What does the financial meltdown mean for melting glaciers? The jury is still out but the signs aren’t positive.
Countering climate change is costly and the financial crisis is almost certain to affect funds flow to environmental bodies.
“I’m absolutely sure that climate change will be the last thing people will think about at this point in time,” said R.K. Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with former US Vice-President Al Gore, recently.
He felt that discussions on global warming had been put “on the back burner” after the downturn in global economy. The slump is already threatening Europe’s ambitious plans to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, with governments reluctant to burden companies with additional financial load.
However, damage control exercises are also underway. Environment ministers and senior environmental officials from more than 30 countries, including India and the US, recently met in Warsaw, Poland, ahead of a major climate conference in December. The delegates agreed the financial crisis should not halt efforts to fight global warming.
“There was a consensus that the current financial turmoil should not be an excuse to slow down action on climate change,” said Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Experts pointed out that addressing climate change immediately could also deliver important economic benefits.
Source
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Global warming fund sought
Continued...
Storm surges
Carbon emission is largely blamed for global warming, which refers to the increase in the average temperature of the air and oceans since the mid-20th century. This leads to a continuing rise in sea levels.
Legarda said rising sea temperatures could lead to stronger and more frequent storm surges and, as a result, more disasters.
“If we are aware of hazards posed by nature, we are more prepared to react and respond to possible hazards and thus reduce risks,” she said.
The Manila Declaration listed steps to reduce disasters, such as increased public awareness, implementation of disaster reduction policies and actions, partnerships between government and private sectors, and improved scientific knowledge.
“Industrialized countries have a historical responsibility for climate change and are morally obliged to financially and technologically assist developing countries in their efforts to reduce their vulnerability and adapt to its consequences, while reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions,” it said. End.
Source
Storm surges
Carbon emission is largely blamed for global warming, which refers to the increase in the average temperature of the air and oceans since the mid-20th century. This leads to a continuing rise in sea levels.
Legarda said rising sea temperatures could lead to stronger and more frequent storm surges and, as a result, more disasters.
“If we are aware of hazards posed by nature, we are more prepared to react and respond to possible hazards and thus reduce risks,” she said.
The Manila Declaration listed steps to reduce disasters, such as increased public awareness, implementation of disaster reduction policies and actions, partnerships between government and private sectors, and improved scientific knowledge.
“Industrialized countries have a historical responsibility for climate change and are morally obliged to financially and technologically assist developing countries in their efforts to reduce their vulnerability and adapt to its consequences, while reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions,” it said. End.
Source
Friday, November 14, 2008
Global warming fund sought
Continued...
Common aim
Legarda said disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation “clearly share a common aim and mutual benefit—to reduce vulnerability to disasters and to ensure sustainable development.”
“Inevitably, the two must be linked and the benefits optimized if we are to uphold the welfare of the poor and the most vulnerable,” she said.
Briceño said that the global financial crisis should not “distract” developed nations from putting priority on measures to mitigate the effects of climate change.
He said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was recently in New York “to remind world leaders about that.”
Said Rafael Jimenez Aybar, the deputy director of GLOBE-Europe: “You can put pressure on us [rich nations]. We have a moral obligation because we have polluted the environment.”
Aybar, a Spanish citizen, suggested that 25 percent of emission trading revenues, which is expected to reach $25 billion by 2020, be allocated as seed money.
Parties with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have accepted targets for limiting or reducing emissions of carbon.
Under Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading allows countries that have unused emission units to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets.
Thus, a new commodity, which can be tracked and traded, has been created in the form of emission reductions or removals. Continued...
Common aim
Legarda said disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation “clearly share a common aim and mutual benefit—to reduce vulnerability to disasters and to ensure sustainable development.”
“Inevitably, the two must be linked and the benefits optimized if we are to uphold the welfare of the poor and the most vulnerable,” she said.
Briceño said that the global financial crisis should not “distract” developed nations from putting priority on measures to mitigate the effects of climate change.
He said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was recently in New York “to remind world leaders about that.”
Said Rafael Jimenez Aybar, the deputy director of GLOBE-Europe: “You can put pressure on us [rich nations]. We have a moral obligation because we have polluted the environment.”
Aybar, a Spanish citizen, suggested that 25 percent of emission trading revenues, which is expected to reach $25 billion by 2020, be allocated as seed money.
Parties with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have accepted targets for limiting or reducing emissions of carbon.
Under Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading allows countries that have unused emission units to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets.
Thus, a new commodity, which can be tracked and traded, has been created in the form of emission reductions or removals. Continued...
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Global warming fund sought
By Michael Lim Ubac
Ten lawmakers from Asia, Europe, Africa and South America on Saturday issued the Manila Declaration on climate change, which calls on rich nations to create a global fund to help reduce disaster risks brought by rising sea temperatures.
The five-page document titled “The Manila Call for Action of Parliamentarians on Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation” was issued at the close of a two-day consultative meeting at the Makati Shangri-La Hotel.
The Manila Declaration calls for a “comprehensive strategic approach needed for creating an enabling environment for political and financial commitment in reducing human, social, economic and environmental vulnerability to climate-related hazards.”
It says in effect that rich nations, the biggest polluters, were morally obliged to contribute to the fund.
It also calls on the United Nations and the European Union to make the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 legally binding.
The Hyogo Framework is a global blueprint adopted in Kobe, Japan, to substantially reduce losses and prevent disasters after tsunamis hit the Indian Ocean in 2005.
The meeting, the first on addressing disasters associated with climate change, was held under the direction of Dr. Salvano Briceño, head of the secretariat of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, in collaboration with the Global Legislators’ Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE).
First line of defense
Sen. Loren Legarda, co-convenor of the meeting, said the declaration also pushed for policy changes in national and international levels to make disaster risk reduction the first line of defense against climate change.
“Twenty years ago, nobody listened. Ten years ago, some people listened. Today, you are here,” Legarda said. “We will not stop until the effects are felt in the grass roots.”
She also promised to help put a stop to the “cycle of catastrophe and tragedy” in the Philippines by instituting preventive strategies through legislation to decrease human vulnerability to disasters.
At a press conference, Legarda said EU donor agencies could help the Philippines and other developing nations cope with the disasters brought by climate change.
She said the EU had the World Agroforestry Fund which could be tapped to contribute to the global fund.
“I’ve been [inviting] donor agencies to come to the Philippines and help local development plans,” the senator said, pointing out that developing nations like the Philippines were “very vulnerable” to climate change hazards.
“The Manila Declaration embodies the statement of action by parliamentarians who participated in the global meeting. It is imperative for parliamentarians to take the lead in creating a policy and institutional environment that is conducive to promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration at all levels,” she said. Continued...
Ten lawmakers from Asia, Europe, Africa and South America on Saturday issued the Manila Declaration on climate change, which calls on rich nations to create a global fund to help reduce disaster risks brought by rising sea temperatures.
The five-page document titled “The Manila Call for Action of Parliamentarians on Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation” was issued at the close of a two-day consultative meeting at the Makati Shangri-La Hotel.
The Manila Declaration calls for a “comprehensive strategic approach needed for creating an enabling environment for political and financial commitment in reducing human, social, economic and environmental vulnerability to climate-related hazards.”
It says in effect that rich nations, the biggest polluters, were morally obliged to contribute to the fund.
It also calls on the United Nations and the European Union to make the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 legally binding.
The Hyogo Framework is a global blueprint adopted in Kobe, Japan, to substantially reduce losses and prevent disasters after tsunamis hit the Indian Ocean in 2005.
The meeting, the first on addressing disasters associated with climate change, was held under the direction of Dr. Salvano Briceño, head of the secretariat of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, in collaboration with the Global Legislators’ Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE).
First line of defense
Sen. Loren Legarda, co-convenor of the meeting, said the declaration also pushed for policy changes in national and international levels to make disaster risk reduction the first line of defense against climate change.
“Twenty years ago, nobody listened. Ten years ago, some people listened. Today, you are here,” Legarda said. “We will not stop until the effects are felt in the grass roots.”
She also promised to help put a stop to the “cycle of catastrophe and tragedy” in the Philippines by instituting preventive strategies through legislation to decrease human vulnerability to disasters.
At a press conference, Legarda said EU donor agencies could help the Philippines and other developing nations cope with the disasters brought by climate change.
She said the EU had the World Agroforestry Fund which could be tapped to contribute to the global fund.
“I’ve been [inviting] donor agencies to come to the Philippines and help local development plans,” the senator said, pointing out that developing nations like the Philippines were “very vulnerable” to climate change hazards.
“The Manila Declaration embodies the statement of action by parliamentarians who participated in the global meeting. It is imperative for parliamentarians to take the lead in creating a policy and institutional environment that is conducive to promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration at all levels,” she said. Continued...
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Candidates Agree On Need To Address Global Warming
Continued...Both candidates have said they would grant California a long-sought waiver under the Clean Air Act allowing that state to set its own limits on automobile emissions of carbon dioxide, the main human-generated greenhouse gas. The Bush administration turned down California’s request in January.
David D. Doniger, who directs climate policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council and worked in the Clinton administration on the issue, said this simple move would set in motion a wave of pent-up state actions following California’s lead, and the resulting bottom-up pressure could force Congress to pursue a climate bill.
The same upward push could result, he said, if the next president orders the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) to regulate carbon dioxide.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling in 2007, rebuffed the Bush administration and said the Clean Air Act gave the agency the authority to restrict the gas.
If Obama is elected, such a move appears likely. Heather Zichal, policy director for energy, environment and agriculture for the Obama campaign, said he would reduce emissions through actions at the E.P.A. and other government agencies.
“While he strongly believes that Congressional action is needed, he is also committed to employing the considerable powers Congress has granted to the executive branch,” said Zichal. McCain has not specified whether he would seek to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Some environmental groups say the next president could attack the energy, economic and climate problems at once with a grand program to remake the electrical grid, greatly expand sources of nonpolluting power like wind turbines and solar arrays, and boost energy efficiency.
Obama and McCain have both picked up on that theme.
When addressing energy on the campaign trail, McCain and Palin have tended to focus on expanding supplies of fossil fuels even as they mention the need for solar panels, tapping geothermal energy and the like. They call this an “all of the above” strategy.
One of McCain’s main talking points on nonpolluting energy sources is a promise to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. End.
Source
Energy specialists say that is a difficult goal because of the high cost - one estimate is that each plant would cost $10 billion - and unresolved questions about where to store nuclear waste. Another issue is the lack of American expertise in building such plants after decades of opposition.
Obama has given muted support to nuclear power but has repeatedly said his prime goal is an ambitious, sustained push for efficiency and new climate-friendly technologies, like plug-in hybrid cars and improved solar panels. Among other steps, Obama would create a national project to cut energy waste with federal subsidies to insulate one million low-income homes a year.
He and McCain both continue to mention “clean coal” in the context of climate change, even though teams of researchers have concluded that investments in large-scale tests of ways to capture and bury carbon dioxide from coal combustion would be required on a scale far beyond the federal spending either candidate is calling for.
Intellpuke: I've said it before but it bears repeating: Carbon trading is a shell game - a con. It does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it allows the major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases unabated. And that is not what the planet, and every living thing on it, needs.
David D. Doniger, who directs climate policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council and worked in the Clinton administration on the issue, said this simple move would set in motion a wave of pent-up state actions following California’s lead, and the resulting bottom-up pressure could force Congress to pursue a climate bill.
The same upward push could result, he said, if the next president orders the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) to regulate carbon dioxide.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling in 2007, rebuffed the Bush administration and said the Clean Air Act gave the agency the authority to restrict the gas.
If Obama is elected, such a move appears likely. Heather Zichal, policy director for energy, environment and agriculture for the Obama campaign, said he would reduce emissions through actions at the E.P.A. and other government agencies.
“While he strongly believes that Congressional action is needed, he is also committed to employing the considerable powers Congress has granted to the executive branch,” said Zichal. McCain has not specified whether he would seek to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Some environmental groups say the next president could attack the energy, economic and climate problems at once with a grand program to remake the electrical grid, greatly expand sources of nonpolluting power like wind turbines and solar arrays, and boost energy efficiency.
Obama and McCain have both picked up on that theme.
When addressing energy on the campaign trail, McCain and Palin have tended to focus on expanding supplies of fossil fuels even as they mention the need for solar panels, tapping geothermal energy and the like. They call this an “all of the above” strategy.
One of McCain’s main talking points on nonpolluting energy sources is a promise to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. End.
Source
Energy specialists say that is a difficult goal because of the high cost - one estimate is that each plant would cost $10 billion - and unresolved questions about where to store nuclear waste. Another issue is the lack of American expertise in building such plants after decades of opposition.
Obama has given muted support to nuclear power but has repeatedly said his prime goal is an ambitious, sustained push for efficiency and new climate-friendly technologies, like plug-in hybrid cars and improved solar panels. Among other steps, Obama would create a national project to cut energy waste with federal subsidies to insulate one million low-income homes a year.
He and McCain both continue to mention “clean coal” in the context of climate change, even though teams of researchers have concluded that investments in large-scale tests of ways to capture and bury carbon dioxide from coal combustion would be required on a scale far beyond the federal spending either candidate is calling for.
Intellpuke: I've said it before but it bears repeating: Carbon trading is a shell game - a con. It does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it allows the major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases unabated. And that is not what the planet, and every living thing on it, needs.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Candidates Agree On Need To Address Global Warming
Continued...A top environmental goal of both candidates is enactment of climate-change legislation centered on a “cap and trade” mechanism that sets a ceiling on emissions that declines over time. Businesses and institutions that cannot hit the targets must buy permits from those that achieve bigger cuts than required.
The devil on such bills is in the many details. (A fight over such details also contributed to the death of a climate bill that the Senate debated earlier this year.)
The permits issued under Obama’s bill would be bought by businesses through an auction before they were traded. Obama says he would use $150 billion of the auction revenue over 10 years - a small amount of the total flow - to help improve nonpolluting vehicles, wind and solar power, technology for capturing emissions from power plants, and other energy technologies. The brunt of the funds, he says, would help lessen costs faced by industries and citizens affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy. McCain’s approach, according to his Web site, would distribute the permits initially at no cost, and move to auctioning “eventually.”
Some economists and environmentalists have criticized the distribution of free permits as a handout to industry, noting that the European Union - which initially set up its trading system that way - saw the prices for pollution permits collapse. At the same time, some European power companies made windfall profits from their permits and ultimately greenhouse gas emissions increased.
McCain also would initially allow businesses to meet all their emission targets either directly or by buying a kind of credit, called an offset, generated by, say, a landowner who can prove fields or trees are sopping up a certain tonnage of carbon dioxide or a business that can prove an investment avoided emissions that would otherwise have happened. His Web site says the fraction of emission reductions allowed through offsets “would decline over time,” but offers no specifics. Calls and e-mail messages to the McCain campaign were not answered.
Environmentalists tend to prefer Obama’s approach, which many analysts say has less wiggle room and, in theory, sends a stronger message to companies that rely on fossil fuels to seek nonpolluting sources or reduce energy use.
Several representatives of industries said that, if forced, they would prefer the less aggressive targets and looser terms of McCain’s plan, but some appear to think they will not need to choose for a long while in any case, given the state of the global economy.
“Most industries are sort of keeping their powder dry at this point,” said Scott H. Segal, a lawyer and lobbyist at Bracewell & Giuliani who represents energy companies.
Without more details, it is not possible to estimate the costs of either candidate’s cap-and-trade plan, but economists generally agree that McCain’s would be less costly because of the offsets, but such offsets may also delay real decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite McCain’s early focus on climate change and the need for legislation, some environmental groups have sharply chided him lately, pointing to campaign statements seemingly softening his stance on firm caps on heat-trapping gases.
The League of Conservation Voters gave him the lowest possible score for his voting record in 2007 on subsidies or spending for renewable energy. Environmental bloggers derided his choice of running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has questioned whether global warming is caused by human activity and who elicits chants of “drill, baby, drill” on the stump for her support of oil drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
McCain and Obama also support ocean drilling but both oppose drilling in the Arctic refuge. McCain “has provided ample evidence in the last year or so that he is not serious about clean energy and he has increasingly walked away from the climate issue,” said Joseph Romm, a physicist who writes the ClimateProgress.org blog and is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit research group generally aligned with Democrats.
Obama, after taking heat from some environmentalists for championing coal use as an Illinois state senator, has been hailed by environmental groups for sticking with a mandatory cap on emissions with steadily rising costs for permits bought by polluters.
Still, his advisers lately have emphasized that he might have to compromise to get bipartisan support for a climate bill, something he has said he wants. Strident opponents of climate legislation, echoing the views of industry figures, do not appear worried that a bill will come together any time soon, no matter who is in the White House.
“I believe the current financial difficulties will only reinforce the public’s concerns about any climate bill that attempts to increase the costs of energy and jeopardizes jobs in the near term,” said Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.
Van Jones, an environmental activist from Oakland, California, and the author of “The Green Collar Economy,” has criticized McCain as the vanguard of a new movement with an environmental veneer, but bad intentions.
“The climate deniers got chased out of town, but in their place you’ve got the rise of the Dirty Greens,” he said in a recent interview. These are “people saying ‘I’m for solar, wind, geothermal, but I’m also for tar sands, coastal drilling’.”
Over all, the hurdles facing legislation restricting gases released by burning coal and oil, which still underpin the economy, remain so daunting that many experts who favor capping emissions appear to be focusing on actions a president could take with a pen stroke.Continued...
The devil on such bills is in the many details. (A fight over such details also contributed to the death of a climate bill that the Senate debated earlier this year.)
The permits issued under Obama’s bill would be bought by businesses through an auction before they were traded. Obama says he would use $150 billion of the auction revenue over 10 years - a small amount of the total flow - to help improve nonpolluting vehicles, wind and solar power, technology for capturing emissions from power plants, and other energy technologies. The brunt of the funds, he says, would help lessen costs faced by industries and citizens affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy. McCain’s approach, according to his Web site, would distribute the permits initially at no cost, and move to auctioning “eventually.”
Some economists and environmentalists have criticized the distribution of free permits as a handout to industry, noting that the European Union - which initially set up its trading system that way - saw the prices for pollution permits collapse. At the same time, some European power companies made windfall profits from their permits and ultimately greenhouse gas emissions increased.
McCain also would initially allow businesses to meet all their emission targets either directly or by buying a kind of credit, called an offset, generated by, say, a landowner who can prove fields or trees are sopping up a certain tonnage of carbon dioxide or a business that can prove an investment avoided emissions that would otherwise have happened. His Web site says the fraction of emission reductions allowed through offsets “would decline over time,” but offers no specifics. Calls and e-mail messages to the McCain campaign were not answered.
Environmentalists tend to prefer Obama’s approach, which many analysts say has less wiggle room and, in theory, sends a stronger message to companies that rely on fossil fuels to seek nonpolluting sources or reduce energy use.
Several representatives of industries said that, if forced, they would prefer the less aggressive targets and looser terms of McCain’s plan, but some appear to think they will not need to choose for a long while in any case, given the state of the global economy.
“Most industries are sort of keeping their powder dry at this point,” said Scott H. Segal, a lawyer and lobbyist at Bracewell & Giuliani who represents energy companies.
Without more details, it is not possible to estimate the costs of either candidate’s cap-and-trade plan, but economists generally agree that McCain’s would be less costly because of the offsets, but such offsets may also delay real decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite McCain’s early focus on climate change and the need for legislation, some environmental groups have sharply chided him lately, pointing to campaign statements seemingly softening his stance on firm caps on heat-trapping gases.
The League of Conservation Voters gave him the lowest possible score for his voting record in 2007 on subsidies or spending for renewable energy. Environmental bloggers derided his choice of running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has questioned whether global warming is caused by human activity and who elicits chants of “drill, baby, drill” on the stump for her support of oil drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
McCain and Obama also support ocean drilling but both oppose drilling in the Arctic refuge. McCain “has provided ample evidence in the last year or so that he is not serious about clean energy and he has increasingly walked away from the climate issue,” said Joseph Romm, a physicist who writes the ClimateProgress.org blog and is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit research group generally aligned with Democrats.
Obama, after taking heat from some environmentalists for championing coal use as an Illinois state senator, has been hailed by environmental groups for sticking with a mandatory cap on emissions with steadily rising costs for permits bought by polluters.
Still, his advisers lately have emphasized that he might have to compromise to get bipartisan support for a climate bill, something he has said he wants. Strident opponents of climate legislation, echoing the views of industry figures, do not appear worried that a bill will come together any time soon, no matter who is in the White House.
“I believe the current financial difficulties will only reinforce the public’s concerns about any climate bill that attempts to increase the costs of energy and jeopardizes jobs in the near term,” said Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.
Van Jones, an environmental activist from Oakland, California, and the author of “The Green Collar Economy,” has criticized McCain as the vanguard of a new movement with an environmental veneer, but bad intentions.
“The climate deniers got chased out of town, but in their place you’ve got the rise of the Dirty Greens,” he said in a recent interview. These are “people saying ‘I’m for solar, wind, geothermal, but I’m also for tar sands, coastal drilling’.”
Over all, the hurdles facing legislation restricting gases released by burning coal and oil, which still underpin the economy, remain so daunting that many experts who favor capping emissions appear to be focusing on actions a president could take with a pen stroke.Continued...
Monday, November 10, 2008
Candidates Agree On Need To Address Global Warming
Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama part company on many issues, but they agree that the Bush administration’s policies on global warming were far too weak.
Both candidates say that human-caused climate change is real and urgent, and that they would sharply divert from President Bush’s course by proposing legislation requiring sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century.
Such rare agreement has both industry and environmental groups expecting a big shift, no matter who is elected, on three fronts where the United States has been largely static for eight years: climate legislation, expansion of nonpolluting energy sources and leadership in global talks on fashioning a new climate treaty.
Quick progress could be held hostage to the financial crisis and the prospect of a worldwide recession. The economic turmoil could force the next president to delay legislation that imposes major new costs on struggling businesses or raises energy prices for consumers.
McCain has repeatedly pointed to his longtime focus on global warming, including a fact-finding trip with other lawmakers to the thawing Arctic and his co-authorship, in 2003, of the first comprehensive legislation seeking mandatory greenhouse-gas limits.
In recent weeks he has taken heat from some environmental activists for statements on the stump implying that he might not seek mandatory emission cuts. His campaign has not said how the ailing economy would affect his climate agenda.
A high priority is helping revive the nuclear-power industry because nuclear plants produce no greenhouse gases, once built. McCain claims a byproduct of his nuclear push would be the creation of thousands of new jobs.
Obama insists that his energy plan, which is largely framed around measures that could have climate benefits, would remain a top priority even in the face of economic troubles.
Rather than increasing joblessness, he says, his proposals to create federal programs to cut energy waste and to help Detroit retool and retrain to make fuel-sipping hybrids would create jobs. Continued...
Both candidates say that human-caused climate change is real and urgent, and that they would sharply divert from President Bush’s course by proposing legislation requiring sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century.
Such rare agreement has both industry and environmental groups expecting a big shift, no matter who is elected, on three fronts where the United States has been largely static for eight years: climate legislation, expansion of nonpolluting energy sources and leadership in global talks on fashioning a new climate treaty.
Quick progress could be held hostage to the financial crisis and the prospect of a worldwide recession. The economic turmoil could force the next president to delay legislation that imposes major new costs on struggling businesses or raises energy prices for consumers.
McCain has repeatedly pointed to his longtime focus on global warming, including a fact-finding trip with other lawmakers to the thawing Arctic and his co-authorship, in 2003, of the first comprehensive legislation seeking mandatory greenhouse-gas limits.
In recent weeks he has taken heat from some environmental activists for statements on the stump implying that he might not seek mandatory emission cuts. His campaign has not said how the ailing economy would affect his climate agenda.
A high priority is helping revive the nuclear-power industry because nuclear plants produce no greenhouse gases, once built. McCain claims a byproduct of his nuclear push would be the creation of thousands of new jobs.
Obama insists that his energy plan, which is largely framed around measures that could have climate benefits, would remain a top priority even in the face of economic troubles.
Rather than increasing joblessness, he says, his proposals to create federal programs to cut energy waste and to help Detroit retool and retrain to make fuel-sipping hybrids would create jobs. Continued...
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Global warming fills up the Icebox
Continued...All of the work here argues for increased environmental awareness, if not activism, and its artists take surprisingly diverse approaches to that end. They range from Zakai's somber "library" of boxes filled with leaves that she gathers in forests and then categorizes, to Levy's indoor and outdoor installations of glass flasks holding paraffin, olive oil, coconut oil, and other household materials that can be solid or liquid according to fluctuations in temperature (a virtual global-warming warning), to Luciano's homemade piragua (shaved ice with syrup) vending pushcart fitted with a hip-hop soundtrack and tiny monitors showing videos of melting ice caps.
It's well worth sitting down to watch Andrew Chartier's film of himself operating a strange contraption that he assembled from a golf cart, a bicycle wheel, and metal parts (also included in the show) called the Dioxigrapher. In it, Chartier, dressed to suggest a biohazard cleanup worker, wheels his unlikely apparatus into traffic and up to the exhaust pipe of a car stopped at a light, where it appears to be sniffing the car's tailpipe. He then returns to a sidewalk and the Dioxigrapher snaps to life like the Energizer Bunny, manically drawing circles on the sidewalk with colored chalk. You laugh - especially at the thought of what could be going through the minds of other drivers watching this bizarre performance - and you simultaneously vow never to leave your car running unnecessarily again. End.
Source
It's well worth sitting down to watch Andrew Chartier's film of himself operating a strange contraption that he assembled from a golf cart, a bicycle wheel, and metal parts (also included in the show) called the Dioxigrapher. In it, Chartier, dressed to suggest a biohazard cleanup worker, wheels his unlikely apparatus into traffic and up to the exhaust pipe of a car stopped at a light, where it appears to be sniffing the car's tailpipe. He then returns to a sidewalk and the Dioxigrapher snaps to life like the Energizer Bunny, manically drawing circles on the sidewalk with colored chalk. You laugh - especially at the thought of what could be going through the minds of other drivers watching this bizarre performance - and you simultaneously vow never to leave your car running unnecessarily again. End.
Source
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Global warming fills up the Icebox
An exhibition on global warming may not persuade you and your fellow gallery-goers to chuck the old gas-guzzler for a hybrid or the Poland Spring for the faucet, but "Global Warming at the Icebox," presented by Philadelphia Sculptors at the Crane Arts Building's Icebox space, does have an impact. You wander through this sprawling show attracted to the pieces that stand out visually rather than the more obviously messagey ones, and feel confirmed in your opinion that an agent for change should look the role (politicians figured this out a long time ago). This is art, after all.
Five of the show's 15 artists, from different states and countries, were already known for their work in environmental art - Michael Alstad, Stacy Levy, Miguel Luciano, Chicory Miles and Shai Zakai - and were invited to participate by the show's organizers, Cheryl Harper and Leslie Kaufman. An additional 10 artists were selected by Harper and Adelina Vlas from the 84 artists who responded to an open call.Continued...
Five of the show's 15 artists, from different states and countries, were already known for their work in environmental art - Michael Alstad, Stacy Levy, Miguel Luciano, Chicory Miles and Shai Zakai - and were invited to participate by the show's organizers, Cheryl Harper and Leslie Kaufman. An additional 10 artists were selected by Harper and Adelina Vlas from the 84 artists who responded to an open call.Continued...
Friday, November 7, 2008
Climate experts' views differ on global warming trend
Continued...Randy Russell, an assistant professor in the Department of Physical Sciences and Chemistry at AUM, said the Environment America report was not done in a way that allowed one to draw any concrete conclusions.
"When you look at climate, it's an average over 30 years," he said. "You wouldn't necessarily have an indication of change if the average is different in one year."
Russell said scientists look at temperatures around the globe and how they've changed from one series of decades to another.
"What you really need to do would be not to compare an individual year but see how long-term changes occur over time," he said. Then you can see a trend."
The Environment America report also compares government temperature data for the years 2000-2007 with the historical average temperature for the preceding 30 years, 1971-2000.
Russell said 2000-2007 is not an adequate sample size.
Source
"When you look at climate, it's an average over 30 years," he said. "You wouldn't necessarily have an indication of change if the average is different in one year."
Russell said scientists look at temperatures around the globe and how they've changed from one series of decades to another.
"What you really need to do would be not to compare an individual year but see how long-term changes occur over time," he said. Then you can see a trend."
The Environment America report also compares government temperature data for the years 2000-2007 with the historical average temperature for the preceding 30 years, 1971-2000.
Russell said 2000-2007 is not an adequate sample size.
Source
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Climate experts' views differ on global warming trend
Continued...
"Throw out the record books because global warming is raising temperatures in Alabama and across the country," he said. "While one or two degrees may not seem like much, just as any parent with a sick child knows, even a small rise in temperature can have a big effect."
Despines said Environment America started its investigation into recent temperature trends after a NASA report that said seven of the eight warmest years in world history have occurred since 2001.
That's not the only evidence, Despines said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that won a Nobel Prize for its work in the area has concluded that the evidence of global warming is unequivocal and that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are responsible for most of the increase in global average temperatures.
Despines said this shows that the quest for alternative energy sources is one of the most important issues in the upcoming election.
"It's clear that our energy crisis isn't just hurting us at the pump, but it's also causing Alabamians to feel the heat," he said. "The good news is that re-powering America with wind and solar energy will curb global warming and clean, renewable energy is one of the few bright spots in our troubled economy."Continued...
"There are various proofs already that global warming is mankind's silent monster. Even if Dr. Spencer claimed that there is no such things, he has to still prove a lot of things. I for one still believes that we should act now before it's too late."
However, not everyone believes the increase in temperature is proof positive of global warming.
"Throw out the record books because global warming is raising temperatures in Alabama and across the country," he said. "While one or two degrees may not seem like much, just as any parent with a sick child knows, even a small rise in temperature can have a big effect."
Despines said Environment America started its investigation into recent temperature trends after a NASA report that said seven of the eight warmest years in world history have occurred since 2001.
That's not the only evidence, Despines said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that won a Nobel Prize for its work in the area has concluded that the evidence of global warming is unequivocal and that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are responsible for most of the increase in global average temperatures.
Despines said this shows that the quest for alternative energy sources is one of the most important issues in the upcoming election.
"It's clear that our energy crisis isn't just hurting us at the pump, but it's also causing Alabamians to feel the heat," he said. "The good news is that re-powering America with wind and solar energy will curb global warming and clean, renewable energy is one of the few bright spots in our troubled economy."Continued...
"There are various proofs already that global warming is mankind's silent monster. Even if Dr. Spencer claimed that there is no such things, he has to still prove a lot of things. I for one still believes that we should act now before it's too late."
However, not everyone believes the increase in temperature is proof positive of global warming.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Climate experts' views differ on global warming trend
By Darryn Simmons
As autumn progresses and temperatures drop, it's easy to forget about how hot it was the past few summers.
But one group says those scorching Alabama summers are among many signs of global warming, and a report issued this week documents the state's 2007 temperatures as above the national average.
The historical maximum average temperature for the last 30 years of the millennium was 77 degrees while 2007's average maximum rose more than two degrees to 79.2 -- and that's bad, according to Environment America, a state-based, citizen-funded environmental advocacy organization based in Washington.
An Auburn Montgomery physical scientist has his doubts about whether the data indicate any meaningful trend, but Environment America piles on the numbers.
From 1978 to 2000, there were an average of 78 days each year with temperatures of 90 degrees or higher. In 2007, that number soared to 102 days, the report said.
Whether you want to call the phenomenon climate change or global warming, Environment America Campaign Coordinator Michael Despines said the weather is just plain getting hotter. Continued...
As autumn progresses and temperatures drop, it's easy to forget about how hot it was the past few summers.
But one group says those scorching Alabama summers are among many signs of global warming, and a report issued this week documents the state's 2007 temperatures as above the national average.
The historical maximum average temperature for the last 30 years of the millennium was 77 degrees while 2007's average maximum rose more than two degrees to 79.2 -- and that's bad, according to Environment America, a state-based, citizen-funded environmental advocacy organization based in Washington.
An Auburn Montgomery physical scientist has his doubts about whether the data indicate any meaningful trend, but Environment America piles on the numbers.
From 1978 to 2000, there were an average of 78 days each year with temperatures of 90 degrees or higher. In 2007, that number soared to 102 days, the report said.
Whether you want to call the phenomenon climate change or global warming, Environment America Campaign Coordinator Michael Despines said the weather is just plain getting hotter. Continued...
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Buttoning Up saves money, cuts global warming gases
Not only are Vermonters concerned about the effect high energy prices are having on their checkbooks, but they are also increasingly worried about climate change. The good news is that buttoning up your house is a "two-fer."
Some 30 percent of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions come from heating homes and businesses. Burning oil or gas to heat our living spaces releases carbon stored for centuries in the ground into the sky. That carbon adds to the total carbon in the atmosphere, which is now known to cause global warming. In fact, the Governor's Commission on Climate Change in its report last year recommended making a more concerted effort to take steps to advance fuel savings to cut greenhouse gases. The 'Button Up Vermont' workshops are just that kind of initiative.
Some 30 percent of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions come from heating homes and businesses. Burning oil or gas to heat our living spaces releases carbon stored for centuries in the ground into the sky. That carbon adds to the total carbon in the atmosphere, which is now known to cause global warming. In fact, the Governor's Commission on Climate Change in its report last year recommended making a more concerted effort to take steps to advance fuel savings to cut greenhouse gases. The 'Button Up Vermont' workshops are just that kind of initiative.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Johann Hari: Don't kill the planet in the name of saving the economy
Continued...The belief we can't deal with global warming because we need to pursue growth is pulverised by a Stern fact: global warming will smother economic growth. When the British Government commissioned the economist Sir Nicholas Stern to study the economic impact of Weather of Mass Destruction, he found that warming could slash 20 per cent off the global economy in my lifetime – while it costs just 3 per cent of GDP to stop it now. People who won't stop warming for the sake of growth are like a man who won't stop his house burning down because he makes a living toasting marshmallows on the flames.
Yes, we could choose business-as-usual. Then, as the climatologist Professor Marty Hoffert says: "Somebody will visit in a few hundred million years and find there were some intelligent beings who lived here for a while, but just couldn't handle the transition from being hunter-gatherers to high technology." Feeling pessimistic yet? Don't be. There is another way.
This is, perversely, a dazzling time to be alive: every human being who ever lives will deal with the decisions we make here. If we disregard the voices of denial, Europe has a chance to do something extraordinary. We could be the people who saw this threat to our species coming and remade our societies to stop it. The story of Europe's 2020 vision could be heroic, but only if we fight now to save it from the vandals. End.
Source
Continued...The belief we can't deal with global warming because we need to pursue growth is pulverised by a Stern fact: global warming will smother economic growth. When the British Government commissioned the economist Sir Nicholas Stern to study the economic impact of Weather of Mass Destruction, he found that warming could slash 20 per cent off the global economy in my lifetime – while it costs just 3 per cent of GDP to stop it now. People who won't stop warming for the sake of growth are like a man who won't stop his house burning down because he makes a living toasting marshmallows on the flames.
Yes, we could choose business-as-usual. Then, as the climatologist Professor Marty Hoffert says: "Somebody will visit in a few hundred million years and find there were some intelligent beings who lived here for a while, but just couldn't handle the transition from being hunter-gatherers to high technology." Feeling pessimistic yet? Don't be. There is another way.
This is, perversely, a dazzling time to be alive: every human being who ever lives will deal with the decisions we make here. If we disregard the voices of denial, Europe has a chance to do something extraordinary. We could be the people who saw this threat to our species coming and remade our societies to stop it. The story of Europe's 2020 vision could be heroic, but only if we fight now to save it from the vandals. End.
Source
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Johann Hari: Don't kill the planet in the name of saving the economy
Continued...But time is exactly what we don't have. The key to understanding why lies in grasping the difference between a two-degree celcius rise in global temperatures and a three-degree rise. At first glance, neither sounds like a big deal. If you go out for a picnic and the temperature rises by three degrees, you take off your jacket. But if your body heats up one or two degrees, you get sick and take to your bed. If it heats by three degrees and doesn't go back, you die. The ecosystem isn't a picnic; it's more like your body. Small variations in global temperatures have vast consequences. The last Ice Age was only six degrees colder than today. A global rise of just 0.8 degrees has melted the Arctic.
Soon, we will have belched so many warming gases into the atmosphere that a two-degree rise will be locked-in and certain. That condemns Bangladesh and the islands of the South Pacific to drowning. But if we choose, we can stop there, and stabilise the climate at this higher temperature.
But if we go beyond two degrees, the climate begins to unravel, and the brakes won't work. At three degrees, almost all the world's ice is gone, and so it stops reflecting a third of the Sun's ray back into space – making the world hotter. At three degrees, the Amazon rainforest burns down, releasing all its stored carbon – making the world hotter. At three degrees, the Siberian peat-bogs melt and release vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere – making the world hotter. So three degrees turns inexorably to four and five and six. Screw the grandchildren and the polar bears: we're on course to heat by three degrees in my lifetime. I wish the deniers were right: I'd be on the first plane to Honolulu. But we can't live for long in an euphoric dream. Two degrees is the point of no return, and we're about to hit it.
The collision of these two crunches could be a boon. Just as the banking system imploded when it was left unregulated, the current carbon-spewing economy is on course to ecologically implode. The path out of both crunches is the same: concerted state action and re-regulation. To get out of the credit crunch, we need a big package of job creation and economic stimulus. To get out of the climate crunch, we need an army of millions of new workers – and billions in public spending – to insulate every home, construct millions of new renewable energy sources, and work on endless innovations that help us to decarbonise. See any overlap? Europe would get a head-start in green technologies – the great boom-market of the 21st century, if the world sees sense. Continued...
"There is no harm in going green I suppose. Even if it was previously claimed by Dr. Spencer that there is no global warming, I still opt for the reduction of CO2."
Soon, we will have belched so many warming gases into the atmosphere that a two-degree rise will be locked-in and certain. That condemns Bangladesh and the islands of the South Pacific to drowning. But if we choose, we can stop there, and stabilise the climate at this higher temperature.
But if we go beyond two degrees, the climate begins to unravel, and the brakes won't work. At three degrees, almost all the world's ice is gone, and so it stops reflecting a third of the Sun's ray back into space – making the world hotter. At three degrees, the Amazon rainforest burns down, releasing all its stored carbon – making the world hotter. At three degrees, the Siberian peat-bogs melt and release vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere – making the world hotter. So three degrees turns inexorably to four and five and six. Screw the grandchildren and the polar bears: we're on course to heat by three degrees in my lifetime. I wish the deniers were right: I'd be on the first plane to Honolulu. But we can't live for long in an euphoric dream. Two degrees is the point of no return, and we're about to hit it.
The collision of these two crunches could be a boon. Just as the banking system imploded when it was left unregulated, the current carbon-spewing economy is on course to ecologically implode. The path out of both crunches is the same: concerted state action and re-regulation. To get out of the credit crunch, we need a big package of job creation and economic stimulus. To get out of the climate crunch, we need an army of millions of new workers – and billions in public spending – to insulate every home, construct millions of new renewable energy sources, and work on endless innovations that help us to decarbonise. See any overlap? Europe would get a head-start in green technologies – the great boom-market of the 21st century, if the world sees sense. Continued...
"There is no harm in going green I suppose. Even if it was previously claimed by Dr. Spencer that there is no global warming, I still opt for the reduction of CO2."
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Johann Hari: Don't kill the planet in the name of saving the economy
The collision of the credit crunch and the climate crunch could be a boon
We are living through two great meltdowns – the credit crunch, and the climate crunch. The heating of the planet is now happening so fast it's hard to pluck a single event to fix on, but here's one. By the summer of 2013, the Arctic will be free of ice. How big an event it this?
The Wall Street Crash hadn't happened for 80 years. The Arctic Crash hasn't happened for three million years: that's the last time there was watery emptiness at the top of the world. The Arctic is often described as the canary in the coal mine. As one Arctic researcher put it to me this week: the canary is dead. It's time to clear the mine, and run.
We now have higher levels of warming gases in the atmosphere than at any point in modern geological history. The last time they were higher than this was during the ecocene, 50 million years ago. Sea levels were 300 feet higher than today, and crocodiles swam at the poles.
So it seems strange that even here in Europe – the continent that has taken the evidence about global warming most seriously – many of our leaders are trying to use the credit crunch as an excuse to drive us deeper into the climate crunch. Last year, all the EU leaders agreed to carry out the bare minimum scientists say we need to prevent catastrophe. By the year 2020, they agreed to a 20 per cent cut in carbon emissions, a 20 per cent rise in energy efficiency, and to get 20 per cent of our energy from renewables. This meant the EU could stroll into the talks for a successor treaty to Kyoto in the strongest position to pressure the world. The continent that gave the world the Enlightenment and modern science was upholding those values – and offering our species the path out of a dead-end.
Until last week. At the EU summit to bail out the banks, several leaders began to quibble about bailing out the climate. The British Government has been trying to punch holes in it, demanding exemptions for aviation and other accounting tricks. The eastern European bloc – led by Polish PM Donald Tusk – said the deal was "too much" during a recession, but they need a Western European country if they're going to totally break the deal. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi took a break from finger-printing gypsies to say: "We don't think this is the moment to push forward on our own like Don Quixote. We have time."Continued...
We are living through two great meltdowns – the credit crunch, and the climate crunch. The heating of the planet is now happening so fast it's hard to pluck a single event to fix on, but here's one. By the summer of 2013, the Arctic will be free of ice. How big an event it this?
The Wall Street Crash hadn't happened for 80 years. The Arctic Crash hasn't happened for three million years: that's the last time there was watery emptiness at the top of the world. The Arctic is often described as the canary in the coal mine. As one Arctic researcher put it to me this week: the canary is dead. It's time to clear the mine, and run.
We now have higher levels of warming gases in the atmosphere than at any point in modern geological history. The last time they were higher than this was during the ecocene, 50 million years ago. Sea levels were 300 feet higher than today, and crocodiles swam at the poles.
So it seems strange that even here in Europe – the continent that has taken the evidence about global warming most seriously – many of our leaders are trying to use the credit crunch as an excuse to drive us deeper into the climate crunch. Last year, all the EU leaders agreed to carry out the bare minimum scientists say we need to prevent catastrophe. By the year 2020, they agreed to a 20 per cent cut in carbon emissions, a 20 per cent rise in energy efficiency, and to get 20 per cent of our energy from renewables. This meant the EU could stroll into the talks for a successor treaty to Kyoto in the strongest position to pressure the world. The continent that gave the world the Enlightenment and modern science was upholding those values – and offering our species the path out of a dead-end.
Until last week. At the EU summit to bail out the banks, several leaders began to quibble about bailing out the climate. The British Government has been trying to punch holes in it, demanding exemptions for aviation and other accounting tricks. The eastern European bloc – led by Polish PM Donald Tusk – said the deal was "too much" during a recession, but they need a Western European country if they're going to totally break the deal. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi took a break from finger-printing gypsies to say: "We don't think this is the moment to push forward on our own like Don Quixote. We have time."Continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)