-
-
related tags:
- virgo
- Sagittarius
- Aquarius
- pisces
- scorpio
- Capricorn
- Gemini
- taurus
- Lemini
- leo
- prediction
- horoscope
- Predictions
- aries
- Astrology
- Globalism
- Signs
- prophecies
- Zodiac
- libra
- Your Fratoscope
- Humanity
- Prophecy
- Earth
- WW3
- moons
- Will Anderson
- biodistress
- contaminated
- The Horror of Colony 6
- Aires
- Tommy Phillips
- frat boy
- DontaigaOnline
- NewCreation
- DTrain
- Beautyandthebeast
- iBrowser
- Fluxscuzz
- hideout
- KillFast
- termsofservice
- YouTubeLiveVideos
- FunJuice
- FastandFurious
- RecentlyTagged
- MissyElliot
- Dontaiga.Blogspot.com
- FoundTaggs
- Maroon5
tagged w/ Future
-
No progress in Durban (COP 17) is our fault
No real progress to address this climate crisis in Durban is our fault. I guess Americans on the whole just don't care enough about their children and the future to stop talking about BS and get serious.No real progress to address this climate crisis in Durban is our fault. I guess... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 16 comments
-
-
The Antiwar Comic: Stick to Zombies
The advent of drone technology worries Tony D.-
- TonyDiGerolamo
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
As Durban happens, what happened to the urgency on climate change?
I know why the U.S. media isn't really covering this conference. The truth is out and their fossil fuel company sponsors want to keep it HUSH HUSH. And I know why Obama and other politicians don't say the words climate change now... can't mention the words in an election year! It's taboo! Got to get those millions in donations to pay for those attack ads! That is surely more important now to them than the 6 degree rise we will now more than likely see in temperature by 2100. That is more important than the prolonged more frequent droughts, floods, storms, erratic rainfall patterns, diseases, glacier melt, crop failure, water scarcity, deforestation, hunger, species extinction, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, climate refugees and deaths we are already seeing globally. Right? We can complain all we want about government but in the end we will have no one to blame but ourselves if we allow them to continue running this world at the behest of their benefactors while we watch this happening.
OCCUPY EARTH.I know why the U.S. media isn't really covering this conference. The truth is out... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 10 comments
-
-
Your Fratoscope: December 4, 2011
The psychic frat boy predicts your future for the week!-
- TonyDiGerolamo
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
The Age of Transitions - [Full Documentary]
Uploaded by GoodFightUploads on Mar 29, 2011
http://www.policestateplanning.com/epigenetics.htm
Official Website for the film:
http://www.theageoftransitions.com/
These transhumanist, eugenicist scum don't just want to kill us...that's too easy. They want to turn us into a cyborg-slave raceUploaded by GoodFightUploads on Mar 29, 2011... more-
- rodstradamus
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Global day of action- rallying call as thousands expected to join Durban climate march
As world leaders struggle to reach agreement at the COP17 negotiations, the COP17 civil society committee (C17) is issuing a rallying call to all South Africans to join civil society, organised labour, faith-based organisations, artists and musicians in a peaceful march through Durban on Saturday 3rd December.
Ordinary people from across Africa and the World are coming together to make sure their voices are heard. Some of those most affected by the impacts of changing climate will be taking part in the march including peasant farmers from across the continent and hundreds of women from South African rural communities.
C17 Global Day of Action committee convenor Desmond D’sa: “World leaders are discussing the fate of our planet but they are far from reaching a solution to climate change. If they fail to make progress we will see drought and hunger blight our country and continent even further. We call on all South African’s to march with us this Saturday and remind our leaders they must come to a fair climate change deal that avoids runaway climate change.”
Participants are invited to gather from 8:30 am at Botha’s Garden/ King Dinuzulu Garden (near the corner of Julius Nyerere Street and Dr Pixley Kaseme Street) for the pre-march rally to begin at 9:00am. Speakers will include South African and international community representatives, Bishop Geoff Davies, Bandile Mdlalose, and C17’s Desmond D’sa.
The march will follow a route past the ICC, the site of the United Nations climate change negotiations, converging en route with faith community members (who will rally at Diakonia Centre, 20 Andrew’s Street, Durban). Special needs groups and children will join the march at Speakers Corner.
Pausing at the entrance to the ICC at about 13:00, speakers will present short speeches, before statements gathered from participating groups and organisations are collectively handed over to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. Speakers will include Zwelinzima Vavi (representing labour), Nnimmo Bassey (representing Africa), Bishop Davies (representing faith communities), Aluwani Nemukula (representing youth) and Constance Mogale (representing women).
The GDA march will end at the Old Pavilion site (corner of OR Tambo parade and KE Masinga).
More at the linkAs world leaders struggle to reach agreement at the COP17 negotiations, the COP17... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 7 comments
-
-
One Third of World’s Energy Could Be Solar by 2060, Predicts Historically Conservative IEA
The International Energy Agency is notoriously conservative on projections for renewable energy. The agency has embraced the need for more clean electricity and fuels to address climate change and peak oil, but its outlook for the future is usually far more conservative than how reality plays out.
So when an official at the IEA says we could get up to one third of our global energy supply from solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, and solar hot water by 2060, that’s a fairly big piece of news. But even that projection may be conservative.
Speaking to Bloomberg News, the head of IEA’s renewable energy unit explained said he thought the target is feasible:
“The strength of solar is the incredible variety and flexibility of applications, from small scale to big scale,” Paolo Frankl, the agency’s head of renewable energy, said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Economic activity will shift toward the sunnier zones around the equator by 2050, making solar energy a viable power source for most of the global economy, the report said. Those regions will be home to almost 80 percent of the human race by the middle of the century, compared with about 70 percent today, and their energy needs will be higher as living standards in countries such as Brazil and India approach those of the U.S. and Europe.
The IEA is clearly responding to the fast-changing world of solar energy. It has released a new publication, Solar Energy Perspectives, that mirrors one of its flagship research products, Energy Technology Perspectives.
But in its recent World Energy Outlook, IEA barely gave solar much attention. The organization predicted fairly modest growth in the solar PV and CSP sector through 2035, with a projection that it would only make up 4.5% of electricity supply.
While solar only makes up a fraction of the global electricity supply today, the downward cost curve of technologies is pushing it toward a breaking point. By sometime in 2012, the installed cost of a crystalline-silicon solar PV system over 1 MW in the U.S. could dip to around $2.50 a watt. At around 2$ a watt we could cost-competitively meet around 30% of global electricity supply, says solar expert and Carbon War Room CEO Jigar Shah.
Shah believes solar can reach a 5% penetration level in the U.S. by 2020, with cost reductions coming mostly from innovations in hardware and installation, not dramatic improvements in the lab.
While the IEA is far less ambitious in its projections, the agency seems to agree that a “systems-based approach” to manufacturing and installation will be the key driver to reaching high penetration levels of different solar technologies. And rather than focus on specific subsidies for solar in the long-term, IEA says the most important incentive will be a price on carbon.
Solar is clearly proving itself without a price on carbon. With an effective pricing regime in place, a 30% penetration would almost certainly be low.
More at the linkThe International Energy Agency is notoriously conservative on projections for... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 40 comments
-
-
Gifts from the Future: Nine Items That’ll Take You to Tomorrow
As 2011 comes to an end and our smartphones, tablets and thick, chunky laptops slowly lapse into obsolescence, we're forced to either refresh our hardware or fall behind.
Staying current is no easy feat. Today, tablets are quickly growing as widespread consumer devices. Having a monster stereo speaker setup is more common than ever. Our phones are even capable of talking back in subtly reassuring tones (though not entirely devoid of sass).
link:http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/11/9-for-9-gifts-future/As 2011 comes to an end and our smartphones, tablets and thick, chunky laptops slowly... more-
- aileenalmeda
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Doubtmongering: An interview with Dr. Naomi Oreskes
Naomi Oreskes found herself under attack in 2004, when she called attention to the scientific consensus on climate change. Her search for those behind the broadside led her to document the evolution of doubt-mongering.
Climate Query For Naomi Oreskes
Naomi Oreskes is a science historian, professor at the University of California, San Diego, and co-author (with Erik Conway) of Merchants of Doubt, a book that examined how a handful of scientists obscure the facts on a range of issues, including tobacco use and climate change. Her seminal paper in the journal Science, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," challenged - back in 2004 - the notion that climate change science was uncertain. Her work has documented the spread of doubt-mongering from an industry practice to a political strategy.
Oreskes did her undergraduate work at the Royal School of Mines in London and received her graduate degree from Stanford University. With her husband, Ken Belitz, and daughter, Clara, the family lives in San Diego. Her older daughter, Hannah, attends Stanford.
Somewhere between your undergraduate and graduate degrees, you became interested in the history of science. What drew you to that field?
I was always interested in the human side of science, especially why people disagreed about evidence, and the strong - yet divergent - opinions that my professors had about what constitutes good science. Beyond that, it is a long story.
What attracted you to the climate change deniers?
I fell into this. I was working on the history of oceanography, and came across the work of Roger Revelle, Dave Keeling and others who'd been working on climate change since the 1950s. I came to understand that the scientific basis for understanding anthropogenic climate change was much firmer than most people knew. That led to my 2004 work, which led to me being attacked. So we started digging and found direct links to the tobacco industry.
Science is not sufficient to solve this problem, but it is necessary.
How do most mainstream scientists view this contrary viewpoint from their colleagues?
They are thoroughly appalled. Because it isn't a "contrary viewpoint," in the sense that the scientific evidence is contradictory or incomplete, or that our theories are inadequate to explain the observations. This is not the case, this is not a scientific debate.
Is the need to expose deniers that important in the policy world? Aren't other issues - such as economics and energy - far more important?
If we didn't have the science, we wouldn't know the cause. We wouldn't know that we have to control greenhouse gas emissions, and we could just burn coal. It is science that revealed the problem, science that pinpoints its cause, and science (that) tells us what kinds of interventions will be efficacious. Science is not sufficient to solve this problem, but it is necessary.
Are you frustrated by the continuing debate over the reality of climate change?
Yes, because some people are now saying, we should just accept that climate change is happening and not worry about the cause. Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases and that is why we need to do something about them. So it's time we rolled up our sleeves and got to work doing what we know in our hearts we need to do.
More at the linkNaomi Oreskes found herself under attack in 2004, when she called attention to the... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
GM Crops - Contamination without Representation
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops.
(SALEM, Ore.) - A public hearing is being held in Corvallis, Oregon this Thursday, November 17th to determine if Genetically Modified sugar beets will be deregulated in Oregon.
Meanwhile, the public comment period maybe just a local distraction giving way to full federal deregulation without any representation of organic and conventional crop farmers.
Let us not forget that the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture held a formal hearing on Genetically Modified (GM) Alfalfa on Jan 20, 2011.
The hearing corresponded with an open 30-day comment period, designed to provide relevant testimony with regard to deregulation of Genetically Modified Alfalfa.
The democratic process neglected to include a single organic or conventional farming representative. Throughout the two hour hearing various legislators publicly humiliated the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsak for even suggesting any compromise through talks with the organic and conventional communities. They all but ordered him to stand down his conversations with anyone but pro-GM enthusiasts (1:43:16).
Representatives left no seed unturned in honor of their allegiance to biotech crops and complete penetration into all foreign and domestic markets. In fact, Minnesota's Representative Collin Peterson referred to organic producers and consumers as "our opponents"[1](12:29).
Vilsak, even with his ties to Monsanto, was attempting negotiation with "so called Option 3" containing a minimal stop gap as an alternative to absolute contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa. In essence, planting barriers would have been implemented to maintain protective measures for the integrity of all seed varieties. Legislators blatantly mocked him and even pulled rank, saying that the Secretary of Agriculture does not have the authority to do anything but fully deregulate the crop without further ado. (35:38, 1:25:50, 1:29:15, 2:18:47)
It can be noted that Vilsak testified no less than three times that we were in the midst of the 30 day comment period, and in his opinion, the talks among all sides were providing necessary elements worthy of analysis for all agricultural markets concerned. (29:00, 1:44:00, 1:51:54)
The theme of the hearing centered around the economic burden of GM farmers if full deregulation didn’t go forth immediately (1:44:00). It was insisted by every representative that their loyalties were to the biotech community and that full deregulation was unquestionable without consideration for any form of barrier to protect other crops from cross contamination.
In regard to preservation of non GM crops, Texas Representative Michael Conaway begs the question, "how much of this is a definitional issue"? He questions organic standards and even insists that he "suspects that Genetically Engineered seeds will become the new organic". He blatantly suggests that legislative steps be considered to modify the language and thus re-define organic standards so that Genetically Modified crops can freely contaminate without restriction. He insists that it is merely a marketing issue and not an issue of health and safety. Conaway asks if we are just "hung up on the phrase organic, meaning something we grew ourselves in the backyard with whatever?"(2:33:00).
Concern was expressed by a number of speakers that GM crops are being promoted throughout the world as being no different than conventional crops, and if word got out that we established restrictive planting barriers, then it might be assumed that the GM crops were somehow different. That could put a damper on GM producers and their marketing potential. (30:45, 1:58:17, 2:18:47)
It was apparent, by the end of one sided discussion, that full deregulation and contamination remains unquestionable from the perspective of our democratic leaders. In other words, it is most notably a flagrant case of Contamination without Representation.
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops. Public comments are being heard on Thursday from 4 PM – 9 PM at LaSells Stewart Center Construction and Engineering Hall 875 Southwest 26th St., Corvallis, Oregon.
Please see the full length video of the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture forum on GM Alfalfa, Jan 20 2011.
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1269If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 8 comments
-
-
IPCC Extreme Weather Report Is Another Blown Chance to Explain the Catastrophes Coming If We Keep Doing Nothing
Fortunately, the public already understands that global warming makes extreme weather more severe, as new polling reveals:
September polling by ecoAmerica found that 57% of Americans already understand “If we don’t do something about climate change now, we can end up having our farmland turned to desert.” Duh:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is coming out Friday with its umpteenth watered down report on climate science, in this case on extreme weather. The thing to remember about IPCC reports is that pretty much everyone involved has to sign off on every word, so it is inevitably a least common denominator document.
The actual scientific literature from 2011 is far more useful than this report — see “Study Finds 80% Chance Russia’s 2010 July Heat Record Would Not Have Occurred Without Climate Warming” and “NOAA Study Finds Human-Caused Climate Change Already a Major Factor in More Frequent Mediterranean Droughts.” I will provide the links to as many recent studies as possible in this post.
Indeed we already know from a major 2011 study that “human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.” As predicted, the warming has put more water vapor in the air, making deluges more intense. Climatologist Kevin Trenberth explains:
There is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms,
Obviously, since it’s getting hotter, we’re worsening extreme heat waves — both in intensity and duration and scale (the area the heat wave covers). For the same reason, we know humans are making droughts worse — in intensity, duration, and scale. The earlier snow melts also makes summer droughts worse.
Actual observations reveal that since 1950, the global percentage of dry areas has increased by about 1.74% of global land area per decade (see here). Heck, our best scientists are already using global warming to help them predict dangerous extreme weather (see “USGS Expert Explains How Global Warming Likely Contributes to East Africa’s Brutal Drought“).
The reinsurance industry understands all this (see Munich Re: “The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change”).
Again, much if not most of the public appear to have a better sense of what’s happening right now than you’ll find in the summaries of a typical IPCC report, to go by Yale’s 2011 polling and the September poll from ecoAmerica quoted at the top, which also found:
69% of Americans Know “Weather Conditions (Such as Heat Waves and Droughts) Are Made Worse by Climate Change”
The American public can’t miss the extreme weather because it is everywhere now and increasingly off the charts (see “A New Record: 14 U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters in 2011“) and links below.
Of course, what’s to come is the real issue, since we still have control over that. We’re facing 5 to 10 times the warming this century that we’ve seen in the past half century.
Unfortunately, the IPCC continues to conflate uncertainty in future emissions of greenhouse gases with uncertainty in the climate’s sensitivity to those emissions. This means they present a very large range of possible overall impacts — and that allows the deniers to trumpet the low range with their powerful fossil-fuel-funded megaphone and induces the media to provide “balance” in their stories between the mid-range and the low range.
The reality is we are on the highest emissions trends (see “Biggest Jump Ever in Global Warming Pollution in 2010 means “levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago”). And the latest science and observation points towards the high end of the climate’s sensitivity (see Journal of Climate: New cloud feedback results “provide support for the high end of current estimates of global climate sensitivity”).
Most climate scientists know what is coming if we don’t act quickly– and more and more are shedding their reticence to speak out, even if that is not yet reflected in bland, least-common-denominator IPCC reports (see Lonnie Thompson on why climatologists are speaking out: “Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization”).
And as long as the deniers, inactivists and climate ignorati rule the debate, inaction is assured, which means that we are risking extreme weather beyond imagination, extreme events on top of an average warming this century that could hit 13-18°F over most of U.S. and 25°F in the Arctic:
More at the linkFortunately, the public already understands that global warming makes extreme weather... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 18 comments
-
-
Utility CEO on Solar: In “3 to 5 Years You’ll Be Able to Get Power Cheaper from the Roof of Your House Than From the Grid”
David Crane, the CEO of one of the nation’s largest electric companies, has become a leading proponent of renewable energy. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he explains how, in the face of government paralysis, the private sector can help lead the shift away from fossil fuels.
David Crane, president and CEO of NRG Energy, is not your typical power company executive, as becomes clear when he calls climate change a “slow-moving catastrophe” and “the fundamental issue of our day.” As head of a Fortune 500 company that produces electricity for up to 20 million U.S. households, he is still neck-deep in hydrocarbons, with more than 90 percent of NRG’s electricity production coming from natural gas, coal, and oil. But the future, vows Crane, will look radically different.
NRG EnergyDavid Crane In an interview with Yale Environment 360 senior editor Fen Montaigne, Crane said he believes the U.S. electricity-generating market is on the verge of a profound transformation, not unlike the era two decades ago when the antiquated world of land-line telephones and “Ma Bell” companies was about to give way to cell phones and mobile communications. The electricity future, says Crane, will be transformed by the widespread adoption of three innovations: solar panels on residential and commercial roofs, electric cars in garages, and truly “smart meters” that will seamlessly transfer power to and from homes, electric vehicles, and the grid.
His long-term goal? To see the U.S. transportation sector kick the habit of imported oil and run on electricity generated primarily from renewable sources, especially solar power. Lamenting the political gridlock in Washington, Crane said, “We’re really putting our hopes in the free market system and the American consumer embracing technological innovation.”
Yale Environment 360: What’s your assessment of the energy politics in the U.S. now and what does it mean for a power generator like yourself, who is interested in moving the country in the direction of renewables?
David Crane: In the last four to five years, energy and the environment have become completely politicized along the same red/blue lines that divide every other major issue in Washington. I think that is extremely unfortunate because if you look at the history of energy and environmental policy — well, the last big energy bill, which was passed in 2005, was passed with bipartisan support. The Clean Air Act of 1990 was signed by George [H.W.] Bush. So the fall into partisanship is definitely a step backwards.
There was a fair degree of optimism on what I think is the fundamental issue of our day — climate change. That optimism peaked when President Obama was elected in 2008. Throughout that campaign he listed climate change as one of his three highest priorities. I would say that effort was entirely unsuccessful. Now we have shifted to a situation where the best you can hope from the government is to do no harm. And maybe help along the edges of facilitating things by eliminating red tape. So we’re really putting our hopes in the free market system and the American consumer embracing technological innovation, which will have the impact of promoting sustainability.
e360: What can you do as a major power generator to nudge the country toward a renewable energy future?
Crane:I think the most important thing is to make the American public aware that now they have energy choices in a way that they never really did. You don’t just have to settle for using electricity in your house that is supplied by coal-fired power plants on the grid. And you don’t just have to put oil that comes from the Middle East in your gas tank. You can buy an By far the biggest opportunity for those of us on the electricity side is transportation energy.”electric car. You can put solar panels on your roof. You have choices now.
I mean the people who were opposed to climate change legislation used one of two tactics. They either said, “Well, we don’t believe it’s happening.” Which, of course, is just a bald-faced lie. Or the second part of the one/two punch is, “We can’t afford to do anything about it because a synonym for the word “green” is “expensive.” But looking forward, electric vehicles will be far cheaper to operate than internal combustion engine vehicles. And solar panels on the roof will provide power more cheaply than taking power from the grid.
e360: Can you explain why a power generator who is making nice profits producing power from coal and natural gas would want to begin pushing his company in the direction of renewables?
Crane: It’s about energy market share. Historically, when the country and the world were growing, the energy industry was always in a struggle to provide enough energy in various forms for people to use it. It’s almost unheard of for an energy company to truly market its energy, because it didn’t need to. But the global recession of 2008, combined with some technological innovation that was playing off the high energy prices of the years before the global recession, have come together at the same time. So we now have these vast energy resources available to us, like natural gas as a result of hydraulic fracturing, and the demand [in the U.S.] for energy products is less. So various forms of energy have to compete with each other.
And by far the biggest opportunity for those of us on the electricity side is transportation energy, because the U.S. spends a lot more on moving cars on American roads than lighting houses.
The electricity side of the energy sector is 50 percent coal and 20 percent natural gas and 20 percent nuclear. The transportation side is almost all oil. And it doesn’t matter whether you’re on the left or the right of the political spectrum, no American wants to keep importing 3 million barrels of oil a day from the Middle East. So there’s huge public policy benefit to shifting the transportation sector to something other than oil.
e360: Could you talk about NRG’s move into utility-scale solar, and also your vision long-term of large-scale solar, versus distributed [smaller-scale] solar power?
Crane:So far most of our business has been utility-scale solar — gigantic plants in the desert. The biggest solar [project] we have is 295 megawatts. That’s something like 6 million solar panels. Those projects are really dependent on two things, because they cost over a billion dollars: the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program and California’s You put an electric car in your garage and you really have a mini power plant.”33 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the fact that the two largest California utilities have been willing to sign long-term agreements in order to meet their requirements [to obtain 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020] under the Renewable Portfolio Standards. We have over 800 megawatts of projects out there, which is a huge number for solar. But our view is that because the DOE Loan Guarantee Program is going away and the California utilities are coming close to putting themselves in a position to satisfy the requirement, there will be fewer of those projects in the future.
We expect to continue to pursue that business and to do well, but that’s not going to be the explosive-growth part of the industry. The explosive-growth part will be between distributed solar power, which is like 1 to 10 megawatt size, and then residential, which is measured in kilowatts. We have so many parking lots and warehouse rooftops and residential locations where people want to reduce their monthly electric bills and that is just an enormous area of growth.
More at the linkDavid Crane, the CEO of one of the nation’s largest electric companies, has... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 33 comments
-
-
IEA Warning: We’re Headed Toward 11°F Global Warming and “Delaying Action Is a False Economy”
International Energy Agency: “On planned policies, rising fossil energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change.”
“… we are on an even more dangerous track to an increase of 6°C [11°F]…. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”
The International Energy Agency has issued yet another clarion call for urgent action on climate. Their 2011 World Energy Outlook [WEO] release should end once and for all any notion that delay is the rational course for the nation and the world.
The UK Guardian‘s headline captures the urgency:
World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns
If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change
We must start aggressively deploying clean energy now through myriad policies, including a price on carbon. That has been the conclusion of most authoritative studies, of course, including the recent one by California’s independent state science and technology advisory panel (see “Study Confirms Optimal Climate Strategy: Deploy, Deploy, Deploy, Research and Develop, Deploy, Deploy, Deploy“).
The IEA report deserves the label “bombshell,” though, because for most of the past two decades, the IEA was the source of bland, conservative, business-as-usual analysis. When I was Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, no one at DOE paid much attention to IEA reports. And that perspective continued through most of the 2000s.
But in just the last few years they have woken up to the risks posed to peak oil — see IEA top economist warns (8/09): “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us” — and especially climate change. In releasing its 2009 WEO, the IEA warned, “The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming.”
Now the IEA has done the calculation a different way, concluding, “Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.” Those who counsel waiting for breakthrough technologies are urging us on a path that is unsustainable, irreversible, potentially catastrophic, and economically indefensible, according to the IEA.
The IEA is one of the few organizations in the world with a sophisticated enough global energy model to do credible (i.e non-hand-waving) projections of the cost of different emissions pathways and the costs of delaying efforts to achieve them. Their 2008 analysis of the 2°C warming pathway demonstrated that the total shift in investment needed to stabilize at 450 ppm is only about 1.1% of GDP per year — and that is not a “cost” or hit to GDP, because much of that investment goes towards saving expensive fuel (see “IEA report: Climate Progress has the 450-ppm solution about right“).
The new analysis shows that because of soaring emissions, we are running out of time for the “450 Scenario.” We are at risk of irreversibly “locking in” dangerous warming — a point I agree with mostly, but not entirely:
More at the linkInternational Energy Agency: “On planned policies, rising fossil energy use... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 32 comments
-
-
Health cost of 6 U.S. climate disasters: 14 billion
Deaths and health problems from floods, drought and other U.S. disasters related to climate change cost an estimated $14 billion over the last decade, researchers said on Monday.
"When extreme weather hits, we hear about the property damage and insurance costs," said Kim Knowlton, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council and a co-author of the study. "The healthcare costs never end up on the tab."
The study in the journal Health Affairs looked at the cost of human suffering and loss of life due to six disasters from 2000-2009.
"This in no way is going to capture all of the climate-related events that happened in the U.S. over that time period," Knowlton said. "At $14 billion, these numbers are big already."
To put this in context, 14 weather disasters in the United States so far this year have cost at least $14 billion, according to Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground website.
Masters said by email that health costs and deaths are considered in some of the data used to reach this figure.
Scientists and economists from the non-profit NRDC, the University of California-Berkeley and the University of California-San Francisco estimated the health costs for the following events from 2000 to 2009:
* U.S. ozone air pollution, 2000-2002, $6.5 billion;
* West Nile virus outbreak in Louisiana, 2002, $207 million;
* Southern California wildfires, 2003, $578 million;
* Florida hurricane season, 2004, $1.4 billion;
* California heat wave, 2006, $5.3 billion;
* Red River flooding in North Dakota, 2009, $20 million.
GETTING WORSE AS PLANET WARMS
The study's authors stressed they chose events in the middle of the severity spectrum and left out some notably costly disasters, such as the 2005 hurricane season that included the devastating Hurricane Katrina. In the case of Katrina, the healthcare costs were hard to pinpoint.
The six case studies are examples of events related to climate change that are projected to worsen as the planet warms, the authors said.
These six events resulted in an estimated 1,689 premature deaths, 8,992 hospitalizations, 21,113 emergency room visits and 734,398 outpatient visits, according to the study.
More at the linkDeaths and health problems from floods, drought and other U.S. disasters related to... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
Your Fratoscope: November 6, 2011
The psychic frat boy tells you the future for the week!-
- TonyDiGerolamo
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
We must reclaim our humanity to save our planet/water
The state of water in our world currently is endangered. Pollution, privatization, waste, climate change effects and lack of attention to this most crucial life crisis is bringing us to the brink as a species. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. In trying to assess in my own mind why something so basic and necessary to our lives is given such little attention it is frustrating to say the least. Especially in this age of technology when we see through our modems and other devices so much more information than ever before being shared on this and so many other global crises.
When you look at the world as a whole and realize that 3/4 of it live in poverty and that the majority of those areas also do not have access to potable water/sanitation, the corrolation is obvious. Yet, we as a species even in the 21st century are failing at even providing the basic necessities of life to ourselves and others. Why? Why is water so unimportant to so many even though they know they cannot live without it? Is it ignorance? Arrogance? Or is it because there are those who have been made to believe that we will always have what we need because money can buy you anything even at the expense of taking it from others.
Just look at the levels of pollution in our global waterways. Industry and nitrogen fertilizer rich agriculture alone have managed to kill some of the major river systems of the world and made dead zones devoid of the oxygen marinelife needs to survive. The burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and other destructive land uses (fracking, tarsands extraction, strip mining, mountain top removal) are culminating to push our atmosphere and water to the tipping point. We are now seeing more extreme events (storms, floods, droughts) around the world which are the results of human forcings on the natural cycles of the planet to the point where we have actually affected the hydrologic cycle. And this is now being touted as the "new normal."
This has already resulted in billions of dollars of lost agriculture to the world, most recently in Thailand where much of their rice crop has been destroyed from unprecedented floods that are also happening globally simultaneously, as well as extreme droughts on both sides of the world. This then has a domino effect regarding food prices and the ability to live. And with predictions of these events (extreme floods and droughts) becoming more severe with rainfall patterns changing, the entire way the world grows food is being challenged. And in the process more fall into poverty, illness, war and hopelessness as those with more green paper think it buys them rights to the resources of Earth that belong to all mankind.
So for me there can only be one main reason why this has happened. We have strayed from our humanity. We have allowed materialistic manmade forces to infiltrate our consciousness and perceptions of life on this Earth and those skewed perceptions are now killing us and in the process destroying this Earth for future generations.
And it is the hope of changing those perceptions and bringing a paradigm shift in thinking that is now bringing people out into the streets worldwide calling for justice and equality. Calling for accountability for those who have stripped this Earth of all that was once good in exchange for a world of their making that can sustain no one, not even themselves. The false illusion of money's worth in comparison to the limitless value of this Earth coupled with delusions of grandeur built on sand in failing to understand the true meaning of humanity and its true purpose must now be challenged. And that right now is the hope we have as a species... awareness, awakening, gnosis.
The inate instinct that tells us as humans that we are one with this planet and that to destroy her destroys us. This is the lesson we must learn. This is the perception we must impart to others. We are at the brink, but we don't have to go over. There are ways to heal her and ourselves. We can join globally with likeminded individuals who know the stakes and make this shift happen with our thoughts and our actions. We can reclaim our humanity and in the process save ourselves. It won't be easy. However, the alternative is simply not an option.
Water is life, it is our life, it is the blood of Earth.
And it is worth fighting for.The state of water in our world currently is endangered. Pollution, privatization,... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 8 comments
-
-
Developing countries doing more to check emissions than rich ones: report
New Delhi: Developing countries have pledged greater levels of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions than the rich nations despite the developed world being responsible for a large part of the historical emissions.
This conclusion by the Stockholm Environment Institute has stirred debate about how far India would now be willing to go with the US and Europe lagging behind on substantial actions to prevent climate change but asking for greater commitments from the developing world.
"There is broad agreement that developing country pledges amount to more mitigation than developed country pledges," a report by the institute said.
Countries provided these pledges under the Copenhagen Accord with developing countries such as India pledging to take actions to reduce emissions voluntarily despite not being required to do so under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The SEI report is based on four detailed studies from different reputed institutions including UNEP and McKinsey and Company.
The four independent studies used different parameters and assumptions to bring the different kinds of pledges into a comparable format and all four came to the same conclusion though the difference between promised goals of the rich and developing countries varied.
The authors of the SEI report concluded that unless the UN accounting system shut the loopholes, the rich countries would be able to meet their pledges "with very little actual mitigation, and possibly with none at all".
It also noted that the rich countries had not decoupled their consumption patterns from emissions but rather they had shifted many of those emissions to developing countries. In other words, the fossil-fuel driven consumption levels of the rich countries have not reduced over time and the actions taken by them to reduce emissions have been only those which brought net-benefit to their economies.
The report said the developed countries held three-quarters of the world's GDP and were responsible for 75% of the historical emissions. "It seems self-evident that the developed world should take responsibility for much more mitigation effort than the developing world, and that this effort must have both a domestic and an international dimension," it said.
"The developed world must raise their level of ambition to the levels demanded by science and equity. And, of course, they must fulfill those ambitions through actual mitigation, not through accounting loopholes," it added.
The report noted that even after the rich countries agreed to do so, it would still require actions by the developing world to prevent dangerous climate change.New Delhi: Developing countries have pledged greater levels of reduction of greenhouse... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 14 comments
-
-
Ecuador: indigenous people fight to protect an Amazon treasure from oil destruction
Luis Garcia was close to tears. For three days, he had guided eight international journalists through a tract of Amazon so thick with wildlife that experts are yet to fully catalogue its riches. At a small Ecuadorian airport, Garcia gave a final, wet-eyed pitch on the threatened Yasuni National Park and, as he spoke, they appeared: the flashy watches, slick sneakers and logo-stitched chambray shirts of the oil industry.
In Coca, an industrial smudge of a town on the Amazon's western edge, two types of passengers use the airport - oil executives and eco-tourists. The oil executives are Spanish, Chinese, American and South American corporates extracting, or eager to extract, the heavy crude beneath the emerald forest. The eco-tourists - birdwatchers and backpackers sporting expensive waterproofs and zip-off trousers - are headed to the biodiversity haven of the Yasuni. Two industries are feeding from the Amazon; but only one is likely to prevail.
Ecuador, and the wider international community, faces a quandary in the Yasuni. It is, scientists believe, the most species-rich spot in the western hemisphere. But an almost irresistible thing lies untapped in the park's underbelly: one-fifth of Ecuador's oil.
In his hands ... Ecuador's President, Rafael Correa, has threatened to renege on a proposal to leave $3.6 billion of oil under the Amazon.
To solve this dilemma, this poor South American nation has come up with a unique idea that, if successful, could change the way the world deals with its most precious places and provide a concrete way to reduce carbon pollution in developing nations.
Ecuador wants the world to pay compensation for leaving 846 million barrels of oil under the park. The asking price, $3.6 billion over 13 years, or half the oil's value when the proposal was conceived, will help switch Ecuador from oil to renewable energy, halt deforestation, boost scientific research and support Yasuni's indigenous communities, two of which live deep in the park in voluntary isolation. The deal would ensure 407 million tonnes of carbon dioxide stays in the ground (Australia's annual emissions: 542 million tonnes).
The trust fund, set up last year by the United Nations Development Program, already has $52 million in donations and pledges from countries, including Australia, which recently committed $500,000, Italy, Turkey Colombia, Peru, France and Belgium. A New York investment banker has donated her annual salary and Bo Derek, Leonardo DiCaprio, Edward Norton and Al Gore have lent their support. The only problem now, besides the global financial meltdown tightening Europe's purse strings, is Ecuador's left-wing President, Rafael Correa, appears to be holding the Yasuni as an environmental hostage.
Gas is flared off from an oil facility near Yasuni National Park in Orellana Province, Ecuador. Photo: Theresa Ambrose
Correa has driven the proposal to save the park, but has now issued a deadline: if pledges do not reach $100 million by December, he will reconsider Plan B - drilling for oil. ''We are renouncing an immense sum of money,'' Correa said on his September trip to the UN in New York. ''For us, the most financially lucrative option is to extract the gasoline.'' This is why the Herald and other journalists, were, courtesy of the Ecuadorian government, on a canoe in a small creek, deep in the Yasuni: Correa wants the world to see how special this national treasure is before he changes his mind.
The jungle sounds hit first. It's a twittersphere of chirps and odd calls, one like a car alarm, another the trill of a mobile phone, yet another like the yap of a small dog. The smell is like a Queensland night, frangipani-sweet and tropical. Above, a butterfly ballet: electric-blue morphos the size of small birds lope past. Strange dragonflies, like bright-red-winged matchsticks, hover above the creek and water-walking river spiders, like long-legged huntsmans, sun themselves on logs. These are just the small things.
Capuchin monkeys, the most intelligent of American monkeys, and olive-and-turmeric squirrel monkeys (our guide Luis Garcia: ''Oh nice, nice, I love these monkeys! Perfecto!'') trapeze and bungee-jump along the creek, while red howler monkeys release their unsettling horror-movie roars. But it was Yasuni's birds, creatures gilded with gold, azure, crimson and jade, that put on the most extraordinary show.
snip
Last year, a team of scientists who want to save Yasuni compared the richness of the park to other parts of the Amazon and globally. They found the park was one of the planet's most biodiverse places because of the concentration of species across all taxonomic groups - amphibians, birds, mammals and plants.
This is partly because of Yasuni's isolation (canoe is the main form of access) but mostly because it was a refuge for plants and animals in the last major climate upheaval, the Pleistocene epoch, which ended 12,000 years ago. Yasuni is known as ''core Amazon'' because its position near the Andes' eastern flank guarantees reliable rain. For these reasons, scientists believe it will become a species refuge in the next major climate upheaval brought to us by global warming, while much of the Amazon may become drought-affected.
But there's more to the Yasuni than its potential for a David Attenborough documentary. The director of Harvard's Centre for Health and the Global Environment, Eric Chivian, a Nobel peace prize winner, has made a plea to save Yasuni in science's name. Yasuni's potential in unlocking a cancer treatment or amphibian-based painkiller or antibiotic should not be lost, he says. ''If we destroy the Yasuni it will not just be a tragedy for those species and the people that live there, it will be a tragedy for all mankind, for human health,'' he told a government-made documentary. Ecuadorian professor of biological science David Romo told us in Quito it would take 400 years to identify Yasuni's insect species.
The development of Yasuni's Ishpingo, Tambococha and Tiputini (ITT) oil blocks is also likely to affect the ''uncontacted peoples'' of the Tagaeri and Taromenane tribes. In 2007 the park's southern area was declared a no-go zone or intangible, after a series of murders and massacres involving illegal loggers and tribal reckonings. In 1987, an oil helicopter dropped a priest and nun into a Tagaeri camp; they were later found dead with multiple spear wounds. No one knows how viable these tribes are long-term (they are thought to number between 400 and 500 people) but their wish to remain in isolation is now recognised under the Ecuadorian constitution. ''Obviously we are afraid that any of the oil activity will be the end for these people,'' says Professor Carlos Larrea, an economist at Ecuador's Andean University, and a technical consultant to the so-called Yasuni-ITT initiative.
Ecuadorians already know the costs of oil extraction. In February, an Ecuadorian court fined American oil multinational Chevron $US8.6 billion ($8 billion) for polluting the Amazon. The action was brought by 30,000 people. In a country that relies on oil for 57 per cent of its export income, not even Yasuni has remained untouched. The Spanish company Repsol has wells in one area of the park, which unleashed oil spills and road damage. The day this development came to Yasuni in 1993 was a day the 47-year-old Luis Garcia never forgot. ''It was so sad to see a bulldozer on this side of the river,'' he said, referring to the great Napo River, which runs along the park's flank.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/meet-cash-deadline-or-the-drillers-move-in-20111028-1mo86.html#ixzz1cCjLFhPMLuis Garcia was close to tears. For three days, he had guided eight international... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 8 comments
-
-
NOAA: Human forcings on climate already a factor in Mediterranean droughts
Wintertime droughts are increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, and human-caused climate change is partly responsible, according to a new analysis by NOAA scientists and colleagues at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). In the last 20 years, 10 of the driest 12 winters have taken place in the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.
“The magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone,” said Martin Hoerling, Ph.D. of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., lead author of a paper published online in the Journal of Climate this month. “This is not encouraging news for a region that already experiences water stress, because it implies natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region’s climate to normal.”
The above is from a news release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “NOAA study: Human-caused climate change a major factor in more frequent Mediterranean droughts.”
It’s a bombshell for three reasons. First, this NOAA team has not always found a human cause for extreme weather events, as Climate Progress discussed here. Second, the study found that global warming is already driving drought in a key region of the world: Climate change is harming a great many people now. Third, the analysis provides important confirmation of climate predictions that human-caused emissions would lead to drying: “The team also found agreement between the observed increase in winter droughts and in the projections of climate models that include known increases in greenhouse gases.”
This comes on the heel of the USGS study, that, despite its flaws still found, “The decrease of floods in the southwestern region is consistent with other research findings that this region has been getting drier and experienced less precipitation as a likely result of climate change.”
And these studies amplify the piece I had in the journal Nature this week that argued drying and Dust-Bowlification driven by climate change — and the impact on food insecurity — are probably the gravest threats the human race faces in the coming decades.
The fact that the NOAA analysis confirmed the climate models predictions of drying is especially worrisome because the climate models project a very dry future for large parts of the planet’s currently habited and arable land in the coming decades:
More at the linkWintertime droughts are increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, and... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 14 comments
-
-
New Obama campaign advisor lobbied for Keystone pipeline
President Obama’s new senior campaign adviser lobbied the administration last year to approve the controversial Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, a relationship that’s feeding environmentalists’ claims that the White House is too close to pipeline developer TransCanada Corp.
Lobbying disclosure records show that Broderick Johnson lobbied in favor of the pipeline – which remains under administration review – during the fourth quarter of 2010 while he was with the firm Bryan Cave.
Johnson, a former partner with the firm, left Bryan Cave in April. He's a veteran of the Clinton White House and Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential campaign.
Johnson was part of a well-connected team at at Bryan Cave that lobbied Congress, the executive office of the president, the State Department, the Commerce Department and other agencies on TransCanada's behalf, records show.
The team included Jeff Berman, the former delegate counter for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and David Russell, a former chief of staff to the late Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), according to records.
The hiring by Obama’s reelection campaign comes as environmentalists are already alleging the ongoing State Department review of Keystone XL is tilted in favor of TransCanada, which is seeking federal approval for a $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline to bring crude from Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
Green groups have highlighted friendly emails between TransCanada lobbyist Paul Elliot — a former 2008 campaign aide to now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — and the State Department.
Bill McKibben, the climate activist helping to orchestrate anti-Keystone protests at the White House, slammed the announcement that Johnson is advising Obama’s reelection campaign.
“It stinks. I don't think you could conceive a more elaborate way to disrespect not just the environmental community but also Occupy Wall Street, because this is simply a reminder of the way that corporate lobbyists dominate our politics. Forget ‘Hope and Change’ — it's like they want their new slogan to be 'Business as Usual,’ ” McKibben, founder of the group 350.org, said in a statement.
Green groups and some lawmakers are also questioning the use of the firm Cardno ENTRIX to perform State’s environmental impact study of the proposed pipeline — which gave it a largely favorable review — despite the firm’s financial ties TransCanada.
McKibben and other environmentalists are pushing Obama to reject TransCanada’s proposal and are planning a Nov. 6 demonstration at the White House.
More than 1,200 people were arrested in peaceful protests against the project near the White House over the summer. The State Department plans to make a final decision on the project around the end of the year.
more at the link
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQEshUbrC1fVdvlb0YGkTOKpzDirD6J-RDes3xEG2990Zm-N9Mi68SNCz4President Obama’s new senior campaign adviser lobbied the administration last... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 24 comments
-
