeopardize the pace of economic growth for the sake of the environment, the only climate-change solutions they're likely to accept will be ones that come cheap. Fortunately the IPCC says that's possible; the new report concludes that the cost of stabilizing global carbon emissions by 2030 could require as little as one-tenth of a percentage point per year of global growth through the end of the century. Those costs will still have to be borne by someone, and the developing nations will rightly push for North America and Europe to pick up the check. Expect that argument to be renewed at the next major UN climate change meeting on the Indonesian island of Bali at the end of the year.

Developing nations make the point that they're not responsible for the vast majority of carbon dioxide hanging around in the atmosphere, which was put there by Western countries during their own development over the past 150 years. They argue that their own per-capita emissions rates are still far lower than those of Western nations, and that therefore climate change isn't their responsibility. True, but wrong. Future global warming will hinge on how we deal with future carbon emissions, most of which will come from developing Asia. The gravity of climate change politics has moved east, to China, India and Indonesia. Their decisions will largely determine what kind of world we'll be living in.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1617639,00.html

Indonesia's peatlands may offer U.S. firms global warming offsets

2007-11-03T13:25:00.000-07:00

Source: Copyright 2007, Mongabay.com
Date: August 30, 2007
Byline: Rhett A. Butler

The following is modified version of a letter I've used to pitch U.S. companies on the concept of carbon finance in Indonesia's peatlands. Discussions are slow and the critical December U.N. climate meeting is fast approaching, so I'm posting this as a tool to help you get American firms interested in avoided deforestation offsets. Please feel free to use, modify, and distribute this letter widely.

Indonesia's peatlands as carbon offsets

Climate change presents serious risks to Indonesia, including drought, flood, and sea-level rise. However proposed mechanisms for addressing climate change, notably carbon credits, offer an unparalleled economic opportunity for the country. It's time for Indonesia and other countries that will bear the brunt of climate change to reap some of the rewards of their valuable ecosystems.

Indonesia: peat swamps and carbon emissions

Peat swamps in Indonesia store large amounts of carbon. The destruction and degradation of peat swamps is estimated to release 2 billion tons of carbon -- about 8 percent of global emissions -- each year, according to Wetlands International. Much of this destruction is caused by conversion for oil palm plantations which produce palm oil, increasingly used as a biofuel. While oil palm can be grown sustainably, this is rarely the case in Indonesia, where Wetlands International estimates that production of one metric ton of palm oil will result in an average emission of 20 tons of carbon dioxide from peat decomposition alone, not including emissions resulting from production or combustion. Oil palm plantations have also been linked to social injustices like debt bondage. Nevertheless, oil palm plantations are presently the best economic option for much of rural Indonesia.

Avoided deforestation

Carbon finance could change all this. Preliminary work suggests that carbon offsets through "avoided deforestation" mechanisms -- whereby landowners and communities receive payments for preserving ecosystems that would otherwise be converted -- could generate income comparable to that of oil palm plantations. The potential benefits are numerous:
forests are protected, emissions are offset
ancillary benefits of preserving biodiversity (i.e. orangutans live in peat forests), watersheds, and other ecosystem services (some of which may also result in payments for landowners in the future)
protects "option" value of forests
allows landowners to pursue other sources of income including ecotourism and sustainable collection of non-wood forest products (i.e. rattan, nuts, fruit)
helps Indonesia diversify its economy and reduce risk of "palm oil price shock"
A number of prominent scientists support "avoided deforestation". The U.N., World Bank, and Indonesian government have also expressed optimism about the concept.

There are currently no offset programs for Indonesia's peatlands. There is a lack of leadership and lack of understanding about the mechanisms. However the carbon market is real (even in the U.S. where carbon is traded on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)) and it is likely that avoided deforestation will be incorporated as an emissions offset during the next UN round, especially if projects are proving that it is viable. An important climate meeting is scheduled for Bali, Indonesia in December. This could be an ideal forum for show-casing Indonesia's successful development of carbon finance mechanisms. Done properly, the carbon market could increase transparency for Indonesia, boost tax revenue, and improve the livelihood of rural populations, some of whom are among the poorest in the world.

How Company X can be involved

Indonesia is one of the most populous countries on Earth. Its population is young and Internet use is growing.

Through successful pioneering of a carbon finance program (an initiative that could eventually bring billions of dollars a year to the country), Company X could be known as the mover who made the concept happen, establishing a solid basis for its brand. Importantly, with a relatively small commitment, financial or technical, Company X could trigger a movement that helps alleviate poverty, improve health, fight climate change, end "haze" pollution, and conserve resources and biological diversity.

Other potential benefits to Company X
Company X establishes itself as a leader in carbon finance tied to poverty alleviation
Company X diversifies its carbon offset portfolio at a relatively low cost (perhaps offset a small office or data center)
Tie-ins with rural health (malaria, dengue, dysentery all major problems in Borneo) and biodiversity conservation (orangutan, Sumatran rhino, proboscis monkey)

How it would work

If Company X were interested in financial involvement, buying carbon offsets in Indonesia via the Chicago Climate Exchange would be one possibility -- details can be developed. The beneficiaries would be global climate and Indonesia's forests and people. The opportunity does not stop with Indonesia. Avoided deforestation is applicable in any tropical country where deforestation is occurring.

Seriously interested corporate parties can contact Rhett A. Butler at mongabay.com for more information. Rhett does not have any financial interest in this effort but can help connect interested parties -- serious inquires only please -- to contacts working on these issues in Indonesia. Beyond the initial introduction, Rhett would not be involved in the process.

Alternatively, interested parties can do research on avoided deforestation and look for potential deals with landholders in Indonesia. Prior to entering into any agreements, beware that official mechanisms for avoided deforestation offsets have yet to be established (as of August 29, 2007) under any regulatory framework.

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=83058

Climate Change as a Global Challenge: The Road to Bali

2007-11-03T13:21:00.000-07:00

The General Assembly Informal Thematic Debate

By Iskra Kirova

The hotspot in the political debate on global warming in December 2007 will be the Indonesian island of Bali. Typically a popular tourist destination, Bali will be the venue from 3 to 14 December for over 180 countries, together with observers from intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and the media. The Bali Conference will begin discussions on the future of the fight against climate change. Expectations are that it would provide a road map on how to proceed to reaching a post-Kyoto agreement, including a firm timetable for the comprehensive negotiations process, which is to be finalized no later than 2009. The two-week meeting will include the sessions of the 13th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its subsidiary bodies, as well as the 3rd Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Conference will build upon the political momentum generated by the UN General Assembly thematic debate on "Climate change as a global challenge" and the high-level meeting on climate change to be convened by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 24 September.

First of its kind, the Assembly's thematic debate kick-started the intense international discussion on climate change. Originally planned from 31 July to 1 August, the debate needed a whole extra day of national statements-a clear indication of the growing alarm over this most global of issues. As more than 70 Member States voiced their concerns over the problem, a general consensus seemed to be emerging on the crucial significance of achieving a functioning international regime within the UNFCCC framework to bring tangible results in tackling climate change. Member States expressed eagerness to participate in the upcoming Bali Conference and pledged their support for the launch of negotiations on an all-inclusive post-Kyoto treaty that would intensify collective efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Currently, the global climate change regime is suffering as the United States, the largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG), is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, and large developing countries like China, the second largest emitter, India and Brazil are exempt from its obligations. However, reassuring political course changes were evident at the June 2007 G-8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. The meeting managed to align the United States closer to the international climate change framework as President George Bush committed to negotiating a new pact by 2009 to extend and broaden the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. The Summit reaffirmed the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as the basis for future action on climate change and underlined the need for all major economies to agree on a specific international framework. Thus, hopes for a global solution are growing, with all eyes now turning to Bali.

As expressed by the Indonesian Deputy Minister of Environment at the thematic debate, the Bali meeting should be built on a genuine partnership between developed and developing countries to combat climate change without holding development. Therefore, the key issues to be addressed at the Conference would include not only the question of emission reductions, but also technology transfer and financing of developing countries, to help them cope with adaptation and mitigation of the adverse impacts of climate change. Adaptation and mitigation would be approached within the framework of sustainable development, where these three processes are seen as mutually beneficent natural synergies, supportive of achieving the main developmental pillars - economic growth, social development and environmental protection.

General Assembly Debates Climate Change UN photo Eskinder Debebe

The General Assembly thematic debate played a crucial role in gearing up for the Bali Conference by feeding ideas, facts and positions on the issue of climate change. All participants expressed gratitude for General Assembly President Haya Rashed Al Khalifa's initiative and the Secretary-General's commitment to the cause of fighting global warming. They agreed that the UNFCCC provides the most appropriate platform for the establishment of an effective framework beyond 2012. Member States seemed to be in tune regarding the main guiding principles for the future negotiations to be launched in Bali, such as no more "business as usual", all-inclusiveness, equity, polluter pays, common but differentiated responsibilities taking into account national circumstances, the right to development, interdependence of sustainable development and climate change adaptation and mitigation, and the need for technology and experience transfer. However, when moving beyond the ideological foundations, sources of disagreement began to take shape, giving a foretaste of some of the challenges that might lie ahead on the path to a comprehensive post-Kyoto agreement.

The role and responsibilities of large developing polluter countries emerged as a major point of contention. Developing countries requested that industrialized nations assume responsibility for their production and consumption patterns, which have led to the current levels of GHG concentration, and comply without delay with their international commitments of reducing GHG emissions. At the same time, large developing countries insisted they should not be overburdened with reduction targets that would slow down their economic growth and poverty eradication efforts. Ambassador Liu Zhenmin, Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations, demanded that the "luxury emissions" of rich countries be restricted, while the "emissions of subsistence" and "development emissions" of poor countries accommodated. Similarly, India and Brazil called for exemption of developing countries from quantitative emission reduction commitments, which would obstruct development and poverty reduction. France, Japan, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Turkey and others shared a different view. They aligned behind the premise that the industrialized countries must take action proportionate to the historical responsibility incumbent upon them, but at the same time stressed that the fight against climate change would only be effective if it integrated the contribution of future major emitters.

Ambassador Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Deputy Permanent Representative of France, noted that his country expected an agreement based on the principle of fairness in burden-sharing and solidarity with the most vulnerable, but that includes commitments by all of the world's largest GHG-emitting countries as well. Lichtenstein demanded far-reaching and significant reduction targets, binding for advanced developing countries with strong economic power and high GHG emissions. In Switzerland's view, industrialized countries needed to continue to lead in combating climate change, but their efforts alone were insufficient. "So far, the Kyoto regime controls only 30 per cent of global emissions", noted its Deputy Permanent Representative, Ambassador Andreas Baum. "The future agreement should require participation of those countries that produce the highest emissions, not only industrialized countries, but also major emerging economies", he said. The controversy was probably best addressed by Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz, Permanent Representative of Egypt, who cautioned against turning the climate change debate into a crisis between developed and developing countries.

Well founded and strongly represented at the debate was the perspective of the lowest emitters and ironically the most vulnerable regions to the effects of climate change, such as the countries of the African group, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). They expressed anticipation and hope in the success of the Bali meeting and demanded that the international community take immediate action to fulfill its responsibilities. Uganda, on behalf of the African group, underscored the importance of basing the future agreement on the implementation of the "polluter pays" and "differentiated responsibilities" principles. Small island developing States (SIDS) demanded the transfer of technology and significant increases in the level of resources available to island States and low-lying coastal developing countries so that they can cope with climate change adaptation and mitigation while continuing to strive to alleviate poverty.

CARICOM members, represented by Belize, called on the parties to the UNFCCC, particularly Annex I countries, as well as the major emerging industrialized (developing) countries, to agree on launching formal negotiations in Bali in order to adopt substantial and legally binding emission reductions in the shortest time frame possible, aimed at achieving less than a 2° C rise in temperature.

While acknowledging the urgency of the situation and the gravity of circumstances, particularly for least developed countries (LDCs) and island States, experts were optimistic about the upcoming Bali Conference and the future negotiation process. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer noted in his presentation,

Yvo de Boer on Up-coming United Nations Climate Change Conference UN photo Devra Berkowitz

"The way forward: International Context for a post-2012 agreement", that new momentum is building up in the international climate change process with positive signals coming from both the North and the South. Encouraging steps were taken at the G8-Summit in Heiligendamm with the agreement on introducing global emissions cuts of 50 per cent by 2050 and the recognition of the United Nations as the most fitting multilateral forum on climate change. The European Union, on the other hand, has embarked upon a very ambitious programme, deciding to reduce its emissions by 20 per cent before 2020 as compared to 1990 levels and prepared to deepen emission cuts to 30 per cent if a global agreement is reached. Aggressive climate change policies have also been put in place on the national level in many European countries and Japan, and on a state level in the United States. Simultaneously, the South is also acting on climate change with wide-ranging reforms and strategies being launched by China, India, Mexico, Brazil and others. Based on these considerations, Mr. de Boer, who is responsible for organizing the Bali talks, saw positive prospects of an agreement being reached in Indonesia if it rested upon the principles of North-North equity; North-South equity with no hard emission reduction targets for developing countries but incentives instead; and addressing the competitiveness concerns of many economies.

Similar positive views were expressed by Jeffrey Sachs, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, who gave the concluding address to the expert panel discussions. He saw Bali as the place to begin a specific debate and start doing the arithmetic of climate change. Estimating that all envisioned targets can be met at well under one per cent of world income, he viewed climate change as a solvable, utterly affordable problem, by far not as expensive as feared by all, and a tiny fraction of what the cost of inaction will be. Now that the issue had been taken out of the "high debate" on the reality and urgency of the problem, and whether it should be addressed by the global community, Mr. Sachs expected a success in Bali, where negotiators will finally have a chance to get down to the numbers. The central imperative at the Conference will be to get industrialized countries to pay for adaptation and research and development in order to enable their developing counterparts to gain access to much needed technology. In his view, however, all international players, both rich and poor, will have to be committed to the global effort.

The participation at the thematic debate on climate change of a range of distinguished panellists and many others from various sectors of Government, business and academia, as well as the strong representation of almost half of all UN Member States, placed the priority of the issue at the highest political level. The debate created collective political will and sent an unambiguous signal to the negotiators in Bali. Capturing both the urgency of the situation and the burgeoning opportunities ahead, the discussions injected powerful momentum in the global political process on climate change, leaving no room for delegates in Bali to go back to business as usual and preserve legitimacy.

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/webArticles/081407_roadtobali.htm

Global Warming Conference: Bali

2007-11-03T13:11:00.000-07:00

The hotspot in the political debate on global warming in December 2007 will be the Indonesian island of Bali. Typically a popular tourist destination, Bali will be the venue from 3 to 14 December for over 180 countries, together with observers from intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and the media.

The Bali Conference will begin discussions on the future of the fight against climate change. Expectations are that it would provide a road map on how to proceed to reaching a post-Kyoto agreement, including a firm timetable for the comprehensive negotiations process, which is to be finalized no later than 2009.

http://www.planetmole.org/indonesian-news/global-warming-conference-bali.html

Global warming threatens Indonesia's Borobudur temple

2007-11-03T13:05:00.000-07:00

By Sugita Katyal and Adhityani Arga

MAGELANG, Indonesia (Reuters Life!) - Like any historical monument, Indonesia's magnificent Borobudur temple in central Java has suffered the ravages of time.

But now conservationists fear the world's biggest Buddhist temple, topped with stupas and decorated with hundreds of reliefs depicting Buddhist thought and the life of Buddha, faces a new threat: climate change.

As global temperatures rise and rainfall patterns change, the dark stone temple, which dates from the 9th century, could deteriorate faster than normal, Marsis Sutopo, head of the Borobudur Heritage Conservation Institute, told Reuters.

"We are racing against the weather," Sutopo said.

"Changing climate will have an impact on temple conservation efforts. Warmer temperature could theoretically cause more fissures and cracks in the stones," he said, adding that acid rain has already eroded many of the reliefs.

Although no direct link has been found between climate change and the damage to Borobudur, Sutopo said a two-year study by Italian stone expert Costantino Meucci showed that higher precipitation is affecting the temple's volcanic stone.

"Humidity allows moss and algae to grow on the stones already more than 1,000 years old. The stones have been exposed to the heat and humidity for so long, they have reached a critical point where deterioration is going to happen faster," he said.

"We suspect changing climate will make it happen faster."

NIRVANA

Borobudur, near Java's ancient royal capital Yogyakarta, dates back to around 800 AD, long before Islam became the dominant religion in the world's most populous Muslim nation.

It represents a Buddhist view of the universe, comprising a series of square and circular terraces that allow visitors to move upward from the everyday world to a large bell-shaped stupa representing nirvana.

Steep stairways lead to the wide-open terraces, where stone-lattice stupas contain statues of Buddha overlooking the tropical green plain and its distant volcanoes.

The monument was neglected and abandoned for almost a thousand years before it was rediscovered beneath volcanic ash and jungle in the 1800s when a survey team investigated talk of a great ruin in central Java.

Borobudur's conservation began during Dutch colonial times thanks to the efforts of a Dutch scientist, Van Erp, between 1907 and 1911.

But the most extensive and complex restoration work took place between the mid-1970s and early 1980s, and involved taking out each of the stones for cleaning and then reassembling them in the original layout. Waterproof layers and channels were also installed inside to protect the temple's reliefs from rainwater.

Conservationists say Borobudur is just one of many world heritage sites, including the Tibetan monasteries in the Himalayas and the cultural monuments of Greece, that are threatened by global warming, although it isn't necessarily endangered by the effects of climate change.

"One of the big problems is the deterioration of the stones, much exacerbated by early conservation efforts. Warming and humidity changes have added to the fungus," said Richard Engelhardt, a Bangkok-based regional adviser at UNESCO for culture in Asia and the Pacific.

Although Borobudur was not affected by the 2006 earthquake in Yogyakarta which killed over 5,000 people, conservationists say the increasing frequency of earthquakes is also a challenge.

"The stones on the reliefs have not been affixed to the basic structure, so in case of a quake they could fall apart," Sutopo said. "Indonesia is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire. In the long run, quakes could destabilise the temple structure."

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29363120070906?pageNumber=3&sp=true

Global warming threatens Indonesia lands

2007-11-03T13:02:00.000-07:00

Rising sea levels could inundate about 2,000 Indonesian islands by 2030, and rice shortages are expected next year due to wild weather blamed on climate change, the country's environment minister said.

The assessment by Rachmat Witoelar was the government's bleakest yet of global warming's potential effects on the mostly poor South-East Asian nation of about 18,000 islands, most of them unpopulated.

"It is very, very serious," Witoelar said at a news conference attended by Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate treaty secretariat.

Witoelar said respected scientific studies showed about 2,000 islands would be swallowed by rising waters by 2030. He did not say whether the threatened islands were inhabited or not.

Delayed rains this year, followed by a hot spell, also hurt farmers.

"It is feared there will be a lack of rice production next year because of the changes in the weather and because the farmers are not used to this," Witoelar said.

De Boer was in Jakarta to discuss a major UN climate change meeting later this year on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.

Environment ministers from 80 countries will meet there to begin talks on what action the world must take after the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Global-warming-threatens-Indonesia-lands/2007/01/29/1169919272210.html

Concrete action needed Indonesia to face global warming

2007-11-03T12:47:00.000-07:00

Yogyakarta (ANTARA News) - The global warming issue in Indonesia needs to be followed up by immediate and concrete action to tackle it, an environment ministry official said.

Many simple things could be done to tackle global warming but unfortunately people in Indonesia still lacked serious concern about the problem, Arif Yuwono, secrtary to the Environment Minister said at a workship on glabal warming here Monday.

"Indonesian people seem to be indifferent about environmental issues, including global warming, because their mind is preoccupied by politics and entertainment," Arif said.

He said there were many ways in which people could actively participate in protecting their own neighborhoods and reduce the dangers of global warming.

"Pollution in Indonesia`s major cities has become inevitable because of motor vehicles` emssions but if the people are willing to walk or use bicycles to go from one place to another, gas emissions can be reduced," he said.

Another way of reducing global warming, according to Arif, was to turn off lights that were not needed, and to grow plants actively because trees could reduce pollution.

Arif said global warming would have a negative impact on all aspects of life, not only on the life of human beings but also on that of plants and thus on agriculture.

"It is high time for Indonesian people to show more concern about the environment and make efforts to ovecome the effects of global warming which have lately already begun to become manifest," he said.(*)

http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2007/7/30/concrete-action-needed-indonesia-to-face-global-warming/

Global Warming May Affect Indonesia Isles

2007-11-03T12:45:00.000-07:00

Indonesia Could Lose 2,000 Islands by 2030 Due to Global Warming, Environment Minister Says

Rising sea levels because of global warming stand to inundate around 2,000 islands in Indonesia by 2030, the country's environment minister said Monday.

The assessment by Rachmat Witoelar was the government's bleakest yet of the effects of global warming on the Southeast Asian nation that is made up of some 18,000 islands, most of them unpopulated.

"It is very, very serious," he said at a media conference attended by Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. climate treaty secretariat.

Witoelar said respected scientific studies showed around 2,000 islands would be swallowed by 2030. He did not say whether the threatened islands were inhabited or not.

The environment minister also said rice shortages are forecast for next year because of wild weather blamed on climate change.

"It is feared there will be a lack of rice production next year because of the changes in the weather and because the farmers are not used to this," he said.

De Boer was in Jakarta to discuss a major U.N. climate change meeting later this year on the resort island of Bali. Environment ministers from 80 countries will meet to begin talks on what action the world must take after the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012.

Global Warming May Affect Indonesia Isles
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2830876

At Its Session on Warming, U.S. Is Seen to Stand Apart

2007-11-03T12:40:00.000-07:00

By JOHN M. BRODER

Published: September 28, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The White House convened a two-day conference of the world’s major greenhouse-gas-emitting nations here on Thursday that served to highlight how isolated the Bush administration is on the issue of global warming.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that climate change was a real global problem, and that the United States was a major contributor. She said the United States was willing to lead the international effort to reduce emissions of gases that had led to the warming of the planet, with the attendant ill effects.

But she repeated President Bush’s insistence that the solution could not starve emerging economies of fuel or slow the growth of the advanced nations. “Every country will make its own decisions,” she said, “reflecting its own needs and interests.”

Mr. Bush is scheduled to address the meeting on Friday.

Many delegates from the 16 nations at the conference expressed skepticism about the administration’s motives, fearing that Mr. Bush was trying to derail a global emissions-reduction program managed by the United Nations.

European delegates, in particular, rejected the administration’s insistence that any plan to reduce emissions be voluntary and devised by individual nations rather than as a part of a worldwide treaty. One European representative, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not wish to publicly embarrass the host, called the meeting a “game” played by the administration to slow momentum toward an international pact.

John Ashton, a special adviser on climate change to the British foreign secretary, called voluntary measures ineffective. Dozens of nations had agreed to nonbinding goals for emissions cuts in 1992, he said, then watched the pollutants linked to global warming rise at a double-digit percentile rate over the next decade.

“A voluntary approach to reducing greenhouse gases is hardly likely to be more effective than voluntary speed limits on the roads,” he said.

James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said that the meeting was intended to supplement, not supplant, the United Nations process. The organization will sponsor a global conference in Indonesia in December to work toward a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012 and has never been accepted by the United States.

“The goal of our discussions here today is to do what we can to reinforce and to accelerate progress in the United Nations,” Mr. Connaughton said.

The conference drew only midlevel officials from many participating nations, which included Australia, Britain, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia and South Africa. Also attending were dozens of nongovernmental observers.

Yu Jie, an environmental advocate from China, expressed frustration with efforts by the industrialized nations to impose an emissions plan on her country, which is passing the United States as the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. China, she said, was already taking steps to tax sport utility vehicles, close dirty coal-burning plants and expand use of renewable energy sources.

“China should not be blamed just because of its development,” she said, echoing her government’s position. “They will follow if the European Union and the United States lead.”

Germany’s environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, took a detached view of the conference, noting that the Bush administration would be gone in less than 18 months, and that it was unlikely to change its position. He said he spent two days this week discussing climate change with Democrats in Congress with an eye toward the post-Bush future.

“The good news is we are negotiating and the administration is willing to negotiate,” he said. “The difficult news is that we are on opposite sides on questions of substance.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/washington/28climate.html

Indonesia Seeks Allies for Pay-for-Forests Plan

2007-11-03T12:31:00.000-07:00

By PETER GELLING

Published: October 28, 2007

JAKARTA, Indonesia, Oct. 26 — Determined to lead the discussion on climate change among developing nations, the Indonesian government spent much of the past week recruiting countries to join it in pressing richer nations to provide incentives to reduce carbon emissions.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono made a direct plea on Wednesday at the start of a two-day gathering of 40 environment ministers near this capital, a precursor to the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Bali in December.

The environment minister of Indonesia, Rachmat Witoelar, said earlier this month that he wanted rich countries to pay up to $20 a hectare, or 2.47 acres, to preserve its dwindling forests.

At the meeting this week, Indonesia began mobilizing countries like Brazil, Mexico, Congo, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea, which with Indonesia contain most of the world’s rain forests.

Indonesia has been spearheading the discussion on climate change among developing nations since it offered the venue for the December conference, which aims to solidify a new global climate deal before the 1997 Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. Many world leaders are expected to join the tens of thousands attending the conference in Bali.

“We can’t do this alone,” said Indonesia’s deputy environment minister, Masnellyarti Hilman. “Developed countries need to help us because they have the money, the financing and the technology. We need their help if we are going reduce emissions and not sacrifice our future development.”

But in its efforts to lead the debate, Indonesia has also opened up its own environmental record to scrutiny. A World Bank report released this year cited Indonesia as one of the top three emitters of greenhouse gases, mostly because of rampant cutting of its forests, persistent wildfires and cultivation of its carbon-rich peat bogs. Industrialization and mining are also major contributors to carbon emissions.

The Indonesian government did not address how it would check illegal logging.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/world/asia/28indo.html

Consequences of Global Warming

2007-11-03T12:30:00.000-07:00

The latest scientific data confirm that the earth's climate is rapidly changing. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the course of the last century, and will likely rise even more rapidly in coming decades. The cause? A thickening layer of carbon dioxide pollution and other greenhouse gases, mostly from power plants and automobiles, which traps heat in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of the world's leading climate researchers, sees a greater than 90 percent likelihood that most warming over the last 50 years has occurred because of human-caused emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Scientists say that the earth could warm by an additional 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st century if we fail to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. This rise in average temperature will have far-reaching effects. Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Disease-carrying mosquitoes will expand their range. And species will be pushed to extinction. As this page shows, many of these changes have already begun.

CLIMATE PATTERN CHANGES

Consequence: warmer temperatures
Average temperatures will rise, as will the frequency of heat waves.

Warning signs today

Most of the United States has already warmed, in some areas by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, all states experienced either "above normal" or "much above normal" average temperatures in 2006.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared 2006 to be the second warmest year on record for the United States, with an annual average temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit -- within 0.1 degrees of the record set in 1998.

Every year from 1998 through 2006 ranks among the top 25 warmest years on record for the United States, an unprecedented occurrence, according to NOAA.

Consequence: drought and wildfire
Warmer temperatures could also increase the probability of drought. Greater evaporation, particularly during summer and fall, could exacerbate drought conditions and increase the risk of wildfires.

Warning signs today

Greater evaporation as a result of global warming
could increase the risk of wildfires.

The 1999-2002 national drought was one of the three most extensive droughts in the last 40 years

Warming may have lead to the increased drought frequency that the West has experienced over the last 30 years.

The 2006 wildland fire season set new records in both the number of reported fires as well as acres burned. Close to 100,000 fires were reported and nearly 10 million acres burned, 125 percent above the 10-year average.

If warming continues to exacerbate wildfire seasons, it could be costly. Fire-fighting expenditures have consistently totaled upwards of $1 billion per year.

Consequence: more intense rainstorms
Warmer temperatures increase the energy of the climatic system and lead to more intense rainfall at times in some areas.

Warning signs today

National annual precipitation has increased between 5 and 10 percent since the early 20th century, largely the result of heavy downpours in some areas.

The IPCC reports that intense rain events have increased in frequency during the last 50 years, and human-induced global warming more likely than not contributed to the trend.

According to NOAA statistics, the Northeast region had its wettest summer on record in 2006, exceeding the previous record by more than 1 inch.

HEALTH EFFECTS

More frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths. Photo: Gary Braasch, Chicago, July 1995. See the World View of Global Warming website for more Gary Braasch photos illustrating the consequences of the changing climate.

Consequence: deadly heat waves and the spread of disease
More frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths. These conditions could also aggravate local air quality problems, already afflicting more than 80 million Americans. Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical diseases as well.

Warning signs today

In 2003, extreme heat waves claimed an estimated 35,000 lives in Europe. In France alone, nearly 15,000 people died due to soaring temperatures, which reached as high as 104 degrees Fahrenheit and remained extreme for two weeks.

Much of North America experienced a severe heat wave in July 2006, which contributed to the deaths of at least 225 people.

Studies have found that a higher level of carbon dioxide spurs an increase in the growth of weeds whose pollen triggers allergies and exacerbates asthma.

Disease-carrying mosquitoes are spreading as climate shifts allow them to survive in formerly inhospitable areas. Mosquitoes that can carry dengue fever viruses were previously limited to elevations of 3,300 feet but recently appeared at 7,200 feet in the Andes Mountains of Colombia. Malaria has been detected in new higher-elevation areas in Indonesia.

WARMING WATER

Consequence: more powerful and dangerous hurricanes
Warmer water in the oceans pumps more energy into tropical storms, making them more intense and potentially more destructive.

Warning signs today

The number of category 4 and 5 storms has greatly increased over the past 35 years, along with ocean temperature.

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, with a record 27 named storms, of which 15 became hurricanes. Seven of the hurricanes strengthened into major storms, five became Category 4 hurricanes and a record four reached Category 5 strength.

Hurricane Katrina of August 2005 was the costliest and one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history.

Consequence: melting glaciers, early ice thaw
Rising global temperatures will speed the melting of glaciers and ice caps, and cause early ice thaw on rivers and lakes.

Warning signs today

At the current rate of retreat, all of the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2070.

After existing for many millennia, the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica -- a section larger than the state of Rhode Island -- collapsed between January and March 2002, disintegrating at a rate that astonished scientists. Since 1995 the ice shelf's area has shrunk by 40 percent.

According to NASA, the polar ice cap is now melting at the alarming rate of nine percent per decade. Arctic ice thickness has decreased 40 percent since the 1960s.

Arctic sea ice extent set an all-time record low in September 2007, with almost half a million square miles less ice than the previous record set in September 2005, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Over the past 3 decades, more than a million square miles of perennial sea ice -- an area the size of Norway, Denmark and Sweden combined --has disappeared.

Multiple climate models indicate that sea ice will increasingly retreat as the earth warms. Scientists at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research predict that if the current rate of global warming continues, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040.


The satellite photo at far left shows the Larson B ice shelf on Jan. 31, 2002. Ice appears as solid white. Moving to the right, in photos taken Feb. 17 and Feb. 23, the ice begins to disintegrate. In the photos at far right, taken Mar. 5 and Mar 7, note water (blue) where solid ice had been, and that a portion of the shelf is drifting away. Photos: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Consequence: sea-level rise
Current rates of sea-level rise are expected to increase as a result both of thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of most mountain glaciers and partial melting of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Consequences include loss of coastal wetlands and barrier islands, and a greater risk of flooding in coastal communities. Low-lying areas, such as the coastal region along the Gulf of Mexico and estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay, are especially vulnerable.

Warning signs today

Global sea level has already risen by four to eight inches in the past century, and the pace of sea level rise appears to be accelerating. The IPCC predicts that sea levels could rise 10 to 23 inches by 2100, but in recent years sea levels have been rising faster than the upper end of the range predicted by the IPCC.

In the 1990s, the Greenland ice mass remained stable, but the ice sheet has increasingly declined in recent years. This melting currently contributes an estimated one-hundredth of an inch per year to global sea level rise.

Greenland holds 10 percent of the total global ice mass; if it melts, sea levels could increase by up to 21 feet.

ECOSYSTEM DISRUPTION

Warmer temperatures may cause some ecosystems, including alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains, to disappear.

Consequence: ecosystem shifts and species die-off
The increase in global temperatures is expected to disrupt ecosystems and result in loss of species diversity, as species that cannot adapt die off. The first comprehensive assessment of the extinction risk from global warming found that more than one million species could be committed to extinction by 2050 if global warming pollution is not curtailed. Some ecosystems, including alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains, as well as tropical montane and mangrove forests, are likely to disappear because new warmer local climates or coastal sea level rise will not support them.

Warning signs today

A recent study of nearly 2,000 species of plants and animals discovered movement toward the poles at an average rate of 3.8 miles per decade. Similarly, the study found species in alpine areas to be moving vertically at a rate of 20 feet per decade in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

The latest IPCC report found that approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if global average temperature increases by more than 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

Some polar bears are drowning because they have to swim longer distances to reach ice floes. The U. S. Geological Survey has predicted that two-thirds of the world's polar bear sub-populations will be extinct by mid-century due to melting of the Arctic ice cap.

In Washington's Olympic Mountains, sub-alpine forest has invaded higher elevation alpine meadows. In Bermuda and other places, mangrove forests are being lost.

In areas of California, shoreline sea life is shifting northward, probably in response to warmer ocean and air temperatures.

Over the past 25 years, some penguin populations have shrunk by 33 percent in parts of Antarctica, due to declines in winter sea-ice habitat.

The ocean will continue to become more acidic due to carbon dioxide emissions. Because of this acidification, species with hard calcium carbonate shells are vulnerable, as are coral reefs, which are vital to ocean ecosystems. Scientists predict that a 3.6 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature would wipe out 97 percent of the world's coral reefs.

last revised 9.21.07

2007-11-03T12:17:00.000-07:00

NEWS RELEASE

1/3/03

CONTACT: Klas Bergman, Institute for International Studies: (650) 723-8490, kbergman@stanford.edu

Effects of global warming already being felt on plants and animals worldwide

Global warming is having a significant impact on hundreds of plant and animal species around the world -- although the most dramatic effects may not be felt for decades, according to a new study in the journal Nature.

"Birds are laying eggs earlier than usual, plants are flowering earlier and mammals are breaking hibernation sooner," said Terry L. Root, a senior fellow with Stanford's Institute for International Studies (IIS) and lead author of the Jan. 2 Nature study.

"Clearly, if such ecological changes are now being detected when the globe has warmed by an estimated average of only 1 degree F (0.6 C) over the past 100 years, then many more far-reaching effects on species and ecosystems will probably occur by 2100, when temperatures could increase as much as 11 F (6 C)," Root concluded.

Climatic and biological changes

In their Nature paper, Root and her colleagues analyzed 143 scientific studies involving a total of 1,473 species of animals and plants. Each study found a direct correlation between global warming and biological change somewhere in the world. For example, several studies revealed that, as temperatures increased in recent decades, certain species began breeding and migrating earlier than expected. Other studies found that the geographical range of numerous species had shifted poleward or moved to a higher elevation -- indicating that some plants and animals are occupying areas that were previously too cold for survival.

Were these biological and behavioral changes isolated events, or did they reflect a worldwide pattern consistent with global warming? After exhaustive statistical analyses of all 143 studies, Root and her co-authors concluded that global warming is, in fact, having a significant impact on animal and plant populations around the world.

"Our study shows that recent temperature change has apparently already had a marked influence on many species," they wrote, noting that a rapid temperature rise in combination with other environmental pressures "could easily disrupt the connectedness among species" and possibly lead to numerous extinctions.

Swallows, geraniums and spruce

In their analysis, Root and her co-workers revealed that nearly 1,200 species -- roughly 81 percent of the total number analyzed -- have undergone biological changes that were "consistent with our understanding of how temperature change influences various traits of a variety of species and populations from around the globe."

Their overall analysis of studies involving temperate-zone species revealed that springtime events -- such as blooming, egg laying and the end of hibernation -- now occur about 5.1 days earlier per decade on average.

The North American tree swallow offers a good example. Field biologists, who kept track of some 21,000 tree swallow nests in the United States and Canada over the last 40 years, concluded that the average egg-laying date for female swallows has advanced by nine days a phenomenon that mirrors other North American studies confirming higher temperatures and the earlier arrival of spring.

Similar long-term observations of flowering plants in Wisconsin revealed that wild geraniums, columbine and other species are blooming earlier than before. Studies in Colorado also showed that marmots are ending their hibernations about three weeks sooner than they were in the late 1970s.

Other studies confirmed that a variety of species -- including butterflies and marine invertebrates -- have shifted their ranges northward as temperatures increased. Measurements taken in Alaska revealed that growth in white spruce trees has been significantly stunted in recent years another expected consequence of a rapidly warming climate, Root said.

"Climate change models predict that the poles will warm more quickly than the equator, so it's not surprising that we're getting the strongest signals of biological change from Alaska and other northern regions," she added.

Proactive response

The authors pointed out that, although plants and animals have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary history, a primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is the rapid rate of change predicted during the next century.

"The problem will be the differential response of species," Root explained. "I call it the tearing apart of communities. For example, four types of warblers feed on spruce budworm caterpillars. But the birds are shifting north. What happens when the birds no longer are present in the southern portion of their ranges, and the caterpillar population is no longer kept in check?"

She predicted that rapid climate change, coupled with the loss of habitat and other ecological stressors, could lead to the disappearance of species -- a consequence that might be avoided by taking proactive instead of reactive conservation measures.

"For example, there's a very high probability that global warming could contribute to a 50 percent decline in breeding waterfowl populations," Root noted. "One thing we might do now is to consider adjusting the bag limits for hunters so we don't add insult to injury in the coming years. Because anticipation of changes improves our capacity to manage, it behooves us to increase our understanding about the responses of plants and animals to a changing climate."

Other co-authors of the Nature study are Jeff T. Price of the American Bird Conservancy in Colorado; Kimberly R. Hall of Michigan State University; Stephen H. Schneider, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford and an IIS senior fellow; Cynthia Rosenzweig of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and Alan Pounds of the Golden Toad Laboratory for Conservation in Costa Rica. The study was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Winslow Foundation and the University of Michigan.

-30-

By Mark Shwartz

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/03/root18.html

Fires spew tons of global warming gas

2007-11-03T12:13:00.000-07:00

By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP SCIENCE WRITER

WASHINGTON -- In one week, Southern California's wildfires spewed the same amount of carbon dioxide - the primary global warming gas - as the state's power plants and vehicles did, scientists figure.

A new study by two Colorado researchers shows that U.S. wildfires pump a significant amount of the greenhouse gas into the air each year, more than the state of Pennsylvania does. It raises questions about how useful it is to plant trees to offset rising carbon dioxide emissions and soothe environmental consciences.

Because the California wildfires occurred just as the study was about to be published, the researchers calculated how much carbon dioxide was likely to come from the devastating blazes Oct. 19-26. It's a lot: 8.7 million tons.

That's more than the state of Vermont produces in a year. And it's also more than the 6 million tons estimated by California's air control agency, which used a different calculation method.

Graphic shows carbon dioxide emission levels from wildfires in the U.S.; two sizes; 2c x 4 inches; 96.3 mm x 101.6 mm; 1c x 7 1/4 inches; 46.5 mm x 184.2 mm

On average, wildfires in the United States each year pump 322 million tons of carbon dioxide. That's about 5 percent of what the country emits by burning fossil fuels, such as gasoline and coal, according to the new research published online Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Carbon Balance and Management.

"It is quite a big chunk," said study co-author Jason Neff of the University of Colorado at Boulder. But he adds: "It's nothing compared to our fossil fuels burning."

Mostly when scientists look at carbon dioxide emissions, they spend their time on the stuff that man adds to power industrial life. But Neff and Christine Wiedinmyer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., looked at forests, which act as a sponge and absorb some of the carbon dioxide, but which also burn and produce it.

"The problem is that what goes in, comes out," Neff said.

In recent years, some people who want to compensate for their personal contributions to global warming (from driving gas-guzzling cars or heating huge houses) have paid groups to plant trees to soak up that extra carbon in the air. It's called a carbon offset.

Over several decades or centuries, replanted trees will capture some of the gas, but the first few decades it will be at a reduced rate, Wiedinmyer said.

"There's a real danger here that in the offsetting program you feel you've done your bit," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who wasn't part of the study. "You've got to be a little bit more creative than to think that you're going to solve global warming by planting trees."

In previous studies, scientists have shown that a general increase in American wildfires - but no one event - is linked to global warming. That raises the possibility of a self-feeding cycle, Wiedinmyer said.

The scientists used satellite imagery, computer models and combustion rates to determine how much carbon dioxide is released during a fire, Wiedinmyer said.

Last week, the California Air Resources Board estimated that just under 6 million tons of carbon dioxide were released by the recent fires. The board estimates that for every acre burned, the carbon dioxide emissions are equivalent to two cars driven for a year, said board spokesman Stanley Young. More than half a million acres have burned in Southern California.

Young and Wiedinmyer said estimates do vary widely on scientific method.

The paper finds remarkable differences state by state and month by month. August is the worst month for carbon dioxide emissions from fires.

The Western continental United States is responsible for more than one-third of the country's carbon dioxide from fires. But Alaska is king. Alaskan fires produce twice as much of the greenhouse gas than burning fossil fuels in that state. Alaskan fires make up 27 percent of the nation's yearly fire-related carbon dioxide emissions.

In the Lower 48, California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Louisiana, Montana, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Texas are top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide through forest fires.

---

On the Net:

Carbon Balance and Management: http://www.cbmjournal.com/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Global_Warming_Wildfires.html

Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts

2007-11-03T12:07:00.000-07:00

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The Arctic ice cap shrank so much this summer that waves briefly lapped along two long-imagined Arctic shipping routes, the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route over Russia.

Arctic Study Researchers haul a buoy across the Arctic sea ice in August, led by two Coast Guard crew whose job was to ward off polar bears or rescue anyone who slipped into the sea

Over all, the floating ice dwindled to an extent unparalleled in a century or more, by several estimates.

Now the six-month dark season has returned to the North Pole. In the deepening chill, new ice is already spreading over vast stretches of the Arctic Ocean. Astonished by the summer’s changes, scientists are studying the forces that exposed one million square miles of open water — six Californias — beyond the average since satellites started measurements in 1979.

At a recent gathering of sea-ice experts at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, Hajo Eicken, a geophysicist, summarized it this way: “Our stock in trade seems to be going away.”

Scientists are also unnerved by the summer’s implications for the future, and their ability to predict it.

Complicating the picture, the striking Arctic change was as much a result of ice moving as melting, many say. A new study, led by Son Nghiem at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and appearing this week in Geophysical Research Letters, used satellites and buoys to show that winds since 2000 had pushed huge amounts of thick old ice out of the Arctic basin past Greenland. The thin floes that formed on the resulting open water melted quicker or could be shuffled together by winds and similarly expelled, the authors said.

The pace of change has far exceeded what had been estimated by almost all the simulations used to envision how the Arctic will respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. But that disconnect can cut two ways. Are the models overly conservative? Or are they missing natural influences that can cause wide swings in ice and temperature, thereby dwarfing the slow background warming?

The world is paying more attention than ever.

Russia, Canada and Denmark, prompted in part by years of warming and the ice retreat this year, ratcheted up rhetoric and actions aimed at securing sea routes and seabed resources.

Proponents of cuts in greenhouse gases cited the meltdown as proof that human activities are propelling a slide toward climate calamity.

Arctic experts say things are not that simple. More than a dozen experts said in interviews that the extreme summer ice retreat had revealed at least as much about what remains unknown in the Arctic as what is clear. Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.

For one thing, experts are having trouble finding any records from Russia, Alaska or elsewhere pointing to such a widespread Arctic ice retreat in recent times, adding credence to the idea that humans may have tipped the balance. Many scientists say the last substantial warming in the region, peaking in the 1930s, mainly affected areas near Greenland and Scandinavia.

Some scientists who have long doubted that a human influence could be clearly discerned in the Arctic’s changing climate now agree that the trend is hard to ascribe to anything else.

“We used to argue that a lot of the variability up to the late 1990s was induced by changes in the winds, natural changes not obviously related to global warming,” said John Michael Wallace, a scientist at the University of Washington. “But changes in the last few years make you have to question that. I’m much more open to the idea that we might have passed a point where it’s becoming essentially irreversible.”

Experts say the ice retreat is likely to be even bigger next summer because this winter’s freeze is starting from such a huge ice deficit. At least one researcher, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., projects a blue Arctic Ocean in summers by 2013.

In essence, Arctic waters may be behaving more like those around Antarctica, where a broad fringe of sea ice builds each austral winter and nearly disappears in the summer. (Reflecting the different geography and dynamics at the two poles, there has been a slight increase in sea-ice area around Antarctica in recent decades.)

While open Arctic waters could be a boon for shipping, fishing and oil exploration, an annual seesawing between ice and no ice could be a particularly harsh jolt to polar bears.

Many Arctic researchers warned that it was still far too soon to start sending container ships over the top of the world. “Natural variations could turn around and counteract the greenhouse-gas-forced change, perhaps stabilizing the ice for a bit,” said Marika Holland, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

But, she added, that will not last. “Eventually the natural variations would again reinforce the human-driven change, perhaps leading to even more rapid retreat,” Dr. Holland said. “So I wouldn’t sign any shipping contracts for the next 5 to 10 years, but maybe the next 20 to 30.”

While experts debate details, many agree that the vanishing act of the sea ice this year was probably caused by superimposed forces including heat-trapping clouds and water vapor in the air, as well as the ocean-heating influence of unusually sunny skies in June and July. Other important factors were warm winds flowing from Siberia around a high-pressure system parked over the ocean. The winds not only would have melted thin ice but also pushed floes offshore where currents and winds could push them out of the Arctic Ocean.

But another factor was probably involved, one with roots going back to about 1989. At that time, a periodic flip in winds and pressure patterns over the Arctic Ocean, called the Arctic Oscillation, settled into a phase that tended to stop ice from drifting in a gyre for years, so it could thicken, and instead carried it out to the North Atlantic.

The new NASA study of expelled old ice builds on previous measurements showing that the proportion of thick, durable floes that were at least 10 years old dropped to 2 percent this spring from 80 percent in the spring of 1987, said Ignatius G. Rigor, an ice expert at the University of Washington and an author of the new NASA-led study.

Without the thick ice, which can endure months of nonstop summer sunshine, more dark open water and thin ice absorbed solar energy, adding to melting and delaying the winter freeze.

The thinner fresh-formed ice was also more vulnerable to melting from heat held near the ocean surface by clouds and water vapor. This may be where the rising influence of humans on the global climate system could be exerting the biggest regional influence, said Jennifer A. Francis of Rutgers University.

Other Arctic experts, including Dr. Maslowski in Monterey and Igor V. Polyakov at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, also see a role in rising flows of warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia, and in deep currents running north from the Atlantic Ocean near Scandinavia.

A host of Arctic scientists say it is too soon to know if the global greenhouse effect has already tipped the system to a condition in which sea ice in summers will be routinely limited to a few clotted passageways in northern Canada.

But at the university in Fairbanks — where signs of northern warming include sinkholes from thawing permafrost around its Arctic research center — Dr. Eicken and other experts are having a hard time conceiving a situation that could reverse the trends.

“The Arctic may have another ace up her sleeve to help the ice grow back,” Dr. Eicken said. “But from all we can tell right now, the means for that are quite limited.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

AIT on DVD

2007-11-03T12:04:00.000-07:00

An Inconvenient Truth arrives on DVD November 21, 2006 from Paramount Home Entertainment.

“I’m excited about the documentary’s release on DVD,” said former Vice President Al Gore. “The DVD is a vital way for us to continue the conversation about global warming with even more Americans. As more and more people understand what’s at stake, they become a part of the solution, and share both in the challenges and opportunities presented by the climate crisis.”

The DVD will be packaged with no excess materials, so as to make the smallest environmental footprint possible. Packaging will include 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper, inks and coatings formulated to emit virtually no volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere, no inserts, no laminates and no plastic. The package was manufactured by Ivy Hill. The back of the DVD package will direct teachers to www.climatecrisis.net where a free downloadable educational guide will be available.

An Inconvenient Truth is presented in Widescreen with Dolby Digital English 5.1 Surround and English 2.0 Surround and English, French and Spanish subtitles. The DVD includes the following special features:

-An Update from Al Gore—an extensive new interview focusing on specific points of urgency
-Audio commentary by director Davis Guggenheim
-Audio commentary by producers Lawrence Bender, Scott Burns, Laurie David and Lesley Chilcott

http://www.climatecrisis.net/blog/

global warming science

2007-11-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

Global warming is already under way. The evidence is vast and the urgency of taking action becomes clearer with every new scientific study. Some of the most obvious signs are visible in the Arctic, where rising temperatures and melting ice are dramatically changing the region’s unique landscapes and wildlife—as well as people’s lives and livelihoods. Across the globe, other early warning signs include melting glaciers, shifting ranges of plants and animals, and the earlier onset of spring.

Global warming is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that are emitted primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests. These gases remain in our atmosphere for decades or even centuries.

The profound impact rising temperatures have had in the Arctic provides a window into a future we may all experience. With continued warming, we can expect more extreme heat and drought, rising sea levels, and higher-intensity tropical storms. At risk are our coastal property and resources, the livability of our cities in summer, and the productivity of our farms, forests, and fisheries.

We can’t avoid all the consequences of global warming, but committing ourselves to action today can help ensure our children and grandchildren inherit a healthy world full of opportunity.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

Public Lands, Recreational Opportunities, and Natural Resources

2007-11-03T11:46:00.000-07:00

National Parks and Other Protected Areas | Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

Many parks, refuges, and wilderness areas were designated for their unique characteristics and habitats. As species migrate in response to climate variability and change, these areas may no longer be able to support the flora and fauna that now reside there. (USGS)

National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and other protected areas harbor unique environments and wildlife not found elsewhere. This raises particular concerns about the vulnerability of these ecosystems to a changing climate. Many parks and refuges are designated to protect rare natural features or particular species of plants and animals. Changes in climate could create new stresses on natural communities, and, in the absence of adaptation, lead to the loss of valued resources.

National Parks and Other Protected Areas

Approximately 30 percent of the nation's land, almost 700 million acres, is owned by the public, over 80 million acres of which are managed by the National Park Service for the "enjoyment of future generations."

National parks and other protected areas are currently susceptible to events influenced by climatic variability, such as drought, wild fires, impaired air quality, and severe storms. Climate change may change the frequency and severity of these kinds of events. In some regions, the risk for drought and wildfire , for example, may increase with climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001). Along coastal regions, sea level rise could erode and inundate the beaches of the National Seashores and the wetlands of various National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks, precipitating loss of beaches, loss of habitat in estuarine ecosystems, and damage to property and natural resources from storm surges (IPCC, 2001).

Observations show that changing climatic conditions are already affecting some parks. For example, Montana's Glacier National Park has only 27 glaciers today, down from an estimated 150 glaciers that existed there in 1850. The largest glaciers in the park are, on average, only 28 percent of their previous size (Our Changing Planet, FY2006). Retreat of mountain glaciers has already begun in other parts of North America and in other regions of the world as well ( IPCC, 2001).

Bleaching of coral reefs has occurred near the Florida Keys in association with periods of climate variability, such as the 1997-98 El Niño according to NOAA's Coral Health and Monitoring Program (CHAMP). Therefore, it is likely that warmer water temperatures could lead to further bleaching events in the future.

In 2001 the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed a partnership to create the Climate Change, Wildlife and Wildlands Toolkit for Teachers and Interpreters to help educators teach their students about the potential effects of climate change in parks, refuges and other protected areas. In 2003, the NPS and the EPA created a new program called Climate Friendly Parks (CFP). Through the CFP program, the two partner agencies are finding ways to reduce emissions from park activities and educate the public about potential impacts in the parks and what the agencies are doing to address those issues.

Top of page

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

Outdoor recreation and tourism are sensitive to changes in temperature, rainfall, snowfall, and storm events, and are thus sensitive to climatic variability and change. Tourism businesses, which usually are location-specific, have a lower potential than tourists themselves (who have a wide variety of options) to adapt to climate change.

Shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns could lead to shifts in a variety of outdoor tourism and recreation opportunities, such as skiing, fishing and hunting. The effects of climate change on tourism in any particular area depend in part on whether the tourist activity is summer or winter-oriented and, for the latter, the elevation of the area and the impact of climate on alternative activities and destinations. The extent to which such ecological changes will affect tourism in parks and other protected areas is uncertain (IPCC, 2001).

Some possible effects on recreation and tourism in the U.S. include:

Declines in coldwater and cool-water fish habitat may affect recreational fishing opportunities (IPCC, 2001).
Shifts in migratory bird populations may affect recreational opportunities for birdwatchers, wildlife enthusiasts and hunters and anglers (IPCC, 2001).
Coastal regions face the possibility of land loss due to sea-level rise. Replenishing beach sands may become a more extensive and costlier effort. In addition, the tourism industry related to snorkeling and scuba diving may be negatively affected by changes in coral reefs.
Winter recreation, such as skiing, snowmobiling, and ice fishing, are likely to be affected by climate change, as might the businesses associated with them. Recreational opportunities may be decreased by reduced snowpack and fewer cold days. In regions with marginal climates for skiing, the costs to maintain skiing opportunities may rise. Vulnerability to change will depend upon location and adaptation; some businesses may be able to diversify the types of recreational activities they offer based upon the changing climate (IPCC, 2001).
Alaska, one of the most popular travel destinations in the U.S., is undergoing a climate-driven transformation. For example, one study used aerial photographs and on-ground observation to determine that Kenai Peninsula in Alaska has been losing wetlands to a dryer, wooded landscape since at least 1950, which has also meant a reduction in habitat for migratory birds, many of which are favorites for birdwatchers (National Research Council of Canada, 2005).
In the Arctic, important breeding and nesting areas for migratory birds may be lost, affecting bird watching opportunities at various latitudes in the U.S. (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004).
As permafrost in far northern locations like Alaska begins melting, it may no longer support roads, buildings and other structures that had been built on it, affecting everyday lives of residents, as well as travel and commerce (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004).

Top of page

References

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), 2004: Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 144 pp.
IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability . Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, James J., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Leary, Neil A., Dokken, David J., and White, Kasey S. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1032pp.
National Research Council of Canada, 2005
NOAA's Coral Health and Monitoring Program
Our Changing Planet, FY2006
USGS - Impacts on Interior Resources

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/publiclands.html

Methane to Markets

2007-11-03T11:45:00.000-07:00

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Agriculture

The primary sources of methane emissions from agriculture are livestock enteric fermentation, livestock waste management, rice cultivation, and agricultural waste burning. Of these, livestock waste management offers the most viable, near-term opportunities for methane recovery and utilization.

Methane released from manure management systems can be captured and used as clean energy to produce electricity or to fuel gas-fired equipment such as engines, boilers, or chillers, which can meet part of a farm’s energy requirements. Proven techniques for recovery include covered anaerobic lagoons and a variety of anaerobic digester designs.

With today’s technology, a wide range of opportunities exist internationally to abate livestock waste methane emissions at zero or negative economic cost. Plus, farms can achieve other environmental benefits related to improved livestock waste management.

The Agriculture Technical Subcommittee in collaboration with Project Network members is leading the Partnership's efforts to reduce methane emissions from agricultural sources.

The subcommittee is developing an Action Plan to focus on key technologies, market assessment, project financing, country-specific needs, cooperative opportunities, and communication and outreach. The Agriculture Subcommittee is also investigating longer-term opportunities related to other agricultural sources that could merit further consideration in the future.

Agriculture related Documents and Resources including country profiles, meeting minutes, and other subcommittee documents are available here. Information on agriculture related Conferences and Events is also available.

The Arctic: Losing Its Cool

2007-11-02T11:10:00.000-07:00

The Arctic is warming up faster than any other region. Because it plays a vital role in cooling the rest of the globe, the effects of this warming will be felt worldwide, not just on remote tundra.

Nineteenth-century explorer Fridtjof Nansen called the Arctic "nature's great ice temple," a place teeming with roaming polar bears and a forbidding landscape frozen since "the earliest dawn of time."

But today, one cannot venture far enough north to escape global warming. The region has heated up nearly twice as fast as the rest of the globe over the past 50 years, according to a 2004 study assessing climate change in the Arctic. Land-based ice such as glaciers, ice sheets and permafrost and floating ice are vanishing, and the ongoing thaw has profound ramifications for the rest of the world.

Arctic powers the "heat pump"

The Arctic is critical to the globe's climate and influence temperatures everywhere.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but the Arctic plays a primary role in distributing heat around the world through what is known as the "heat pump." The ocean's currents circulate heat throughout the world, through a system known as the "great conveyor belt." Two main forces keep the conveyor moving: winds and ocean density differences. The Arctic is key to the density differences.

The conveyor belt's critical points are where surface waters plunge into deep waters. This happens only in a few places, two of which are in the North Atlantic. As the ocean surface waters cool in the far north, they become denser and sink toward the bottom of the ocean. There, the cold water flows toward the equator. This combination of sinking and flow helps drive the ocean conveyor.

Because the cold waters that flow south must be replaced, warm surface currents flow farther north and deliver warmth to places far north. Without the ocean conveyor's heat pump, Europe's temperate climate would be much colder.

Global warming is changing that key spot in the North Atlantic where the surface waters plunge. A mix of increased precipitation, river run-off and melting ice—all related to climate change—is making surface waters in the north less salty and dense, weakening this major pump in the ocean's natural circulation. (More about the oceans and global warming.)

Arctic melt is speeding up warming

Also speeding up the Earth's warming is the loss of Arctic ice. Like a mirror, ice bounces sunlight back toward space, preventing sunlight from heating the surface. Winds carry the cooler air down from Canada into the U.S., cooling our climate.

Open water and bare soil are not as bright as ice and snow, so they absorb heat instead of reflecting it. When ice melts, the Earth's darker surfaces are exposed and thus absorb more solar energy. This extra heat melts even more ice, which leads to even more dark surfaces and absorption. This is what scientists call a positive feedback loop. Once the loop gets going, it tends to keep going—and to speed up. Less ice means less cooling much faster. Or, as the American Meteorological Society's senior scientist Susan Joy Hassol put it to U.S. senators in a committee hearing in 2004: "What we're looking at is having a less efficient air conditioner."

Loss of Arctic ice is not just speculation—it's already happening. The year 2003 brought a dramatic example of Arctic ice disappearing. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest in the Arctic, broke in two, draining a unique freshwater lake that was home to a rare microbial ecosystem. Since the 1970s, 400,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice has disappeared. That's the size of Texas and California combined. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2001) Even worse, the years 2002 through 2006 have all seen record or near-record low ice cover. The most recent report by the IPCC finds that nearly all of the Arctic Ocean could lose year-round ice cover by the end of the 21st century if greenhouse gas emissions reach the higher end of current estimates. (IPCC 2007)

What this means for the rest of us

While the Arctic melt has profound effects on the region's people and ecosystems, it also spells trouble for the rest of the world. For instance, the changes to the ocean's circulation system would mean that though some places will get much warmer, other places, such as Europe, which won't get the warmth from the Gulf Stream, will get much cooler.

One of the thaw's most pressing concerns on the world beyond the Arctic is sea-level rise. When melting glaciers spill into the ocean, sea levels around the globe rise. The booming cities and counties along the East and West coasts house half of the U.S. population and are among the communities that will be most threatened by melting ice.

Currently, the retreat of the world's glaciers is adding enormous amounts of fresh water to the ocean. Between 1961 and 1997, for instance, about 890 cubic miles of ice has been lost. That means that melting glacier ice has added about 980 trillion (or 979,994,261,211,428.5) gallons of water to the oceans. That would be like dumping more than a million Olympic-sized swimming pools into our oceans.

Some studies have even suggested the possibility that warming over the next several centuries would lead to the complete, irreversible disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet. Were that to occur, sea levels would rise an extra 23 feet. (More about the dangers of rising sea levels.)

"If we ignore the Arctic's warning—and it is warming—the polar bears and native Alaskans won't be the only ones who suffer," notes Environmental Defense scientist Dr. Bill Chameides. "Our children and grandchildren could pay a hefty price."

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=261

What's Being Done...In the States

2007-11-02T11:01:00.000-07:00

Across the country, states and regions are adopting policies to address climate change. These actions include increasing renewable energy generation, selling agricultural carbon sequestration credits, and encouraging energy efficiency. Such policies reduce vulnerability to energy price spikes, promote state economic development, and improve local air quality. Addressing climate change will require comprehensive national policy and international agreements. However, in the absence of federal policy, states and regions are taking the lead on developing policies that may provide models for future national efforts.

The greenhouse effect

The atmosphere has a natural supply of "greenhouse gases." They capture heat and keep the surface of the Earth warm enough for us to live on. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would be an uninhabitable, frozen wasteland.

Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere was in a rough balance with what could be stored on Earth. Natural emissions of heat-trapping gases matched what could be absorbed in natural sinks. For example, plants take in CO₂ when they grow in spring and summer, and release it back to the atmosphere when they decay and die in fall and winter.

Too much greenhouse effect

Industry took off in the mid-1700s, and people started emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases. Fossil fuels were burned more and more to run our cars, trucks, factories, planes and power plants, adding to the natural supply of greenhouse gases. The gases—which can stay in the atmosphere for at least fifty years and up to centuries—are building up beyond the Earth's capacity to remove them and, in effect, creating an extra-thick heat blanket around the Earth.

The result is that the globe has heated up by about one degree Fahrenheit over the past century—and it has heated up more intensely over the past two decades.

If one degree doesn't sound like a lot, consider this: the difference in global average temperatures between modern times and the last ice age—when much of Canada and the northern U.S. were covered with thick ice sheets—was only about 9 degrees Fahrenheit. So in fact one degree is very significant—especially since the unnatural warming will continue as long as we keep putting extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

How much is too much?

Already, people have increased the amount of CO₂, the chief global warming pollutant, in the atmosphere to 31 percent above pre-industrial levels. There is more CO₂ in the atmosphere now than at any time in the last 650,000 years. Studies of the Earth’s climate history show that even small changes in CO₂ levels generally have come with significant shifts in the global average temperature.

Scientists expect that, in the absence of effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, the global average temperature will increase another 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Even if the temperature change is at the small end of the predictions, the alterations to the climate are expected to be serious: more intense storms, more pronounced droughts, coastal areas more severely eroded by rising seas. At the high end of the predictions, the world could face abrupt, catastrophic and irreversible consequences. Find out more about what a warmer world could look like.

The science is clear

Scientists are no longer debating the basic facts of climate change. In February 2007, the thousands of scientific experts collectively known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that there is greater than 90 percent likelihood that people are causing global warming. (IPCC, 2007)

These latest findings amplify what other highly respected science organizations say:

In a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences said:

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."—Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change, 2005

The American Geophysical Union, a respected organization comprising over 41,000 Earth and space scientists, wrote in its position on climate change that "natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

Global Warming Issue

Scientists Issue Bali Climate Change Warning

Welcome to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data

United Nations Climate Change Conference - Bali, 3 - 14 December 2007

Alternative Energy Afghanistan: Solar Energy for Rural Use

Clean Coal or Dirty Coal?

TREMOVE EU-wide transport model

Activity and Emissions

Climate change

Contents

Indonesia Peat Fires May Fuel Global Warming, Experts Say

Air Pollution

Impact on the carbon cycles.

Japan pledges $2b for climate change fight

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

Friday, May 18, 2007

The Second Draft of the Declaration

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

Air pollution and climate change – tackling both problems in tandem

Economic impact of climate change

OC burning: Images from the heart of the fire

California wildlifes: Climate change or not?

Kyoto Protocol

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

Policies

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

Forests

Climate Factors

Temperature and Precipitation

Tree Growth and CO2 sequestration

Fire and Disease

Implications for North America

References

Fire

thetimetocare

CantorCO2e Adds Voluntary Carbon Markets to EmissionsTrading.com

Carbon market aims to slow global warming

Harnessing the market

Carbon Trading: Practical Solution to Global Warming or Corporate Greenwash? A Debate

CARBON MARKETS PARTNERSHIP TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING

Climate Change: An Inconvenient Globalist Scam

Sizzling year. Torrid decade. Blistering future?

Indonesia: Papua's forests and global warming

Global Warming the Young Peoples Trust for the Environment

Study Links Global Warming, Severe Droughts in Indonesia

Why Asia Is Ignoring Global Warming

Indonesia's peatlands may offer U.S. firms global warming offsets

Source: Copyright 2007, Mongabay.com Date: August 30, 2007Byline: Rhett A. Butler

Climate Change as a Global Challenge: The Road to Bali

Global Warming Conference: Bali

Global warming threatens Indonesia's Borobudur temple

Global warming threatens Indonesia lands

Concrete action needed Indonesia to face global warming

Global Warming May Affect Indonesia Isles

Indonesia Could Lose 2,000 Islands by 2030 Due to Global Warming, Environment Minister Says

At Its Session on Warming, U.S. Is Seen to Stand Apart

Indonesia Seeks Allies for Pay-for-Forests Plan

Consequences of Global Warming

Effects of global warming already being felt on plants and animals worldwide

Fires spew tons of global warming gas

Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts

AIT on DVD

global warming science

Public Lands, Recreational Opportunities, and Natural Resources

National Parks and Other Protected Areas

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

References

Methane to Markets

Agriculture

The Arctic: Losing Its Cool

Arctic powers the "heat pump"

Arctic melt is speeding up warming

What this means for the rest of us

What's Being Done...In the States

The greenhouse effect

Too much greenhouse effect

How much is too much?

The science is clear

Source: Copyright 2007, Mongabay.com
Date: August 30, 2007
Byline: Rhett A. Butler