Chennai( Aug 29,2008 ): City-based school student Shruti K Neelakantan, who was crowned the British Council’s Indian climate champion on February 14, is heading for the Arctic as part of the Cape Farewell Youth Expedition 2008.
The expedition, a brainchild of British artist David Buckland, is an international project aimed at increasing awareness about climate change. It brings together top scientists and artists from the US and the UK and 28 students from around the globe on a voyage of the Arctic.
From the Arctic, the students "will each complete art and science projects and talk live to their schools, communicating the global impact of climate change to their local communities".
Shruti, a Class XII Commerce Student at the Sri Sankara Senior Secondary School, Chennai, is one of two Indian students to figure in the expedition team, the other being Dhruv Sengar, another Class XII student, from Lucknow.
An “absolute chocoholic with a keen interest in the environment”, Shruti told Sify.com about how she earned her dream ticket.
“It all began with an essay competition on Climate Change, causes and solutions. It was my Geography teacher Ms Meenakshi who convinced me to send in an entry.
"After that I got selected for the interview stage, and then we had to prepare a nine-minute video on global warming. Our team made a presentation based on the toon series Captain Planet. It was on the dangers facing the environment and what we can do to solve them,” she said.
Since her selection, Shruti has been to New Delhi twice and met Dr RK Pachauri, the Chairman of the Nobel-Prize winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
A keen volunteer of the environmental group Exnora International, the commerce student hopes to do her bit towards increasing awareness about climate change among students and “through radio programmes and through CRY (Child Relief and You) cards” once she is back.
But, for now, her focus is fully on the trip to the Arctic.
She leaves for Toronto on August 30, and will undergo an orientation programme there from September 1 to September 7.
On September 7, she is set to board the MV Akademik Shokalskiy, a Russian research vessel, in Reykjavik, Iceland and begin a voyage that will see her skirt the southern tip of Greenland before she disembarks at Iqualuit, Boffin Island, Canada on September 20.
The excitement in her voice is palpable when she talks about what lies ahead: “We will get to see the glaciers melting and get a glimpse of the life in the arctic. It will also be great to interact with other students.”
And what does she hope to bring back at the end of it all?
“Something simple to do, something that will radically increase awareness about climate change and global warming here in India,” Shruti says.
Friday
Obama on Climate Change
DENVER, Colorado, August 29, 2008 (ENS) - Climate change has made Senator Barack Obama's list of "threats of the 21st century" alongside terrorism and nuclear proliferation, poverty, genocide, and disease.
Accepting the Democratic nomination for president Thursday night before 75,000 supporters at Denver's Invesco Field, Obama said he would "build new partnerships" to defeat these threats.
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president - in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East," he declared.
"Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and John McCain has been there for 26 of them," said the senator from Illinois of his Republican opponent.
"In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office."
"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close," said Obama.
"As president," he promised, "I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.
"I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America," he said. "I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars."
"And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced."
Obama has won the support of many environmentalists for his climate and energy plans.
In a scorecard comparing Obama's energy policies with those of his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Sierra Club last week came out clearly in favor of Obama.
"Both candidates are talking about energy, high prices and global warming, so it's important to look past the rhetoric and see what is at the heart of their plans," said Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club political director.
"As this scorecard illustrates, the contrast in this election could not be starker," she said. "Barack Obama wants to give tax relief and $1,000 energy rebates to working families, while John McCain wants billions more in tax breaks for oil companies making more than $1,000 a second in profits."
The League of Conservation Voters said Wednesday that Obama has a "proven record as an environmental champion" and found 10 reasons to support his candidacy.
Speaking tonight in support of the newly selected Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Al Gore described the choice facing American voters as one that will determine the fate of the planet.
He spoke from experience, having run for the presidency in 2000 and won the popular vote only to watch as the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the vote counting in Florida, in effect handing the White House to his opponent, George W. Bush.
"That's why I came here tonight: to tell you why I feel so strongly that we must seize this opportunity to elect Barack Obama president of the United States of America," said Gore.
"Take it from me, if it had ended differently," Gore told the crowd, "we would not be denying the climate crisis; we'd be solving it."
But today, Gore said, "We are facing a planetary emergency, which, if not solved, would exceed anything we've ever experienced in the history of humankind."
"We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization," said Gore. "Every bit of that has to change."
Gore, who shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for doing his utmost to warn the world about global warming, delivered a searing picture of potential climate disaster tonight.
Former Vice President Al Gore addresses fellow Democrats in Denver. August 28, 2008
"Many scientists predict - shockingly - that the entire North Polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months during the first term of the next president," he said.
"Sea levels are rising; fires are raging; storms are stronger. Military experts warn us our national security is threatened by massive waves of climate refugees destabilizing countries around the world, and scientists tell us the very web of life is endangered by unprecedented extinctions," Gore warned.
The former vice president, who served in the Senate with McCain as president pro tem during the Clinton administration and before that as a senator from Tennessee, told the crowd tonight, "In spite of John McCain's past record of open-mindedness and leadership on the climate crisis, he has now apparently allowed his party to browbeat him into abandoning his support of mandatory caps on global warming pollution."
Gore said Obama will be a president who inspires America to believe we can use the sun, the wind, geothermal power, conservation and efficiency to solve the climate crisis.
By contrast, he said "the carbon fuels industry - big oil and coal - have a 50-year lease on the Republican Party, and they are drilling it for everything it's worth."
At the White House today, presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that President Bush believes the Obama nomination shows "that America is the best country on Earth and a place where everybody, if they work hard, can achieve great things."
Accepting the Democratic nomination for president Thursday night before 75,000 supporters at Denver's Invesco Field, Obama said he would "build new partnerships" to defeat these threats.
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president - in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East," he declared.
"Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and John McCain has been there for 26 of them," said the senator from Illinois of his Republican opponent.
"In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office."
"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close," said Obama.
"As president," he promised, "I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.
"I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America," he said. "I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars."
"And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced."
Obama has won the support of many environmentalists for his climate and energy plans.
In a scorecard comparing Obama's energy policies with those of his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Sierra Club last week came out clearly in favor of Obama.
"Both candidates are talking about energy, high prices and global warming, so it's important to look past the rhetoric and see what is at the heart of their plans," said Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club political director.
"As this scorecard illustrates, the contrast in this election could not be starker," she said. "Barack Obama wants to give tax relief and $1,000 energy rebates to working families, while John McCain wants billions more in tax breaks for oil companies making more than $1,000 a second in profits."
The League of Conservation Voters said Wednesday that Obama has a "proven record as an environmental champion" and found 10 reasons to support his candidacy.
Speaking tonight in support of the newly selected Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Al Gore described the choice facing American voters as one that will determine the fate of the planet.
He spoke from experience, having run for the presidency in 2000 and won the popular vote only to watch as the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the vote counting in Florida, in effect handing the White House to his opponent, George W. Bush.
"That's why I came here tonight: to tell you why I feel so strongly that we must seize this opportunity to elect Barack Obama president of the United States of America," said Gore.
"Take it from me, if it had ended differently," Gore told the crowd, "we would not be denying the climate crisis; we'd be solving it."
But today, Gore said, "We are facing a planetary emergency, which, if not solved, would exceed anything we've ever experienced in the history of humankind."
"We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization," said Gore. "Every bit of that has to change."
Gore, who shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for doing his utmost to warn the world about global warming, delivered a searing picture of potential climate disaster tonight.
Former Vice President Al Gore addresses fellow Democrats in Denver. August 28, 2008
"Many scientists predict - shockingly - that the entire North Polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months during the first term of the next president," he said.
"Sea levels are rising; fires are raging; storms are stronger. Military experts warn us our national security is threatened by massive waves of climate refugees destabilizing countries around the world, and scientists tell us the very web of life is endangered by unprecedented extinctions," Gore warned.
The former vice president, who served in the Senate with McCain as president pro tem during the Clinton administration and before that as a senator from Tennessee, told the crowd tonight, "In spite of John McCain's past record of open-mindedness and leadership on the climate crisis, he has now apparently allowed his party to browbeat him into abandoning his support of mandatory caps on global warming pollution."
Gore said Obama will be a president who inspires America to believe we can use the sun, the wind, geothermal power, conservation and efficiency to solve the climate crisis.
By contrast, he said "the carbon fuels industry - big oil and coal - have a 50-year lease on the Republican Party, and they are drilling it for everything it's worth."
At the White House today, presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that President Bush believes the Obama nomination shows "that America is the best country on Earth and a place where everybody, if they work hard, can achieve great things."
New Climate Change Plan : UK
Londoners must use less water and plant more trees to prevent climate change from damaging the quality of life in the capital, the mayor has said.
Boris Johnson said measures were needed to combat the danger of increased flooding, droughts and heatwaves.
They included more water metering, more green spaces to "cool" the city and steps to reduce leaks from water mains.
Green Party London Assembly member Jenny Jones said the measures contained "nothing new" and were "inadequate".
Climate change could "seriously threaten our quality of life - particularly that of the most vulnerable people", Mr Johnson said.
Some 1.25 million people are at risk of flooding, along with almost half a million properties, 441 schools, 75 London Underground and DLR stations and 10 hospitals, the mayor said.
The Thames region has lower water availability per person than Morocco yet Londoners consume on average 18 litres per day more than the national average, the mayor said.
Meanwhile 600 million litres of water per day are lost through leaks, he added.
The August 2003 heatwave killed at least 600 people in the city, according to the mayor.
"We need to concentrate efforts to slash carbon emissions and become more energy efficient in order to prevent dangerous climate change," Mr Johnson said.
"But we also need to prepare for how our climate is expected to change in the future."
Oil dependence
The mayor also pledged to reduce leakage from water mains, adapt buildings to minimise the need for cooling facilities and improve flood risk management.
Ms Jones said all those suggestions would help combat climate change but said they could have been announced "at any time over the past 10 years".
"These are all good measures, we have got to do all these things," she said.
"But where are the big new ideas? We need the mayor to find ways to reduce our dependence on oil, for example."
She added: "If the mayor ignores the contribution transport makes to climate change, he is ignoring a major part of the problem."
Boris Johnson said measures were needed to combat the danger of increased flooding, droughts and heatwaves.
They included more water metering, more green spaces to "cool" the city and steps to reduce leaks from water mains.
Green Party London Assembly member Jenny Jones said the measures contained "nothing new" and were "inadequate".
Climate change could "seriously threaten our quality of life - particularly that of the most vulnerable people", Mr Johnson said.
Some 1.25 million people are at risk of flooding, along with almost half a million properties, 441 schools, 75 London Underground and DLR stations and 10 hospitals, the mayor said.
The Thames region has lower water availability per person than Morocco yet Londoners consume on average 18 litres per day more than the national average, the mayor said.
Meanwhile 600 million litres of water per day are lost through leaks, he added.
The August 2003 heatwave killed at least 600 people in the city, according to the mayor.
"We need to concentrate efforts to slash carbon emissions and become more energy efficient in order to prevent dangerous climate change," Mr Johnson said.
"But we also need to prepare for how our climate is expected to change in the future."
Oil dependence
The mayor also pledged to reduce leakage from water mains, adapt buildings to minimise the need for cooling facilities and improve flood risk management.
Ms Jones said all those suggestions would help combat climate change but said they could have been announced "at any time over the past 10 years".
"These are all good measures, we have got to do all these things," she said.
"But where are the big new ideas? We need the mayor to find ways to reduce our dependence on oil, for example."
She added: "If the mayor ignores the contribution transport makes to climate change, he is ignoring a major part of the problem."
Thursday
What’s driving global warming?
Ask most Americans what causes global warming, and they’ll point to a coal-plant smokestack or a car’s tailpipe. They’re right, of course, but perhaps two other images should be granted similarly iconic status: the front and rear ends of a cow. According to a little-known 2006 United Nations report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” livestock is a major player in climate change, accounting for 18 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions (measured in carbon-dioxide equivalents). That’s more than the global transportation system. Unfortunately, this incredibly important revelation has received only limited attention in the media.
How could methane from cows, goats, sheep and other livestock have such a huge impact? As Chris Goodall points out in his book How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, “Ruminant animals [chewing a cud], such as cows and sheep, produce methane as a result of the digestive process … Dairy cows are particularly important sources of methane because of the volume of food, both grass and processed material, that they eat.”
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American meat industry produces more than 1.4 billion tons of waste annually—that’s 5 tons for every U.S. citizen and 130 times the volume of human waste. Michael Jacobson, the longtime executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, adds the fact that just one midsize feedlot churns out half a million pounds of manure each day. “The methane that cattle and their manure produce has a global warming effect equal to that of 33 million automobiles,” the Center reports in its book Six Arguments for a Greener Diet.
That’s just one side effect of raising animals for food. It turns out that nearly every aspect of the huge international meat trade has an environmental or health consequence, with global warming at the top of the list. If you never thought that eating meat was an environmental (and by extension, political) issue, now is the time to rethink that position.
Big meat
To understand livestock’s impact on the planet, you have to consider the size of the industry. It is the single largest human-related use of land. Grazing occupies an incredible 26 percent of the ice- and water-free surface of the planet Earth. The area devoted to growing crops to feed those animals amounts to 33 percent of arable land. Meat production is a major factor in deforestation as well, and grazing now occupies 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon region. In Brazil, 60 to 70 percent of rainforest destruction is caused by clearing for animal pasture, one reason why livestock accounts for 9 percent of human-caused carbon-dioxide emissions. Other sources of CO2 include the burning of diesel fuel to operate farm machinery and the fossil fuels used to keep barns warm during the winter.
And food grown for animals could be feeding people. Raising livestock consumes 90 percent of the soy crop in the United States, 80 percent of its corn and 70 percent of its grain. David Pimentel, professor of entomology at Cornell University, points out that “if all the grain currently fed to livestock in the U.S. was consumed directly by people, the number who could be fed is nearly 800 million.”
Grazing is itself environmentally destructive. The United Nations reports that 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands have been at least somewhat degraded through overgrazing, soil compaction and erosion.
Methane (a global-warming gas 23 times more potent than CO2) comes from many human sources, but livestock account for an incredible 37 percent of that total worldwide. Nitrous oxide is also a very powerful global-warming gas (296 times more potent than CO2), and by far the biggest source, 64 percent, originates (as does animal-based methane) from manure “off-gassing.” This process of nitrous creation is aggravated by intensive factory-farming methods, because manure is a more dangerous emitter when it is concentrated and stored in compacted form.
In California, the greenhouse-gas emissions from livestock account for the equivalent of 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s only about 3 percent of our global-warming pollution, since California is a highly developed state, with far more cars on the road than cows in the field. But cattle are our single highest source of those potent methane and nitrous-oxide emissions in California—which is why state regulators and energy companies are looking for ways to capture and use those gases before they get into the air. More on that in a bit.
The environmental consequences of meat-based diets extend far beyond their impact on climate change. According to the U.N. report, producing the worldwide meat supply also consumes a large share of natural resources and contributes to a variety of pressing problems. Livestock production consumes 8 percent of the world’s water (mainly to irrigate animal feed), causes 55 percent of land erosion and sediment, uses 37 percent of all pesticides, directly or indirectly results in 50 percent of all antibiotic use and dumps a third of all nitrogen and phosphorous into our freshwater supplies.
A study released last April by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production called the human health and environmental risks associated with the meat industry “unacceptable.” One of their major recommendations was to “implement a new system to deal with farm waste to replace the inflexible and broken system that exists today, to protect Americans from the adverse environmental and human health hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste.”
And livestock are forcing other animals out. With species loss accelerating in a virtual “sixth extinction,” livestock currently account for 20 percent of all the animal biomass in the world. As they occupy 30 percent of the planet, they also displace that much wildlife habitat. The grazing of livestock is considered a serious threat to 306 of the 825 “ecoregions” identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and to 23 of Conservation International’s 35 global hot spots for biodiversity.
Meat production has become a major problem because of its very success as a human food. In 1950, world meat production was 44 million tons annually; today, it has risen fivefold to 253 million tons per year. Pork production, for instance, was less than 5 million tons annually in 1950, but it’s more than 90 million tons today. The average person ate 90.3 pounds of meat in 2003, double the figure of 50 years ago.
These sharp increases are partly the result of dramatically higher meat consumption in the Third World. China alone now consumes half the world’s pork, a fivefold increase since 1978.
Brazil makes an excellent case history. With 160 million head of cattle, it has the second largest herd in the world after India. In Brazil, cattle provide 29 percent of the country’s methane production, and an amazing 10 percent of the world total. If that were the only issue, Brazil’s large cattle herd would be a major problem. But it would be an enormous global-warming aggravator even if its cattle produced no methane, because Brazilian farmers burn rainforest land to create pastures.This process releases carbon into the atmosphere from the heavy fires and also destroys the rainforests’ ability to act as a carbon sink and capture CO2. These fires are Brazil’s largest contribution to global warming, which worries Brazilian environmentalists such as Rubens Born of the group Vitae Civilis. He says he’s waiting for Brazil’s national inventory of greenhouse-gas emissions, which will allow him to see more precisely the scope of the problem.
The few commentators who have taken on the connection between meat consumption and global warming often ignore the most obvious solution: not eating meat.
The U.N. report offers a lengthy section entitled “Mitigation Options,” with a range of other choices. To avoid cutting down rainforests that sequester carbon, the report suggests “intensification of agricultural production on some of the better lands, for example by increased fertilizer benefits.” The logical conclusion to this suggestion is the total confinement of factory-farming methods used in the United States—which, by twisted logic, could be said to have environmental benefits because they are not land-intensive (and don’t cut down trees). But the environmental problems associated with factory farming are legion, and include polluted air and waterways.
Other U.N. suggestions include conservation tillage (leaving agricultural residue on the soil surface to enrich its health) and organic farming for better soil health, improved grassland management, better nutrition for livestock to reduce methane-gas production and capturing methane in anaerobic digesters to produce “biogas.”
The latter method has been adopted by several Vermont dairy farms and works well. Cow manure is stored in huge tanks at 100 degrees Fahrenheit and deprived of oxygen. That encourages the bacteria to break the manure down, releasing biogas that is 90 percent methane. This fuel is captured and burned in an engine to generate electricity. (After all, methane is the same “natural gas” many of us use to heat our homes, generate electricity and cook our food.)
Unfortunately, the equipment is expensive—$200,000 to $1 million, depending on the size of the farm. Few farms have adopted the technology, so only a tiny amount of methane production has been mitigated in this way.
Here in Northern California, SMUD is spending more than $1 million to help outfit two dairy farms with the digester technology. There, planners estimate the projects will take the equivalent of 10,000 to 15,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. That’s just a small slice of California’s overall carbon foot-print, but it’s a start.
A Canadian study by Karin Wittenberg and Dinah Boadi of the University of Manitoba lists 20 separate ways to reduce greenhouse-gas production from livestock. These include grinding and pelletizing food for confined animals to make it more fully digestible (a 20 to 40 percent reduction), grazing steers on high-quality alfalfa grass pastures (50 percent reduction), adding canola oil to feedlot rations (30 percent reduction) and separating animals by age group and phasing in food related to their growth stages (50 percent reduction). But absent legislation, these solutions are unlikely to be put in place.
It takes 7 pounds of corn to add a pound of weight to a cow, and that’s why 200 million acres of land in the United States are devoted to raising grains, oilseeds, pasture and hay for livestock. That land requires 181 billion pounds of pesticides, 22 billion pounds of fertilizer and 17 trillion gallons of irrigation water (not to mention billions of gallons of global-warming-aggravating fossil fuel for farm equipment).
Another way of looking at this, supplied by M.E. Ensminger, the former chairman of the animal sciences department at Washington State University, is that “2,000 pounds of grain must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain eaten directly will support a person for a year.”
Because vegetarians enjoy lower levels of blood cholesterol and suffer less frequently from obesity and hypertension, their life expectancies are several years greater. But the benefits of the vegetarian option are rarely on the agenda, even when the environmental effects of the meat industry are under discussion.
Big changes
Most people grow up eating meat and seeing others doing the same. The message that “meat is good and necessary for health” is routinely reinforced through advertising and the cultural signals we’re sent at school, work and church. Vegetarianism is regularly depicted as a fringe choice for “health faddists.” The government reinforces this message with meat featured prominently in its food pyramids.
Jim Mason, co-author of the book The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, offers another possible reason we’ve kept vegetarianism off the mainstream agenda. “People who eat meat and animal products are in denial about anything and everything having to do with animal farming,” he says. “They know that it must be bad, but they don’t want to look at any part of it. So all of it stays hidden and abuses flourish—whether of animals, workers or the environment.”
Even such an enlightened source as the 2005 Worldwatch report “Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry” is careful not to advocate for a vegetarian diet, including it in a range of options that also includes eating less meat, switching to pasture-raised “humane” meat and opting for a few nonmeat entrees per week. Vegetarianism is the “elephant in the room,” but even in a very food-conscious age, it is not easily made the centerpiece of an activist agenda.
Danielle Nierenberg, author of the Worldwatch study, works for both that organization and for The Humane Society of the United States. She’s a vegan and very aware of the climate impacts of meat-based diets. But, she says, “Food choices are a very personal decision for most people, and we are only now convincing them that this is a tool at their disposal if they care about the environment.”
Nierenberg says that some of the Worldwatch report was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, and there was concern that it wouldn’t see print if it overemphasized vegetarian diets. “People have a very visceral reaction when told they shouldn’t be eating the core meats they grew up with,” she says. “They get upset.”
Pimentel agrees that Americans are acculturated to eating meat. “The nutritionists say we’re eating way too much meat for our health,” he says. “The public knows this, but it doesn’t change their dietary habits. What will alter their behavior is higher prices for meat and milk, which are inevitable because of higher fuel prices and the rising cost of corn [caused in part by the diversion of corn crops to making ethanol].”
Although he admits it’s an unpopular position, Pimentel says he’d like to see gas reach $10 a gallon, because it will encourage energy conservation and increase prices for environmentally destructive meat, milk and eggs. “Right now, we have some of the lowest food prices in the world,” he says. “In the U.S., we pay 15 percent of our budgets for food, compared to 30 percent in Europe and 60 percent in Indonesia.”
Jacobson agrees. “People are pretty wedded to what they eat,” he says. “The government should be sponsoring major mass-media campaigns to convince people to eat more fruit, vegetables and whole grains.” He argues that cutting down meat consumption should be a public-health priority. “From an environmental point of view, the less beef people eat, the better,” he says, citing not only the release of methane from livestock but also increased risk of colon cancer and heart disease. Jacobson adds that grass-fed, free-range beef (which has less overall fat) is a healthier alternative, but grazing takes longer to bring the animals to market weight, “and they’re emitting methane all that time.”
He posits that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Environmental Protection Agency should be convincing Americans to eat lower on the food chain. “There are the environmental and animal-welfare problems caused by ‘modern’ agriculture,” he says. “The animals’ retribution is that we die of heart disease and cancer.”
Is there an environmental argument to be made for livestock? Gidon Eshel, co-author of the report “Diet, Energy and Global Warming” and a professor at Bard College, says that livestock “has an important role to play in nutrient recycling. Minerals are taken up by growing plants, and when those plants are eaten by grazers, some of it ends up in their tissues and some is returned to the soil in their waste products. But what’s good in small quantities becomes toxic and devastating in large amounts. So it is only beneficial if we were raising livestock in much smaller numbers than we are today.”
Eshel calls for enforcement of the frequently ignored federal Clean Water and Clean Air acts, which contain provisions to protect against harmful discharges of both animal wastes and the fertilizers used to grow animal feed.
A record 284 million tons of meat were produced worldwide in 2007. In most developing countries, meat consumption per capita is expected to double from the 1980s to 2020. Meat is an economically important product in most parts of the world in 2008, and it has powerful lobbies and enormous vested interests. There’s just one problem: It’s hurting the planet and wasting huge resources that could easily feed a hungry world.
Offer these facts to many meat eaters, and they’ll respond that they can’t be healthy without meat. “Where would I get my protein?” is a common answer. But the latest medical research shows that the human body does not need meat to be healthy. Indeed, meat is high in cholesterol and saturated fat, and a balanced vegetarian diet provides all the protein needed for glowing health. Were humans “meant” to eat meat, just because our ancestors did? Nonsense, says Dr. Milton Mills, a leading vegetarian voice. “The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications consistent with an herbivorous diet,” he asserts.
With the recognition of meat’s impact on the planet (and the realization that we don’t need it to stay healthy), is it possible that the human diet will undergo a fundamental change? The fact that the cornerstone of the American diet aids and abets climate change is an “inconvenient truth” that many of us don’t want to face, says Joseph Connelly, publisher of the San Francisco-based VegNews magazine. He takes a dig at Al Gore for not mentioning meat-based diets in his film and only dealing with them glancingly in his book An Inconvenient Truth.
A 2003 Harris Poll said that between 4 and 10 percent of the American people identify themselves as vegetarians. So far, Connelly says that number seems to be holding steady. “From a sustainability point of view, what’s really needed is for people to understand the connections between factory farming, meat eating and environmental impacts,” he says. “That’s the first step.”
Lisa Mickleborough, an editor at VegNews, is probably right when she says that animal concerns are a powerful force for turning meat eating into a moral issue. To be an animal-rights leader is almost by definition to be a vegan. But few environmental leaders have gone that far. “As an environmental issue, it’s pretty compelling,” she says. “The figures on methane production speak for themselves. But when it comes to doing what’s right for the environment, most people don’t take big steps—they just do the best they can.”
How could methane from cows, goats, sheep and other livestock have such a huge impact? As Chris Goodall points out in his book How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, “Ruminant animals [chewing a cud], such as cows and sheep, produce methane as a result of the digestive process … Dairy cows are particularly important sources of methane because of the volume of food, both grass and processed material, that they eat.”
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American meat industry produces more than 1.4 billion tons of waste annually—that’s 5 tons for every U.S. citizen and 130 times the volume of human waste. Michael Jacobson, the longtime executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, adds the fact that just one midsize feedlot churns out half a million pounds of manure each day. “The methane that cattle and their manure produce has a global warming effect equal to that of 33 million automobiles,” the Center reports in its book Six Arguments for a Greener Diet.
That’s just one side effect of raising animals for food. It turns out that nearly every aspect of the huge international meat trade has an environmental or health consequence, with global warming at the top of the list. If you never thought that eating meat was an environmental (and by extension, political) issue, now is the time to rethink that position.
Big meat
To understand livestock’s impact on the planet, you have to consider the size of the industry. It is the single largest human-related use of land. Grazing occupies an incredible 26 percent of the ice- and water-free surface of the planet Earth. The area devoted to growing crops to feed those animals amounts to 33 percent of arable land. Meat production is a major factor in deforestation as well, and grazing now occupies 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon region. In Brazil, 60 to 70 percent of rainforest destruction is caused by clearing for animal pasture, one reason why livestock accounts for 9 percent of human-caused carbon-dioxide emissions. Other sources of CO2 include the burning of diesel fuel to operate farm machinery and the fossil fuels used to keep barns warm during the winter.
And food grown for animals could be feeding people. Raising livestock consumes 90 percent of the soy crop in the United States, 80 percent of its corn and 70 percent of its grain. David Pimentel, professor of entomology at Cornell University, points out that “if all the grain currently fed to livestock in the U.S. was consumed directly by people, the number who could be fed is nearly 800 million.”
Grazing is itself environmentally destructive. The United Nations reports that 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands have been at least somewhat degraded through overgrazing, soil compaction and erosion.
Methane (a global-warming gas 23 times more potent than CO2) comes from many human sources, but livestock account for an incredible 37 percent of that total worldwide. Nitrous oxide is also a very powerful global-warming gas (296 times more potent than CO2), and by far the biggest source, 64 percent, originates (as does animal-based methane) from manure “off-gassing.” This process of nitrous creation is aggravated by intensive factory-farming methods, because manure is a more dangerous emitter when it is concentrated and stored in compacted form.
In California, the greenhouse-gas emissions from livestock account for the equivalent of 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s only about 3 percent of our global-warming pollution, since California is a highly developed state, with far more cars on the road than cows in the field. But cattle are our single highest source of those potent methane and nitrous-oxide emissions in California—which is why state regulators and energy companies are looking for ways to capture and use those gases before they get into the air. More on that in a bit.
The environmental consequences of meat-based diets extend far beyond their impact on climate change. According to the U.N. report, producing the worldwide meat supply also consumes a large share of natural resources and contributes to a variety of pressing problems. Livestock production consumes 8 percent of the world’s water (mainly to irrigate animal feed), causes 55 percent of land erosion and sediment, uses 37 percent of all pesticides, directly or indirectly results in 50 percent of all antibiotic use and dumps a third of all nitrogen and phosphorous into our freshwater supplies.
A study released last April by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production called the human health and environmental risks associated with the meat industry “unacceptable.” One of their major recommendations was to “implement a new system to deal with farm waste to replace the inflexible and broken system that exists today, to protect Americans from the adverse environmental and human health hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste.”
And livestock are forcing other animals out. With species loss accelerating in a virtual “sixth extinction,” livestock currently account for 20 percent of all the animal biomass in the world. As they occupy 30 percent of the planet, they also displace that much wildlife habitat. The grazing of livestock is considered a serious threat to 306 of the 825 “ecoregions” identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and to 23 of Conservation International’s 35 global hot spots for biodiversity.
Meat production has become a major problem because of its very success as a human food. In 1950, world meat production was 44 million tons annually; today, it has risen fivefold to 253 million tons per year. Pork production, for instance, was less than 5 million tons annually in 1950, but it’s more than 90 million tons today. The average person ate 90.3 pounds of meat in 2003, double the figure of 50 years ago.
These sharp increases are partly the result of dramatically higher meat consumption in the Third World. China alone now consumes half the world’s pork, a fivefold increase since 1978.
Brazil makes an excellent case history. With 160 million head of cattle, it has the second largest herd in the world after India. In Brazil, cattle provide 29 percent of the country’s methane production, and an amazing 10 percent of the world total. If that were the only issue, Brazil’s large cattle herd would be a major problem. But it would be an enormous global-warming aggravator even if its cattle produced no methane, because Brazilian farmers burn rainforest land to create pastures.This process releases carbon into the atmosphere from the heavy fires and also destroys the rainforests’ ability to act as a carbon sink and capture CO2. These fires are Brazil’s largest contribution to global warming, which worries Brazilian environmentalists such as Rubens Born of the group Vitae Civilis. He says he’s waiting for Brazil’s national inventory of greenhouse-gas emissions, which will allow him to see more precisely the scope of the problem.
The few commentators who have taken on the connection between meat consumption and global warming often ignore the most obvious solution: not eating meat.
The U.N. report offers a lengthy section entitled “Mitigation Options,” with a range of other choices. To avoid cutting down rainforests that sequester carbon, the report suggests “intensification of agricultural production on some of the better lands, for example by increased fertilizer benefits.” The logical conclusion to this suggestion is the total confinement of factory-farming methods used in the United States—which, by twisted logic, could be said to have environmental benefits because they are not land-intensive (and don’t cut down trees). But the environmental problems associated with factory farming are legion, and include polluted air and waterways.
Other U.N. suggestions include conservation tillage (leaving agricultural residue on the soil surface to enrich its health) and organic farming for better soil health, improved grassland management, better nutrition for livestock to reduce methane-gas production and capturing methane in anaerobic digesters to produce “biogas.”
The latter method has been adopted by several Vermont dairy farms and works well. Cow manure is stored in huge tanks at 100 degrees Fahrenheit and deprived of oxygen. That encourages the bacteria to break the manure down, releasing biogas that is 90 percent methane. This fuel is captured and burned in an engine to generate electricity. (After all, methane is the same “natural gas” many of us use to heat our homes, generate electricity and cook our food.)
Unfortunately, the equipment is expensive—$200,000 to $1 million, depending on the size of the farm. Few farms have adopted the technology, so only a tiny amount of methane production has been mitigated in this way.
Here in Northern California, SMUD is spending more than $1 million to help outfit two dairy farms with the digester technology. There, planners estimate the projects will take the equivalent of 10,000 to 15,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. That’s just a small slice of California’s overall carbon foot-print, but it’s a start.
A Canadian study by Karin Wittenberg and Dinah Boadi of the University of Manitoba lists 20 separate ways to reduce greenhouse-gas production from livestock. These include grinding and pelletizing food for confined animals to make it more fully digestible (a 20 to 40 percent reduction), grazing steers on high-quality alfalfa grass pastures (50 percent reduction), adding canola oil to feedlot rations (30 percent reduction) and separating animals by age group and phasing in food related to their growth stages (50 percent reduction). But absent legislation, these solutions are unlikely to be put in place.
It takes 7 pounds of corn to add a pound of weight to a cow, and that’s why 200 million acres of land in the United States are devoted to raising grains, oilseeds, pasture and hay for livestock. That land requires 181 billion pounds of pesticides, 22 billion pounds of fertilizer and 17 trillion gallons of irrigation water (not to mention billions of gallons of global-warming-aggravating fossil fuel for farm equipment).
Another way of looking at this, supplied by M.E. Ensminger, the former chairman of the animal sciences department at Washington State University, is that “2,000 pounds of grain must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain eaten directly will support a person for a year.”
Because vegetarians enjoy lower levels of blood cholesterol and suffer less frequently from obesity and hypertension, their life expectancies are several years greater. But the benefits of the vegetarian option are rarely on the agenda, even when the environmental effects of the meat industry are under discussion.
Big changes
Most people grow up eating meat and seeing others doing the same. The message that “meat is good and necessary for health” is routinely reinforced through advertising and the cultural signals we’re sent at school, work and church. Vegetarianism is regularly depicted as a fringe choice for “health faddists.” The government reinforces this message with meat featured prominently in its food pyramids.
Jim Mason, co-author of the book The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, offers another possible reason we’ve kept vegetarianism off the mainstream agenda. “People who eat meat and animal products are in denial about anything and everything having to do with animal farming,” he says. “They know that it must be bad, but they don’t want to look at any part of it. So all of it stays hidden and abuses flourish—whether of animals, workers or the environment.”
Even such an enlightened source as the 2005 Worldwatch report “Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry” is careful not to advocate for a vegetarian diet, including it in a range of options that also includes eating less meat, switching to pasture-raised “humane” meat and opting for a few nonmeat entrees per week. Vegetarianism is the “elephant in the room,” but even in a very food-conscious age, it is not easily made the centerpiece of an activist agenda.
Danielle Nierenberg, author of the Worldwatch study, works for both that organization and for The Humane Society of the United States. She’s a vegan and very aware of the climate impacts of meat-based diets. But, she says, “Food choices are a very personal decision for most people, and we are only now convincing them that this is a tool at their disposal if they care about the environment.”
Nierenberg says that some of the Worldwatch report was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, and there was concern that it wouldn’t see print if it overemphasized vegetarian diets. “People have a very visceral reaction when told they shouldn’t be eating the core meats they grew up with,” she says. “They get upset.”
Pimentel agrees that Americans are acculturated to eating meat. “The nutritionists say we’re eating way too much meat for our health,” he says. “The public knows this, but it doesn’t change their dietary habits. What will alter their behavior is higher prices for meat and milk, which are inevitable because of higher fuel prices and the rising cost of corn [caused in part by the diversion of corn crops to making ethanol].”
Although he admits it’s an unpopular position, Pimentel says he’d like to see gas reach $10 a gallon, because it will encourage energy conservation and increase prices for environmentally destructive meat, milk and eggs. “Right now, we have some of the lowest food prices in the world,” he says. “In the U.S., we pay 15 percent of our budgets for food, compared to 30 percent in Europe and 60 percent in Indonesia.”
Jacobson agrees. “People are pretty wedded to what they eat,” he says. “The government should be sponsoring major mass-media campaigns to convince people to eat more fruit, vegetables and whole grains.” He argues that cutting down meat consumption should be a public-health priority. “From an environmental point of view, the less beef people eat, the better,” he says, citing not only the release of methane from livestock but also increased risk of colon cancer and heart disease. Jacobson adds that grass-fed, free-range beef (which has less overall fat) is a healthier alternative, but grazing takes longer to bring the animals to market weight, “and they’re emitting methane all that time.”
He posits that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Environmental Protection Agency should be convincing Americans to eat lower on the food chain. “There are the environmental and animal-welfare problems caused by ‘modern’ agriculture,” he says. “The animals’ retribution is that we die of heart disease and cancer.”
Is there an environmental argument to be made for livestock? Gidon Eshel, co-author of the report “Diet, Energy and Global Warming” and a professor at Bard College, says that livestock “has an important role to play in nutrient recycling. Minerals are taken up by growing plants, and when those plants are eaten by grazers, some of it ends up in their tissues and some is returned to the soil in their waste products. But what’s good in small quantities becomes toxic and devastating in large amounts. So it is only beneficial if we were raising livestock in much smaller numbers than we are today.”
Eshel calls for enforcement of the frequently ignored federal Clean Water and Clean Air acts, which contain provisions to protect against harmful discharges of both animal wastes and the fertilizers used to grow animal feed.
A record 284 million tons of meat were produced worldwide in 2007. In most developing countries, meat consumption per capita is expected to double from the 1980s to 2020. Meat is an economically important product in most parts of the world in 2008, and it has powerful lobbies and enormous vested interests. There’s just one problem: It’s hurting the planet and wasting huge resources that could easily feed a hungry world.
Offer these facts to many meat eaters, and they’ll respond that they can’t be healthy without meat. “Where would I get my protein?” is a common answer. But the latest medical research shows that the human body does not need meat to be healthy. Indeed, meat is high in cholesterol and saturated fat, and a balanced vegetarian diet provides all the protein needed for glowing health. Were humans “meant” to eat meat, just because our ancestors did? Nonsense, says Dr. Milton Mills, a leading vegetarian voice. “The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications consistent with an herbivorous diet,” he asserts.
With the recognition of meat’s impact on the planet (and the realization that we don’t need it to stay healthy), is it possible that the human diet will undergo a fundamental change? The fact that the cornerstone of the American diet aids and abets climate change is an “inconvenient truth” that many of us don’t want to face, says Joseph Connelly, publisher of the San Francisco-based VegNews magazine. He takes a dig at Al Gore for not mentioning meat-based diets in his film and only dealing with them glancingly in his book An Inconvenient Truth.
A 2003 Harris Poll said that between 4 and 10 percent of the American people identify themselves as vegetarians. So far, Connelly says that number seems to be holding steady. “From a sustainability point of view, what’s really needed is for people to understand the connections between factory farming, meat eating and environmental impacts,” he says. “That’s the first step.”
Lisa Mickleborough, an editor at VegNews, is probably right when she says that animal concerns are a powerful force for turning meat eating into a moral issue. To be an animal-rights leader is almost by definition to be a vegan. But few environmental leaders have gone that far. “As an environmental issue, it’s pretty compelling,” she says. “The figures on methane production speak for themselves. But when it comes to doing what’s right for the environment, most people don’t take big steps—they just do the best they can.”
Greenhouse gas rise in state double that of U.S.
Virginia's governor-appointed Commission on Climate Change predicted Wednesday that greenhouse-gas emissions would increase 31 percent by 2025 if the state stayed on a "business-as-usual" track.
In a draft report summarizing all the ground that the commission has covered since its creation this year, the group said the man-made link to greenhouse-gas increases was "unequivocal." The commission also pointed out that as the state's population grew — and more cars hit the roads and more homes and businesses needed electricity — Virginia's greenhouse-gas emissions had increased at a rate nearly double that of the rest of the U.S.
That trend and the projected continued increase set the stage for the Gov. Timothy M. Kaine-created commission's ultimate goal: reducing greenhouse gases 30 percent by 2025, even as population and electricity use and vehicle miles traveled keep going up. The commission is chaired by Secretary of Natural Resources Preston Bryant.
As many other state leaders have done, Kaine created the commission partly in response to a lack of federal action on climate change.
Despite what some in the public might think of the topic, there's no dissension in the group about the reality of what it faces. "Gone are the days when people are debating whether the phenomenon exists, and there is significant motivation and increasing momentum at the state level to address climate change," the group's report read.
The commission's final report is due in December, and that will include the heavy lifting. So far, the group has tackled a number of its tasks, creating an inventory of the state's greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as chronicling the threat of climate change and sea-level rise to the environment and Virginia's economic infrastructure. But it hasn't laid out a strategy for reducing emissions yet.
A band of environmental groups said Wednesday that the commission's goals fell short of what was necessary to reverse emissions growth and protect against the worst effects of global warming.
The target of reducing emissions 30 percent by 2025 would essentially bring Virginia to its 2000 emissions level. Environmentalists argued that Virginia should be decreasing emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 — a far deeper cut.
The report calls Virginia — its environment, cities and industries — "particularly vulnerable" to climate change. Because of the Chesapeake Bay's natural subsidence, sea level is rising faster here than in other coastal regions.
And as water temperatures rise — as Virginia Institute of Marine Science gauges show they have been for decades — sensitive species in the bay could move south or north.
In a draft report summarizing all the ground that the commission has covered since its creation this year, the group said the man-made link to greenhouse-gas increases was "unequivocal." The commission also pointed out that as the state's population grew — and more cars hit the roads and more homes and businesses needed electricity — Virginia's greenhouse-gas emissions had increased at a rate nearly double that of the rest of the U.S.
That trend and the projected continued increase set the stage for the Gov. Timothy M. Kaine-created commission's ultimate goal: reducing greenhouse gases 30 percent by 2025, even as population and electricity use and vehicle miles traveled keep going up. The commission is chaired by Secretary of Natural Resources Preston Bryant.
As many other state leaders have done, Kaine created the commission partly in response to a lack of federal action on climate change.
Despite what some in the public might think of the topic, there's no dissension in the group about the reality of what it faces. "Gone are the days when people are debating whether the phenomenon exists, and there is significant motivation and increasing momentum at the state level to address climate change," the group's report read.
The commission's final report is due in December, and that will include the heavy lifting. So far, the group has tackled a number of its tasks, creating an inventory of the state's greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as chronicling the threat of climate change and sea-level rise to the environment and Virginia's economic infrastructure. But it hasn't laid out a strategy for reducing emissions yet.
A band of environmental groups said Wednesday that the commission's goals fell short of what was necessary to reverse emissions growth and protect against the worst effects of global warming.
The target of reducing emissions 30 percent by 2025 would essentially bring Virginia to its 2000 emissions level. Environmentalists argued that Virginia should be decreasing emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 — a far deeper cut.
The report calls Virginia — its environment, cities and industries — "particularly vulnerable" to climate change. Because of the Chesapeake Bay's natural subsidence, sea level is rising faster here than in other coastal regions.
And as water temperatures rise — as Virginia Institute of Marine Science gauges show they have been for decades — sensitive species in the bay could move south or north.
UN climate talks on emission limits
ACCRA, Ghana (AP) — Talks on a new global warming agreement have begun to resolve some major sticking points, the U.N. climate chief said Wednesday, sounding a promising note after months of sluggish negotiations often marked by confrontation among industrial and developing countries.
Yvo de Boer, who in the past has chided delegates for delays, gave an upbeat assessment at the end of a weeklong conference of 160 nations, the latest round in a two-year process that is due to end with the signing of an accord in December 2009.
"This has been a very important and a very encouraging meeting, said De Boer. "The process has speeded up, and governments are becoming very serious about negotiating a result."
Environmentalists agreed progress had been made. "Accra shows that overcoming the muddle of conflicting views and crafting an effective deal to tackle climate change is possible," said the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, or WWF.
The delegates found some common ground on ways to help developing countries limit emissions and strategies for compensating poorer countries, especially in Africa, that will likely be hard hit by the effects of global warming.
Last year, a U.N. panel of scientists said that climate change already is happening, and the earth's temperature would continue to rise even if carbon emissions were reduced to zero today because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But they warned of possible catastrophic effects unless emissions peak within the next 10 to 15 years and then decline sharply.
"We are running out of time on this problem, from the scientific point of view," said Bill Hare, a scientist for Greenpeace who was an author of last year's report for the U.N. panel.
Hare said researchers were investigating "alarming" reports in the last few days of the release of methane from the Arctic Ocean, possibly from the warming of the sea. He said scientists had long feared that such an event was "a potential trigger of rapid and abrupt and extreme climate change."
Accra was the third round this year in the U.N. talks, which aim for a treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol regulating the emissions of 37 industrial countries and setting out ways they can benefit from helping poor countries use clean energy.
The U.S. rejected the Kyoto accord, arguing it would harm American business and that it made no comparable demands on emerging economies. China, India and other large developing countries refused to accept a binding arrangement that would limit their development and their declared mission to ease poverty at home.
"The poor want to lead a dignified life, a life that is secure," said Mohamed Adow, of Christian Aid Africa. "They need to develop, and the opportunity unfortunately is linked to having energy."
In what could be a step toward a compromise, the Accra talks made headway on an arrangement that would focus on limiting carbon emissions by specific industries such as steel, cement or power generation. Unlike industrial countries, developing countries would face no binding targets on their economies as a whole.
In a second area of progress, delegates agreed that countries should be compensated for slowing or halting deforestation, and that countries where forests have largely been depleted should be rewarded for conserving and expanding their remaining forest cover.
New and detailed proposals also were suggested for raising the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to help poor countries grapple with the effects of climate change. Poor countries, especially in Africa, are expected to suffer harsher drought, flooding and crop failures, and hundreds of millions of people will feel the stress of water shortages.
De Boer said the various proposals will be packaged together for the next round of talks in Poznan, Poland, in December, in what would amount to "a first version of a negotiating text."
Whether a treaty can be reached on time will depend on the next U.S. administration, which will be elected a few weeks before Poznan but will not take office until six weeks afterward. The pace will depend "on how quickly a U.S. team can be put in place, how fast they can get their positions sorted out, and when they can start to negotiate," said Jake Schmidt, of the National Resources Defense Council.
Yvo de Boer, who in the past has chided delegates for delays, gave an upbeat assessment at the end of a weeklong conference of 160 nations, the latest round in a two-year process that is due to end with the signing of an accord in December 2009.
"This has been a very important and a very encouraging meeting, said De Boer. "The process has speeded up, and governments are becoming very serious about negotiating a result."
Environmentalists agreed progress had been made. "Accra shows that overcoming the muddle of conflicting views and crafting an effective deal to tackle climate change is possible," said the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, or WWF.
The delegates found some common ground on ways to help developing countries limit emissions and strategies for compensating poorer countries, especially in Africa, that will likely be hard hit by the effects of global warming.
Last year, a U.N. panel of scientists said that climate change already is happening, and the earth's temperature would continue to rise even if carbon emissions were reduced to zero today because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But they warned of possible catastrophic effects unless emissions peak within the next 10 to 15 years and then decline sharply.
"We are running out of time on this problem, from the scientific point of view," said Bill Hare, a scientist for Greenpeace who was an author of last year's report for the U.N. panel.
Hare said researchers were investigating "alarming" reports in the last few days of the release of methane from the Arctic Ocean, possibly from the warming of the sea. He said scientists had long feared that such an event was "a potential trigger of rapid and abrupt and extreme climate change."
Accra was the third round this year in the U.N. talks, which aim for a treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol regulating the emissions of 37 industrial countries and setting out ways they can benefit from helping poor countries use clean energy.
The U.S. rejected the Kyoto accord, arguing it would harm American business and that it made no comparable demands on emerging economies. China, India and other large developing countries refused to accept a binding arrangement that would limit their development and their declared mission to ease poverty at home.
"The poor want to lead a dignified life, a life that is secure," said Mohamed Adow, of Christian Aid Africa. "They need to develop, and the opportunity unfortunately is linked to having energy."
In what could be a step toward a compromise, the Accra talks made headway on an arrangement that would focus on limiting carbon emissions by specific industries such as steel, cement or power generation. Unlike industrial countries, developing countries would face no binding targets on their economies as a whole.
In a second area of progress, delegates agreed that countries should be compensated for slowing or halting deforestation, and that countries where forests have largely been depleted should be rewarded for conserving and expanding their remaining forest cover.
New and detailed proposals also were suggested for raising the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to help poor countries grapple with the effects of climate change. Poor countries, especially in Africa, are expected to suffer harsher drought, flooding and crop failures, and hundreds of millions of people will feel the stress of water shortages.
De Boer said the various proposals will be packaged together for the next round of talks in Poznan, Poland, in December, in what would amount to "a first version of a negotiating text."
Whether a treaty can be reached on time will depend on the next U.S. administration, which will be elected a few weeks before Poznan but will not take office until six weeks afterward. The pace will depend "on how quickly a U.S. team can be put in place, how fast they can get their positions sorted out, and when they can start to negotiate," said Jake Schmidt, of the National Resources Defense Council.
Cimate Change Talks: Africa condemns delay on Adaptation Fund
Accra, Ghana - Delegates attending the Climate Change Talks here have rea cted with dismay at the continued negotiations on the climate change Adaptation Fund, eight months after the fund was established.
PANA reports that the participants, representing civil society groups on climate change and sustainable development, sharply criticized the current negotiations, saying that developing countries, hard pressed by impacts of climate change and
in a hurry to begin implementation, have to contend with more negotiations about the Fund.
They said: "The Fund remains a shell as all indications are that industrialized countries have decided to shun it simply because they do not have control over its governance.
"This also is the reason they are rushing to put their funds in the new climate change funds started by the World Bank."
The Adaptation Fund was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
Developing countries require international assistance such as funding and techno logy transfer to support adaptation as well as resources to reduce the risk of disasters.
Meanwhile, Maria Netto of the United Nations Development Programme, warned that the targets set in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) would not be easily achieved if there was no concerted effort to address risks posed by climate change.
Neto, who addressed journalists at the Accra Talks, said there were risks posed to the MDGs by climate change such as eradication of extreme poverty and hunger w hich she said could be difficult to meet the targets due to climate change risks such as depleted livelihood assets and reduced economic growth.
She, however, said the Africa Adaptation Programme with a total budget of US$ 92 .1 million was aimed at enhancing capacity of African countries to implement early adaptation actions and long-term resilience plans.
She cited the Western African shorelines of Senegal, Gambia, Mauritania, Guinea- Bissau and Cape Verde where they are developing effective coping mechanisms for reducing impacts of climate change, as well as in Gambia, Namibia, Algeria and Niger which are undertaking capacity development projects to assess and develop options for addressing climate change.
The one-week Accra talks that began 21 August is working on a strengthened and effective international climate change deal under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as well as on emission reduction rules and to ols under the Kyoto Protocol.
PANA reports that the participants, representing civil society groups on climate change and sustainable development, sharply criticized the current negotiations, saying that developing countries, hard pressed by impacts of climate change and
in a hurry to begin implementation, have to contend with more negotiations about the Fund.
They said: "The Fund remains a shell as all indications are that industrialized countries have decided to shun it simply because they do not have control over its governance.
"This also is the reason they are rushing to put their funds in the new climate change funds started by the World Bank."
The Adaptation Fund was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
Developing countries require international assistance such as funding and techno logy transfer to support adaptation as well as resources to reduce the risk of disasters.
Meanwhile, Maria Netto of the United Nations Development Programme, warned that the targets set in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) would not be easily achieved if there was no concerted effort to address risks posed by climate change.
Neto, who addressed journalists at the Accra Talks, said there were risks posed to the MDGs by climate change such as eradication of extreme poverty and hunger w hich she said could be difficult to meet the targets due to climate change risks such as depleted livelihood assets and reduced economic growth.
She, however, said the Africa Adaptation Programme with a total budget of US$ 92 .1 million was aimed at enhancing capacity of African countries to implement early adaptation actions and long-term resilience plans.
She cited the Western African shorelines of Senegal, Gambia, Mauritania, Guinea- Bissau and Cape Verde where they are developing effective coping mechanisms for reducing impacts of climate change, as well as in Gambia, Namibia, Algeria and Niger which are undertaking capacity development projects to assess and develop options for addressing climate change.
The one-week Accra talks that began 21 August is working on a strengthened and effective international climate change deal under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as well as on emission reduction rules and to ols under the Kyoto Protocol.
Indian firms must gear up to tackle climate change
NEW DELHI: Indian firms must combat climate change by measuring their carbon footprints now and in the foreseeable future, and take preventive steps, says a report by the KPMG and CII released said.
Indian firms should also avail business opportunities arising out of climate change, says the report, "Climate change: The impact and opportunities for Indian industry", brought out jointly by the consultancy firm KPMG and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).
The report suggests that the pressure from stakeholders for Indian companies to be more environmentally responsible is likely to increase, "thereby compelling delivery by firms across all industries on a triple bottom line of economics, social and environmental performance".
KPMG Executive Director Arvind Mahajan said: “Indian companies should take proactive measures to ensure adequate risk appraisal and management as well as leverage opportunities arising out of climate change.
"They need to do proper due diligence for clean development mechanism (CDM) projects to assess the quantum of carbon credits expected to be generated. Indian businesses also need to consider tax and regulatory issues and devise strategies to help ensure that they can maximise the benefit from the CDM process.”
CDM projects calculate the amount of carbon emission that can be saved - audited by a UN-licensed firm - and gives the project corresponding carbon credits that it can sell in the international market. The current price is around $30 per tonne of carbon emission saved.
India was the world's biggest beneficiary of CDM projects till 2007, when it was overtaken by China.
Carbon emissions into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide is the main cause of climate change, which is already leading to lowered farm output, more frequent and more damaging droughts, floods and storms and raising the sea level.
India has been identified as one of the global hotspots likely to be worst affected by climate change.
The KPMG-CII report suggests that individual businesses need to develop a structured eight-point approach to climate change:
* Measurement of the carbon footprint of the business
* Projecting the likely carbon footprint if the business continues to grow under the 'Business As Usual' scenario
* Analysis of the risk of climate change issues to the sector and the business
* Identification of opportunities within the business, and beyond (CDM projects, clean technologies, renewable energy generation and so on) to maintain growth, but with a different approach
* Preparation of time bound action plan for reducing the carbon footprint
* Institutionalise the action plan in business processes
* Institutionalize a measurement and verification system to monitor progress against the plan, and
* Periodically report progress to stakeholders.
Indian firms should also avail business opportunities arising out of climate change, says the report, "Climate change: The impact and opportunities for Indian industry", brought out jointly by the consultancy firm KPMG and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).
The report suggests that the pressure from stakeholders for Indian companies to be more environmentally responsible is likely to increase, "thereby compelling delivery by firms across all industries on a triple bottom line of economics, social and environmental performance".
KPMG Executive Director Arvind Mahajan said: “Indian companies should take proactive measures to ensure adequate risk appraisal and management as well as leverage opportunities arising out of climate change.
"They need to do proper due diligence for clean development mechanism (CDM) projects to assess the quantum of carbon credits expected to be generated. Indian businesses also need to consider tax and regulatory issues and devise strategies to help ensure that they can maximise the benefit from the CDM process.”
CDM projects calculate the amount of carbon emission that can be saved - audited by a UN-licensed firm - and gives the project corresponding carbon credits that it can sell in the international market. The current price is around $30 per tonne of carbon emission saved.
India was the world's biggest beneficiary of CDM projects till 2007, when it was overtaken by China.
Carbon emissions into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide is the main cause of climate change, which is already leading to lowered farm output, more frequent and more damaging droughts, floods and storms and raising the sea level.
India has been identified as one of the global hotspots likely to be worst affected by climate change.
The KPMG-CII report suggests that individual businesses need to develop a structured eight-point approach to climate change:
* Measurement of the carbon footprint of the business
* Projecting the likely carbon footprint if the business continues to grow under the 'Business As Usual' scenario
* Analysis of the risk of climate change issues to the sector and the business
* Identification of opportunities within the business, and beyond (CDM projects, clean technologies, renewable energy generation and so on) to maintain growth, but with a different approach
* Preparation of time bound action plan for reducing the carbon footprint
* Institutionalise the action plan in business processes
* Institutionalize a measurement and verification system to monitor progress against the plan, and
* Periodically report progress to stakeholders.
Wednesday
Business must tackle climate change: Kevin Rudd
There is no way around the fact that tackling climate change will cost businesses money, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
But he thinks business is ready to do its part to reduce greenhouse pollution.
The Business Council of Australia (BCA) sparked controversy recently when it warned that emissions trading would drive down profits and force some businesses to close.
The BCA's call for the scheme to be changed enraged conservationists and the union movement, who accused big business of dodging its responsibility on climate change.
Mr Rudd said "reasonable people" would be able to work out a way forward.
"(But) it will never happen cost-free, it is not a cost-free business. Anyone who says that is misleading, and I don't intend to say that," he said.
He was prepared for a bit of "argy bargy" with the business community.
"I just regard that as part of this (process)," he told reporters.
Mr Rudd said business was ready to help tackle climate change.
"What I detect overall from the business community is actually something quite good. None of them have said to me so far: `Oh by the way, we don't want to act on climate change'," he said.
"Roll the clock back a few years and it might have been the starting point."
The Australian Greens want to see a secret document which apparently puts forward options to give business an "easier cop".
According to media reports, the federal government has privately released a paper which canvasses alternative approaches to emissions trading, ahead of a meeting with business chiefs on Friday.
Greens senator Christine Milne called on Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, who allegedly is behind the document, to come clean.
"That document will show us, once and for all, what he's proposing as an easier cop for the big end of town and whether the minister knew about it," Senator Milne said.
She also took aim at the government over its looming decision on whether to approve a controversial $5.3 billion coal mine proposed for central Queensland.
The federal government could stop the development going ahead. It is yet to make a decision.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate that Environment Minister Peter Garrett received a referral from the company in July.
"And the minister has yet to make a determination on this proposal," she said.
The federal government also moved to save itself from burying millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in the wrong place.
The government made a mistake in amending laws to allow for carbon dioxide from power stations to be buried under the seabed.
By using the wrong way of calculating distance, the laws as they stand would be 200 metres out across the board, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said.
"(This) would cause concern and uncertainty for industry if not corrected," Mr Ferguson told parliament.
But he thinks business is ready to do its part to reduce greenhouse pollution.
The Business Council of Australia (BCA) sparked controversy recently when it warned that emissions trading would drive down profits and force some businesses to close.
The BCA's call for the scheme to be changed enraged conservationists and the union movement, who accused big business of dodging its responsibility on climate change.
Mr Rudd said "reasonable people" would be able to work out a way forward.
"(But) it will never happen cost-free, it is not a cost-free business. Anyone who says that is misleading, and I don't intend to say that," he said.
He was prepared for a bit of "argy bargy" with the business community.
"I just regard that as part of this (process)," he told reporters.
Mr Rudd said business was ready to help tackle climate change.
"What I detect overall from the business community is actually something quite good. None of them have said to me so far: `Oh by the way, we don't want to act on climate change'," he said.
"Roll the clock back a few years and it might have been the starting point."
The Australian Greens want to see a secret document which apparently puts forward options to give business an "easier cop".
According to media reports, the federal government has privately released a paper which canvasses alternative approaches to emissions trading, ahead of a meeting with business chiefs on Friday.
Greens senator Christine Milne called on Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, who allegedly is behind the document, to come clean.
"That document will show us, once and for all, what he's proposing as an easier cop for the big end of town and whether the minister knew about it," Senator Milne said.
She also took aim at the government over its looming decision on whether to approve a controversial $5.3 billion coal mine proposed for central Queensland.
The federal government could stop the development going ahead. It is yet to make a decision.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate that Environment Minister Peter Garrett received a referral from the company in July.
"And the minister has yet to make a determination on this proposal," she said.
The federal government also moved to save itself from burying millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in the wrong place.
The government made a mistake in amending laws to allow for carbon dioxide from power stations to be buried under the seabed.
By using the wrong way of calculating distance, the laws as they stand would be 200 metres out across the board, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said.
"(This) would cause concern and uncertainty for industry if not corrected," Mr Ferguson told parliament.
New Zealand to pass legislation on Climate change
New Zealand First has announced it will support Labour's flagship emissions trading scheme, meaning the major climate change legislation will pass into law.
In a statement just released, the party said it faced the decision of whether to support a scheme over which it would have some influence, or to leave the country in a situation of uncertainty.
"We have secured a package that will ensure that all households wil receive a one-off payment to mitigate the impact of the ETS," leader Winston Peters said.
People on low incomes - including New Zealand superannuation - will receive what Mr Peters described as a "front-loaded CPI adjustment" to ensure that they keep ahead of the projected cost of the emissions trading scheme to their households.
As well, New Zealand First said a dedicated portion of the $1 billion energy efficiency fund that the Greens announced yesterday would go to SuperGold cardholders.
"The most critical aspect secured by New Zealand First was the introduction of a new requirement for the agriculture and industry allocation plans to be further scrutinised by a select committee and Parliament to ensure that as circumstances change, the ETS has the ability to meet these," Mr Peters said.
New Zealand First's decision to back the scheme means Labour now has sufficient support to pass it, after several months of intense negotiation.
That is good news for Prime Minister Helen Clark, who has been desperate to pass the major legislation since she made climate change a big part of her political agenda almost two years ago.
In a statement just released, the party said it faced the decision of whether to support a scheme over which it would have some influence, or to leave the country in a situation of uncertainty.
"We have secured a package that will ensure that all households wil receive a one-off payment to mitigate the impact of the ETS," leader Winston Peters said.
People on low incomes - including New Zealand superannuation - will receive what Mr Peters described as a "front-loaded CPI adjustment" to ensure that they keep ahead of the projected cost of the emissions trading scheme to their households.
As well, New Zealand First said a dedicated portion of the $1 billion energy efficiency fund that the Greens announced yesterday would go to SuperGold cardholders.
"The most critical aspect secured by New Zealand First was the introduction of a new requirement for the agriculture and industry allocation plans to be further scrutinised by a select committee and Parliament to ensure that as circumstances change, the ETS has the ability to meet these," Mr Peters said.
New Zealand First's decision to back the scheme means Labour now has sufficient support to pass it, after several months of intense negotiation.
That is good news for Prime Minister Helen Clark, who has been desperate to pass the major legislation since she made climate change a big part of her political agenda almost two years ago.
Tuesday
2 Moons on 27th August
27th Aug the Whole World is waiting for.............
Planet Mars will be the brightest in the night sky Starting August.
It will look as large as the full moon to the naked Eye. This will happen On Aug. 27 when Mars comes within 34.65M miles of earth. Be sure to watch The sky on Aug. 27 12:30 am. It will look like the earth has 2 moons. The Next time Mars may come this close is in 2287.
Share this with your friends as NO ONE ALIVE TODAY Will ever see it again.
Planet Mars will be the brightest in the night sky Starting August.
It will look as large as the full moon to the naked Eye. This will happen On Aug. 27 when Mars comes within 34.65M miles of earth. Be sure to watch The sky on Aug. 27 12:30 am. It will look like the earth has 2 moons. The Next time Mars may come this close is in 2287.
Share this with your friends as NO ONE ALIVE TODAY Will ever see it again.
Whales lose blubber due to climate change
The team for the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo measured the bodies of more than 4,500 Minkes that had been killed since the late 1980s when Japan started its controversial whaling programme.
They found that the whales are getting thinner at an alarming rate and evidence suggests global warming could be to blame because it restricts food supplies.
Lars Walloe, a Norwegian whale expert at the University of Oslo, who helped with the study, said: "This is a big change in blubber and if it continues it could make it more difficult for the whales to survive. It indicates there have been some big changes in their ecosystem."
Whales need blubber for insulation and energy and the reduction could be affecting their ability to reproduce. Professor Walloe said that he did not think that they could measure the amount of blubber on a whale by any other way than by killing them.
The study has been published in Polar Biology, a mainstream, western scientific journal, which campaigners worry could lead to a validation of Japan’s whale hunting programme.
The findings were rejected by two journals because of the unpopularity of the whaling programme among scientists.
Professor Walloe said the journals rejected the study for political, rather than scientific reasons.
However, Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, said: "Scientific whaling is not about science, and there is no pressing conservation need that requires it."
They found that the whales are getting thinner at an alarming rate and evidence suggests global warming could be to blame because it restricts food supplies.
Lars Walloe, a Norwegian whale expert at the University of Oslo, who helped with the study, said: "This is a big change in blubber and if it continues it could make it more difficult for the whales to survive. It indicates there have been some big changes in their ecosystem."
Whales need blubber for insulation and energy and the reduction could be affecting their ability to reproduce. Professor Walloe said that he did not think that they could measure the amount of blubber on a whale by any other way than by killing them.
The study has been published in Polar Biology, a mainstream, western scientific journal, which campaigners worry could lead to a validation of Japan’s whale hunting programme.
The findings were rejected by two journals because of the unpopularity of the whaling programme among scientists.
Professor Walloe said the journals rejected the study for political, rather than scientific reasons.
However, Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, said: "Scientific whaling is not about science, and there is no pressing conservation need that requires it."
Euractive on climate Chnage
LAGOS, Aug. 27 (Xinhua) -- The latest round of UN climate talks, which began last Thursday and will conclude this Wednesday in Accra, Ghana, aims at overcoming disagreements over the tools that countries can use to cut greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate progress towards a new climate treaty by the end of 2009, said a recent article from the euractive website.
"There is little time left to get a solid negotiating text on the table. Clearly the clock is ticking," Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has told some 1,000 delegates from 160 countries at the opening of the six-day meeting.
The article said the meeting is the third UN climate change conference since nations committed, in Bali, to adopting a global climate pact by no later than December 2009. But progress was slow at the last two meetings in Bangkok and Bonn.
Onlookers believe disagreements between developed and developing nations as well as uncertainties about the direction of U.S. climate policy after President George W. Bush leaves office, the economic slowdown and the recent collapse of global trade talks at the WTO will mean delegates at the Accra talks will be uneager to make any firm commitments, according to the article.
In Accra, experts are to attempt to reach agreement on the rules and tools that developed nations can use to reach their emission reduction targets, de Boer explained.
Among the means being considered are the Japanese-led proposals for sector targets, a 'bottom-up' approach whereby different emissions reduction targets would be set for individual industry sectors, such as steel or power generation, according to their specific characteristics and circumstances.
But developing countries are wary of such approaches. They fear that developed nations could use sector benchmarks, such as the amount of energy required to produce a tone of cement, as a means of effectively blocking goods from developing countries' less efficient industries, it said.
The Accra gathering is part of the crucial UN process designed to reach agreement on stronger cooperative action on climate change at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009.
"There is little time left to get a solid negotiating text on the table. Clearly the clock is ticking," Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has told some 1,000 delegates from 160 countries at the opening of the six-day meeting.
The article said the meeting is the third UN climate change conference since nations committed, in Bali, to adopting a global climate pact by no later than December 2009. But progress was slow at the last two meetings in Bangkok and Bonn.
Onlookers believe disagreements between developed and developing nations as well as uncertainties about the direction of U.S. climate policy after President George W. Bush leaves office, the economic slowdown and the recent collapse of global trade talks at the WTO will mean delegates at the Accra talks will be uneager to make any firm commitments, according to the article.
In Accra, experts are to attempt to reach agreement on the rules and tools that developed nations can use to reach their emission reduction targets, de Boer explained.
Among the means being considered are the Japanese-led proposals for sector targets, a 'bottom-up' approach whereby different emissions reduction targets would be set for individual industry sectors, such as steel or power generation, according to their specific characteristics and circumstances.
But developing countries are wary of such approaches. They fear that developed nations could use sector benchmarks, such as the amount of energy required to produce a tone of cement, as a means of effectively blocking goods from developing countries' less efficient industries, it said.
The Accra gathering is part of the crucial UN process designed to reach agreement on stronger cooperative action on climate change at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009.
Latest on Cliamte Change : Nigeria Won't Take Loan
Nigeria said on Monday at the ongoing Accra Climate Change Talks that it would no longer accept any credit facility to tackle issues of climate change.
Dr. Victor Fodeke, leader of Nigerian delegation to the talks told the News Agency of Nigeria that the country would not accept any credit facility no matter what the repayment conditions were.
“It is in the light of this that we are here mobilising other African countries to adopt our position as an African agenda, we shall push for adaptation and not mitigation,‘‘ he added.
Fodeke said that the country welcomed effort by Annex 1 parties to leverage financial support for developing countries but that as a non-contributor to the scourge of climate change, no support would be deemed too much.
He said, “Africa is the continent that will be affected by climate change more than any other region in the world.
“At the same time, widespread poverty in Africa means that many Africans are very vulnerable to climate change but have contributed almost nothing to the crisis.
“It is of utmost importance that the post 2012 deal will contain a powerful and coherent framework for adaptation that provides the necessary funding, technology and capacity building to allow Africa to adapt to the already unavoidable levels of climate change.”
He said that such a framework would be built on principles that would facilitate a massive upscale of adaptation in developing countries, especially those in Africa.
He said the country was already articulating a set of programmes and polices that would assist in the reduction of the impact of climate change in Nigeria.
Fodeke, who is also the head of the Special Climate Change Unit of the Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development, listed such programmes to include the establishment of an International Centre for Climate Change Activities as well as the Climate Change Hall of Fame Project.
“This programmes will put issues of climate change on the front burner in Nigeria,‘‘ he said.
The News Agency of Nigeria correspondent covering the meeting reports that the over 30 Nigerian delegation to the talks include stakeholders drawn from the oil and gas sector, government departments and NGOs, among others.
Dr. Victor Fodeke, leader of Nigerian delegation to the talks told the News Agency of Nigeria that the country would not accept any credit facility no matter what the repayment conditions were.
“It is in the light of this that we are here mobilising other African countries to adopt our position as an African agenda, we shall push for adaptation and not mitigation,‘‘ he added.
Fodeke said that the country welcomed effort by Annex 1 parties to leverage financial support for developing countries but that as a non-contributor to the scourge of climate change, no support would be deemed too much.
He said, “Africa is the continent that will be affected by climate change more than any other region in the world.
“At the same time, widespread poverty in Africa means that many Africans are very vulnerable to climate change but have contributed almost nothing to the crisis.
“It is of utmost importance that the post 2012 deal will contain a powerful and coherent framework for adaptation that provides the necessary funding, technology and capacity building to allow Africa to adapt to the already unavoidable levels of climate change.”
He said that such a framework would be built on principles that would facilitate a massive upscale of adaptation in developing countries, especially those in Africa.
He said the country was already articulating a set of programmes and polices that would assist in the reduction of the impact of climate change in Nigeria.
Fodeke, who is also the head of the Special Climate Change Unit of the Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development, listed such programmes to include the establishment of an International Centre for Climate Change Activities as well as the Climate Change Hall of Fame Project.
“This programmes will put issues of climate change on the front burner in Nigeria,‘‘ he said.
The News Agency of Nigeria correspondent covering the meeting reports that the over 30 Nigerian delegation to the talks include stakeholders drawn from the oil and gas sector, government departments and NGOs, among others.
Discounts scheme to fight global warming
SEOUL (AFP) - South Korea on Monday announced plans for a discount scheme to encourage citizens to buy more energy-efficient products.
Consumers who buy such products will receive carbon points that can be used to pay utilities, transport and other bills or to buy other appliances, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy said.
The "carbon cashbag" system will begin in October.
"It aims to spread the culture of reducing greenhouse gases and promote a shift in consuming patterns to energy-efficient and less carbon-emitting products," the ministry said in a statement.
It has selected 33 electronics goods, including refrigerators, television sets, washing machines and vacuum cleaners, for an initial list.
President Lee Myung-Bak this month unveiled a "green growth" strategy to drive the economy in future decades.
South Korea is a leading producer of greenhouse gases but is not one of the countries obliged by the Kyoto Protocol to make specific cuts in emissions.
Consumers who buy such products will receive carbon points that can be used to pay utilities, transport and other bills or to buy other appliances, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy said.
The "carbon cashbag" system will begin in October.
"It aims to spread the culture of reducing greenhouse gases and promote a shift in consuming patterns to energy-efficient and less carbon-emitting products," the ministry said in a statement.
It has selected 33 electronics goods, including refrigerators, television sets, washing machines and vacuum cleaners, for an initial list.
President Lee Myung-Bak this month unveiled a "green growth" strategy to drive the economy in future decades.
South Korea is a leading producer of greenhouse gases but is not one of the countries obliged by the Kyoto Protocol to make specific cuts in emissions.
UN climate talks seek new climate treaty
More than 150 nations meet in Ghana from Thursday trying to speed up sluggish talks on a new climate treaty and plug big gaps in a "vision" of leading industrial nations of halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The Aug. 21-27 meeting of 1,000 delegates will also consider new ways to combat global warming such as slowing tropical deforestation -- U.N. studies say burning of trees accounts for about 20 percent of greenhouse gases from human activities.
"While progress has been made, there is no doubt that we need to move forward quickly," Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said in a statement.
The Accra meeting will be the third since governments agreed last year to negotiate a new climate treaty by the end of 2009 to avert threats such as heatwaves, rising sea levels, disruption of monsoons, desertification and flooding.
Slowing economic growth in many nations, the collapse of world trade talks in July and uncertainties about U.S. policy after President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009 means that many countries are wary of showing their hands.
"The political process has suffered major delays and is far from where it should be," the WWF conservation group said.
The talks will be a first chance to ease tensions between rich and poor nations after leaders of the Group of Eight industrialised nations agreed at a summit in Japan last month on a "vision" of halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Industrial revolution
Major developing nations including China and India refused to sign up to any 2050 goal in talks with G8 leaders, saying rich countries had burnt most fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution and should first set tougher cuts for themselves.
"I don't see that (2050 goal) as very helpful...since it's so far away," said Harald Dovland, a Norwegian official who will preside in Accra over talks by nations that support the current U.N. Kyoto Protocol for curbing emissions until 2012.
"A 2050 signal is okay but doesn't give us a real basis for agreeing" on needed short-term targets, he told Reuters. Most of today's politicians will be dead or have retired by 2050.
Many want a U.N. treaty to set 2020 goals to guide investors -- for instance trying to decide whether to build a coal-fired power plant or put cash into solar or wind power.
One strategy to ease disputes between rich and poor is to offer developing nations credits for curbing deforestation. Trees store carbon as they grow and release it when burnt.
New Zealand said in a note to the Accra negotiators that financial incentives to make a significant dent in deforestation would have to be in the range of $10 to $40 billion a year.
But some environmentalists fear that projects for slowing deforestation might backfire if they let rich nations buy up tracts of forest to gain carbon credit that can count as cuts in emissions against domestic targets.
"Great land grab threat at U.N. climate talks in Ghana," Friends of the Earth International said. It said indigenous peoples in forests might be forced out if investors buy them up.
Environmentalists say talks are lagging compared to 1996-97 negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, binding 37 developed nations to cut emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
The United States is the only developed nation outside Kyoto. Bush said it would cost too much and wrongly excluded 2012 targets for developing countries. Both main presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, say they would adopt tougher policies than Bush.
The Aug. 21-27 meeting of 1,000 delegates will also consider new ways to combat global warming such as slowing tropical deforestation -- U.N. studies say burning of trees accounts for about 20 percent of greenhouse gases from human activities.
"While progress has been made, there is no doubt that we need to move forward quickly," Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said in a statement.
The Accra meeting will be the third since governments agreed last year to negotiate a new climate treaty by the end of 2009 to avert threats such as heatwaves, rising sea levels, disruption of monsoons, desertification and flooding.
Slowing economic growth in many nations, the collapse of world trade talks in July and uncertainties about U.S. policy after President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009 means that many countries are wary of showing their hands.
"The political process has suffered major delays and is far from where it should be," the WWF conservation group said.
The talks will be a first chance to ease tensions between rich and poor nations after leaders of the Group of Eight industrialised nations agreed at a summit in Japan last month on a "vision" of halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Industrial revolution
Major developing nations including China and India refused to sign up to any 2050 goal in talks with G8 leaders, saying rich countries had burnt most fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution and should first set tougher cuts for themselves.
"I don't see that (2050 goal) as very helpful...since it's so far away," said Harald Dovland, a Norwegian official who will preside in Accra over talks by nations that support the current U.N. Kyoto Protocol for curbing emissions until 2012.
"A 2050 signal is okay but doesn't give us a real basis for agreeing" on needed short-term targets, he told Reuters. Most of today's politicians will be dead or have retired by 2050.
Many want a U.N. treaty to set 2020 goals to guide investors -- for instance trying to decide whether to build a coal-fired power plant or put cash into solar or wind power.
One strategy to ease disputes between rich and poor is to offer developing nations credits for curbing deforestation. Trees store carbon as they grow and release it when burnt.
New Zealand said in a note to the Accra negotiators that financial incentives to make a significant dent in deforestation would have to be in the range of $10 to $40 billion a year.
But some environmentalists fear that projects for slowing deforestation might backfire if they let rich nations buy up tracts of forest to gain carbon credit that can count as cuts in emissions against domestic targets.
"Great land grab threat at U.N. climate talks in Ghana," Friends of the Earth International said. It said indigenous peoples in forests might be forced out if investors buy them up.
Environmentalists say talks are lagging compared to 1996-97 negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, binding 37 developed nations to cut emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
The United States is the only developed nation outside Kyoto. Bush said it would cost too much and wrongly excluded 2012 targets for developing countries. Both main presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, say they would adopt tougher policies than Bush.
Monday
Global cooling
Two weeks ago, after writing about the possibility that the Earth may actually be entering a cooling phase, I braced myself for a torrent of icy missives from the global warming crowd suggesting that the heat must have fried my noggin.
By the way, it is very difficult to discuss global cooling in the midst of a summer when temperatures are hovering around 100 degrees and crops are wilting. As one friend and colleague from the sweltering Southwest noted after reading the column, “Please send some of that cooling this way.”
However, one response opened my eyes to the growing community of global warming skeptics out there, most of them merited scientists. I thought it might be worth presenting their thoughts — a little equal time if you will. Marc Marona, a global warming skeptic who works for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, sent me these excerpts from a U.S. Senate report.
Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they have placed a $10,000 wager with a United Kingdom scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018, according to an April 16, 2007, article in Live Science.
Australian engineer Peter Harris says that the Earth is nearing the end of the typical interglacial cycle and is due for a sudden cooling climate change. “Based on this analysis we can say that there is a 94 percent probability of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age.
“Climate is becoming unstable,” Harris went on to say. “Most of these major natural processes that we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long-term cooling.”
Oleg Sorokhtin, merited scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute, says to “stock up on fur coats and felt boots! Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect.
“Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change, Sorokhtin said. “Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.”
Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball said, “If we are facing (a crisis) at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.”
On the impact of carbon dioxide on global temperature, United Kingdom astrophysicist Piers Corbyn said, “There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. Worrying about carbon dioxide is irrelevant.”
So there you have it folks — solid evidence from the other side of the global warming fence and critical thinking I’m sure you won’t hear much about outside this space.
To be honest, I’m not sure which global weather consequence is more daunting — to be ice fishing in Florida or planting cotton in Maine. But politicians and the popular press should speak out for the resumption of genuine, open debate on climate change. Global warming is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.
By the way, it is very difficult to discuss global cooling in the midst of a summer when temperatures are hovering around 100 degrees and crops are wilting. As one friend and colleague from the sweltering Southwest noted after reading the column, “Please send some of that cooling this way.”
However, one response opened my eyes to the growing community of global warming skeptics out there, most of them merited scientists. I thought it might be worth presenting their thoughts — a little equal time if you will. Marc Marona, a global warming skeptic who works for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, sent me these excerpts from a U.S. Senate report.
Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they have placed a $10,000 wager with a United Kingdom scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018, according to an April 16, 2007, article in Live Science.
Australian engineer Peter Harris says that the Earth is nearing the end of the typical interglacial cycle and is due for a sudden cooling climate change. “Based on this analysis we can say that there is a 94 percent probability of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age.
“Climate is becoming unstable,” Harris went on to say. “Most of these major natural processes that we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long-term cooling.”
Oleg Sorokhtin, merited scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute, says to “stock up on fur coats and felt boots! Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect.
“Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change, Sorokhtin said. “Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.”
Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball said, “If we are facing (a crisis) at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.”
On the impact of carbon dioxide on global temperature, United Kingdom astrophysicist Piers Corbyn said, “There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. Worrying about carbon dioxide is irrelevant.”
So there you have it folks — solid evidence from the other side of the global warming fence and critical thinking I’m sure you won’t hear much about outside this space.
To be honest, I’m not sure which global weather consequence is more daunting — to be ice fishing in Florida or planting cotton in Maine. But politicians and the popular press should speak out for the resumption of genuine, open debate on climate change. Global warming is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.
Uganda Government News: UN reports warns on climate change effects
A new United Nations-backed report has appealed to government leaders to take urgent action to ensure that weather-related hazards, which are becoming more intense and frequent due to climate change, do not lead to a corresponding rise in disasters.
In Uganda global warming has led to flooding in Teso region and prolonged draught in Karamoja causing increased famine and diseases.
The new study identified India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sub Sahara Africa and Indonesia as being among global warming’s “hotspots,” or countries particularly vulnerable to increases in extreme drought, flooding and cyclones anticipated in coming decades.
Commissioned by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the non-governmental organization (NGO) CARE International, it examined the possible consequences of global warming in the next 20 to 30 years.
Charles Ehrhart, one of its authors, who serves as Climate Change Coordinator for CARE International said the impact of a natural disaster is determined by several factors, such as access to proper equipment and information, as well as the ability to exert political influence.
The report cited the most effective means to curb human vulnerability to disasters are: boosting the ability of local and government institutions to respond to crises; empowering local people to have a stronger say in disaster preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation; and providing services and social protection for the most vulnerable populations.
The new study’s launch coincided with the gathering of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that kicked off yesterday in Accra, Ghana.
The seven-day event is the latest round of UN-sponsored global climate change negotiations, bringing together more than 1,600 participants to discuss future greenhouse gas emission reduction targets ahead of a major summit set for 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
In Uganda global warming has led to flooding in Teso region and prolonged draught in Karamoja causing increased famine and diseases.
The new study identified India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sub Sahara Africa and Indonesia as being among global warming’s “hotspots,” or countries particularly vulnerable to increases in extreme drought, flooding and cyclones anticipated in coming decades.
Commissioned by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the non-governmental organization (NGO) CARE International, it examined the possible consequences of global warming in the next 20 to 30 years.
Charles Ehrhart, one of its authors, who serves as Climate Change Coordinator for CARE International said the impact of a natural disaster is determined by several factors, such as access to proper equipment and information, as well as the ability to exert political influence.
The report cited the most effective means to curb human vulnerability to disasters are: boosting the ability of local and government institutions to respond to crises; empowering local people to have a stronger say in disaster preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation; and providing services and social protection for the most vulnerable populations.
The new study’s launch coincided with the gathering of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that kicked off yesterday in Accra, Ghana.
The seven-day event is the latest round of UN-sponsored global climate change negotiations, bringing together more than 1,600 participants to discuss future greenhouse gas emission reduction targets ahead of a major summit set for 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Melting ice opens ocean for traffic
Rapidly melting ice in Alaska's Arctic is opening up a new navigable ocean in the extreme north, allowing oil tankers, fishing vessels and even cruise ships to venture into a realm once trolled mostly by indigenous hunters.
The Coast Guard expects so much traffic that it opened two temporary stations on the nation's northernmost waters, anticipating the day when an ocean the size of the contiguous United States could be ice-free most of the summer.
"We have to prepare for the world coming to the Arctic," said Rear Adm. Gene Brooks, commander of the Coast Guard's Alaska district.
Scientists say global warming has melted the polar sea ice each summer to half the size it was in the 1960s, opening vast stretches of water. Last year, it thawed to its lowest level on record.
The rapid melting has raised speculation that Canada's Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans could one day become a regular shipping lane.
But scientists caution that it could be centuries before the Arctic is completely ice-free all year round.
Still, conservative estimates indicate the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in the summer within 20 years, although some scientists believe that will occur much sooner.
Greenland glacier cracking
In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a major glacier, scientists said last week.
And that's led the university professor who spotted the wounds in the massive Petermann glacier to predict disintegration of a major portion of the Northern Hemisphere's largest floating glacier within the year.
If it does worsen and other northern Greenland glaciers melt faster, then it could speed up sea level rise, already increasing because of melt in southern Greenland.
The crack is 7 miles long and about half a mile wide. It is about half the width of the 500-square-mile floating part of the glacier. Other smaller fractures can be seen in images of the ice tongue, a long narrow sliver of the glacier.
"The pictures speak for themselves," said Jason Box, a glacier expert at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University who spotted the changes while studying new satellite images. "This crack is moving, and moving closer and closer to the front. It's just a matter of time till a much larger piece is going to break off. ... It is imminent."
The chunk that came off the glacier between July 10 and July 24 is about half the size of Manhattan and doesn't worry Box as much as the cracks. The Petermann glacier had a larger breakaway ice chunk in 2000. But the overall picture worries some scientists.
MAGNETISM: No role in treating water
Magnets have no significant role in treating water, despite the claims of their manufacturers, according to a new study by the National Consumer Affairs Center of Japan.
So-called magnetic water treatment devices, which are said to remove and reduce residual chlorine and toxic substances through magnetism, have practically no effect, the center said last week.
THE BRAIN: Special face center found
Neuroscientists have identified a pea-sized region in the brain that reacts more strongly to faces than it does to cars, dogs, houses or body parts.
"The evidence is overwhelming that there is a specialized system dedicated to processing faces and not other objects," said Doris Tsao, a neuroscientist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
It's called the fusiform face area because it vaguely resembles a spindle -- fusus in Latin. It's about halfway back in the head, near the bottom of the visual cortex, the part of the brain than handles vision. Information about the pea-size discovery was published last week in the journal Nature.
Most people have two FFAs, one on each side of the head; the one on the right is dominant, the other a backup.
Researchers say evolution may explain why humans and other primates developed a chunk of brain tissue dedicated to face recognition -- it helped them quickly spot friends and foes.
Understanding how face recognition works can have practical applications, Tsao said. Insights into these brain circuits may help prevent or treat depression, autism or social disorders.
The Coast Guard expects so much traffic that it opened two temporary stations on the nation's northernmost waters, anticipating the day when an ocean the size of the contiguous United States could be ice-free most of the summer.
"We have to prepare for the world coming to the Arctic," said Rear Adm. Gene Brooks, commander of the Coast Guard's Alaska district.
Scientists say global warming has melted the polar sea ice each summer to half the size it was in the 1960s, opening vast stretches of water. Last year, it thawed to its lowest level on record.
The rapid melting has raised speculation that Canada's Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans could one day become a regular shipping lane.
But scientists caution that it could be centuries before the Arctic is completely ice-free all year round.
Still, conservative estimates indicate the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in the summer within 20 years, although some scientists believe that will occur much sooner.
Greenland glacier cracking
In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a major glacier, scientists said last week.
And that's led the university professor who spotted the wounds in the massive Petermann glacier to predict disintegration of a major portion of the Northern Hemisphere's largest floating glacier within the year.
If it does worsen and other northern Greenland glaciers melt faster, then it could speed up sea level rise, already increasing because of melt in southern Greenland.
The crack is 7 miles long and about half a mile wide. It is about half the width of the 500-square-mile floating part of the glacier. Other smaller fractures can be seen in images of the ice tongue, a long narrow sliver of the glacier.
"The pictures speak for themselves," said Jason Box, a glacier expert at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University who spotted the changes while studying new satellite images. "This crack is moving, and moving closer and closer to the front. It's just a matter of time till a much larger piece is going to break off. ... It is imminent."
The chunk that came off the glacier between July 10 and July 24 is about half the size of Manhattan and doesn't worry Box as much as the cracks. The Petermann glacier had a larger breakaway ice chunk in 2000. But the overall picture worries some scientists.
MAGNETISM: No role in treating water
Magnets have no significant role in treating water, despite the claims of their manufacturers, according to a new study by the National Consumer Affairs Center of Japan.
So-called magnetic water treatment devices, which are said to remove and reduce residual chlorine and toxic substances through magnetism, have practically no effect, the center said last week.
THE BRAIN: Special face center found
Neuroscientists have identified a pea-sized region in the brain that reacts more strongly to faces than it does to cars, dogs, houses or body parts.
"The evidence is overwhelming that there is a specialized system dedicated to processing faces and not other objects," said Doris Tsao, a neuroscientist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
It's called the fusiform face area because it vaguely resembles a spindle -- fusus in Latin. It's about halfway back in the head, near the bottom of the visual cortex, the part of the brain than handles vision. Information about the pea-size discovery was published last week in the journal Nature.
Most people have two FFAs, one on each side of the head; the one on the right is dominant, the other a backup.
Researchers say evolution may explain why humans and other primates developed a chunk of brain tissue dedicated to face recognition -- it helped them quickly spot friends and foes.
Understanding how face recognition works can have practical applications, Tsao said. Insights into these brain circuits may help prevent or treat depression, autism or social disorders.
Clock ticking on global warming: UN climate chief
Time is running out in the fight against global warming, the UN's top climate change official warned as a new round of UN talks got started here Thursday.
"There is little time left to get a solid negotiating text on the table. Clearly the clock is ticking," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
"People in a burning house cannot afford to lose time in an argument," he said, citing an Ashanti proverb.
The Accra gathering must strive to "reach agreement on the rules and tools" that developed countries will use to cut greenhouse gas emissions, he told more than 1,600 delegates from 160 nations.
Ghana's President John Kufuor echoed the sense of urgency in his opening remarks, noting that his country was already suffering the consequences of global warming.
Rainfall in Ghana has decreased by 20 percent in three decades, and 1,000 square kilometres (400 square miles) of fertile agricultural land in the upper Volta Delta will be lost to rising sea levels and flooding if temperatures rise at their current pace, he said.
The expert-level meeting, which runs through August 27, is the third UN climate change conference since nations committed to adopting a binding climate accord no later than December 2009.
It is the last meeting ahead of a ministerial summit in Poznan, Poland in December where rich countries will be under intense pressure to nail down near-term commitments for reducing greenhouse gases.
The Group of Eight industrialised powers pledged to halve emissions by 2050, but critics say intermediate goals are needed.
"The real political commitment is short- and medium-term," Connie Hedegaard, the Danish Minister for Climate and Energy, told delegates.
"We have to speed up the pace. The negotiations here in Accra must deliver concrete results" about what technologies will be used to cut emissions, she said.
Africa is arguably the continent most vulnerable to the potential ravages of climate change, which range from extreme drought to violent storms to rising sea levels.
De Boer challenged delegates to be "ambitious," and said if they failed Africa would continue, in terms of climate change, to be the "forgotten continent".
He insisted that rich countries step up financial assistance to help Africa with global warming.
African produces the fewest emissions, he pointed out, but will likely well pay the heaviest price.
De Boer and Kufuor underlined the threat of deforestation, which is destroying one of nature's most powerful natural buffers against global warming.
The world's forests -- which are disappearing at a rate of about 30 million hectares (74 million acres) per year -- soak up more than 20 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
"Governments need to focus on reducing emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation," and on how to reward countries that protect forests, said de Boer.
The problem is particularly acute in Amazonia, central Africa and Indonesia, experts note.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an environmental group, called on the Accra meeting to adopt the Olympic motto of "faster, higher, stronger."
"Progress on substance ... must be swifter, the level of ambition by both developed and developing countries higher, and the measures to reduce CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions stronger," said Kim Carstensen, director of the WWF's Global Climate Change Initiative.
"There is little time left to get a solid negotiating text on the table. Clearly the clock is ticking," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
"People in a burning house cannot afford to lose time in an argument," he said, citing an Ashanti proverb.
The Accra gathering must strive to "reach agreement on the rules and tools" that developed countries will use to cut greenhouse gas emissions, he told more than 1,600 delegates from 160 nations.
Ghana's President John Kufuor echoed the sense of urgency in his opening remarks, noting that his country was already suffering the consequences of global warming.
Rainfall in Ghana has decreased by 20 percent in three decades, and 1,000 square kilometres (400 square miles) of fertile agricultural land in the upper Volta Delta will be lost to rising sea levels and flooding if temperatures rise at their current pace, he said.
The expert-level meeting, which runs through August 27, is the third UN climate change conference since nations committed to adopting a binding climate accord no later than December 2009.
It is the last meeting ahead of a ministerial summit in Poznan, Poland in December where rich countries will be under intense pressure to nail down near-term commitments for reducing greenhouse gases.
The Group of Eight industrialised powers pledged to halve emissions by 2050, but critics say intermediate goals are needed.
"The real political commitment is short- and medium-term," Connie Hedegaard, the Danish Minister for Climate and Energy, told delegates.
"We have to speed up the pace. The negotiations here in Accra must deliver concrete results" about what technologies will be used to cut emissions, she said.
Africa is arguably the continent most vulnerable to the potential ravages of climate change, which range from extreme drought to violent storms to rising sea levels.
De Boer challenged delegates to be "ambitious," and said if they failed Africa would continue, in terms of climate change, to be the "forgotten continent".
He insisted that rich countries step up financial assistance to help Africa with global warming.
African produces the fewest emissions, he pointed out, but will likely well pay the heaviest price.
De Boer and Kufuor underlined the threat of deforestation, which is destroying one of nature's most powerful natural buffers against global warming.
The world's forests -- which are disappearing at a rate of about 30 million hectares (74 million acres) per year -- soak up more than 20 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
"Governments need to focus on reducing emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation," and on how to reward countries that protect forests, said de Boer.
The problem is particularly acute in Amazonia, central Africa and Indonesia, experts note.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an environmental group, called on the Accra meeting to adopt the Olympic motto of "faster, higher, stronger."
"Progress on substance ... must be swifter, the level of ambition by both developed and developing countries higher, and the measures to reduce CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions stronger," said Kim Carstensen, director of the WWF's Global Climate Change Initiative.
India global warming hot-spot: UN study
New York, Aug 23 (PTI) A UN study, that examined possible consequences of global warming in the next 20 to 30 years, has identified India as one of the "hot-spots", particularly vulnerable to increase in extreme drought, floods and cyclones in the coming decades.
Commissioned by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the CARE International, the study found that India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia are the global warming hot-spot nations that are already facing considerable political, social, demographic, economic and security obstacles.
"Climate change will greatly complicate and could undermine efforts to manage these challenges," Climate Change Coordinator for CARE International Charles Ehrhart, one of the authors of the report, said.
The impact of a natural disaster is determined by several factors, such as access to proper equipment and information, as well as the ability to exert political influence, he noted.
"The striking lack of these explains why poor people, especially those in marginalized social groups like pastorates in Africa, women and children, constitute the vast majority of disaster victims." The report asked governments to take urgent action to ensure that weather-related hazards, which are becoming more intense and frequent due to climate change, do not lead to a corresponding rise in disasters
Commissioned by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the CARE International, the study found that India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia are the global warming hot-spot nations that are already facing considerable political, social, demographic, economic and security obstacles.
"Climate change will greatly complicate and could undermine efforts to manage these challenges," Climate Change Coordinator for CARE International Charles Ehrhart, one of the authors of the report, said.
The impact of a natural disaster is determined by several factors, such as access to proper equipment and information, as well as the ability to exert political influence, he noted.
"The striking lack of these explains why poor people, especially those in marginalized social groups like pastorates in Africa, women and children, constitute the vast majority of disaster victims." The report asked governments to take urgent action to ensure that weather-related hazards, which are becoming more intense and frequent due to climate change, do not lead to a corresponding rise in disasters
Global warming and Indonesia
Global warming is the hot topic right now, with dire predictions from the scientific community. The upcoming UNFCCC in Nusa Dua is going to attract high level diplomats and scientists from all over the world, with the hope of creating a road-map to a solution. Indonesia itself has a vested interest in the success of the conference, not only for tourism purposes but because it also suffers from the effects of global warming.
Recent flooding in Jakarta may be partially attributed to global warming. The flooding, over 20 ft deep in places and reaching 1.6km inland was also due to a tidal surge compounded by bad drainage and flood prevention systems. Each rainy season Jakarta floods, the western part of Indonesia receiving more rain than centrally located Bali. Flights from Sukarno-Hatta international airport were also disrupted.
Indonesia’s farming and fishing industry, although extremely localized will also be affected by climatic changes, with some parts of the country struggling for water during the dry season. Bali has 4 highland lakes that feed rivers year round. Its intricate and highly organized subak watercourse management society as valuable today as its ever been.
With the UNFCCC to begin on December 4th, Nusa Dua security has already been stepped up. At intersections on Bypass Ngurah Rai armed police with AK 47’s linger, as they also do at Nusa Dua main gates. The road through Tanjung Benoa is not affected as yet.
Recent flooding in Jakarta may be partially attributed to global warming. The flooding, over 20 ft deep in places and reaching 1.6km inland was also due to a tidal surge compounded by bad drainage and flood prevention systems. Each rainy season Jakarta floods, the western part of Indonesia receiving more rain than centrally located Bali. Flights from Sukarno-Hatta international airport were also disrupted.
Indonesia’s farming and fishing industry, although extremely localized will also be affected by climatic changes, with some parts of the country struggling for water during the dry season. Bali has 4 highland lakes that feed rivers year round. Its intricate and highly organized subak watercourse management society as valuable today as its ever been.
With the UNFCCC to begin on December 4th, Nusa Dua security has already been stepped up. At intersections on Bypass Ngurah Rai armed police with AK 47’s linger, as they also do at Nusa Dua main gates. The road through Tanjung Benoa is not affected as yet.
2,000 island may vanish to warming
JAKARTA, Indonesia - Indonesia could lose about 2,000 islands by 2030 due to climate change, the country’s environment minister said on Monday.
“It is very, very serious,” Rachmat Witoelar said at a media conference attended by Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. climate treaty secretariat.
He said studies by U.N. experts showed that sea levels were expected to rise about 89 centimeters, or 35 inches, in 2030 which meant that about 2,000 mostly uninhabited small islets would be submerged.
“We are still in a better position. Island countries like Saint Lucia, Fiji and the Bahamas would likely disappear,” he told Reuters.
Indonesia, which consists of 17,000 islands, has been trying to avert such a scenario by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and switching to biofuels, he said.
“We are optimistic it can be prevented. Switching to biofuels is not only good for the environment but also will benefit us economically considering the volatile state of oil prices,” he said.
Biofuels can be substituted for fossil fuels and are seen as a way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases which are believed to contribute to global warming.
Rice shortages
The environment minister also said rice shortages are forecast for next year because of wild weather blamed on climate change. “It is feared there will be a lack of rice production next year because of the changes in the weather and because the farmers are not used to this,” he said.
A draft U.N. report due to be released in Paris on Feb. 2 projects a big rise in temperatures this century and warns of more heat waves, floods, droughts and rising seas linked to greenhouse gases.
World leaders signed a U.N. Climate Convention in 1992 with an overriding goal of stabilizing greenhouse gases at levels preventing “dangerous (human) interference with the climate system”.
However, it did not define “dangerous” and the issue has been a vexed point in efforts to slow climate change ever since.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. plan for fighting global warming, 35 industrial nations have agreed to cut emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
President Bush pulled the United States out of the protocol in 2001, saying it would damage the U.S. economy and wrongly exempted developing nations from the first phase.
“It is very, very serious,” Rachmat Witoelar said at a media conference attended by Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. climate treaty secretariat.
He said studies by U.N. experts showed that sea levels were expected to rise about 89 centimeters, or 35 inches, in 2030 which meant that about 2,000 mostly uninhabited small islets would be submerged.
“We are still in a better position. Island countries like Saint Lucia, Fiji and the Bahamas would likely disappear,” he told Reuters.
Indonesia, which consists of 17,000 islands, has been trying to avert such a scenario by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and switching to biofuels, he said.
“We are optimistic it can be prevented. Switching to biofuels is not only good for the environment but also will benefit us economically considering the volatile state of oil prices,” he said.
Biofuels can be substituted for fossil fuels and are seen as a way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases which are believed to contribute to global warming.
Rice shortages
The environment minister also said rice shortages are forecast for next year because of wild weather blamed on climate change. “It is feared there will be a lack of rice production next year because of the changes in the weather and because the farmers are not used to this,” he said.
A draft U.N. report due to be released in Paris on Feb. 2 projects a big rise in temperatures this century and warns of more heat waves, floods, droughts and rising seas linked to greenhouse gases.
World leaders signed a U.N. Climate Convention in 1992 with an overriding goal of stabilizing greenhouse gases at levels preventing “dangerous (human) interference with the climate system”.
However, it did not define “dangerous” and the issue has been a vexed point in efforts to slow climate change ever since.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. plan for fighting global warming, 35 industrial nations have agreed to cut emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
President Bush pulled the United States out of the protocol in 2001, saying it would damage the U.S. economy and wrongly exempted developing nations from the first phase.
Emissions reduction
A concerted effort is required to slow and reverse the projected growth in greenhouse gas emissions. The NSW Government is pursuing a strategic and comprehensive approach to emissions reduction and to achieve its medium and long term emission reduction targets.
Greenhouse gas emissions are produced by a wide range of sources and can be reduced by either modifying our behaviour or by employing technological solutions.
To make significant cuts in emissions cost effectively, we need to use energy more smartly and ensure the development and uptake of innovative technology. At the same time, significant reductions in emissions can be achieved at minimal cost, by improving energy efficiency.
NSW is using a mix of approaches, including market-based measures, information and awareness-raising, and regulation, to reduce emissions.
Many emerging technologies are under development and showing significant promise for delivering large scale emission reductions. We can anticipate significant technological innovation over a 40 year horizon, arising from a carbon price signal - the Australian emissions trading scheme - and the NSW emissions reduction targets.
Priority sectors for action in NSW include electricity generation and transport, the largest and fastest growing sources of emissions in NSW.
The Government is also leading by example - using its significant purchasing power to drive the uptake of new technologies and setting targets to improve the efficiency of Government use of water, energy and transport.
Greenhouse gas emissions are produced by a wide range of sources and can be reduced by either modifying our behaviour or by employing technological solutions.
To make significant cuts in emissions cost effectively, we need to use energy more smartly and ensure the development and uptake of innovative technology. At the same time, significant reductions in emissions can be achieved at minimal cost, by improving energy efficiency.
NSW is using a mix of approaches, including market-based measures, information and awareness-raising, and regulation, to reduce emissions.
Many emerging technologies are under development and showing significant promise for delivering large scale emission reductions. We can anticipate significant technological innovation over a 40 year horizon, arising from a carbon price signal - the Australian emissions trading scheme - and the NSW emissions reduction targets.
Priority sectors for action in NSW include electricity generation and transport, the largest and fastest growing sources of emissions in NSW.
The Government is also leading by example - using its significant purchasing power to drive the uptake of new technologies and setting targets to improve the efficiency of Government use of water, energy and transport.
Climate Change and causes
Greenhouse Effect
Much of the energy which drives the earth's natural processes comes directly from the sun. Around half of the sun's energy that reaches the earth breaks through the atmosphere, warming the surface of the planet. Some of this solar radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere by the land and oceans.
A portion of this reflected heat passes through the atmosphere, but some of it is trapped by atmospheric greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth's surface, the atmosphere and clouds. It is this property that causes the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect keeps temperatures higher than they otherwise would be, just like a glass greenhouse keeps plants warm. Without this process, the global average surface temperature would be closer to 18 degrees Celsius below zero, instead of the current 15 degrees Celsius.
Greenhouse Gases
The primary greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere are: water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3). These are all naturally occurring, but humans can make them too.
In addition to these there are a number of entirely human-made (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as the halocarbons and other chlorine and bromine containing substances, dealt with under the Montreal Protocol.
Human Activity
Since the Industrial Revolution human activity - particularly the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing - has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
This includes both naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, as well as anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as sulphur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. Since 1750, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen 35%, and the current concentration is higher than any time in the last 650,000 years. The level of nitrous oxide has risen 17% and methane is up by 151%. Since 1900, global average temperatures have increased 0.74 degrees Celsius.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Program, has concluded that it is very likely* that human activities are responsible for most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.
Much of the energy which drives the earth's natural processes comes directly from the sun. Around half of the sun's energy that reaches the earth breaks through the atmosphere, warming the surface of the planet. Some of this solar radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere by the land and oceans.
A portion of this reflected heat passes through the atmosphere, but some of it is trapped by atmospheric greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth's surface, the atmosphere and clouds. It is this property that causes the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect keeps temperatures higher than they otherwise would be, just like a glass greenhouse keeps plants warm. Without this process, the global average surface temperature would be closer to 18 degrees Celsius below zero, instead of the current 15 degrees Celsius.
Greenhouse Gases
The primary greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere are: water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3). These are all naturally occurring, but humans can make them too.
In addition to these there are a number of entirely human-made (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as the halocarbons and other chlorine and bromine containing substances, dealt with under the Montreal Protocol.
Human Activity
Since the Industrial Revolution human activity - particularly the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing - has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
This includes both naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, as well as anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as sulphur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. Since 1750, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen 35%, and the current concentration is higher than any time in the last 650,000 years. The level of nitrous oxide has risen 17% and methane is up by 151%. Since 1900, global average temperatures have increased 0.74 degrees Celsius.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Program, has concluded that it is very likely* that human activities are responsible for most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.
Human being and Climate
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.
The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.
Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.
The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the "...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.
Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.
Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.
The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.
Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.
The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.
Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.
The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the "...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.
Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.
Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.
The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.
Human Impacts on Climate
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
Human-Caused Climate Change
A new NASA-led study shows human-caused climate change has made an impact on a wide range of Earth's natural systems, including permafrost thawing, plants blooming earlier across Europe, and lakes declining in productivity in Africa.
Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period. The study, to be published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.
"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.
Rosenzweig and colleagues also found the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.
To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.
Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth's poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.
The team conducted a "joint attribution" study. They showed that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.
Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. The team concluded observed global-scale impacts are very likely because of human-caused warming.
"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions," Rosenzweig said. "The warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia."
On some continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies.
The information above was published as a NASA news release in May, 2008.
Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period. The study, to be published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.
"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.
Rosenzweig and colleagues also found the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.
To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.
Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth's poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.
The team conducted a "joint attribution" study. They showed that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.
Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. The team concluded observed global-scale impacts are very likely because of human-caused warming.
"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions," Rosenzweig said. "The warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia."
On some continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies.
The information above was published as a NASA news release in May, 2008.
Human-Caused Climate Change
A new NASA-led study shows human-caused climate change has made an impact on a wide range of Earth's natural systems, including permafrost thawing, plants blooming earlier across Europe, and lakes declining in productivity in Africa.
Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period. The study, to be published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.
"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.
Rosenzweig and colleagues also found the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.
To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.
Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth's poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.
The team conducted a "joint attribution" study. They showed that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.
Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. The team concluded observed global-scale impacts are very likely because of human-caused warming.
"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions," Rosenzweig said. "The warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia."
On some continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies.
The information above was published as a NASA news release in May, 2008.
Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period. The study, to be published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.
"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.
Rosenzweig and colleagues also found the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.
To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.
Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth's poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.
The team conducted a "joint attribution" study. They showed that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.
Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. The team concluded observed global-scale impacts are very likely because of human-caused warming.
"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions," Rosenzweig said. "The warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia."
On some continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies.
The information above was published as a NASA news release in May, 2008.
THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
We’ve established that global warming is happening and this is leading to climate change, now we’ll look at what might be causing it and whether it’s natural, manmade or both.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Our atmosphere acts like a blanket trapping heat and keeping Earth at a habitable temperature, it’s this retaining of heat that is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect. The greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases that trap heat from the sun, the more greenhouse gases there are the more heat is retained (Wikipedia - Greenhouse Gas).
GREENHOUSE GASES
Water vapour (H20) is the most prevalent of all the greenhouse gases and depending how humid the air is, it can account for up to 4% of the composition of air (note 1). Excluding water vapour, the air comprises 78.084% nitrogen (N2), 20.946% oxygen (O2) and 0.9340% argon (Ar); together these account for 99.9% of the composition of air. However, they do not have the same heat retaining capacity of other gases and are not considered greenhouse gases (Wikipedia - Greenhouse Gas).
Water vapour can be considered to be a natural greenhouse gas (note 2). Some greenhouse gases are both natural and manmade including carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO) and tetraflouromethane (CF4). There are several synthetic gases consisting of carbon and halogens (note 3), the group of gases called chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) are perhaps the best known of these. Many of the manmade greenhouse gases are also responsible for ozone depletion (EPA - Ozone).
As with temperature, there is a natural cycle in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ice core samples extending back some 650,000 years show the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 to have been around 190 ppmv (note 4) and the maximum about 300 ppmv [see graphs below]. The worry is that the current levels of CO2 are considerably higher at around 385 ppmv [San Francisco Chronicle].
LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GAS
From the table below we can see that, excluding water vapour, carbon dioxide is by far the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases accounting for over 99% of all of them. The only other gas present in appreciable quantity is methane and this accounts for nearly 0.5% of the greenhouse gases. Between them, these two gases account for more than 99.9% of all greenhouse gases.
By comparing levels of greenhouse gases in 2000 with levels in 1750 we can see that there has been a 31% increase in the amount of carbon dioxide, a 16% rise in levels of nitrous oxide and a 149% increase in the levels of methane. Several of the gases are entirely synthetic and didn’t exist back in 1750.
Different greenhouse gases are more effective than others at contributing to the greenhouse effect, an effect called the global warming Potential (GWP). Although carbon dioxide accounts for 99.4% of the greenhouse gases by volume, the contribution it makes as a total of all the greenhouse gases is considerably lower at just 72.3%; this is because, as greenhouse gases go, it’s not very good. Nitrous oxide on the other hand is nearly 300 times as effective and although it occurs in very small amounts when compared to carbon dioxide, it manages to contribute 18.4% towards the total greenhouse effect. The other gases which make sizeable contributions are methane and dichlorodifluoromethane, respectively these are responsible for nearly 8% and nearly 1% of the contribution to the greenhouse effect.
CHANGES IN LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GAS
Four gases are responsible for 99.5% of the greenhouse effect - carbon dioxide (72.3%), nitrous oxide (18.4%), methane (7.9%) and dichlorodifluoromethane (0.9%). Below are three graphs showing how the levels of three of these gases have changed during the last 1000 years, there is no graph for dichlorodifluoromethane (freon) as this is a man-made gas and didn’t exist until quite recently and it’s production has now been discontinued.
Carbon Dioxide
Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been fairly constant at around 280 part per million, in the last 200 years there has been a marked rise in levels. In the 250 years between 1750 and 2000 levels increased by 31.3%. Current levels are 385ppmv.
Nitrous Oxide
Historically levels of nitrous oxide have been between 260 and 275 parts per billion. In 1750 there were 270 ppb, by 2000 there were 314 ppb, a rise of 16.3%.
Methane
In 1750 the levels of methane in the atmosphere were 700 parts per billion, about the same as they had been previously. By 2000 the levels had risen sharply to 1745 parts, a rise of 149.3%.
SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
One of the primary causes of greenhouse gas emissions for which humans are responsible result from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and much of the remainder results from farming and agricultural activities. Fossil fuels are used in power generation, to heat homes and offices, to power factories, to fuel transport and many more uses.
Other manmade causes of greenhouse gases include deforestation (note 6), fertilisers, air conditioning units, open fires, fridges and freezers, numerous industrial and chemical processes, fire suppressants, coal mining, effluent, landfill sites, livestock and rice cultivation [Knauer Group].
There are several natural causes of greenhouse gases including volcanic activity, the seas and oceans, natural decay of plants and animals and the natural melting of ice caps.
THE CARBON CYCLE
There’s a natural cycle of carbon dioxide. Annually 120 billion tons of CO2 are absorbed from the atmosphere by vegetation and soil whilst at the same time 119 billion tons are released into the atmosphere. A similar exchange takes place between the oceans and the atmosphere with 90 billion tons of CO2 being absorbed and 88 billion tons being released. The net effect is that each year the atmosphere loses 3 billion tons of CO2.
One very important factor not taken into account here is the anthropogenic effect. In 2006 humans added 7 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere just through the burning of fossil fuels resulting an overall increase in atmospheric CO2 of 4 billion tons.
Carbon dioxide is exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans and between the atmosphere and vegetation, this is the natural cycle and results in 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide being lost from the atmosphere each year. In 2006 humans added 29 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere resulting in an overall increase of 26 billion tons.
CARBON IMBALANCE
During the last 400,000 years levels of carbon dioxide have fluctuated between 190 and 310 ppmv. In the last 200 years levels have risen sharply to 385 ppmv.
Enlarge - More info and explanation Left to it’s own devices the natural carbon cycle is more or less in equilibrium and significant changes to levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere occur over timeframes spanning many thousands of years and correlate with the ice age cycles.
The first graph to the left show how concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have changed over the last 400,000 years with levels fluctuating between 190 and 310ppmv (note 7). The inset graph shows that for the last 1000 years atmospheric CO2 levels have been consistent until approximately 250 years ago when they began rising rapidly.
The peaks and troughs are quite consistent, lows of around 190ppmv and highs of around 300ppmv. Coming out of a recent ice age we would expect to have seen levels peak at around 300ppmv and then start to fall again. Indeed, up to 250 years ago levels were behaving as would have been expected but then began rising dramatically. The third graph shows that in the last 50 years levels have risen from 315ppmv to 380ppmv, a rise of 65ppmv. Compared to natural variations this is at least 100 times as fast as would be expected, even when natural levels are increasing at their fastest.
The graph in the middle illustrates that over periods of hundreds of millions of years there are significant changes in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide with some sources estimating that levels half a billion years ago were as much as 18 times as high as they are now. Estimates this far back rely on oxygen isotope analysis and only give an indication of the approximate levels of gases that may have been present. A much more accurate way of analysing the atmosphere from years gone by is by extracting air trapped in ice, using this approach there is now an accurate record dating back 650,000 years.
250 years ago the Industrial Revolution began (note 8), the demand for energy started rising and has continued rising ever since. Not only are there far more people living on the planet than ever before but the average amount of energy each person uses grows year on year. Today over 80% of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels, before the days of nuclear power and renewable energy sources it was even higher.
Industrialisation is by far the biggest factor in the carbon imbalance but there are others including deforestation. Carbon dioxide plays a vital role in nature in that it enables plants to photosynthesise (note 9) and each year some 17 billion tons of CO2 are absorbed in this way, this is just one of the natural processes which in total absorb 120 billion tons of CO2 a year. For many decades huge swathes of forest have been cut down and although new forests are being planted the net loss is still about 100,000 square kilometres of forest a year [UN Report]. With an ever decreasing amount of forest there is a corresponding decline in the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed for photosynthesis.
SOLAR VARIATION
Solar variations cause changes in the amount of heat energy emitted from the sun and there are many reasons for this. The primary variation is caused by solar cycles, a pattern that repeats itself at 11 year intervals. However, the difference between the highest and lowest output is very small - about 0.1% [Wikipedia - Solar Variation]. There are many other cycles that the sun goes through ranging from 22 years to several thousand years; there may be longer ones that haven’t yet been detected.
The heat energy received from the sun is 1366 W/m²/yr (Watts per square metre per year) and it’s estimated that since 1750 this has increased by 0.3 W/m²/yr. During the same time, anthropogenic global warming has contributed a further 2.4 W/m²/yr [IPCC].
In the short term at least, solar variation has little effect on global warming and climate change. Over many thousands and millions of years the changes are significant and together with other astronomical factors (note 10) can explain globalwarming awareness2007 and cooling cycles over long periods of time.
FEEDBACK OR COMPOUND PROCESS
Globalwarming is a self-perpetuating cycle. If we take the frozen tundra of Siberia as an example, the permafrost here is melting and in the last few years one million square kilometres has melted [The Guardian]. Trapped in the peat beneath the permafrost is up to 70 billion tons of methane, as the ice melts the methane is released into the atmosphere. Methane, as we’ve established, is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and releasing this much methane has the same globalwarming awareness2007 potential as releasing 1.6 trillion tons of CO2.
The release of the methane increases global warming which leads to more ice melting, more methane released, more ice melting...
Further, as the ice melts it exposes the land beneath and forms melt-water lakes, both land and water are less reflective than ice so they absorb more solar heat radiation, further adding to Global warming and the feedback process.
Global Warming causes an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases cause an increase in the levels of global warming.
We’ve established that global warming is happening and this is leading to climate change, now we’ll look at what might be causing it and whether it’s natural, manmade or both.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Our atmosphere acts like a blanket trapping heat and keeping Earth at a habitable temperature, it’s this retaining of heat that is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect. The greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases that trap heat from the sun, the more greenhouse gases there are the more heat is retained (Wikipedia - Greenhouse Gas).
GREENHOUSE GASES
Water vapour (H20) is the most prevalent of all the greenhouse gases and depending how humid the air is, it can account for up to 4% of the composition of air (note 1). Excluding water vapour, the air comprises 78.084% nitrogen (N2), 20.946% oxygen (O2) and 0.9340% argon (Ar); together these account for 99.9% of the composition of air. However, they do not have the same heat retaining capacity of other gases and are not considered greenhouse gases (Wikipedia - Greenhouse Gas).
Water vapour can be considered to be a natural greenhouse gas (note 2). Some greenhouse gases are both natural and manmade including carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO) and tetraflouromethane (CF4). There are several synthetic gases consisting of carbon and halogens (note 3), the group of gases called chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) are perhaps the best known of these. Many of the manmade greenhouse gases are also responsible for ozone depletion (EPA - Ozone).
As with temperature, there is a natural cycle in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ice core samples extending back some 650,000 years show the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 to have been around 190 ppmv (note 4) and the maximum about 300 ppmv [see graphs below]. The worry is that the current levels of CO2 are considerably higher at around 385 ppmv [San Francisco Chronicle].
LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GAS
From the table below we can see that, excluding water vapour, carbon dioxide is by far the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases accounting for over 99% of all of them. The only other gas present in appreciable quantity is methane and this accounts for nearly 0.5% of the greenhouse gases. Between them, these two gases account for more than 99.9% of all greenhouse gases.
By comparing levels of greenhouse gases in 2000 with levels in 1750 we can see that there has been a 31% increase in the amount of carbon dioxide, a 16% rise in levels of nitrous oxide and a 149% increase in the levels of methane. Several of the gases are entirely synthetic and didn’t exist back in 1750.
Different greenhouse gases are more effective than others at contributing to the greenhouse effect, an effect called the global warming Potential (GWP). Although carbon dioxide accounts for 99.4% of the greenhouse gases by volume, the contribution it makes as a total of all the greenhouse gases is considerably lower at just 72.3%; this is because, as greenhouse gases go, it’s not very good. Nitrous oxide on the other hand is nearly 300 times as effective and although it occurs in very small amounts when compared to carbon dioxide, it manages to contribute 18.4% towards the total greenhouse effect. The other gases which make sizeable contributions are methane and dichlorodifluoromethane, respectively these are responsible for nearly 8% and nearly 1% of the contribution to the greenhouse effect.
CHANGES IN LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GAS
Four gases are responsible for 99.5% of the greenhouse effect - carbon dioxide (72.3%), nitrous oxide (18.4%), methane (7.9%) and dichlorodifluoromethane (0.9%). Below are three graphs showing how the levels of three of these gases have changed during the last 1000 years, there is no graph for dichlorodifluoromethane (freon) as this is a man-made gas and didn’t exist until quite recently and it’s production has now been discontinued.
Carbon Dioxide
Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been fairly constant at around 280 part per million, in the last 200 years there has been a marked rise in levels. In the 250 years between 1750 and 2000 levels increased by 31.3%. Current levels are 385ppmv.
Nitrous Oxide
Historically levels of nitrous oxide have been between 260 and 275 parts per billion. In 1750 there were 270 ppb, by 2000 there were 314 ppb, a rise of 16.3%.
Methane
In 1750 the levels of methane in the atmosphere were 700 parts per billion, about the same as they had been previously. By 2000 the levels had risen sharply to 1745 parts, a rise of 149.3%.
SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
One of the primary causes of greenhouse gas emissions for which humans are responsible result from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and much of the remainder results from farming and agricultural activities. Fossil fuels are used in power generation, to heat homes and offices, to power factories, to fuel transport and many more uses.
Other manmade causes of greenhouse gases include deforestation (note 6), fertilisers, air conditioning units, open fires, fridges and freezers, numerous industrial and chemical processes, fire suppressants, coal mining, effluent, landfill sites, livestock and rice cultivation [Knauer Group].
There are several natural causes of greenhouse gases including volcanic activity, the seas and oceans, natural decay of plants and animals and the natural melting of ice caps.
THE CARBON CYCLE
There’s a natural cycle of carbon dioxide. Annually 120 billion tons of CO2 are absorbed from the atmosphere by vegetation and soil whilst at the same time 119 billion tons are released into the atmosphere. A similar exchange takes place between the oceans and the atmosphere with 90 billion tons of CO2 being absorbed and 88 billion tons being released. The net effect is that each year the atmosphere loses 3 billion tons of CO2.
One very important factor not taken into account here is the anthropogenic effect. In 2006 humans added 7 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere just through the burning of fossil fuels resulting an overall increase in atmospheric CO2 of 4 billion tons.
Carbon dioxide is exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans and between the atmosphere and vegetation, this is the natural cycle and results in 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide being lost from the atmosphere each year. In 2006 humans added 29 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere resulting in an overall increase of 26 billion tons.
CARBON IMBALANCE
During the last 400,000 years levels of carbon dioxide have fluctuated between 190 and 310 ppmv. In the last 200 years levels have risen sharply to 385 ppmv.
Enlarge - More info and explanation Left to it’s own devices the natural carbon cycle is more or less in equilibrium and significant changes to levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere occur over timeframes spanning many thousands of years and correlate with the ice age cycles.
The first graph to the left show how concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have changed over the last 400,000 years with levels fluctuating between 190 and 310ppmv (note 7). The inset graph shows that for the last 1000 years atmospheric CO2 levels have been consistent until approximately 250 years ago when they began rising rapidly.
The peaks and troughs are quite consistent, lows of around 190ppmv and highs of around 300ppmv. Coming out of a recent ice age we would expect to have seen levels peak at around 300ppmv and then start to fall again. Indeed, up to 250 years ago levels were behaving as would have been expected but then began rising dramatically. The third graph shows that in the last 50 years levels have risen from 315ppmv to 380ppmv, a rise of 65ppmv. Compared to natural variations this is at least 100 times as fast as would be expected, even when natural levels are increasing at their fastest.
The graph in the middle illustrates that over periods of hundreds of millions of years there are significant changes in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide with some sources estimating that levels half a billion years ago were as much as 18 times as high as they are now. Estimates this far back rely on oxygen isotope analysis and only give an indication of the approximate levels of gases that may have been present. A much more accurate way of analysing the atmosphere from years gone by is by extracting air trapped in ice, using this approach there is now an accurate record dating back 650,000 years.
250 years ago the Industrial Revolution began (note 8), the demand for energy started rising and has continued rising ever since. Not only are there far more people living on the planet than ever before but the average amount of energy each person uses grows year on year. Today over 80% of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels, before the days of nuclear power and renewable energy sources it was even higher.
Industrialisation is by far the biggest factor in the carbon imbalance but there are others including deforestation. Carbon dioxide plays a vital role in nature in that it enables plants to photosynthesise (note 9) and each year some 17 billion tons of CO2 are absorbed in this way, this is just one of the natural processes which in total absorb 120 billion tons of CO2 a year. For many decades huge swathes of forest have been cut down and although new forests are being planted the net loss is still about 100,000 square kilometres of forest a year [UN Report]. With an ever decreasing amount of forest there is a corresponding decline in the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed for photosynthesis.
SOLAR VARIATION
Solar variations cause changes in the amount of heat energy emitted from the sun and there are many reasons for this. The primary variation is caused by solar cycles, a pattern that repeats itself at 11 year intervals. However, the difference between the highest and lowest output is very small - about 0.1% [Wikipedia - Solar Variation]. There are many other cycles that the sun goes through ranging from 22 years to several thousand years; there may be longer ones that haven’t yet been detected.
The heat energy received from the sun is 1366 W/m²/yr (Watts per square metre per year) and it’s estimated that since 1750 this has increased by 0.3 W/m²/yr. During the same time, anthropogenic global warming has contributed a further 2.4 W/m²/yr [IPCC].
In the short term at least, solar variation has little effect on global warming and climate change. Over many thousands and millions of years the changes are significant and together with other astronomical factors (note 10) can explain globalwarming awareness2007 and cooling cycles over long periods of time.
FEEDBACK OR COMPOUND PROCESS
Globalwarming is a self-perpetuating cycle. If we take the frozen tundra of Siberia as an example, the permafrost here is melting and in the last few years one million square kilometres has melted [The Guardian]. Trapped in the peat beneath the permafrost is up to 70 billion tons of methane, as the ice melts the methane is released into the atmosphere. Methane, as we’ve established, is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and releasing this much methane has the same globalwarming awareness2007 potential as releasing 1.6 trillion tons of CO2.
The release of the methane increases global warming which leads to more ice melting, more methane released, more ice melting...
Further, as the ice melts it exposes the land beneath and forms melt-water lakes, both land and water are less reflective than ice so they absorb more solar heat radiation, further adding to Global warming and the feedback process.
Global Warming causes an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases cause an increase in the levels of global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)