The United States could source 10 percent of its electricity from solar power by 2030, a report said Tuesday, winning support from a US lawmaker who wants to boost the number of US solar panels.
The report, produced by the independent environmental group Environment America, was presented to Congress with backing from Senator Bernie Sanders who in February introduced legislation to install 10 million solar panels across the United States within a decade.
Sanders praised the report, which said the United States could get 10 percent of its electricity from solar power by 2030, up from just 0.1 percent in 2008, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Sanders's bill, which has gained the support of several other Democratic senators, proposes "rebates for the purchase and installation of an additional 10,000,000 solar roofs... by 2019."
"At a time when we spend 350 billion dollars importing oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries every year, the United States must move away from foreign oil to energy independence," Sanders told a press conference Tuesday.
The legislation introduced by Sanders, who heads a sub-committee on green jobs, would offer a rebate of 1.75 dollars per watt of installed capacity in 2010, an offer that would fall to 0.25 dollars per watt by 2019.
Ever feel like you were playing checkers and the other guy was playing chess?
That’s the impression I get when watching many of the recent spate of food documentaries. Activists announce that this or that is wrong with the food system; on the rare occasion when something appears to be getting done about it, the folks who are doing things badly simply change their tactics, not their strategy.
That’s how it’s gone with the British 2009 documentary film Pig Business. I watched this film in several 10-minute segments via YouTube (Part One) because it hasn’t been released in the U.S., primarily due to legal pressure brought upon the director (Tracy Worcester, who spent four years making the film) by the film’s main villain, Smithfield Foods. The world’s largest pork producer, Smithfield has 52,000 employees processing 27 million pigs per year in 15 countries, accruing annual sales around $12 billion. The UK’s Channel 4 ran the film last summer despite four letters from Smithfield threatening litigation, but since no U.S. insurer would back the film’s release here, it has become essentially a black-market film. Score another one for corporate censorship.
Smithfield does, in one sense, have cause for concern: this film certainly doesn’t show their company in the most favorable light. Right off the bat, the viewer is struck with some rather gruesome images of pigs being brutally mistreated, apparently at the hands of workers in Smithfield-run facilities. We hear from farmers and neighbors complaining of health problems that they tie to the fumes and water contamination from Smithfield hoglots. An owner of a small family farm in Poland who this large corporation has pushed out of business says, “I don’t know whether I should retire, hang myself, or leave the country.”
cont.Ever feel like you were playing checkers and the other guy was playing chess?... more
Over at the Washington Independent, Mike Lillis pulls a quote from the Republican Study Committee, pushing back on the EPA's greenhouse gas endangerment finding with bunk science.
Specifically, he notes the well-traveled nonsense that if human beings and critters of all sorts expire carbon dioxide, just like polluters, that makes the EPA's finding "good news for all those opposed to the despicable practice of breathing." Then there's some strange stuff about "puppies and kittens."
Every day, over 6 billion humans and an untold number of puppies, kittens, and other animals produce large quantities of this ubiquitous gas. Should they be required to stop breathing? And every day, trees, flowers, shrubs, and other flora use carbon dioxide to sustain their own existence. Liberals are supposedly more plant-friendly than the rest of us, so why would they try to limit a gas that is essential for plant life? If the rainforests could speak, would they be stunned by this betrayal?
I recognize this line of (what I'll loosely call) reasoning as the talking points of coal and oil industry green-washing organization CO2 Is Green. I previously disposed of this nonsense, but for the sake of repeating myself, here's the seventh-grade-level earth science you need to understand the distinction between CO2 produced in respiration versus CO2 produced from carbon fuel emissions:
Yes, human beings produce carbon dioxide and then plants, through photosynthesis, metabolize this exhaust and convert it back into oxygen. All of this is part of a naturally occurring cycle that functions well when it's in equilibrium. But what the good folks at CO2 Is Green -- fronted by "a veteran oil industry executive" and supported by the "chief executive of and leading shareholder in Natural Resource Partners, a Houston-based owner of coal resources that lets other companies mine in return for royalties" -- want you to believe is that when the fossil fuels they shill for are burned, it's just as easy and natural as respiration. It's like breathing, only lots lots more of it!
But the carbon captured in fossil fuels is not a part of the naturally occurring process of respiration. That carbon is the result of centuries of organic decay. Left on its own, it would take millions of years for fossil fuels to "exhale" their carbon dioxide. When fossil fuels are burned, however, it's released into the atmosphere on a much shorter timeframe of a few centuries, thus increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment. That throws off the equilibrium established between respiration and photosynthesis. This is where the whole concept of "carbon offsets" come from as a means of restoring this healthy equilibrium.
As for what the rainforests would say, I would imagine if they could talk, they'd say something like:
Hey! Shut up, Republican Study Committee! That's a gross oversimplification. Plants need all sorts of things to survive, in different combinations. And many of us plants have internal biological regulators that limit our intake of carbon dioxide, so more of it isn't necessarily better.Over at the Washington Independent, Mike Lillis pulls a quote from the Republican... more
For years, a focus on miles-per-gallon (MPG) ratings for vehicles has encouraged consumers to buy energy efficient vehicles, which are better for the environment and more cost effective for the user. This focus has lead to innovations such as hybrid cars, which boast high MPG ratings.
Now, what if this way of measuring energy efficiency also included homes? It soon will...
Top US trade and energy officials said Thursday they were confident China and the United States would step up cooperation on climate change after meeting with Chinese leaders.
US Trade Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, both ethnic Chinese, came to China seeking to open the Asian giant's markets to US green technology while urging Beijing to set hard targets on gas emissions.
"Secretary Chu and I measured the success of this trip by answering the simple question of whether America and China can increase their cooperation in the development... of clean energy and energy efficient technologies," Locke told reporters.
"After three days of meeting, the simple answer is yes."
During the trip, China and the United States -- the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases -- announced the establishment of a joint clean energy research centre aimed at allowing scientists from both sides to work together.
The centre, with headquarters in both countries, is also intended to serve as a clearing-house for information, with key issues initially to be looked at including energy efficiency, clean coal technology and low-polluting cars.
Locke and Chu met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Thursday afternoon, with the environment, as well as a host of trade and other issues, on the agenda. They also held talks individually with other top officials.
Their visit to China comes as officials prepare for the first US-China strategic and economic dialogue, to be held in Washington next week.
It also comes ahead of a UN meeting in Copenhagen in December when more than 180 nations are due to negotiate a new climate agreement to replace the existing Kyoto Protocol.
China and other developing nations are refusing to agree to compulsory cuts in emissions under the new deal, saying developed countries must shoulder the responsibility for the decades of emissions that have led to global warming.
But the US officials in China have been trying to convince Chinese leaders that the world has no choice but to work together more closely.
Chu said he was optimistic about the upcoming climate talks after meeting with Chinese officials.
"China... recognises the serious consequences that they face, as well as the world, if the world -- China included -- doesn't start to take aggressive action," Chu said.
"I am optimistic of what is going to be happening in Copenhagen."Top US trade and energy officials said Thursday they were confident China and the... more
CO2 is Important, But Not the Only Thing
David Roberts over at Grist has a great rebuttal of Thom Friedman's latest column in which he and investor Vinod Khosla seem to overlook many of the problems caused by coal mining and coal burning.
Is it any wonder that our politicians are making completely the wrong decisions on Climate Change policy when they are so totally confused about where we are right now?
We are approaching tipping points that will send the world into a tail spin, but they just don't understand the basics.
They are looking at an apple but what we have is an orange.
Bob Williamson
Greenhouse Neutral FoundationIs it any wonder that our politicians are making completely the wrong decisions on... more
Is it any wonder that policy makers and world leaders are not thinking or agreeing on vital climate change policy? Agreeing on emissions reduction targets or how and where we are right now?
In scientific papers, journals, reports, policy documents and even newspaper article and magazine stories we are repeatedly confusing everyone by comparing ‘CO2 apples with Global Warming oranges’.
We had better clear up this issue. We had better start comparing and talking same and same. The oranges are growing faster than the apples.
The Swedish government in 2009 announced new food guidelines that recommend eating habits based on greenhouse-gas emissions. Experts say these guidelines, if heeded by consumers, could decrease Sweden’s emissions by 20 to 50 percent.
More than 92 percent of Swedes want more information about the “green credentials” of their food, and producers responded to satisfy customers. Some Swedish companies have labeled their products to show how many kilograms of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere during production.
One Swedish burger chain, Max, offers beef alternatives and signed on enthusiastically to the new recommendations. It became the first restaurant chain to publish carbon footprints of menu items to encourage people to eat less beef.
Determining food’s carbon footprint is difficult and nuanced. Complex production lines make it difficult to track the carbon footprint of an individual product, and consumer suggestions are not as simple as “eat less meat.” For example, the guidelines discourage Swedes from eating cucumbers and tomatoes because in Sweden they can only be grown in energy-consuming greenhouses. Low-impact vegetables like carrots are recommended over the less climate-friendly ones.The Swedish government in 2009 announced new food guidelines that recommend eating... more
The rate at which the oceans are becoming more acidic is greater today than at any time in tens of millions of years, according to a new study.
Rapidly rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mean that the rate of ocean acidification is the fastest since the age of the dinosaurs, which became extinct 65m years ago, scientists believe.
The oceans are likely to become so acidic in coming centuries that they will become uninhabitable for vast swathes of life, especially the little-studied organisms on the deep-sea floor which are a vital link in the marine food chain.
Scientists have concluded, in a study published today in the journal Nature Genetics, that the current rate of ocean acidification is up to 10 times faster than 55m years ago – the last time the deep oceans became so acidic.
This is because of the speed at which carbon-dioxide concentrations are rising in the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater at the sea surface to form carbonic acid. The increased acidity of the water affects the amount of dissolved carbonate minerals that are available for marine organisms to use in forming their shells and hard skeletons.
When the oceans became acidified in a similar way about 55m years ago, it resulted in a mass extinction of deep-sea marine organisms, especially those living in the sediments of the sea floor, which can be studied geologically through changes to rock formations, said Dr Andy Ridgwell of the University of Bristol.
"Unlike surface plankton dwelling in a variable habitat, organisms living deep down on the ocean floor are adapted to much more stable conditions. A rapid and severe geochemical change in their environment would make their survival precarious," he said.
Studies also suggest that temperatures of the surface ocean rose, and carbon-dioxide levels increased over a period of a few thousand years.
The latest study compared these changes with predicted changes to ocean acidity resulting from continuing increases in concentrations of man-made carbon dioxide expected this century.The rate at which the oceans are becoming more acidic is greater today than at any... more
Yes, you read that correctly. The cars in this video run on nothing but compressed air and can drive almost 200km on a single fill. The video showcases French manufacturer, MDI’s air-driven cars, which work by using the pressure of compressed gas to move the pistons inside the engine. Most importantly, the company plans to begin sales next year. http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1029035_video-zero-emission-air-driven-carsYes, you read that correctly. The cars in this video run on nothing but compressed air... more
The Arctic Ocean has given up tens of thousands more square miles (square kilometers) of ice on Sunday in a relentless summer of melt, with scientists watching through satellite eyes for a possible record low polar ice cap.
From the barren Arctic shore of this village in Canada's far northwest, 1,500 miles (2,414 kilometers) north of Seattle, veteran observer Eddie Gruben has seen the summer ice retreating more each decade as the world has warmed. By this weekend the ice edge lay some 80 miles (128 kilometers) at sea.
"Forty years ago, it was 40 miles (64 kilometers) out," said Gruben, 89, patriarch of a local contracting business.
Global average temperatures rose 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degree Celsius) in the past century, but Arctic temperatures rose twice as much or even faster, almost certainly in good part because of manmade greenhouse gases, researchers say.
In late July the mercury soared to almost 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius) in this settlement of 900 Inuvialuit, the name for western Arctic Eskimos.
"The water was really warm," Gruben said. "The kids were swimming in the ocean."
As of Thursday, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported, the polar ice cap extended over 2.61 million square miles (6.75 million square kilometers) after having shrunk an average 41,000 square miles (106,000 square kilometers) a day in July -- equivalent to one Indiana or three Belgiums daily.
The rate of melt was similar to that of July 2007, the year when the ice cap dwindled to a record low minimum extent of 1.7 million square miles (4.3 million square kilometers) in September.
In its latest analysis, the Colorado-based NSIDC said Arctic atmospheric conditions this summer have been similar to those of the summer of 2007, including a high-pressure ridge that produced clear skies and strong melt in the Beaufort Sea, the arm of the Arctic Ocean off northern Alaska and northwestern Canada.
In July, "we saw acceleration in loss of ice," the U.S. center's Walt Meier told The Associated Press. In recent days the pace has slowed, making a record-breaking final minimum "less likely but still possible," he said.
Scientists say the makeup of the frozen polar sea has shifted significantly the past few years, as thick multiyear ice has given way as the Arctic's dominant form to thin ice that comes and goes with each winter and summer.
The past few years have "signaled a fundamental change in the character of the ice and the Arctic climate," Meier said.
Ironically, the summer melts since 2007 appear to have allowed disintegrating but still thick multiyear ice to drift this year into the relatively narrow channels of the Northwest Passage, the east-west water route through Canada's Arctic islands. Usually impassable channels had been relatively ice-free the past two summers.The Arctic Ocean has given up tens of thousands more square miles (square kilometers)... more
Native Americans are to join the Climate Camp protests in the City of London this week in an attempt to draw attention to corporate Britain's "criminal" involvement in the tar sands of Canada.
The oil sands extraction process requires top soil to be removed, is highly energy-intensive and releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Five representatives from the Cree First Nations are coming to co-ordinate their campaign against key players in the carbon-heavy energy sector with British environmentalists.
Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, from Fort Chipewyan, a centre of Alberta's tar sands schemes, said: "British companies such as BP and Royal Bank of Scotland in partnership with dozens of other companies are driving this project, which is having such devastating effects on our environment and communities.
"It is destroying the ancient boreal forest, spreading open-pit mining across our territories, contaminating our food and water with toxins, disrupting local wildlife and threatening our way of life," she said.
It showed British companies were complicit in "the biggest environmental crime on the planet" and yet very few people in Britain even knew it was happening, said Deranger. She was speaking ahead of an annual Climate Camp that will be held for one week somewhere in Greater London from this Thursday.
The exact site of the camp has not been revealed as green organisers are worried that the police might move to thwart their plans if they are notified in advance.
BP and Shell are two of the major oil companies extracting oil from the tar sands. The thick and sticky oil can only be removed from the sands by using a lot of water and power as well as producing far heavier CO2 emissions.
RBS, now partly owned by the British government after its financial rescue, is also a target of environmentalists and aboriginals because it is seen as a major funder of such schemes.
The Climate Camp concept started with a protest outside the Drax coal-fired power station in North Yorkshire and was followed up by similar protests at Heathrow - against the proposed third runway - and Kingsnorth in Kent, where E.ON wants to construct a new coal-fired power station.
There was also a Climate Camp in April at Bishopsgate inside the City of London, which became linked with bad policing after a bystander died following a clash with a constable.
The tar sands are seen by many as a particularly dangerous project providing enough carbon to be released in total to tip the world into unstoppable climate change. Shell was the first major European oil company to invest in the Canadian-based operations but BP followed under its chief executive, Tony Hayward.
end of excerptNative Americans are to join the Climate Camp protests in the City of London this week... more
A coalition of North American environmental groups says the development of Canada-s oil sands region threatens to kill as many as 166 million birds over the next five decades and is calling for a moratorium on new projects in the region.
The coalition-s groups, which include the Natural Resources Defence Council, the Boreal Songbirds Initiative and the Pembina Institute, say petroleum-extraction projects in the oil-rich region of northern Alberta are a threat to migratory birds and the boreal forest they rely on.
Their study concluded that development of the oil sands, would be fatal for 6 million to 166 million birds because of habitat loss, shrinking wetlands, accumulation of toxins and other causes.
The solution, the groups say, is to halt new projects in the oil sands and to clean up existing facilities. They are also calling for strengthened regulations to protect Canada-s vast boreal, or northern, forest and for Alberta, whose government has backed oil sands developments, to prove the resource can be exploited without serious environmental harm.
People need to take a hard look at whether this can be mitigated or if tar sands development is just incompatible with conservation of bird habitat said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defence Council.
The report estimates about half of North America-s migratory birds nest in the boreal forest and between 22 million and 170 million birds breed in areas that could be subject to oil sands development.
The oil sands contain the biggest oil reserves outside the Middle East but the crude is expensive and difficult to extract. Mining projects strip large areas of land to access the oil-laden soils below the surface.
While the report has not yet been made public, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which represents the country-s big oil firms, said the oil sands industry complies with environmental regulations and dismissed calls for a moratorium.
We need a balanced conversation, supported like a stool with three legs, environment, economy and energy, David Collyer, the association-s president, said in a statement. Calls for a moratorium that consider only one leg of the stool, in a vacuum, are not constructive.
Developments in the region have been criticized for pumping large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, using too much water and being harmful to wildlife.
Indeed, the death of about 500 ducks earlier this year after they landed on a toxic tailings pond operated by Syncrude Canada Ltd, the biggest oil sands producer, brought international attention to the region.
The environmental groups' forecast is based on a big expansion of oil production from the region. The oil sands currently produce more than 1 million barrels a day, but the report is based on an eventual output of 5 million barrels a day, in line with industry forecasts of production in two decades or more.A coalition of North American environmental groups says the development of Canada-s... more
WASHINGTON — The United States will propose a near-term target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions before the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen next month, a senior administration official said Monday. President Obama, the official said, will announce the specific target “in coming days.”
The announcement of a target will take the current legislative stalemate over a climate bill into account, the senior official said, and thus might present a range of possible reductions rather than a single figure.
The lack of consensus in Congress puts Mr. Obama in a tricky domestic and diplomatic bind. He cannot promise more than Congress may eventually deliver when it takes up climate change legislation next year. But if he does not offer some concrete pledge, the United States will bear the brunt of the blame for the lack of an international agreement.
The official also said the president would decide shortly whether and for how long he might attend the December climate meeting, which runs from Dec. 7 to Dec. 18. He repeated the president’s assertion that he would consider attending if his presence could be a useful impetus to a deal.
Paul Bledsoe of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy said the president’s hands were tied by Congressional inaction. “The U.S. cannot negotiate at Copenhagen above the targets in domestic legislation without risking support for that legislation in the Senate,” Mr. Bledsoe said. “If European demands continue above the U.S. domestic targets, they set up an impossible dynamic for the administration.”
Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said Mr. Obama could credibly tell delegates to the climate conference that the United States intended to reduce its emissions by 17 percent to 20 percent, based on the legislation that has been approved by the House and the Senate environment committee.
“It’s important for the president to exert that leadership with consultation with Congress,” Mr. Kerry said in an interview late last week.
More destruction to mountains to fill the pockets of those who really do not care about the consequences of their actions. It is time to stand up to them for a cleaner better future. There is no such thing as clean coal and everytime a representative of one of these companies uses that term as if it is available now, they are lying through their teeth. It must be stopped.
____________
From the article:
Environmentalists are vowing to block a proposed $6 billion coal-fired power plant in Surry County, saying it would increase air pollution, would contribute to global warming and is not needed.
Advocacy groups including the Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center and Chesapeake Climate Action Network are gearing up for what one activist called all-out war in response to plans announced this week by the project sponsor, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.
ODEC, a nonprofit utility based in Richmond, said it wants to build the plant on about 1,600 acres in the town of Dendron, about 40 miles west of Norfolk, in order to meet anticipated demand for electricity in the near future in Virginia, Maryland and Delaware.
The utility has given the plant a name - Cypress Creek Power Station - and said it would burn mostly Appalachian coal to produce 750 megawatts to 1,500 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 400,000 homes. Woody timber wastes, known as biomass, would fuel about 3 percent of the plant.
In comparison, the coal-fired plant under construction in Wise County in Southwest Virginia is expected to produce 585 megawatts and cost about $1.8 billion. That project, led by Dominion Virginia Power, is being challenged in court by environmentalists.
In the face of an economic recession and mounting threats from climate change, the prospect of introducing an unnecessary $6 billion coal plant is outrageous said Tom Cormons, a lawyer and campaign coordinator for Appalachian Voices, a group fighting the Wise County plant as well.
______________
How much renewable energy could 6 billion dollars buy? Well, you sure would get more for your money with it besides devastated mountains, black water, black lung and cancer. This is simply insane.
^^More destruction to mountains to fill the pockets of those who really do not care... more
No more than one-quarter: that's the proportion of existing reserves of oil, gas and coal that we can burn if we are serious about keeping the planet from warming by 2°C or more.
These are the conclusions of the most comprehensive efforts yet to pin down just how much carbon dioxide can be emitted into the atmosphere.
If governments are to stick to their pledge to avoid "dangerous" global warming – which most politicians and many scientists take to be no more than 2°C – the models come up with roughly the same answer. Humans must not inject more than 1 trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in total.
That, say teams led by Myles Allen of the University of Oxford and Malte Meinshausen of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, will give us a 50:50 chance of limiting global warming to 2°C.
To improve the chances that the planet remains this side of 2°C, Meinshausen's study suggests we should emit no more than 750 billion tonnes of carbon in total. The risk of exceeding 2°C would then drop from 50% to 25%.
Halfway there
Industrial activity since the mid-18th century means we have already emitted 500 billion tonnes of carbon – half of the 1-trillion-tonne budget. "At some point in the last few years, we released the 500-billionth tonne of carbon," says Allen. We can afford to dump only 250 billion tonnes more – or perhaps 500 billion tonnes, if we are willing to run the higher risk.
So how much longer have we got? Don't let past emissions fool you, says Allen. "It took 250 years to burn the first 500 billion tonnes. On current trends we'll burn the next 500 billion in less than 40 years."
Busting the budget
That means that if we continue emitting carbon at the same rate as we are now, we will exhaust what Allen calls the trillion-tonne "carbon budget for the human race" by 2040. Anything that is emitted beyond that will commit the planet to more than 2°C of CO2-induced warming.
Meinshausen and colleagues calculate that we could exhaust the carbon budget within as little as 20 years. They also find that if we were to burn all the proven reserves of fossil fuels, this would inject nearly three times the carbon budget into the atmosphere.
To have a 75% chance of keeping to the 2°C target, "we can burn less than one-quarter of known economically recoverable fossil-fuel reserves between now and 2050", says Bill Hare of the Potsdam institute. "This means that whilst a lot of the oil and natural gas can be burned, certainly not much at all of coals reserves can."
None of these figures include "unconventional" fossil fuel reserves, such as tar sands.
end of excerpt.No more than one-quarter: that's the proportion of existing reserves of oil, gas... more
Out of place in the snowy, polar landscape, the train that once hauled coal out of the mountain serves as a reminder to scientists at the Ny-Aalesund Arctic research station of the origin of the planet's woes.
Before becoming an international research station where scientists study the effects of global warming, this cluster of coloured buildings in the northwestern corner of Norway's Svalbard archipelago, was once a mining site for fossil fuels now blamed for climate change.
Broader broadband than in London
The remote town - the northernmost in the world - has a "broader broadband than London," boasts Kings Bay, the company that runs the site.
"It's good to be far away to measure trends" in carbon dioxide emissions, Swedish researcher Johan Stroem said from the Zeppelin atmospheric measuring station, located on a peak overlooking Ny-Aalesund.
In graphics taped to the walls, all the arrows point upwards, with particularly sharp increases seen in recent decades.
Humankind will always adapt and change its lifestyle
"It's not so much the high level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that worries me. Humankind will always adapt and change its lifestyle. We won't go on vacation to the Maldives anymore. But it's the rate at which the concentrations increase which is worrying," Stroem said.
"Over the past 20 years, we've seen a jump of CO2 concentrations at a speed which has never been observed before," he said.
The Svalbard archipelago is on the frontline of global warming. Each year, the volume of its ice cap shrinks by 13km³ or the equivalent of 5.2 million Olympic-size swimming pools. And the glaciers around Ny-Aalesund are no exception.
Paints a dark picture of the future
Jack Kohler, a US glaciologist at the Norwegian Polar Institute, paints a dark picture of the future.
"In 50 to 100 years from now these glaciers will be shadows of themselves. The larger ones will still be here but the smaller ones will be gone," he predicted, expressing concern about the largely overlooked impact the melting of smaller glaciers will have on rising ocean levels.Out of place in the snowy, polar landscape, the train that once hauled coal out of the... more
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, December 14, 2009
Developing countries have walked out on the Copenhagen climate talks, but one of the primary reasons as to why nations like China and India have boycotted the summit is being hidden by the corporate media – namely the fact that the negotiations were doomed once poorer countries learned of the globalist’s neo-colonial agenda as a result of the Danish text leak.
“Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation,” reports the BBC.
“Delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol. As news spread around the conference centre, activists chanted “We stand with Africa – Kyoto targets now”.
However, the media has completely failed to highlight the real reason behind the walk out – the fact that funds from climate financing, originally allocated to go to the UN and then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations, would instead be paid directly into the coffers of the World Bank and IMF, organizations that have made a habit out of looting poorer countries with crippling debts that cannot be paid back, forcing such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure to globalist loan sharks.
CtPatriot… We can only Hope they will defeat themselves… I for one am not ready, nor do I believe a Global Government would work for America… Since we are/were the strongest we would get punished the most… and last i heard Obama was elected President of the United States of America… Not the world… I used to think this New World Order … Global Government was BS… but here it is, For real, in Our Faces…. And President Obama , like Henry Kissenger said..”Obama is the perfect President for the New Wolrd Order”
