tagged w/ Political Will
-
While the world dithers about tackling climate change, in some parts of the world people are running out of time. In Florida sea level rises can be worked around to some extent - condos can be put on stilts and moved away from the shoreline. But on some islands you can only move back so far before you have to start worrying about the water at your back door as well as the water in front.
Here are five islands whose inhabitants are going to need a new home soon:
1. The Guardian reports today that the new president of the Maldives will be putting part of the country's profits from tourism into a very special - and unusual - fund: one that will be used to buy a new, climate-change-friendly home. With its highest point reaching only 2.4 metres, the Maldives is one of the lowest-lying nations in the world and risks being submerged by rising sea-levels.
2. Tuvalu is another small pacific island state, and after the Maldives the second-lowest nation in the world. At its highest, it is 5 metres above sea-level and could be gone by the middle of this century. In 2002, the government was said to have hired two international law firms to look into suing polluting nations for effectively evicting its citizens.
3. Kiribati is a group of 32 atols and one island that peaks at 6.5 metres above sea-level. The World Bank has been involved in assessing the nation's vulnerability to climate change. I attended a talk by one of the project leaders some years ago in Paris. She quoted a few of the changes which the islanders were noticing. The one that has always stuck with me was "the first line of coconut trees has disappeared". Salt-intrusion was killing off the trees that were closest to the water.
4. The inhabitants of the Carteret Islands of Papua New Guinea may be among the first climate refugees - their home lies just 1.2 metres above the waves. The government of Papua New Guinea adopted a plan in 2005 to evacuate the locals to the neighbouring island of Bougainville. The relocation was initially scheduled for 2007, then delayed. According to this report, there was a trial earlier this year, which created some tension as relocated citizens were used as labourers in coconut plantations on Bougainville.
5. In 1995, 500,000 inhabitants on Bangladesh's Bhola Island were forced to move in when half their island was permanently flooded. Some claim they were the first climate refugees. Scientists predict that 20 million Bangladeshis could suffer the same fate by 2030.
__________________________
How many more will it take for urgent action to begin? The longer we wait the more CO2 and other greenhouse gases continue to be spewed into the atmosphere. I recall sitting here last year asking the same question, and still no global treaty on climate change that addresses the true urgency of this, nor any significant bills by this Congress. And Obama still touts the 80% by 2050 line as if we actually have that kind of time. We don't.While the world dithers about tackling climate change, in some parts of the world... more
-
-
Nearly 90 per cent of young people across the globe think world leaders should do "whatever it takes" to tackle climate change. This is among the top findings of a new poll conducted on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The survey of 12 to 18 year-olds in five countries (Brazil, India, Russia, South Africa and the United States) found that nine in ten young people (88% overall and 85% or more in each country) agree that "World leaders should do whatever it takes to tackle climate change".
Climate Change a Top Concern among Young People
Young people are clearly concerned about climate change. Concern is highest in Brazil (96%) and South Africa (91%), followed by India (85%) and the United States (82%), while significantly lower levels of concern are expressed in Russia (70%).
World Leaders Not Doing Enough
Young people in South Africa, the United States and Brazil are particularly critical of world leaders' efforts to address climate change; seven in ten or more across these three countries say world leaders are not doing enough (South Africa, 82%; the United States, 79%; Brazil, 73%). Only in India are young people more likely to say world leaders are doing "too much" or "enough;" just 19 percent say they are not doing enough.
Necessary to Take Major Steps Very Soon
There is a great sense of urgency among youth in most countries, with a majority of young people in each country except India saying, "It is necessary to take major steps starting very soon" (Brazil, 88%; South Africa, 81%; Russia, 75%; the United States, 61%). When thinking about the human impact on climate change in India, most young people believe that modest steps should be taken over the coming years (53%). This reinforces their world view that enough is being done on climate change.
Young People Feel Empowered to Act
Four in five youths surveyed believe they can make a difference on climate for our future (89%); however, a majority also say they need more information about what they can do to tackle climate change (84%).
Those in Brazil, India, South Africa, and the United States are most enthusiastic about making a difference and wanting more information in order to do so, while those in Russia are less likely to agree (with 77% saying they can make a difference).
Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of UNEP comments, "I am very pleased to note the high level of awareness on climate change among 12 to 18-year olds. These are the voices of the generation that will inherit the impacts of climate change if world leaders fail to act. It is clear from the survey that young people around the world are seriously worried about what climate change will mean in terms of their future on this planet. Through them, we can reach out to the approximately 3 billion people around the planet who are under 25. There are some 400 days to go before the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen-world leaders have now heard the concerns of young people. This generation must now take responsibility for the next".
Chris Coulter, Vice-President of GlobeScan, comments, "This is a strong and important statement from the world's youth to world leaders. It is strong because the message to political leaders and policymakers appears to be: 'Do what it takes to tackle climate change, even if major steps are needed, and act urgently because we are affected and concerned by climate change.' It is important because young people are not always well represented by world leaders, although their future is to be decided in upcoming climate agreements."
Nearly 90 per cent of young people across the globe think world leaders should do... more
-
-
'Extreme weather events' such as the hot summer of 2003, which caused an extra 35,000 deaths across southern Europe from heat stress and poor air quality, will happen more frequently.
Britain and the North Sea area will be hit more often by violent cyclones and the predicted rise in sea level will double to more than a metre, putting vast coastal areas at risk from flooding.
The bleak report from WWF - formerly the World Wildlife Fund - also predicts crops failures and the collapse of eco systems on both land and sea.
And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any increase in global temperatures below 2C.
The agency says that the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a study of global warming by 4,000 scientists from more than 150 countries which alerted the world to the possible consequences of global warming - is now out of date.
WWF's report, Climate Change: Faster, stronger, sooner, has updated all the scientific data and concluded that global warming is accelerating far beyond the IPCC's forecasts.
As an example it says the first 'tipping point' may have already been reached in the Arctic, where sea ice is disappearing up to 30 years ahead of IPCC predictions and may be gone completely within five years - something that hasn't occurred for a million years.
It could result in rapid and abrupt climate change rather than the gradual changes forecast by the IPCC.
The findings include:
* Global sea level rise could more than double from the IPCC's estimate of 0.59m by the end of the century.
* Natural carbon sinks, such as forests and oceans, are losing their ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere faster than expected.
* Rising temperatures have already led to a major reduction in food crops resulting in losses of 40m tonnes of grain per year.
* Marine ecosystems in the North and Baltic Sea are being exposed to the warmest temperatures measured since records began.
* The number and intensity of extreme cyclones over the UK and North Sea are projected to increase, leading to increased wind speeds and storm-related losses over Western and Central Europe.
The report was issued to coincide with a meeting of EU Environment Ministers today to discuss new laws aimed at tackling climate change. Some countries, including Italy and Poland, have already rejected proposals for higher cuts in emissions claiming they are unaffordable and unrealistic when many countries are facing recession.
The UK is the only country so far to commit to a legally binding 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050 which the Government claims can be achieved by a switch to renewable energy sources - such as wind and wave - combined with a new generation of nuclear power stations.
In the report WWF urges the EU to commit to a reduction target of at least 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 without relying on offsetting overseas and to provide financial support so developing countries can cut their own emissions and prepare for unavoidable impacts of climate change.
WWF-UK's Head of Climate Change, Dr. Keith Allott, said: "Climate change is a major challenge to the future of mankind and the environment, and this sobering overview highlights just how critical it is that EU environment ministers, who are meeting today to discuss EU legislation to tackle climate change, commit to a strong climate and energy package, in order to ensure a low carbon future.
'Extreme weather events' such as the hot summer of 2003, which caused an... more
-
-
The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis, according to an EU-commissioned study.
It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion.
The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.
The study, headed by a Deutsche Bank economist, parallels the Stern Review into the economics of climate change.
It has been discussed during many sessions here at the World Conservation Congress.
Some conservationists see it as a new way of persuading policymakers to fund nature protection rather than allowing the decline in ecosystems and species, highlighted in the release on Monday of the Red List of Threatened Species, to continue.
Capital losses
Speaking to BBC News on the fringes of the congress, study leader Pavan Sukhdev emphasised that the cost of natural decline dwarfs losses on the financial markets.
"It's not only greater but it's also continuous, it's been happening every year, year after year," he told BBC News.
"So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today's rate we are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year."
The review that Mr Sukhdev leads, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb), was initiated by Germany under its recent EU presidency, with the European Commission providing funding.
The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding that forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP. The second phase will expand the scope to other natural systems.
Stern message
Key to understanding his conclusions is that as forests decline, nature stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free.
So the human economy either has to provide them instead, perhaps through building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide, or farming foods that were once naturally available.
Or we have to do without them; either way, there is a financial cost.
The Teeb calculations show that the cost falls disproportionately on the poor, because a greater part of their livelihood depends directly on the forest, especially in tropical regions.
The greatest cost to western nations would initially come through losing a natural absorber of the most important greenhouse gas.
_______________________________
And that isn't only on a monetary scale. The loss of forests, natural carbon sinks, biodiversity, our oceans, and the ecosystems that depend on them will lose us as a species far more than $$$$$$. We will lose our very essence and our reason for being on this planet. We will lose the very breath of our Earth. To me, while the global markets struggle to maintain a tangible asset, let us not forget that our Earth and its sustainability is our most precious asset in more ways than just the tangible. And if we as a world community do not get truly serious about dealing with this loss within the next year it will not matter what happens on a global market. The loss to us otherwise will be even more catastrophic.The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through... more
-
-
As an environmentalist this is the one reason why Obama (and McCain to clarify) will not get my vote, because neither of them have gained my trust on this. I was looking this time for someone who would truly lead on the environment to bring the country to a higher consciousness to see that solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels (not ethanol) were what this country must have now to lead us into the 21st Century not only to save our planet but ourselves. It is an understatement to say that I am disappointed that there is not one candidate who is on that higher level of consciousness about this important crisis.
There is no change and there will not be significant progress regarding the climate crisis and political will if Obama (and yes, others as well) still plays to the coal industry while touting an environmental plan. As the article states, there is no such thing as clean coal... and it isn't only about that. It is about the cancer, and the mercury, and the asthma, and the lung diseases, and the toxicity, and the pollution... and the mountaintop removal that is destroying the beauty of this country. Yet, we didn't hear any of them talking about this in any campaign speech or in any debate.
Nothing about the devastation done to Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and other states in blowing up the mountains that will continue to be blown up regardless of how the coal is burned. This is why I concentrate on Obama. I know McCain is not going to care... I was hoping Obama would, but have seen more and more that he does not and I will not give him a free ride on it. I expect better and I expect truth from those who claim to want 'change' because real change means telling the people the truth. Yet he continues to lie every single time he discusses clean coal technology when he doesn't tell people the truth about the availability or feasability of it.
Some say this isn't enough to change their vote... all well and good. It is for me, because the longer candidates think they can still get votes no matter how much they fail us they won't ever try to keep their promises and earn them. I have had enough of politicians who claim to want to do the right thing but then turn around and do exactly what everyone else does or as the money dictates. And pushing 'clean coal' out of political expedience at a time when our Earth's delicate climate balance is on the brink of tipping instead of taking a true and bold moral stand is not the right thing to do now. As an environmentalist this is the one reason why Obama (and McCain to clarify) will... more
-
-
Global warming is already leading to widespread disruptions of the Earth's natural systems, according to a study published in the journal Nature and conducted by some of the climate scientists who were involved in the influential 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
"[This] is the first [study] to formally link observed global changes in physical and biological systems to human-induced climate change, predominantly from increasing greenhouse gases," said study reviewers Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada and Gabriele Hegerl of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
The scientists catalogued more than 29,500 reports of changes to the Earth's natural systems. Some of these changes were physical, such as the melting of Patagonia's ice fields of Arctic permafrost, or the earlier break-up of Mongolian river ice and unprecedented coastal erosion. Others were behavioral, such as the earlier arrival of migratory birds to Australia, and others dealt with changes in populations, such as the decline of Antarctic krill stocks and overall productivity of Lake Tanganyika. Even genetic changes, such as those in North America's pitcher plant mosquitoes, were included.
The researchers found that more than 90 percent of the documented changes were to be expected from a scenario of rising regional temperatures. Global warming, rather than other human causes such as deforestation or pollution, seemed to be the major force behind the changes.
more at the link.
____________
This must now become more than just a political wedge issue. This must be the end of governments and groups placating flatearthers and special interests who are using their $$$$$ to control the conversation. This must be the end of governments and organizations like the World Bank using this crisis as an impetus to benefit themselves and to foment war. They are all leading us over the cliff. Global warming/climate change is doing damage to the many ecosystems that support the life of humans and other species.
There are currently six degrees of climate change that represent the effects this planet will suffer from due to global warming/climate change. Currently, we are at the third degree... we are already HALFWAY THERE. As the last quote in this article states, we have to get our act together. And it is not overly dramatic to state that we are running out of time regarding the future sustainability of this planet. This is not something that is just occurring through natural means nor has it been ordained by God. This is not just some fluke of nature that will reverse itself. This is not a myth or an illusion. This is real, it is happening, and we are contributing to it not only by our behavior but by our retiscence in taking the action necessary to mitigate it.
How many 'meetings' are world leaders going to have before they realize that they have run out the clock? How many political candidates will continue to spew the same 80% by 2050 line? I recently wrote to my Senator about the need for 100% renewable energy in 10 years... know the response I got? The same form letter with that same 80% by 2050 line! Where is the political will? Where is the urgency? And people dare to criticize those who scale coal plants to unfurl a dire warning as to the truth of the state of the only planet that can sustain us to wake people up?
Just what is it going to take?Global warming is already leading to widespread disruptions of the Earth's... more
-
-
Many take water for granted, but as we all know we cannot live without it. However, much of it in the United States and other countries worldwide is polluted beyond human use. We have managed to pollute and toxify the very resource we need to survive, thereby reducing the amount of potable water in our world as our population continues to rise. This presents geopolitical issues as well as poverty, health, and social issues...especially as multi-nationals continue to buy up water for profit to control its distribution. Who decides who is worthy to have water? Who decides who is worthy to have clean potable water? Who decides who gets to live and who is to die? It is one thing to truly have water scarcity in the form of no water... but to see water all around you and not be able to drink or use it is truly a moral tragedy. Please do all you can to conserve this precious resource, and pass on to those in government that demanding corporate accountability for polluting our natural resources is something that should be more important than covering for their crimes. Climate change has now also been put into motion, so preserving the freshwater we have left is imperative to our continued survival.
Water is life.
Notice the ripples in the water as it moves constantly to the rhythm of life even as we kill it. This particular waterway was poisoned with Pcbs and dioxin to make Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. We don't see any fish here anymore.
Is this the legacy we are going to leave for the future? I sure hope not.
Thanks for listening to this.
Many take water for granted, but as we all know we cannot live without it. However,... more
-
-
Thousands of people rallied in southern Australia Sunday to protest the dwindling water levels in one of the country's greatest rivers, claiming the loss was causing an environmental disaster.
The 5,000-strong crowd gathered near the mouth of the 2,530 kilometre (1,569 mile) Murray to hold two minute's silence to mark the 'death' of the river, which forms part of Australia's most important agricultural region.
Kym McHugh, mayor of the local Alexandrina Council, said the ceremony near the South Australian town of Goolwa was to "underscore this eleventh hour bid to save the nation's greatest river." "It sent a very clear message by saying we've had a lot of talk about the river system, a lot of science, we all know what the problem is -- we just want politicians to have the will to fix it up," he told national news agency AAP.
"They need to secure water upstream and send it down."
Water levels are so low in the Murray River, due to drought and irrigation, that the freshwater lakes the river feeds into are turning to acid.
The federal government last week said there was not enough water in the system to save the freshwater lakes, leading to suggestions that ocean water could be used to prevent the lakes from drying out.
But the council wants the government to release water held in storage in upstream states into the river so it can flow down and prevent an environmental, economic and social disaster in the region.
"We need to give these lakes another chance," McHugh said.
The Murray, along with the 2,740-kilometre Darling River and 1,690-kilometre Murrumbidgee River, form the Murray Darling Basin, which accounts for some 40 percent of the nation's agricultural production.
photo credit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/95438214@N00/2306721603/Thousands of people rallied in southern Australia Sunday to protest the dwindling... more
-
-
A momentous challenge calling upon us to have the same spirit that birthed this nation and make no mistake about it, this is just as much an issue of Democracy as it is an economic, environmental, or national security issue. However, as usual, all we see on blogs and in the media by the usuals is bickering about whether climate change is "natural" or not when we already know that most of the effects on our planet we are seeing are a result of human behavior.That has been debated ad nauseum, and is why this country will wind up at the back of the pack when other countries pass us up regarding coming into the 21st Century. We are stuck in first gear still while the rest of the world is in drive.
We have been getting our oil from the Middle East and now will we get our solar panels from there too because we in this country are so myopic and politically polarized to the point that we cannot even concede one damn point? The alternate energy market is just waiting for a boom in this country. Employment in this country would soar and with investment, we would get the economic shot in the arm we need to avoid economic collapse while saving ourselves. Many say (even people in his own party) that Mr. Gore made this proposal at the wrong time with gas prices being so high... to that I say, WHAT?
This was the absolute right time to come out and tell people the truth that they are being lied to and duped by big oil and coal. This was exactly the right time to come out and tell people that they have a CHOICE and that they have the power in this next decade to put those choices into motion. That they have other options for energy that can be cheaper than what they are using now. Of course the oil and coal companies and special interests and their minions are not too happy about that, but I say, screw them. They have done more harm to this planet and economy with their pollution and wars than any alternate energy being instituted could do. It is time for them to see that their way is not the best way for the continued sustainability of this planet and work to make amends for what they have done.
The Earth as it stands now is going through changes in climate that are too exacerbated to just be natural and the cost of ignoring it far exceeds the cost of implementing changes to avoid it. What price do you put on a human life? That has been confirmed by the IPCC, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and thousands of other studies and scientists' reports from around the globe. It is a known fact also that for YEARS scientists in possession of these facts have been gagged by our government to keep quiet about it, because the very thing Mr. Gore stated must be done is something they don't want to do because they believe it will ground their gravy train.
More at the link.A momentous challenge calling upon us to have the same spirit that birthed this nation... more
-
-
A global report card on nations doing the most, and least, to clean up the environment.
...the EPI is the best measure we have of how nations are faring in the battle to save the environment, and the findings are striking. As one might expect, the overall rankings place small, wealthy Scandinavian societies at the top, and poor, war-torn African nations at the bottom. But one big surprise is that size is no excuse for poor performance; big and small nations occupy both the top and bottom ranks. And bigger surprises come when you compare nations with peers of similar income, or with neighbors. In the following pages, you'll find chapters on the best—and worst—nations in every income group: the rich, the middle class and the poor.
China in particular has long argued that it is too poor to afford the Western luxury of environmental awareness. The EPI exposes this claim to be bogus. China ranks last among 15 nations in its income group (the fifth decile), behind Vietnam. If Colombia, the group's leader, can afford environmental concern, why can't China?
snip:
In its environmental priorities, the United States is in some ways remarkably similar to China, the EPI reveals. Like China, the United States scores poorly among countries in its income class (the top 10 percent), ranking third from the bottom, due in large part to terrible scores for emissions, which are heavily weighted in the index because of their contribution to global warming. And like China, the weak U.S. emissions scores are due in part to reliance on coal. In the EPI, the United States scores 38 on carbon emissions from electricity generation, compared with an average of 68 for countries of similar wealth. That statistic lowers the U.S. score in emissions per capita, which Yale puts at 56, far below the peer-group average of 74.
~~~~~~~~
Again, it comes down to moral and political will. Trying to excuse the lack of it by stating anything else is simply bogus. Even in Kenya people are turning to solar and they hardly have an economy to speak of. So the US, China, and other rich countries will be exposed for the morally bankrupt leadership they have all at the expense of this planet and its people just to make gold bars that will serve no purpose without a planet.A global report card on nations doing the most, and least, to clean up the... more
-
-
Only if we act to improve water use in agriculture now will we meet the acute water-environment-poverty challenges facing humankind over the next 50 years. "With earth's water, land and human resources it is possible to produce enough food for the future - but it is probable that today's food production and environmental trends will lead to crises in many parts of the world" says David Molden Deputy Director General of the International Water Management Institute.
This is the opening prognosis given in the Earthscan publication Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. The Assessment, the first of its kind, brings together the work of over 700 specialists from hundreds of institutes around the world into the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of water and food ever written, critically examining policies and practices of water use and development in the agricultural sector over the last 50 years.
Spearheaded by International Water Management Institute (IWMI), one of 15 CGIAR agricultural research centres striving to increase food production, increase rural incomes, and safeguard the environment, the report is co-sponsored by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), FAO, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on Biological Diversity in a bid to find solutions to the challenge of balancing the water-food-environment needs.
The assessment finds that 1/3 of the world's population live in areas where water scarcity must be reckoned with. While much of this water scarcity cannot be avoided, water problems can be averted through better water management.
Growing cities take more water, and environmental concerns are rising. A water-food-environment dilemma. Water use in agriculture is recognized as one of the major drivers of ecosystem degradation, causing habitat loss, drying up of rivers, and reduction in groundwater levels. Flows in the Colorado River in USA, the Yellow River in China, the Indus in India and Pakistan - all important food producing areas - dry up because of the water needed for irrigated agriculture. Clearly limiting agricultural water use is key for environmental sustainability. Therein lies the dilemma. More people require more water for more food; more water is essential in the fight against poverty; yet we should limit the amount of water taken from ecosystems.
snip
Since climate change is expected to hit these areas hard, better water systems will be a key to helping people cope with dry spells. Poverty, hunger, gender inequality, and environmental degradation continue to afflict developing countries not because of technical failings but because of political and institutional failings. There is need for drastic reform in the water sector. Governments must lead the reform process, but ironically state institutions themselves are in greatest need of reform. While water scarcity is here to stay, many of the problems associated with water scarcity can be avoided.
This will require that we deal with difficult choices and tradeoffs. Reconciling competing demands on water requires informed negotiations by the many stakeholders involved in water with transparent sharing of information. "The hope is in realizing the unexplored potential that lies in better water management along with non-miraculous changes in policy and production techniques" says Margaret Catley Carleson, Chair of the Global Water Partnership, "but world leaders must take action now." As Sunita Narain, 2005 Stockholm Water Prize Winner says, "this issue must become the world's obsession."Only if we act to improve water use in agriculture now will we meet the acute... more
-
-
Pitches to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 are too leisurely and must be brought forward by decades, Lester Brown, president and founder of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, said Friday at a symposium in Tokyo.
"We are going to have to move much, much faster. I think the game will be over long before 2050," the environment expert said at Sophia University.
Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is expected to release a new initiative on environmental preservation Monday in which Japan will propose reducing long-term its own greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent from current levels by 2050. The initiative will not touch on medium-term goals.
But with the pace of global warming and its link to food prices rising worldwide, the world must "cut carbon emission by 80 percent by 2020," Brown said. The environmentalist, who has headed the nonprofit group EPI since 2001, providing reports and visions for a sustainable economy and environmental preservation, was in Tokyo to speak at the Sophia symposium.
Brown said that while past rises in grain prices were driven by particular events, including droughts and extreme weather, today's food crisis was trend-driven and induced by multiple factors, including population growth and grain being used to make fuel.
In such circumstance each country must work to reconstruct its energy resources, he said, urging Japan to develop its solar- and wind-power technologies and become less dependent on fossil fuels.
Pitches to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 are too... more
-
-
The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that the impending Lieberman-Warner climate change bill could contain at least $544 billion in taxpayer subsidies for nuclear energy. This would represent the biggest federal handout in history for the nuclear industry, already the most heavily subsidized energy sector over the past 50 years.
The Lieberman-Warner bill is expected to be on the Senate floor in early June. According to an analysis conducted by Friends of the Earth, the bill contains close to half a trillion dollars that can be accessed by the nuclear energy industry under a vaguely entitled category for “zero and low carbon energy technologies.” Nuclear is the only energy industry that could fall under this category that does not have a specific carve elsewhere; funding for renewable energy is identified separately in the bill.
“Although the word ‘nuclear’ has been carefully omitted from the bill, it is clear that this is a covert attempt to bolster a failing nuclear power industry in the name of addressing climate change,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. “It’s time to focus on real global warming solutions like solar, wind and energy efficiency, not to further fatten the moribund nuclear calf.”
The environmental and public interest group leaders decried the bill’s record-breaking giveaway to nuclear power which would encourage new construction of nuclear plants, the least-effective way of reducing carbon emissions because of their long construction times and high costs.
"After 50 years of unresolved safety and waste disposal issues, it perplexes many Americans why Congress would support massive subsidies for the nuclear industry," said John Passacantando, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. "Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real global warming solutions," said Passacantando. "When both Wall Street and Warren Buffet think nuclear is a risky investment, Congress should not waste American tax dollars to further subsidize this 1950s technology."
~~~~
So not only does this bill disguised as a climate change bill when it is nothing more than a pork bill to polluters call for investment in CSS systems for the coal industry to allow themmore time to pollute, but the biggest subsidies for the nuclear industry. And this is the best we can do?
The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that... more
-
-
It has been two years since An Inconvenient Truth was released. These were my thoughts on it after seeing it for the first time:
I had a front row seat in a packed theatre to see Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth last night. I can describe it in two words: a journey. It is Al Gore's journey of heart, soul, spirit, and mind through a lifetime of stewardship and also growth. For as much as this movie is a clarion call to all of us to now take our own journey for our planet, ourselves, and our children, it is also Al Gore's reckoning with himself. He lays his soul bare to warn us of the consequences of our inaction now regarding this crisis, because it relays to the events in his own life in the past that brought him to this point as well.
The scenes showing his early years in Congress, his son's car accident, the 2000 election (yes, I cried here,) and the very poignant scenes of him with his sister Nancy who died of lung cancer revealed to me a man not doing this out of any selfish political intent, but of a man who is telling you, the viewer, that even he has had to experience loss and near loss in his life in order to realize what he lost and how much of a part he played in it. I think those scenes were shown in direct correlation to this climate crisis and his message that we must not make the same mistake now with our planet.
Will we look back years from now regretting that we continued the very behavior that is contributing to this crisis even knowing what it is doing to our planet? Or will we take the necessary steps to change our ways and heed the warnings before it is too late? That is the question of this movie and there is no alarmism whatsoever in the presentation of the solutions we have at our disposal. Mr. Gore relays the facts starkly, calmly, and at times humorously, and clearly lays out what we can do to mitigate this crisis. And the scientific consensus cannot be denied that we as a species are contributing to it and it is having a definite effect on our world.
His statistics on Co2, invasive species, species loss, ice cap melting, population growth, etc., intertwined with footage from around the world showing the effects of the statistics he showed was all very well presented and backed up. I also never got the impression that any of this is about him in any other sense than him using himself as an example of someone who had to reach the bottom in order to reach for the top.
I laughed, I cried, and I saw before me on the screen a man who has surely come full circle with who he is and what his mission is, and that is handing that mission and truth to us. He says he is not a hero, and frankly, I didn't see a hero in this movie and that is a good thing. Heroes have a tendency to be placed on pedestals and forgotten. I saw something much more. I saw a prophet, a missive, and a trailblazer who has full faith in our abilty to save our planet. And we must not let our planet down, and that also includes those in government and the corporate world whose indifference to this issue can no longer be tolerated.
more at the linkIt has been two years since An Inconvenient Truth was released. These were my thoughts... more
-
-
Robert Corell was the lead scientist of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report regarding climate change in the Arctic. I recommend reading this interview with him as he basically corroborates what Al Gore has also been stating, and explains why sea level rise may well be greater than reported by the IPCC, as they only considered water expansion from warming oceans not including addiitonal melt water from glaciers that would be added to it. With Greenland melting at such a rapid pace that must be considered. As he stated, we must now build a "climate cathedral."Robert Corell was the lead scientist of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report... more
-
