-
-
related tags:
- Climate Change
- Global Warming
- calcification
- Acidification
- Carbon Dioxide
- Carbon
- Environment
- emissioni
- Water vapor
- Red Pine
- Marquette Unitarian Universalist Congregation
- Methane
- White Spruce
- Greenhouse Gases
- Carbon Tax
- Northern Great Lakes Synod Lutheran Bishop Thomas A. Skrenes
- EarthKeeper Tree Project
- Temple Beth Sholom
- Lake Superior Friends
- Northern Michigan University Professor Dr. Rodney H. Clarken
- Carbon Sequestration
- Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan Bishop James Kelsey
- Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Marquette Bishop Alexander K. Sample
- CO2 Emissions
- GHGs
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Emissions
- Climate Science
- Carbon sinks
- Northern Michigan University Professor Paul Lehmberg
- United Methodist Church Marquette District Office
- Dr. Rodney H. Clarken
- Co2 Absorption
- Rev. Tesshin Paul Lehmberg
- Local Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Marquette
- biodistress
- tipping point
- AGW
- positive feedback loop
- Lake Superior Zendo
- UMC
- Quaker
- Lutheran Bishop Thomas Skrenes
- Kyoto
- Climate Crisis
- EarthKeeper
- IPCC
- EarthKeepers
- Upper Peninsula EarthKeeper Team
tagged w/ CO2
-
Science behind the big freeze: is climate change bringing the Arctic to Europe?
A loss of sea ice could be a cause of the bitter winds that have swept across the UK in the past week, weather experts say
The bitterly cold weather sweeping Britain and the rest of Europe has been linked by scientists with the ice-free seas of the Arctic, where global warming is exerting its greatest influence.
A dramatic loss of sea ice covering the Barents and Kara Seas above northern Russia could explain why a chill Arctic wind has engulfed much of Europe and killed 221 people over the past week.
The death toll from Arctic blast has been particularly severe in the Ukraine, where many of the dead have been people sleeping on the streets. Heating and food tents have been set up to ease their hardship. In Romania 24 people are known to have died and 17 in Poland.
A growing number of experts believe complex wind patterns are being changed because melting Arctic sea ice has exposed huge swaths of normally frozen ocean to the atmosphere above.
In particular, the loss of Arctic sea ice could be influencing the development of high-pressure weather systems over northern Russia, which bring very cold winds from the Arctic and Siberia to Western Europe and the British Isles, the scientists believe. An intense anticyclone over north-west Russia is behind the bitterly cold easterly winds that have swept across Europe and some climate scientists say the lack of Arctic sea ice brought about by global warming is responsible.
"The current weather pattern fits earlier predictions of computer models for how the atmosphere responds to the loss of sea ice due to global warming," said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "The ice-free areas of the ocean act like a heater as the water is warmer than the Arctic air above it. This favours the formation of a high-pressure system near the Barents Sea, which steers cold air into Europe."
Sea ice covering the Barents and Kara Seas has been exceptionally low this winter, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. But air temperatures above the Barents and Kara Seas have been higher than average. The relatively mild westerly winds that have kept Britain from freezing much of this winter have been blocked by fierce high pressure over north-west Russia, centred on an area just south of the Barents Sea.
Studies by scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research have confirmed a link between the loss of Arctic sea ice and the development of high-pressure zones in the polar region, which influence wind patterns at lower latitudes further south. Scientists found that as the cap of sea ice is removed from the ocean, huge amounts of heat are released from the sea into the colder air above, causing the air to rise. Rising air destabilises the atmosphere and alters the difference in air pressure between the Arctic and more southerly regions, changing wind patterns.
Professor Rahmstorf said the Alfred Wegener study confirms earlier predictions from computer models by Vladimir Petoukhov of the Potsdam Institute, who forecast colder winters in western Europe as a result of melting sea ice.
Dr Petoukhov and his colleague Vladimir Semenov were among the first scientists to suggest a link between the loss of sea ice and colder winters in Europe. Their 2009 study simulated the effects of disappearing sea ice and found that for some years to come the loss will increase the chances of colder winters.
"Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far-away sea ice won't bother him could be wrong. There are complex interconnections in the climate system, and in the Barents-Kara Sea we might have discovered a powerful feedback mechanism," Dr Petoukhov said.
More at the linkA loss of sea ice could be a cause of the bitter winds that have swept across the UK... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 6 days ago
- |
- 95 comments
-
-
Ecological kings of the jungle being toppled by drought, pests, and disease
The biggest trees in the world, known as the true ecological kings of the jungle, are dying off rapidly as roads, farms and settlements fragment forests and they come under prolonged attack from severe droughts and new pests and diseases.
Big trees may comprise less than 2% of the trees in any forest but they can contain 25% of the total biomass and are vital for the health of the whole forest. Credit: us-parks.com
Long-term studies in Amazonia, Africa and Central America show that while these botanical behemoths may have adapted successfully to centuries of storms, pests and short-term climatic extremes, they are counter-intuitively more vulnerable than other trees to today's threats.
"Fragmentation of the forests is now disproportionately affecting the big trees," said William Laurance, a research professor at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia. "Not only do many more trees die near forest edges, but a higher proportion of the trees dying were the big trees.
"Their tall stature and relatively thick, inflexible trunks, may make them especially prone to uprooting and breakage near forest edges where wind turbulence is increased," Laurance said in this week's New Scientist magazine.
Big trees may comprise less than 2% of the trees in any forest but they can contain 25% of the total biomass and are vital for the health of whole forests because they seed large areas. "With their tall canopies basking in the sun, big trees capture vast amounts of energy. This allows them to produce massive crops of fruits, flowers and foliage that sustain much of animal life in the forests. Their canopies help moderate the local forest environment while their understory creates a unique habitat for other plants and animals," Laurance said.
"Only a small number of tree species have the genetic capacity to grow really big. To grow into giants, trees need good growing conditions, lots of time and the right place to establish their seedlings. Disrupt any one of these and you lose them."
In some parts of the world, Laurance said, populations of big trees are dwindling because their seedlings cannot survive or grow. "In southern India an aggressive shrub is invading the understorey of many forests, preventing seedlings from dropping on the floor. With no young trees to replace them, it's only a matter of time before most of the big trees disappear."
According to Laurance, it is not just the biggest trees in the world that are suffering, but also the biggest in their communities. Dutch elm disease killed off many of the stateliest trees in Britain in the 1960s and 70s, and new exotic organisms and bacterial infections, often brought in from other continents via garden centers, are threatening oak, ash and other species.
Longer lasting and more intense droughts, which are becoming more frequent in many tropical areas with climate change, are also taking their toll. Studies in Puerto Rico and Costa Rica suggest that big trees also suffer more in droughts than most other organisms.
"In rainforests droughts promote surface fires that burn through leaf litter on the forest floor. Larger trees were initially thought to survive these fires but, in fact, many die two to three years later. In cloud forests, big trees use their branches and crowns to rake the mist and capture water droplets. Global warming could push clouds up to higher elevations depriving them of sources of moisture," Laurance said.
"The danger is that the oldest, largest trees will progressively die off and not be replaced. Alarmingly, this might trigger a 'positive feedback' that could destabilize the climate: as older trees die, forests would release their stored carbon, prompting a vicious circle of further warming and forest shrinkage."
more at the linkThe biggest trees in the world, known as the true ecological kings of the jungle, are... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 8 days ago
- |
- 12 comments
-
-
10 marine species on the brink of mass extinction due to ocean acidification
The ocean is a delicate place, and tiny changes to its composition can cause serious devastation.
Adding carbon to the atmosphere contributes to global warming and climate change. Another less-discussed impact is ocean acidification—whereby carbon molecules diffuse into the ocean from the atmosphere, causing a steady rise in acidity—even though the impacts are already being felt by many species.
The beautiful blue sea slug, seen here, is one such creature. Blue sea slugs feed on the poisonous Portuguese man of war jellyfish, meaning that an ocean without them would be an ocean with a lot more stinging jellyfish.
This is 1: Blue Sea Slug
More at the link
~~~~~
The link to humans and the food chain each of these species represents should make people understand just how acidification is affecting us as well.The ocean is a delicate place, and tiny changes to its composition can cause serious... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 9 days ago
- |
- 16 comments
-
-
Carbon dioxide is driving fish crazy
Rising human carbon dioxide emissions may be affecting the brains and central nervous system of sea fishes with serious consequences for their survival, an international scientific team has found.
Carbon dioxide concentrations predicted to occur in the ocean by the end of this century will interfere with fishes' ability to hear, smell, turn and evade predators, says Professor Philip Munday of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and James Cook University.
"For several years our team have been testing the performance of baby coral fishes in sea water containing higher levels of dissolved CO2 - and it is now pretty clear that they sustain significant disruption to their central nervous system, which is likely to impair their chances of survival," Prof. Munday says.
In their latest paper, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, Prof. Munday and colleagues report world-first evidence that high CO2 levels in sea water disrupts a key brain receptor in fish, causing marked changes in their behaviour and sensory ability.
"We've found that elevated CO2 in the oceans can directly interfere with fish neurotransmitter functions, which poses a direct and previously unknown threat to sea life," Prof. Munday says.
Prof. Munday and his colleagues began by studying how baby clown and damsel fishes performed alongside their predators in CO2-enriched water. They found that, while the predators were somewhat affected, the baby fish suffered much higher rates of attrition.
"Our early work showed that the sense of smell of baby fish was harmed by higher CO2 in the water - meaning they found it harder to locate a reef to settle on or detect the warning smell of a predator fish. But we suspected there was much more to it than the loss of ability to smell."
The team then examined whether fishes' sense of hearing - used to locate and home in on reefs at night, and avoid them during the day - was affected. "The answer is, yes it was. They were confused and no longer avoided reef sounds during the day. Being attracted to reefs during daylight would make them easy meat for predators."
Other work showed the fish also tended to lose their natural instinct to turn left or right - an important factor in schooling behaviour which also makes them more vulnerable, as lone fish are easily eaten by predators.
"All this led us to suspect it wasn't simply damage to their individual senses that was going on - but rather, that higher levels of carbon dioxide were affecting their whole central nervous system."
The team's latest research shows that high CO2 directly stimulates a receptor in the fish brain called GABA-A, leading to a reversal in its normal function and over-excitement of certain nerve signals.
While most animals with brains have GABA-A receptors, the team considers the effects of elevated CO2 are likely to be most felt by those living in water, as they have lower blood CO2 levels normally. The main impact is likely to be felt by some crustaceans and by most fishes, especially those which use a lot of oxygen.
Prof. Munday said that around 2.3 billion tonnes of human CO2 emissions dissolve into the world's oceans every year, causing changes in the chemical environment of the water in which fish and other species live.
"We've now established it isn't simply the acidification of the oceans that is causing disruption - as is the case with shellfish and plankton with chalky skeletons - but the actual dissolved CO2 itself is damaging the fishes' nervous systems."
More at the linkRising human carbon dioxide emissions may be affecting the brains and central nervous... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 12 days ago
- |
- 31 comments
-
-
Climate change may bring big ecosystem changes
By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth's land surface and will drive the conversion of nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type - such as forest, grassland or tundra - toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modeling study.
Researchers from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif., investigated how Earth's plant life is likely to react over the next three centuries as Earth's climate changes in response to rising levels of human-produced greenhouse gases. Study results are published in the journal Climatic Change.
The model projections paint a portrait of increasing ecological change and stress in Earth's biosphere, with many plant and animal species facing increasing competition for survival, as well as significant species turnover, as some species invade areas occupied by other species.
Most of Earth's land that is not covered by ice or desert is projected to undergo at least a 30 percent change in plant cover - changes that will require humans and animals to adapt and often relocate.
In addition to altering plant communities, the study predicts climate change will disrupt the ecological balance between interdependent and often endangered plant and animal species, reduce biodiversity and adversely affect Earth's water, energy, carbon and other element cycles.
"For more than 25 years, scientists have warned of the dangers of human-induced climate change," said Jon Bergengren, a scientist who led the study while a postdoctoral scholar at Caltech.
"Our study introduces a new view of climate change, exploring the ecological implications of a few degrees of global warming. While warnings of melting glaciers, rising sea levels and other environmental changes are illustrative and important, ultimately, it's the ecological consequences that matter most."
When faced with climate change, plant species often must "migrate" over multiple generations, as they can only survive, compete and reproduce within the range of climates to which they are evolutionarily and physiologically adapted.
While Earth's plants and animals have evolved to migrate in response to seasonal environmental changes and to even larger transitions, such as the end of the last ice age, they often are not equipped to keep up with the rapidity of modern climate changes that are currently taking place.
Human activities, such as agriculture and urbanization, are increasingly destroying Earth's natural habitats, and frequently block plants and animals from successfully migrating.
More at the linkBy 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 14 days ago
- |
- 3 comments
-
-
Oceans have acidified more in the last 200 years than the previous 21,000 years
Man-made carbon emissions have acidified the world's oceans far beyond their natural levels, new research suggests.
In some regions, acidity levels rose faster in the last two centuries than it did in the previous 21,000 years, a study from the University of Hawaii has shown. Ocean acidity makes it harder for organisms such as molluscs and coral to construct the protective layers they need to survive.
Measuring changes in ocean acidity is difficult because it varies naturally between seasons, years and regions. Scientists looked at changes in the saturation level of aragonite, a form of calcium carbonate used to measure ocean acidification.
As seawater acidity rises, the saturation level of aragonite falls. Direct observations only date back 30 years, which is not long enough to reveal a meaningful trend. However the new research used simulations of ocean and climate conditions going back 21,000 years to the Last Glacial Maximum and forward in time to the end of the 21st century.
In several key coral reef regions aragonite saturation is already five times below its lowest pre-industrial range, according to the model. This translates to a decrease in overall calcification rates of corals and other shell-forming organisms of 15%, scientists at the university believe.
They fear calcification rates of some marine organisms could drop by more than 40% of their pre-industrial levels within the next 90 years.
Dr Tobias Friedrich, from the University of Hawaii, who led the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said: 'Any significant drop below the minimum level of aragonite to which the organisms have been exposed to for thousands of years and have successfully adapted will very likely stress them and their associated ecosystems.
'In some regions, the man-made rate of change in ocean acidity since the industrial revolution is 100 times greater than the natural rate of change between the Last Glacial Maximum and pre-industrial times.'
He added: 'When Earth started to warm 17,000 years ago, terminating the last glacial period, atmospheric CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels rose from 190 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm over 6,000 years.
'Marine ecosystems had ample time to adjust. Now, for a similar rise in CO2 concentration to the present level of 392 ppm, the adjustment time is reduced to only 100 - 200 years.'
Co-author Professor Axel Timmermann, also from the University of Hawaii, said: 'Our results suggest that severe reductions are likely to occur in coral reef diversity, structural complexity and resilience by the middle of this century.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2090253/Oceans-acidified-200-years-did-previous-21-000-years-claims-new-climate-change-research.html#ixzz1kJIObunQMan-made carbon emissions have acidified the world's oceans far beyond their... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 18 days ago
- |
- 26 comments
-
-
Humans Are by Far the Dominant Cause of Global Warming: A Comprehensive Review of the Science
The agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable. Every study concluded that over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period (Figure 2). Over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades (Figures 3 and 4).
Additionally, in every study over every timeframe examined, the two largest factors influencing global temperatures were human-caused: (1) GHGs, followed by (2) human aerosol emissions. This is a dangerous situation because as we clean our air and reduce our SO2 emissions, their cooling effect will dissipate, revealing more of the underlying GHG-caused global warming trend. Note that not all studies broke out the effects the same way (i.e. only examining ‘natural’ and not solar or volcanic effects individually), which is the reason some bars appear to be missing from Figures 2 to 4.
Figure 2: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Stott et al. 2010 (S10, gray), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue).
Figure 3: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).
Figure 4: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), and Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (FR11, green).
There was a period of warming between 1910 and 1940 which was predominantly caused by increasing solar activity and an extended period of low volcanic activity, with some contribution by human effects. However, since mid-century, solar activity has been flat, there has been moderate volcanic activity, and ENSO has had little net impact on global temperatures. All the while GHGs kept increasing, and became the dominant effect on global temperature changes, as Figures 3 and 4 illustrate.
A wide variety of statistical and physical approaches all arrived at the same conclusion: that humans are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past century, and particularly over the past 50 years. This robust scientific evidence is why there is a consensus among scientific experts that humans are the dominant cause of global warming.
More at the linkThe agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 20 days ago
- |
- 7 comments
-
-
Leading scientist says agroecology is the only way to feed the world
Hans Herren, Ph.D. is an internationally recognized scientist specializing in sustainable agriculture. He is president of the Millennium Institute, a non-profit development research and service organization dedicated to sustainable development. Dr. Herren co-chaired the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology (IAASTD), an initiative sponsored by the World Bank and United Nations in partnership with the World Health Organization that assessed global agriculture and recommended agroecological solutions to world hunger.
Dr. Herren has earned numerous awards that recognize his research achievements. These include the 2002 Brandenberger Preis for improving the living standards of Africa's rural population, the 2003 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, and the 1995 World Food Prize for his work developing a successful biological control program that saved the African cassava crop, and averted Africa’s worst-ever food crisis.
Dr. Herren’s work in agroecology in Africa has been credited with saving millions of lives by enabling African people to produce the food they need. He developed the “push-pull” system that uses simple but powerful bio-control strategies to effectively manage corn pests, resulting in large increases in yields.
There is much discussion today about the need to “feed the world” because of the growing global population. What do you think needs to be done in order to ensure there is adequate food for everyone in the world?
HH: The issue is less on how to feed the world than how to nourish the poor and hungry. Today we produce 4600 calories per person per day, so there is enough food to feed twice the present population. The problem is that we produce mostly cheap commodities rather than quality food. These cheap products, in addition to being of low nutritional value, are based on a few crops that carry a large ecological, social, and economic footprint. What is needed is to support farmers in developing countries to grow their own healthy food by providing information, know-how, financial support for inputs, and support for them to access markets, among others.
Food security is achieved when availability, access, stability, and utilization are assured equally for all. There is also a need for new and participatory research into sustainable agricultural practices, based on the principles of agroecology and organic farming, which would free farmers from dependence on external inputs such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Some agricultural “experts” are calling for another Green Revolution. What are your thoughts on this?
HH: What we need least is another Green Revolution. What is needed now is to move forward with the lessons learned from the Green Revolution, taking forward what has worked and leave behind most of it, since the Green Revolution has left agriculture dependent on external inputs that are non-sustainable and becoming more and more expensive since they are based on oil, a finite resource, and also synthetic fertilizers, also based on finite natural resources.
The way forward is to understand and work with the system in a holistic and integrated manner. Silver bullets, reductionism as often promoted by the agri-chemical industry are not solutions.
More at the linkHans Herren, Ph.D. is an internationally recognized scientist specializing in... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 15 comments
-
-
CO2: turning the knob on climate
CO2 is termed the Earth's biggest control knob. It hadn't been until now, because a knob implies something that someone can turn to control things. In a normal, natural world and on relatively short timescales, say tens of thousands of years, carbon dioxide is interlocked with global mean temperature and other variables. Temperatures can drive carbon dioxide levels up or down, which in turn drive temperatures further up or down.
Carbon dioxide acts as a feedback that enhances temperature changes.
This is most obvious during the transitions between glacial and interglacial periods, when temperatures rise or drop and CO2 seems to follow along like a happy puppy. What is not obvious when looking at the readings is that while orbital forcings cause the initial change in temperatures, and CO2 levels rise or fall in accordance with that initial change, the subsequent temperatures themselves also rise and fall in accordance with the changing CO2 levels.
The basic formula behind a glacial termination is that something (orbital forcings) starts the increase in temperature. Actually, what really starts it is a change in the length and severity of northern hemisphere summers, without changing the overall amount of radiation reaching the planet at all. That stays fairly constant.
These seasonal changes in turn cause the ice sheets covering the northern hemisphere land masses to begin to melt. This reflects less sunlight back into space, and that really does change the amount of energy that the planet receives from the sun, which leads to warming. It also results in the release of methane, another powerful greenhouse gas, which warms the planet even further.
Then CO2 kicks in. The oceans warm. Warmer water cannot hold as much dissolved carbon dioxide and so the oceans release some CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. The increased warming causes the ice sheets to retreat further, and the oceans to warm further, and more CO2 to be released.
This continues, but with limits. There is (or had been) only so much CO2 that could make its way into the atmosphere. The system only pushes this cycle so far. The many previous glacial terminations in the past 2.5 million years (a period known as the Pleistocene Epoch) have seen lows of about 180 ppm of CO2, and highs between 250 ppm and 300 ppm.
The main point is that temperatures and CO2 are interlocked, or at least had been until now. Temperature changes had to get the ball rolling, so on a graph they will lead the way, but the two work in concert. One is not pulling a leash to drag the other along. They each push and pull the other, working their way from low to high, or high to low, as an integrated system.
CO2 does not "lag" temperature. That's a simplistic, inaccurate and indiscriminate view of a complex interaction.
Turning the Knob
Unfortunately, contrary to recent natural history, man has learned how to remove the regulator and to dial up a far higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 has become the climate's biggest control knob in the last two centuries or so, in the sense that it is in fact a control that mankind can twist, turn, tweak and, sadly, overdo.
A glacial termination happens on very, very long timescales relative to man. What we have done in the past two centuries, however, applies a change to CO2 levels — implying an equivalent change in climate — that would otherwise take nature 10 to 12 thousand years.
CO2 was once interlocked with temperature. In the past 200 years we have instead taken 337 gigatonnes of carbon out of the ground and injected it into the atmosphere and the oceans. Nature spent the better part of several hundred million years converting that carbon into new forms (coal, oil, gas) and sequestering it deep under the surface of the earth.
Man will be able to undo in 200 years what took nature hundreds of millions of years to accomplish, and in so doing, in that same time frame, we are duplicating a feat that normally takes nature 10,000 years to accomplish (i.e. increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by two thirds).
And, as an important point, we have no idea if we are capable of duplicating nature's feat of again sequestering that carbon underground. We have far too easily turned the knob in one direction, but with no capacity whatsoever to turn it in the other.
More at the linkCO2 is termed the Earth's biggest control knob. It hadn't been until now,... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 15 comments
-
-
Hansen and Caldiera on climate sensitivity: Paleoclimate record points toward rapid climate changes
"Accelerating melting on the world’s ice sheets and other new observations have scientists concluding that even a two-degree Celsius rise in temperatures – a benchmark long seen as safe in global climate talks and other emissions reductions scenarios – could lead to an 80-foot rise in sea levels.
“The dangerous level of global warming is less than what we thought a few years ago,” said James Hansen, director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “It was natural to think that a few degrees wasn’t so bad…. (But) a target of two degrees is actually a prescription for long-term disaster.”
Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice at a surprising clip, Hansen said, and methane hydrates – a potent source of greenhouse gas frozen beneath the seas – are starting to bubble up.
The key question for climatologists: How sensitive is the climate to increasing amounts of fossil fuel emissions. Last year humanity pumped almost 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a half-billion tons more than 2009 and the largest jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution, according to the Global Carbon Project.
See also Biggest Jump Ever in Global Warming Pollution in 2010, Chinese CO2 Emissions Now Exceed U.S.’s By 50%.
The problem, those researchers said, is the “hang time” for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow, “climatically important” amounts of carbon dioxide and other compounds emitted today would continue to influence the atmosphere for thousands of years, Caldeira said.
See also Fossil CO2 impacts will outlast Stonehenge and nuclear waste
That kind of pressure, or “forcing,” on the atmosphere could be devastating, he cautioned.
About 55 million years ago a tremendous amount of methane was released into the atmosphere over a period of about 1 million years, and the planet heated by five degrees to eight degrees Celsius, or 10 degrees to 14 degrees Fahrenheit. The result was an ice-free planet with sea levels 230 feet higher than they are today.
In the eons since, carbon dioxide levels dropped and the ice reformed. But humanity’s emissions have the potential to send the globe back to those conditions, Caldeira and Hansen said.
“If you doubled CO2, which practically all governments assume we’re going to do, that would eventually get us to the ice-free state,” Hansen said.
Scientists don’t expect that ice to melt quickly. Assuming the current accelerated melting continues on the world’s ice sheets and glaciers, various climate models predict the ocean would rise between 1.5 feet and 2.3 feet by century’s end, said Tad Pfeffer, a glaciologist with the University of Colorado.
But the ice melted with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at about 1,000 parts per million, Caldeira said. And he suspects that even 750 ppm, or about double today’s levels, could send the globe spiraling toward an ice-free state. Current emissions trends suggest the globe could reach that by the end of the century.
“We can’t double CO2,” Hansen added. “We would be sending our climate back to a state we haven’t adjusted to as a species.”
The time to act was a while ago, but now is much, much better than later."
Related Posts:
•A detailed look at climate sensitivity
•Climate Experts Warn Thawing Permafrost Could Cause 2.5 Times the Warming of Deforestation
More at the link
Around 28:00 minutes into the video is information on CO2."Accelerating melting on the world’s ice sheets and other new observations... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 13 comments
-
-
COP 17 to climate negotiators: DON'T KILL AFRICA
In this extract from his book, To Cook A Continent, Nnimmo Bassey argues that climate negotiations, from Durban in late 2011 onwards, will increasingly confront the issue of climate justice.
The atmosphere is a common space, a global commons. Industrialised nations pumped a disproportionate amount of emissions into the atmosphere and they have cornered a disproportionate amount of global resources, largely by exploiting nations that are on the other side of the coin. Climate impacts are already being felt in a severe way in Africa as well as in other regions of the global South. Centuries of exploitation have weakened the resilience of these regions and in tackling climate change these historical facts must be addressed. One way of addressing this is by the payment of climate debt to make the needed financial and technological resources available to these vulnerable regions.
The Conference of Parties at Copenhagen and the following one at Cancun did not generate outcomes consistent with scientific warnings that the world faces a severe climate crisis. Copenhagen ended with an accord spearheaded by President Barack Obama of the United States with the backing of the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) concocted in a 'Green Room' dreamed up by Denmark's conservative ruling party. In that room, Patrick Bond recalled, were 26 countries 'cherry-picked to represent the world. When even that small group deadlocked, allegedly due to Chinese intransigence and the overall weak parameters set by the US, the five leaders (Obama, Lula da Silva, Jacob Zuma, Manmohan Singh, and Wen Jiabao) attempted a face-saving last gasp at planetary hygiene.'12
The demand of climate justice is that those who created the climate problem must be the ones to mitigate it, and in the process must transform their economies and societies.13 There are two ways to go about making this happen. First, rich nations must reduce rapacious consumption patterns and address the climate crisis with real solutions and not ones that have been seen to be false. Second, the rich nations have to support the poor nations who are being forced to adapt to a situation they did not create. One practical way of making that happen is through support for sustainable, green development paths.
Among governments, the Bolivians have made the clearest call for climate justice while India and China have used related arguments to defend their growth paths. At a time when the world has been calling for a curtailment of polluting industrial establishments, China has been building new coal-fired power plants at a prodigious rate.14 It is interesting to note that while China is massively expanding its coal-powered plants, it is also quickly assuming leadership in the utilisation of wind power. The discourse on how much both China and India must do in tackling global warming must not overlook the fact that vast numbers of people in both India and China still require electricity supply and that meeting that gap requires huge financial outlays.
Following the catastrophic outcome of the United Nations climate negotiations held in Copenhagen in December 2009, President Evo Morales of Bolivia announced that the world would meet in Bolivia for a thorough and inclusive discussion on this vital issue.
The summit, held in Cochabamba in April 2010, attracted 35,000 participants from 140 countries. The summit stood in sharp contrast to the Copenhagen event in many ways. First, this was an assembly of governments and peoples. In Copenhagen no effort was spared in keeping civil society out of the conference: the conference was marked by lockouts of civil society, detentions of climate activists and outright brutality towards non-violent protesters on the streets. In Cochabamba the police were offering assistance and were also participants. Whereas Copenhagen showed a disdain for the voices of the people, Cochabamba was about raising the voices of the people. The only similarity between the events is that they were both held in cities whose names start with letter 'C' followed by nine letters.
The key outcome of the Cochabamba conference was the People's Agreement. This agreement demanded that countries cut their emissions by at least 50 per cent at source in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2013–17), without recourse to offsets and other carbon trading schemes. In terms of finance, the People's Agreement demands that developed countries commit 6 per cent of their GDP to finance adaptation and mitigation needs. The financial suggestions of the Copenhagen Accord are a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed to secure vulnerable peoples and nations. The peoples of the world also affirmed that there is a climate debt that must be recognised and paid. The payment is not all about finance but principally about decolonising the atmospheric space and redistributing the meagre space left. Developed countries already occupy 80 per cent of the space.
The climate debt is also about taking actions needed to restore the natural cycles of Mother Earth and one clear way of achieving this will be through the proclamation of a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth, with clear obligations for humans. Bolivia is in the forefront of promoting the adoption of this declaration at the United Nations. The People's Agreement recognises that the causes of climate change are systemic and that systemic changes are needed to tackle them. On this note, the model of civilisation that is hinged on uncontrolled development can only compound the crisis. The world needs to move towards living well and not continue on the path of domination of others and of conspicuous and wasteful consumption.
An area glossed over in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations is the role of industrial agriculture in climate change. The People's Conference debated this key sector and reached the agreement that the way to a sustainable future is through the enthronement of food sovereignty based on agro-ecological agricultural systems. The issue of access to water being a human right was also affirmed by the people and later on in the year by the United Nations.
In all, the People's Agreement recognises that real strategies to tackle climate change must be based on the principles of equity and justice in dealing with the structural causes. Without climate justice it will also clearly be impossible to achieve the much talked about Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Cochabamba resonated with calls for urgently securing the rights of Mother Earth as a means of reconfiguring our relationship with the earth and with each other – in a way that respects the past, today and the future. All these will be a pipe dream unless peoples' sovereignty is supported, restored or built across the world. Cochabamba was a turning point in the march to transform our world from the path of conflict, competition, exploitation and domination to a path of solidarity and dignity. It held a ray of hope for Africa.
More at the link
~~~~~~
I posted this excerpt from this article because it hits the nail on the head about the mechanisms involved in the schemes being put forth by industrialized nations, the World Bank and corporations (industrial agriculture especially) looking to use this planetary emergency as a way to profit from it without really doing anything to address it. And that includes our seeds and water. Our voices now can make a dfference and they must be heard.In this extract from his book, To Cook A Continent, Nnimmo Bassey argues that climate... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 11 comments
-
-
Tempers flare as time runs out on Durban (COP17) climate talks
Time isn't only running out on the conference.-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 14 comments
-
-
Africa: On fire from space
Thirty per cent of the Earth’s surface is affected by fire. Fire destroys forests and vegetation which are our sources of food – it is both a driver and an indicator of climate change.
When biomass is burned, copious amounts of gases and particulate matter are released, billowing smoke plumes fill the sky, and entire ecosystems can change in seconds.
“We’ve seen very saddening situations of fires, particularly in Africa, West America and the Amazon. Fires have been increasing, and have been responsible for thousands of citizens to be relocated. Enormous amounts of money have been spent on destroyed homes and property,” says Jimmy Adegoke, a climate scientist at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa. “Texas in the United States has experienced its record hottest summer this year with record heat waves, droughts and fires.”
The rate of biomass burning is expected to increase in coming years, because climate change causes hotter and drier conditions. Additionally built-up material from repeated fire suppression provides ideal conditions for fires to burn strongly when they eventually break out.
These fires can be seen from space. Using infrared images, satellites can view the hotspots and origin of fires through dark clouds of smoke which can’t be seen with the naked eye. In 2000, NASA launched two minibus-sized satellites, Terra and Aqua, with instruments called MODIS attached to them to scan the globe daily, looking specifically for fire ‘scars’.
“In July I flew over the burning Amazon area in a 2000 kilometre smoke ball. The sun was dim and red and the sky was grey and black. Down here we think it’s bad, but if you see the fires from space, you see how bad it really is and how big the affected areas are,” says Piers Sellers, research scientist for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
“Fires change the characteristics of the ‘clouded south’. Fires affect the interaction between clouds, the sun and the Earth’s surface.” Clouds play an important role in the climate system – fire emissions change the colour and optical characteristics of clouds. Instead of acting as reflectors, clouds now have much more absorption qualities.
“Solar radiation is either retained, reflected by clouds or enters the atmosphere. Mostly it warms the Earth’s surface, which can result in fires.” A high frequency of fire outbreaks causes dark burnt areas which increases the absorption power of heat of the Earth’s surface.
“We are expecting a bigger release of carbon in the atmosphere due to fires,” Adegoke says. Plants grow and use CO2 from the atmosphere to build and maintain biomass and remove CO2.
Burning coal, oil and natural gas transforms carbon from fossil pools created millions of years ago in the Earth’s atmosphere, and affects the climate and ecosystems.
NASA satellites’ tracking of smoke plumes have clearly indicated that fires have a global effect, because their emissions get carried by wind currents.
“The major sources of fires are localised at different times of the year, but the impacts are global.” CO2 has gone up and down, but is ultimately increasing. This affects the Earth’s sustainability potential – the ability of ecosystems to support productivity, especially in north and mid-Africa.
Fires lead to human suffering, poverty, frustration and wars on a regional and global scale. “These effects are aggravated by societies’ lack of interest in global change issues, non-participation in mitigation effort and more biomass burning for survival.”
According to Adegeko, increased fire frequency is directly related to water and rainfall patterns. His current research looks closely at how this impacts on the seven African countries that rely on Lake Chad, which is drying up at an alarming rate. “40 years ago, it was the biggest lake in Africa, but now it is less than 20% what it used to be. This affects the livelihoods of 40 million African people.”
Satellites help scientists track from space where fires are, how intense they are, and where emissions are going in the atmosphere. According to NASA waves of fires occur each year in Africa, starting in the north and moving down to the south. “Documenting fire patterns are important, because they make up a big part of the carbon budget,” Sellers says.
“Beyond observing, the satellites provide information used to create early warning systems,” Adegoke says. Each year Eskom, which produces 95% of South Africa’s electricity and 70% of Africa’s electricity, experiences a substantial amount of down time on its transmission lines due to wildfires. “South Africa is a water scarce country and fire poses a real threat to their people and their biodiversity. South Africa is the third most naturally diverse country in the world.”
South Africa’s geographical position gives them the advantage of being able to track satellites with an advanced capability, which has led to the development of the successful Advanced Fire Information System (AFIS).
AFIS uses SMS alerts to disseminate critical information to fire brigades, farmers, energy providers and fire managers.
“Not all fires are bad, some have a useful productive ecological function, but more needs to be done to manage human-induced fires,” Adegoke says. Sub-saharan Africa uses an agricultural method called ‘slash and burn’, an agricultural practice aimed at preparing land to grow crops quickly and efficiently in areas that were once forested. “A lot of unnecessary burning is done in this way and it has unintentional consequences.”
More at the linkThirty per cent of the Earth’s surface is affected by fire. Fire destroys... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 3 comments
-
-
New estimates boost permafrost contribution to climate change
An international group of researchers believes greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost will be released at a much faster rate than previously estimated, which could have significant implications for climate change projections.
A survey of 41 scientists — including seven University of Alaska Fairbanks researchers — estimates the amount of carbon released from thawing permafrost by 2100 will be 1.7 to 5.2 times larger than previously estimated. Their conclusions, reported Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature, describe permafrost thawing as a likely accelerator of global warming.
“Our collective estimate is that carbon will be released more quickly than models suggest, and at levels that are cause for serious concern,” the article states.
The higher figures come about because of an ongoing reevaluation of the carbon stored in permafrost.
In most soils such material is typically in the top several feet, but in frozen soils those carbon-filled sediments can be much deeper.
Because of that, the estimated amount of carbon stored in northern soils has tripled in recent years, to roughly 1,700 billion tons. That’s four times more than all the carbon emitted by human activity since the Industrial Revolution and twice as much as is currently present in the atmosphere.
“Soils in the north are cold,” said Ben Abbott, a UAF doctoral student at the Institute of Arctic Biology and co-author of the Nature article. “It’s like a big refrigerator, and all that material is just stored.”
With that much carbon-filled material present, a small change in the estimated amount released could make a notable difference in climate change projections. Most scientists believe gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, both of which are released by warming permafrost, contribute to global warming.
But researchers studying northern areas with permafrost have admittedly sparse data, said Ted Schuur, a University of Florida professor who co-authored the article. Because of that, he said, numerous members of the Permafrost Carbon Research Network were surveyed to collect a larger picture, combining scientific data with their predictions. A National Science Foundation grant paid for the work.
“We don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, but these are probably the best people to ask,” Schuur said.
Abbott said all the scientists in the survey felt existing models were too conservative in their projection of emissions from thawing permafrost. He said most, including him, thought the amount of carbon released would be roughly three to four times the current estimates.
The release of methane from thawing permafrost is considered an important ingredient, because it’s 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Even though it represents about 2 to 3 percent of the emissions from melting permafrost, Abbott said, it could account for about half the warming.
If thawing happens at the rate the scientists believe it will, its greenhouse effect will match that of worldwide deforestation, according to the article. It still concludes, however, that fossil fuel consumption will be the biggest factor in the next century.
“It’s not likely to overshadow what’s being burned by humans, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important,” Schuur said. “It’s something that could amplify the change that’s already going on.”
Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - New estimate boosts permafrost contribution to climate changeAn international group of researchers believes greenhouse gases from thawing... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 4 comments
-
-
Clima - Cop 17: Conferenza ONU di Durban sul clima
Si apre oggi a Durban in Sudafrica la diciasettesima sessione della Convenzione quadro delle Nazioni Unite sui cambiamenti climatici. Oltre 190 paesi per trovare soluzioni condivise agli effetti nocivi delle emissioni di CO2 in atmosfera e un accordo comune alla lotta al surriscaldamento del pianeta.Si apre oggi a Durban in Sudafrica la diciasettesima sessione della Convenzione quadro... more-
- EffettoTerra
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Alaska village alleges climate change cover up by Exxon and other energy companies
The battle between some of the world's most powerful energy companies and an Alaska village that's losing ground to climate change heads to federal appeals court on Monday.
Nine Kivalina residents, having survived the recent mega-storm that walloped western Alaska, will be at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to watch their lawyers argue that ExxonMobil Corp., BP, ConocoPhillips and other corporate Goliaths owe the village at least $95 million in damages.
A key Kivalina argument charges that the energy companies are engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the link between their emissions and the earth's warming temperatures. A similar argument proved pivotal decades ago in helping smokers prevail in court against tobacco giants.
The Northwest Alaska village lost the first round of its lawsuit in 2009, when a U.S. District Court dismissed it, saying climate-change pollution needs to be regulated by Congress and the administration, not courts. The village lacked standing, the court said, because it could not show the companies' emissions caused the erosion threatening the village.
But Kivalina is optimistic this time around.
"What we have going for us is the science is changing by the day," and the causal connection between greenhouse-gas emissions and the climate is clarifying, said Heather Kendall-Miller, an attorney for Kivalina and head of the Alaska office of the Native American Rights Fund.
snip
Finding a new home
The quarter-mile-long rock revetment, installed in 2009 by the Army Corps, will buy the village an estimated 10 to 15 years before it must move.
But in 2019, what then?
.
The village is trying to find a new site where it can rebuild, out of harm's way. But when it does, how will it pay to build a school, homes and other facilities, and to scrape roads and an airstrip on the tundra?
That's where the lawsuit comes in. Moving could cost between $95 million and $400 million, according to figures from the Army Corps of Engineers and the General Accountability Office. That's at least $350,000 to $1.4 million for each village resident.
The city and tribe hope their lawsuit -- Kivalina v. ExxonMobil -- forces about 20 of the world's largest oil, power and coal companies to cough up the cash.
The village has prevailed against industry before. In 2008, with legal help from the San Francisco-based Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, Kivalina forced mining giant Teck-Cominco to settle a lawsuit and spend $120 million on a pipeline to protect drinking water.
More at the linkThe battle between some of the world's most powerful energy companies and an... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 11 comments
-
-
Climate change: vulnerable countries consider "occupying" Durban talks
Diplomats from some developing countries may "occupy" the UN climate negotiations that begin on Monday in Durban by staging sit-ins and boycotts over the lack of urgency in the talks.
The move follows a call by the former president of Costa Rica for vulnerable countries to refuse to leave the talks until "substantial" progress has been made.
"I have called on all vulnerable countries to 'occupy' Durban. We need an expression of solidarity by the delegations of those countries that are most affected by climate change, who go from one meeting to the next without getting responses on the issues that need to be dealt with," said José María Figueres.
"We went to Copenhagen [in 2009] with the illusion we could reach an equitable agreement. We went to Cancún [in 2009] where we saw slight but not sufficient progress. Frustration is now deep and building. Now we hear that we will need more conferences. Sometime we have to get serious. We should be going to Durban with the firm conviction that we do not come back until we have made substantial advances."
Spokespeople for developing country negotiating blocs declined to comment on the call for a revolt, but one ambassador said from Durban: "The Occupy Wall Street movement and the Occupy the Climate Change negotiations movement confront the same problem. We need this if we want to have any positive result. Otherwise it will be worse than Cancún."
But he warned: "In the corridors [here] there is talk of occupying the meeting rooms, but there could be sanctions. So it needs to be big inside in order to have impact and nobody is punished. We are at the beginning."
Seyni Nafo, spokesman for the important 53-country Africa group said: "We understand the [financial] situation in Europe and Japan but it seems climate change is now not on the global agenda. Action that might make it visible must be considered. We are exploring a lot of avenues and options. You have to take that seriously."
Frustrations mounted last month when, after months of tense negotiations, developing countries appeared to have succeeded in their demand for access to a multi-billion dollar Green Fund to help them adapt to climate change. But at the last minute the US and Saudi Arabia withdrew their support.
Resentment was further stoked this week when the Guardian revealed that rich countries had decided to shelve plans for a global agreement on climate change within the next few years, instead pushing for an agreement by the end of 2015 or 2016, and not coming into effect until 2020 despite scientists saying that this risked catastrophic climate change.
A possible postponement of a deal was condemned on Tuesday by the UN environment chief, Achim Steiner, who said it would be a "political choice" rather than one based on science.
Jorge Argüello, chair of the powerful G77 and China coalition of 131 countries, said: "[We] trust to see in Durban a fair and equal treatment of all issues that are important to all parties. A serious imbalance in the progress of issues can clearly not be conducive to a successful, comprehensive and balanced outcome."
"The climate change process is too crucial to the survival of humanity and the dignity of each of us, it is sad to see some parties using it just as a toy in a promotional agenda. The African leaders have expressed in different fora that Durban can not become the grave of the Kyoto Protocol, and we are completely supportive of that ambition."
Sheik Hasina, the prime minister of Bangladesh, said: "Climate change caused over 300,000 additional deaths last year. We the vulnerable countries suffer the most for our limited coping capacities. Bangladesh and other vulnerable countries cannot wait for international response to climate causes ... we are implementing 134 climate change adaptation and mitigation action plans."
More at the linkDiplomats from some developing countries may "occupy" the UN climate... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
EPA displays erectile dysfunction regarding delays on carbon limits on oil refineries as CO2 emissions climb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, struggling with an ambitious agenda on clean air regulations, said it will delay proposing the country's first-ever greenhouse gas limits on oil refineries.
The delay is the latest setback for the agency's new raft of clean air rules on everything from smog to mercury pollution that are heavily opposed by industry.
The EPA had been required to propose the rules on refineries by mid-December, as part of a court settlement with states and environmental groups.
"EPA expects to need more time to complete work on greenhouse gas pollution standards for oil refineries," a spokeswoman for the agency said. The EPA is working with the litigants to develop a new schedule to replace the current mid-December date for a rule proposal, she added.
The EPA made the comments after sources on both sides of the issue told Reuters the agency would not make the deadline.
The EPA has not told refiners exactly how it plans to cut emissions, and that figuring out how to do so is taking additional time, an oil industry source said.
"How they are going to regulate greenhouse gases, they are not sharing that with us," the source said.
The petroleum industry says it is more difficult to cut emissions from refineries than it is from power plants, the EPA's top target of emissions. Many power utilities can switch from coal, which emits large amounts of carbon dioxide when burned, to burning cleaner natural gas. Refineries, however, mostly already run on natural gas, they argue.
Tough rules on greenhouse gas emissions could add expenses to companies including Exxon Mobil Corp, Valero Energy Corp, and ConocoPhillips.
But refiners can easily cut emissions -- and save money, a source with one of the litigants said. They can do so by replacing inefficient boilers, installing better valves to reduce leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and by generating power with "waste heat" given off at the plants.
The delays on greenhouse gas plans come after President Barack Obama forced the EPA in September to delay new limits on smog emissions until 2013, saying it was part of an effort to reduce regulatory burdens on business.
That decision came as Republicans in the House of Representatives complained about EPA's raft of new clean air regulations, saying they would kill jobs and add expenses to businesses as they struggle with the weak economy.
RECORD EMISSIONS
The delay comes as time may be running out for world efforts to control global warming emissions. Concentrations of carbon dioxide and two other greenhouse gases reached record levels last year and will linger in the atmosphere for decades, even if the world halts output of the gases today, the World Meteorological Organization, the U.N.'s weather agency, said on Monday.
The United States is sticking with Obama's pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. But a comprehensive energy and climate bill failed in the Senate last year, leaving emissions control largely to agencies including the EPA and the Department of Transportation. Last week those agencies proposed doubling auto fuel efficiency.
Meanwhile, U.S. CO2 emissions from energy sources last year rose nearly 4 percent as factories ran harder and as consumers boosted air conditioning during the hot summer.
The EPA has also delayed proposing a plan on reducing emissions from power plants, which are the country's single largest source of emissions blamed for warming the planet.
Those rules were initially delayed in June and again in September. Last week Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, said the plan on power plants would be rolled out early next year.
It was unclear if the EPA would also miss the deadline to finalize the rules on refineries by mid-November, 2012.
More at the linkThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, struggling with an ambitious agenda on clean... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 32 comments
-
-
China's appetite for wood takes a heavy toll on forests
More than half of the timber now shipped globally is destined for China. But unscrupulous Chinese companies are importing huge amounts of illegally harvested wood, prompting conservation groups to step up boycotts against rapacious timber interests.
by william laurance
In Chinese folklore, a dragon symbolizes strength. It is an apt icon for a nation whose rise as an economic superpower has been nothing short of meteoric.
While China’s stunning economic advances have come at significant environmental cost, the boom has been a plus in a few realms. The country is investing avidly in green technologies, such as solar energy and high-tech car batteries. It has also undertaken an ambitious national reforestation program, while cracking down on illegal forest clearing and logging inside its borders. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, forest cover in China, including large areas of timber plantations, increased from 157 million hectares in 1990 to 197 million hectares in 2005.
Counter-intuitively, the expansion of Chinese forests has occurred at the same time the country has been developing an immense export industry for In its fervor to secure timber, China is increasingly seen as a predator on the world’s forests.wood and paper products. China is now the “wood workshop for the world,” according to Forest Trends, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, consuming more than 400 million cubic meters of timber annually to feed both its burgeoning exports and growing domestic demands. Production of paper products has also grown dramatically in China, doubling from 2002 to 2007.
But the rise of the Chinese dragon has a darker side. As much as half of the timber and much of the paper pulp consumed by China is imported, primarily from tropical nations or nearby Siberia. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with this — China has every right to grow economically and seek the kind of prosperity that industrial nations have long enjoyed. However, in its fervor to secure timber, minerals, and other natural resources, China is increasingly seen as a predator on the world’s forests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China is now overwhelmingly the biggest global consumer of tropical timber, importing around 40 to 45 million cubic meters of timber annually. Today, more than half of all timber being shipped anywhere in the world is destined for China. Many nations in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa export the lion’s share of their timber to China.
China faces three criticisms by those worried about the health and biodiversity of the world’s forests. First, the country and its hundreds of wood-products corporations and middlemen have been remarkably aggressive in pursuing timber supplies globally, while generally being little concerned with social equity or environmental sustainability. For instance, China has helped fund and promote an array of ambitious new road or rail projects that are opening up remote forested regions in the Amazon, Congo Basin, and Asia-Pacific to exploitation. Such frontier roads can unleash a Pandora’s Box of activities — including illegal colonization, hunting, mining, and land speculation — that are often highly destructive to forests.
China is also a major consumer of wood pulp, which is helping to drive large-scale deforestation in places like Sumatra and Borneo. During a recent visit to Sumatra, I witnessed the felling of large expanses of native rainforests, which are being chopped up and fed into the world’s largest wood-pulp plant, located nearby, and replaced by monocultures of exotic acacia trees.
Second, China, in its relentless pursuit of timber, almost exclusively seeks raw logs. Raw logs are the least economically beneficial way for developing nations to exploit their timber resources, as they provide only limited royalties and little employment, workforce training, and industrial development. As a result, most of the profits from logging are realized by foreign timber-cutters, shippers, and wood-products manufacturers. A cubic meter of the valuable timber merbau (Intsia bijuga), for instance, yields only around $11 to local communities in Indonesian Papua but around $240 when delivered as raw logs to wood-products manufacturers in China, who profit further by converting it into prized wood flooring.
Finally, China has done little to combat the scourge of illegal logging, which is an enormous problem in many developing nations. A 2011 report on illegal logging by Interpol and the World Bank concluded that, among 15 of the major timber-producing countries in the tropics, two-thirds had half or more of their timber harvested illegally. Globally, economic losses and tax and royalty evasion from illegal logging are thought to cost around $15 billion annually — a large economic burden for developing nations. Forest ecosystems suffer serious impacts as well, because illegal loggers frequently ignore environmental controls on cutting operations.
According to a 2010 analysis by Chatham House, a respected UK think tank, illegal logging is slowly declining globally but this is despite, rather than because of, China’s influence. The report concluded that, from 2000 to 2008, China imported 16 to 24 million cubic meters of illegal timber each One report said that China imports 16 to 24 million cubic meters of illegal timber each year.year. This is an incredible figure — twice the total amount imported annually by leading industrial nations.
More at the linkMore than half of the timber now shipped globally is destined for China. But... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
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
- 3 months ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
