Chennai-based climate champion heads for the Arctic

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.

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."

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."

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Causes of climate change varied: poll

EDMONTON - Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.

The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.

"We're not surprised at all," APEGGA executive director Neil Windsor said today. "There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

The only agreement among professionals is "we should do everything we can" to understand climate, adapt structures such as buildings and bridges to change and reduce human contributions to harmful trends, Windsor said.

The survey received 1,077 replies or a sample rated as an accurate portrait of the occupational groups' views to within three percentage points 19 times out of 20, APEGGA reported.

Alberta Environment helped design the poll and will give the results to the provincial government, association spokesman Philip Mulder said.

APEGGA is planning an "environmental summit" with other concerned agencies on Alberta climate change causes, effects and adaptations.

No date is set yet for the event. "We would prefer to have it sooner rather than later," Mulder said.

"These sessions can be structured so that they result in ... a concerted action plan to be directed at policy makers," APEGGA's environment committee said in a report to association members.

Potential actions include devising Alberta climate change forecasts, encouraging greenhouse-gas cleanups like industrial waste carbon disposal, and developing adaptation programs such as water conservation and energy efficiency, the committee said.

Only one-third of engineers and earth scientists polled by APEGGA rated the province's current climate change action plan as adequate.

About two-thirds of the professionals said the government should take on a leading role in developing renewable or sustainable energy sources and promoting energy efficiency among consumers. About half urged the province to make Alberta a world capital of capturing and storing industrial greenhouse-gas waste.

Engineers and earth scientists mostly feel free to speak out about climate change and take it into account in their work.

About two-thirds of the professionals say they feel no peer pressure to take particular stances on global warming, and 70 per cent report they have enough independence to take the issue into account in their professional roles.

But willingness to spend money on long-range climate change adaptations is still rare among employers of the science-based occupations, the survey results indicated.

In the poll of APEGGA's highly educated membership, "66 per cent state that corporate decision making is governed by short-term cost considerations rather than long-term investment."

Only 31 per cent of Alberta engineers and earth scientists say the organizations they serve regard them as valuable technical advisers on climate change. Just 26 per cent of the professionals believe they can influence corporate decisions.

Causes of climate change

The earth's climate is dynamic and always changing through a natural cycle. What the world is more worried about is that the changes that are occurring today have been speeded up because of man's activities. These changes are being studied by scientists all over the world who are finding evidence from tree rings, pollen samples, ice cores, and sea sediments. The causes of climate change can be divided into two categories - those that are due to natural causes and those that are created by man.

Natural causes

There are a number of natural factors responsible for climate change. Some of the more prominent ones are continental drift, volcanoes, ocean currents, the earth's tilt, and comets and meteorites. Let's look at them in a little detail.

Continental drift

You may have noticed something peculiar about South America and Africa on a map of the world - don't they seem to fit into each other like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle?
About 200 million years ago they were joined together! Scientists believe that back then, the earth was not as we see it today, but the continents were all part of one large landmass. Proof of this comes from the similarity between plant and animal fossils and broad belts of rocks found on the eastern coastline of South America and western coastline of Africa, which are now widely separated by the Atlantic Ocean. The discovery of fossils of tropical plants (in the form of coal deposits) in Antarctica has led to the conclusion that this frozen land at some time in the past, must have been situated closer to the equator, where the climate was tropical, with swamps and plenty of lush vegetation.

The continents that we are familiar with today were formed when the landmass began gradually drifting apart, millions of years back. This drift also had an impact on the climate because it changed the physical features of the landmass, their position and the position of water bodies. The separation of the landmasses changed the flow of ocean currents and winds, which affected the climate. This drift of the continents continues even today; the Himalayan range is rising by about 1 mm (millimeter) every year because the Indian land mass is moving towards the Asian land mass, slowly but steadily.

Volcanoes

When a volcano erupts it throws out large volumes of sulphur dioxide (SO2), water vapour, dust, and ash into the atmosphere. Although the volcanic activity may last only a few days, yet the large volumes of gases and ash can influence climatic patterns for years. Millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide gas can reach the upper levels of the atmosphere (called the stratosphere) from a major eruption. The gases and dust particles partially block the incoming rays of the sun, leading to cooling. Sulphur dioxide combines with water to form tiny droplets of sulphuric acid. These droplets are so small that many of them can stay aloft for several years. They are efficient reflectors of sunlight, and screen the ground from some of the energy that it would ordinarily receive from the sun. Winds in the upper levels of the atmopshere, called the stratosphere, carry the aerosols rapidly around the globe in either an easterly or westerly direction. Movement of aerosols north and south is always much slower. This should give you some idea of the ways by which cooling can be brought about for a few years after a major volcanic eruption.

Mount Pinatoba, in the Philippine islands erupted in April 1991 emitting thousands of tonnes of gases into the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions of this magnitude can reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, lowering temperatures in the lower levels of the atmosphere (called the troposphere), and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. The extent to which this occurs is an ongoing debate.

Another striking example was in the year 1816, often referred to as "the year without a summer." Significant weather-related disruptions occurred in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia, in 1815.

The earth's tilt

The earth makes one full orbit around the sun each year. It is tilted at an angle of 23.5° to the perpendicular plane of its orbital path. For one half of the year when it is summer, the northern hemisphere tilts towards the sun. In the other half when it is winter, the earth is tilted away from the sun. If there was no tilt we would not have experienced seasons. Changes in the tilt of the earth can affect the severity of the seasons - more tilt means warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means cooler summers and milder winters.

The Earth's orbit is somewhat elliptical, which means that the distance between the earth and the Sun varies over the course of a year. We usually think of the earth's axis as being fixed, after all, it always seems to point toward Polaris (also known as the Pole Star and the North Star). Actually, it is not quite constant: the axis does move, at the rate of a little more than a half-degree each century. So Polaris has not always been, and will not always be, the star pointing to the North. When the pyramids were built, around 2500 BC, the pole was near the star Thuban (Alpha Draconis). This gradual change in the direction of the earth's axis, called precession is responsible for changes in the climate.

Ocean currents

The oceans are a major component of the climate system. They cover about 71% of the Earth and absorb about twice as much of the sun's radiation as the atmosphere or the land surface. Ocean currents move vast amounts of heat across the planet - roughly the same amount as the atmosphere does. But the oceans are surrounded by land masses, so heat transport through the water is through channels.

Winds push horizontally against the sea surface and drive ocean current patterns.
Certain parts of the world are influenced by ocean currents more than others. The coast of Peru and other adjoining regions are directly influenced by the Humboldt current that flows along the coastline of Peru. The El Niño event in the Pacific Ocean can affect climatic conditions all over the world.

Another region that is strongly influenced by ocean currents is the North Atlantic. If we compare places at the same latitude in Europe and North America the effect is immediately obvious. Take a closer look at this example - some parts of coastal Norway have an average temperature of -2°C in January and 14°C in July; while places at the same latitude on the Pacific coast of Alaska are far colder: -15°C in January and only 10°C in July. The warm current along the Norewgian coast keeps much of the Greenland-Norwegian Sea free of ice even in winter. The rest of the Arctic Ocean, even though it is much further south, remains frozen.

Ocean currents have been known to change direction or slow down. Much of the heat that escapes from the oceans is in the form of water vapour, the most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth. Yet, water vapor also contributes to the formation of clouds, which shade the surface and have a net cooling effect.
Any or all of these phenomena can have an impact on the climate, as is believed to have happened at the end of the last Ice Age, about 14,000 years ago.

Human causes

The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century saw the large-scale use of fossil fuels for industrial activities. These industries created jobs and over the years, people moved from rural areas to the cities. This trend is continuing even today. More and more land that was covered with vegetation has been cleared to make way for houses. Natural resources are being used extensively for construction, industries, transport, and consumption. Consumerism (our increasing want for material things) has increased by leaps and bounds, creating mountains of waste. Also, our population has increased to an incredible extent.

All this has contributed to a rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas supply most of the energy needed to run vehicles, generate electricity for industries, households, etc. The energy sector is responsible for about ¾ of the carbon dioxide emissions, 1/5 of the methane emissions and a large quantity of nitrous oxide. It also produces nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) which are not greenhouse gases but do have an influence on the chemical cycles in the atmosphere that produce or destroy greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases and their sources

Carbon dioxide is undoubtedly, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes in land use pattern, deforestation, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities have all led to a rise in the emission of carbon dioxide.

Methane is another important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. About ¼ of all methane emissions are said to come from domesticated animals such as dairy cows, goats, pigs, buffaloes, camels, horses, and sheep. These animals produce methane during the cud-chewing process. Methane is also released from rice or paddy fields that are flooded during the sowing and maturing periods. When soil is covered with water it becomes anaerobic or lacking in oxygen. Under such conditions, methane-producing bacteria and other organisms decompose organic matter in the soil to form methane. Nearly 90% of the paddy-growing area in the world is found in Asia, as rice is the staple food there. China and India, between them, have 80-90% of the world's rice-growing areas.

Methane is also emitted from landfills and other waste dumps. If the waste is put into an incinerator or burnt in the open, carbon dioxide is emitted. Methane is also emitted during the process of oil drilling, coal mining and also from leaking gas pipelines (due to accidents and poor maintenance of sites).
A large amount of nitrous oxide emission has been attributed to fertilizer application. This in turn depends on the type of fertilizer that is used, how and when it is used and the methods of tilling that are followed. Contributions are also made by leguminous plants, such as beans and pulses that add nitrogen to the soil.

How we all contribute every day

All of us in our daily lives contribute our bit to this change in the climate. Give these points a good, serious thought:

- Electricity is the main source of power in urban areas. All our gadgets run on electricity generated mainly from thermal power plants. These thermal power plants are run on fossil fuels (mostly coal) and are responsible for the emission of huge amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
- Cars, buses, and trucks are the principal ways by which goods and people are transported in most of our cities. These are run mainly on petrol or diesel, both fossil fuels.
- We generate large quantities of waste in the form of plastics that remain in the environment for many years and cause damage.
- We use a huge quantity of paper in our work at schools and in offices. Have we ever thought about the number of trees that we use in a day?
- Timber is used in large quantities for construction of houses, which means that large areas of forest have to be cut down.
- A growing population has meant more and more mouths to feed. Because the land area available for agriculture is limited (and in fact, is actually shrinking as a result of ecological degradation!), high-yielding varieties of crop are being grown to increase the agricultural output from a given area of land. However, such high-yielding varieties of crops require large quantities of fertilizers; and more fertilizer means more emissions of nitrous oxide, both from the field into which it is put and the fertilizer industry that makes it. Pollution also results from the run-off of fertilizer into water bodies.

Climate Change in India

Changes to India's annual monsoon are expected to result in severe droughts and intense flooding in parts of India. Scientists predict that by the end of the century the country will experience a 3 to 5ÚC temperature increase and a 20% rise in all summer monsoon rainfall.

As part of the UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI), Liverpool and Indian scientists have been awarded £150,000 to develop key research methodologies and scientific monitoring procedures in collaboration to investigate how alterations in water resources may affect human health, agriculture, forests and wildlife
Climate change studies undertaken so far reveal that action is essential in order to prevent long term damage to India's water cycle. The livelihood of a vast population in India depends on agriculture, forestry, wetlands and fisheries and land use in these areas is strongly influenced by water-based ecosystems that depend on monsoon rains. Changes to the water cycle may also cause an increase in water borne diseases such as cholera and hepatitis, as well as diseases carried by insects such as malaria.

Scientists, based at the University of Liverpool's Institute for Sustainable Water Integrated Management and Ecosystem Research (SWIMMER) and the School of Biological Sciences, are working in one of the largest river basins in India, the Godavari Basin in Andhra Pradesh, which displays a diversity of ecosystems and provides a good water model for other regions of India. The scientific approaches developed will be used to support local agencies in managing water resources more effectively.

Professor Ed Malby, Director of SWIMMER, said: "To maximise expertise and knowledge in this area it is important that UK and Indian scientists meet and exchange ideas and research. Throughout this year we are holding workshops in India with the five project partners to showcase work conducted so far and to develop detailed activities to achieve the project's aims. We are also developing Decision Support Frameworks (DSF) -- computer based models by which scientists and policy makers can compare different climate change scenarios with alternative water and land management strategies. These frameworks will help Indian authorities with strategic decisions related to water management."

Climate conference makes progress on key dispute

Delegates at a key U.N. climate conference moved forward Friday on a plan to encourage developing countries to regulate carbon emissions by focusing on their largest industries.

The so-called "sectoral approach" sidesteps objections from countries like India and China, which refuse to accept national targets for the overall emission of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

How to get developing countries to commit to reducing pollution levels has deeply divided countries seeking to craft a new climate change agreement to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The meeting of 1,600 delegates and environmentalist from 160 countries was the third conference this year working on the accord, due to be adopted in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The Accra meeting also was discussing ways to integrate the conservation of the world's ever-shrinking forests into the Copenhagen agreement, as well as studying ways to raise and distribute the tens of billions of dollars needed annually to help poor countries deal with the consequences of climate change.


Under the Kyoto pact, only 37 industrial countries were required to meet specific targets. Together, they were required to cut emissions by an average 5 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. The United States refused to participate in the Kyoto regime because it excluded China and other large emerging economies from any obligation.

Under the approach now taking shape, developing countries would set pollution targets for specific industries, like cement production, steel or aluminum. Unlike the industrial countries, they likely would not be punished for missing their targets.

"Something quiet but quite dramatic is happening," said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "People are now talking about the same idea in the same language."

China and India voiced reservations, but did not reject the concept.

"There is now a basis for discussion" on the issue, said Katrin Gutmann, policy coordinator of the WWF Global Climate Initiative. "Before, we worried there would just be more clashes."

Details of any agreement on a sectoral approach would be complex and difficult to reach, and it is only one of many disputed components of an agreement.

But consensus appeared to coalesce around the idea that industrial countries will remain legally bound to meet a national cap on their carbon emissions, while developing countries would have flexibility in deciding which industries would be controlled and at what levels.

Advanced countries would provide the technology and funding to help other countries curb emissions in heavily polluting industries.

Japan, which introduced the proposal earlier this year to a chorus of criticism, said it was pleased with the generally positive response to the modified plan it brought to Accra.

Developing countries had earlier feared the Japanese plan was a backdoor device to impose binding targets that would limit their economic development.

"That is a great advancement compared with the beginning of this year," Japanese delegate Jun Arima told the conference.

The latest proposals also were met with guarded approval by the U.S. chief delegate Harlan Watson, who saw it as a potential boon for private enterprise and investment. The idea "will help engage industry in the process" he said at the meeting. "The private sector will have an important role to play."

The second day of the conference coincided with the publication in Geneva of a new report identifying the world's "humanitarian hot spots," where millions of people are most vulnerable to a heightened risk of natural disasters due to climate change.

In 2005-2006 natural disasters killed 120,000 people, affected 271 million people and cost US$250 billion, said the joint report by the CARE relief organization and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

"Climate change is blurring the distinction between natural and man-made hazards," said the report. Weather-related disasters would occur anyway, but severe events such as droughts, floods and storms are growing more frequent and more intense — "and the consensus among experts is that we are to blame."

The report, "The Humanitarian Implications of Climate Change," said the areas at highest risk during the next 20 to 30 years are Africa, particularly the northern Sahel, the Horn of Africa and central Africa; Central and South Asia, particularly the belt from Iran and Afghanistan through Pakistan, India and the Caspian region; and Southeast Asia, especially Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia.

Renewables must be centre-stage in fight against climate change

IF YOU think about some depressing facts – that you can’t afford to pay your electricity bill this month, there’s an ongoing war devastating Iraq, and the ice caps are rapidly melting – you’ll find they all have something in common: they’ve all been caused by our addiction to fossil fuels. This dependence, while causing pain now, threatens nothing less than the future destruction of our civilisation through global warming.
Scientists have been warning us for decades of this climate crisis, and awareness has eventually risen around the world of the scale, causes and effects of climate change.
The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of coal and oil, is rising rapidly, trapping heat and causing warming. Leading environmental experts argue that we now have between five and ten years to dramatically slash carbon emissions to prevent irreversible and unpredictable ‘runaway’ climate change.
Speaking to An Phoblacht this week, the Sinn Féin MEP for the Six Counties, Bairbre de Brún, who has been working in the EU Parliament Committee on Climate Change, described climate change as “the greatest challenge we have ever faced”.
There is a growing international consensus that we must meet this challenge with the sense of urgency, co-operation and political will that the problem demands, she said.
Speaking in the EU Parliament, de Brún said:
“The need to prepare for the effects of climate change should be blindingly obvious to all by now. Our society and economy need to change as our climate does.”
Climate change is occurring at a much higher speed that previously expected. We have strictly limited time to achieve what’s necessary to prevent disastrous climate change – changing from high-carbon, polluting, wasteful economies dependent on fossil fuels to efficient, sustainable societies powered by renewable energy.
Scientists are now warning that the loss of the entire Arctic ice cap appears to be inevitable and that there is a 75 per cent chance that it may occur as early as 2010-13 – a full century before the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted.
When the Arctic sea ice melts it will no longer reflect the sun but the water will instead absorb heat, increasing the melting pressure on the land-locked Greenland ice sheet. Only a few years ago, climate experts were predicting sea levels would rise by between 20cm and one metre by 2100, but if the Greenland and west Antarctic ice melts, sea levels may rise by several metres in a matter of decades.
Climate change is already well and truly upon us, with weather patterns becoming increasingly erratic and an increase in natural disasters, flooding, droughts and storms.
In Ireland, we’ve seen a rise in flooding and severe gales over the past few years. Coastal flooding, less moderate temperatures, more storms and heavier rainfall are all expected effects of climate change on Ireland over the coming years, which will impact on agriculture and biodiversity.
Some climate change is now unavoidable, but most experts believe the worst effects can be prevented if we keep warming to below a global rise of 2°C. Basically, we need to immediately stabilise the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and then quickly reduce it. The IPCC recommends that, to do this, we have to cut emissions by at least 60-80 per cent below the baseline 1990 levels by 2050 at the latest.
In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed. There are currently 182 countries that have ratified the treaty, with the notable exception of the United States. Kyoto came into effect in 2005 and commits signatories to binding carbon-emission reduction targets, aiming to achieve an overall reduction of five per cent below the baseline by 2012.
Kyoto was a positive move forward for international co-operation in negotiating a framework to achieve emission reduction but it’s only the first step. Future agreements must be truly global and we must establish effective mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing reductions, eliminating loopholes. Above all, it must place the transition from carbon-based fuels to clean energy at its core and aim for the reduction level that experts agree is necessary to avoid disaster.
De Brún points out that future agreements must take into account the need to help underdeveloped countries prepare for the impact of climate change: “A phenomenon not of their making but for which they will suffer disproportionately.”
As a prominent member of the EU Committee on Climate Change, de Brún has been playing a leading role in negotiating the EU Parliament’s position on the future international framework post-2012. At the UN Summit on Climate Change in Bali in December, a developing consensus projected that industrialised countries need to cut emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020 and that an 80-90 per cent cut was necessary by 2050 to keep warming below 2°C this century.
But at the G8 summit in early July, an agreement was announced that aims to reduce emissions globally by just 50 per cent by 2050. The G8 statement is a retreat from the minimum reductions demanded by the international community at the UN summit in Bali. Around the world, environment activists are saying that this unelected body of powerful nations cannot be allowed to sidestep their responsibilities and undermine the UN as the centre for co-operative international action on climate change.
As part of the EU’s target of cutting emissions by eight per cent overall by 2012 under Kyoto, the 26 Counties agreed to limit emissions growth to no more that +13 per cent above 1990 levels.
But reducing emissions was obviously not prioritised by the Fianna Fáil-led government during the boom years. Instead, the Government pushed private transport, refused to introduce a carbon tax, and relied heavily on carbon trading to meet its obligations under Kyoto. In 2007, Ireland’s emissions were 23 per cent above the agreed target.
Green Party Environment Minister John Gormley claims Ireland is now on track to meet the Kyoto target, with 21 per cent of emissions reductions to take place outside of the 26-County state through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Green Party ministers in Government are pushing for the inclusion of a carbon tax in the December budget.
In order to effectively go beyond our Kyoto commitments, Bairbre de Brún believes both governments in Ireland need to introduce a Climate Protection Bill that legislates for an ambitious target in reduction of CO2 emissions and provides the legal basis to monitor and enforce this. She says:
“Sinn Féin believes that a target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 is a step in the right direction, following the example set by the Scottish Government who also set legally binding targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050.”
Over the past number of years, the Irish Government has done a good job of demonstrating the limitations of carbon trading as the main plank of a climate strategy, showing how emissions trading schemes can be cynically abused.
Sinn Féin’s Environment spokesperson in the 26 Counties, Arthur Morgan TD, explains:
“Carbon trading aims to provide the means for governments and corporations who are unable to meet specific targets to be able to instead pay for the reduction of carbon emissions in some other project or country. Pricing carbon is a way to raise the fact that burning fossil fuels has an environmental cost, and it is supposed to be an economic incentive to switch to renewable sources.
“But for years the Fianna Fail-led government, which has the capacity but not the will to reduce emissions through energy efficiency and investment in clean energy sources, has been far too reliant on trading to meet its targets. This means that the extra cost of buying carbon credits to allow companies in Ireland to continue to pollute the environment is shifted onto taxpayers.”
He says this approach reflects “a total failure in providing leadership to face the climate challenge” and delays the necessary changes in Government investment and infrastructure policies.
As the ‘tipping point’ of irreversible climate damage approaches fast, the limitations of over-reliance on carbon trading are being demonstrated not only in Ireland but elsewhere. The extra costs associated with being able to continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will not necessarily be a ‘market signal’ to bring emissions down if the price of carbon credits is cheaper than switching to renewables.
In many cases, it has not resulted in investment into renewable energy sources and the extra cost has simply been shifted onto ordinary people through rising costs.
Morgan says:
“What’s urgently needed in addition to carbon trading schemes is public investment into new technologies, energy sources and infrastructure – such as a major extension of our public transport system – that can power our society with clean energy and effectively slash emissions. This has to be at the centre of our national strategy for reducing our emissions.”
Arthur Morgan told An Phoblacht that while Irish environmental activists and NGOs had high expectations for the environment ministry under the direction of the Green Party, these have unfortunately not been met.
“This is because the Greens have committed themselves to the narrow framework of the Fianna Fáil Government, which is in essence business as usual for the environment instead of the bold changes necessary to deal with climate change.”
Referring to the defeated Lisbon Treaty, Morgan adds:
“The leadership of the Irish Greens have badly damaged their party’s environmental credentials by their enthusiastic support for a treaty that would bind us into the promotion of nuclear power over renewable energy.”
Along with local residents, Sinn Féin is involved in the campaign to stop the proposed incinerator in Wicklow and, in the Six Counties, to prevent a chicken litter waste incinerator going ahead in Glenavy. De Brún has campaigned in the EU against incineration as a so-called climate solution to waste disposal and heat generation.
“Sinn Féin has pushed for the ‘greenest’ possible policy in waste management to be implemented,” Bairbre de Brún says. “This involves prioritising wherever possible prevention, recycling and reuse. Central to this position is our rejection of incineration as a dangerous, toxic practice.”
Whatever John Gormley’s policy limitations are, at least he believes global warming is happening. Environmental activists and NGOs must have met the news in June that the Democratic Unionist Party had appointed Sammy Wilson as the Northern Executive’s new Environment Minister with nervous laughter, thinking it was some sort of joke. Wilson constantly questions the evidence that climate change is a threat to the planet and he strongly favours nuclear power.
North Antrim Sinn Féin’ MLA Daithí McKay describes the DUP decision as “grossly irresponsible” and says that the environment will suffer because of it. He said that First Minister Peter Robinson is “clearly going for the nuclear option” by appointing Wilson.
McKay has called on the new Environment Minister to rule out participating in the deadly bribe being offered by the British Government: for jobs and money to flow to councils that ‘volunteer’ to host radioactive waste.
Internationally, nuclear power is one of the dubious sources of alternative energy being suggested by certain vested interests. The British Government has recently announced plans to build eight more nuclear power plants in the coming years.
The best solution to quickly reduce emissions is to use the existing, proven clean energy technology we have: solar, wind, and geothermal power. Enough solar energy falls on the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 per cent of the world’s energy needs for an entire year. And when the demand for renewables goes up, their costs come down: the opposite of finite fossil fuels.
With public investment and incentives, we can immediately and dramatically expand the use of renewables in the production of electricity - at the household and industrial level.
By investing in and expanding the infrastructure, we can build a quality all-Ireland public transport network that overcomes the car-dependent culture arising from decades of under-investment in the transport system. Industrially, rail transport and ship freight are less damaging than road transport.
Daithí McKay says:
“The irrational nature of partition is brought into sharper relief than ever when it comes to the question of climate change. The causes and effects of global warming won’t stop at an artificially-created border, and neither should our strategies for dealing with the problem.
“Sinn Féin believes we need to establish all-Ireland legislation and an Environmental Protection Agency to push forward and enforce a strong programme on emissions and pollution. As economic and political integration proceeds, we will benefit from economies of scale while pursuing sustainable development.”
Arthur Morgan says:
“I know we are talking about major changes in our economy, our society and our lifestyles, but this is what is necessary. We need to work together on a global scale to come up with creative solutions based on the hard scientific facts on warming that we are faced with.
“Sinn Féin views the climate challenge with the utmost seriousness and we aim to work at the local, national and international level to do everything we can to contribute to the global effort to halt climate change and protect our planet.”

Why US must invest against climate change

Eight scientific organisations have urged the next US president to help protect the country from climate change by pushing for increased funding for research and forecasting. The organisations say about $2 trillion of US economic output could be hurt by storms, floods and droughts.

"We don't think we have the right kind of tools to help decision makers plan for the future," said Jack Fellows, the vice president for corporate affairs of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a consortium of 71 universities.

The groups, including the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, urged Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain to support $9 billion in investments between 2010 and 2014 to help protect the country from extreme weather, which would nearly double the current US budget for the area.

The UN's science panel says extreme weather events could hit more often as temperatures rise due to climate change.

Each year the United States suffers billions of dollars in weather-related damages ranging from widespread events like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the more recent droughts in the Southeast, to smaller, more frequent glitches like airline delays from storms, they said. More than a quarter of the country's economic output, about $2 trillion, is vulnerable to extreme weather, they added.

The investments would pay for satellite and ground-based instruments that observe the Earth's climate and for computers to help make weather predictions more accurate.

Invest to protect
John Snow, the co-chairman of the Weather Coalition, a business and university group that advocates for better weather prediction, said improved computers would help scientists forecast extreme weather events more locally, which could help cities better prepare for weather disasters.

It could also help businesses that produce virtually no greenhouse emissions, such as wind farms, know where to best locate their operations, he said.

The scientists said cooler temperatures in the first half of this year are making their task more difficult. "One of the challenges we face ... is to make the case that while we are in a period of warming, we should not expect every year to be the warmest year on record," Snow said.

The global mean temperature to the end of July was 0.28 C above the 1961-1990 average, the UK-based MetOffice for climate change research said on Wednesday. That would make the first half of 2008 the coolest since 2000.

Neither campaign responded immediately to questions about the plea for funding. Obama and McCain, who face off in a November election, both support regulation of greenhouse gases through market mechanisms such as cap-and-trade programs on emissions

Environmentalists fight new coal plants with economics and George Bush reacts!

You might remember that President Bush came out with a global warming proposal to cap carbon emissions. His plan would cap emissions in the year 2025. This was actually not a plan to reduce global warming but to give a guarantee to new coal-fired power plants that they would be able to produce at full capacity for their expected life times. His plant was really a guarantee to increase global warming by eliminating an economic restriction on building new coal-fired plants. Fortunately his plan didn’t get very far.

Since it is difficult now for new coal-fired plants to be constructed, the new marginal cost of new electric production is based on the cost of natural gas fired power plants. These plants are very clean and release about half the carbon as a coal-fired plant for each unit (watt hour) of electricity produced. This sets a higher cost standard when considering new sources of electric power. The higher cost standard means that wind power in particular new becomes economically viable (assuming infrastructure like more long distance grid capacity is available). Solar also gets much closer to standing on its own economically. The cost of electricity from natural gas is higher than from coal, but not enough to severely disrupt the business and residential customers who depend on having affordable electric power.

Some politicians feel that they need to restrict the production of oil as a way to force our nation’s conversion to renewable energy sources. The problem with their reasoning is that high gasoline and diesel don’t affect the price of electricity. We don’t generate a meaningful amount of electricity from oil. Oil does not set the price threshold for new electric production. Restricting off-shore drilling will not cause utility companies to build more renewable energy sources. Restricting coal however, does force this conversion.

It is interesting that both Republicans and Democrats seem to favor more coal production. John McCain seems to be pushing the ‘All the Above’ energy development which includes coal and oil shale. Barack Obama is in favor of ‘low emissions’ coal based electric production. I don’t really know what ‘low emissions’ means. George Bush favors
‘clean coal’ which means removing the toxic byproducts of emissions, but not reducing the carbon emissions. Sequestering carbon emissions would mean removing all the carbon dioxide and sequestering it in permanent underground storage. The problem is that sequestering is more of a theory and has not be proven to work yet, if ever.

To push our switch to renewable fuels, we should prohibit the building of new coal-fired electric generating capacity. That would force the issue in this country. We could also reduce and eventually stop or exports of steam coal for electric production in other countries. China, which burns almost twice the volume of coal as the United States, will probably start importing coal this year for the first time to meet their rapidly increasing electric requirements. Cutting off coal exports would significantly raise the world price of coal and make renewable energy sources a much more appealing alternative in countries like China.

Global Warming Examiner

How much should a utility company expect to pay for electricity from new electric power sources? This is really a key question that affects how much renewable energy sources a utility company is likely to build. To get the lowest price for new electricity production, a utility would like to build a coal-fired power plant. (Nuclear might be a cheap, but let’s assume the utility is not ready to take on the regulatory burden of building new nuclear plant.) Coal is a cheaper source of electricity than wind, solar, or natural gas production. A coal-fired power plant can be build close to the point of consumption. It is a known technology that provides great base-load characteristics (dependable 24 hour per day power).

The problem for utility companies now is that they can’t build new coal-fired power plants. There is a danger in building a coal-fired power plant that future restrictions on carbon emissions may result in the utility company not being able to produce as much electricity from the plant as they project. Due to the long time required to recover the capital investment in the plant, they need to be sure that the plant will be allowed to operate for its full expected life cycle. Public Utility Commissions (PUC) have not been willing to guarantee that the utility companies will be able to recover the cost of the plant in the event of carbon restrictions and the utility companies have been unwilling to risk their shareholder equity on these plants without a guarantee.

Arctic's grazing animals help global warming on its way

COULD vegetation help to offset global warming? Not if grazing animals such as caribou and musk oxen are allowed to do their worst.

As global temperatures rise, the shrubby vegetation at high latitudes should grow more strongly, allowing it to act as a green lung to soak up carbon dioxide. To test the effect of grazing on these growth rates, Eric Post from Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania, placed 25 open-topped glass cones, each one 30 centimetres high, in 15 square kilometres of shrubland in West Greenland.

The glass sides act like a greenhouse, trapping warm air inside, mimicking the effects of global warming. Caribou and musk oxen were allowed to graze the shrubs through the open tops of 13 of the cones. The remainder were fenced off to keep the animals out.

Post found that over five years, shrubs such as dwarf birch and willow trees grew better inside the cones than outside, as expected. However, grazing reduced this increase in growth by a fifth (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0802421105). Post hasn't yet plugged his data into a climate simulation, but thinks previous models have overestimated the capacity of the Earth's vegetation to absorb CO2 by 10 per cent.

Alarmists Blame Global Warming for Recent Midwest Floods

In the latest in a series of claims arguing every unfortunate event in the world is caused by global warming, the environmental activist group Clean Wisconsin is saying the disastrous June floods that ravaged Wisconsin and the Upper Mississippi River confirm global warming predictions.

Alarmists have adopted the can't-lose position that all extremes of weather--cold, warm, wet, dry--are due to global warming. They blamed the frequent tornadoes of the late winter and spring on global warming, even though the number was not at all atypical for a La Niña year. Southern Wisconsin and much of the Midwest had a rough winter and spring, but it has been the antithesis of global warming.

Wisconsin had its 33rd coldest winter on record, nearby Iowa its 19th coldest in 114 years. The cool weather continued into the spring, with the 22nd coldest spring on record in Wisconsin and 24th in Iowa. Madison, Wisconsin had the snowiest winter on record, topping 100 inches for the first time ever.


An Inconvenient Cooling

The record snows, severe weather, and heavy rainfall have been the result of rapid cooling in the northern tier of the United States and Canada, not global warming. The flooding exceeded the floods of 1993 that followed the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which produced a similar cooling and resulted in a steady stream of storms and flooding in these same parts of North America.

Rapid warming, as took place in the 1930s and again around 1980, leads to drought and record heat, not rain and floods.

The global warming alarmist movement is reeling since the warming stopped in 1998 and cooling began in 2002, accelerating in the past year. In an effort to keep their hoax alive, their claims have morphed from a concern over warming to a focus on the extremes typical of La Niña and the colder decades.

Taiwan invokes greener 'Ghost Month' amid global warming

TAIPEI (AFP) — "Ghost Month" in Taiwan draws out devotees who prepare food offerings, burn incense sticks and ritual paper money, and set off firecrackers to honour their ancestors as well as wandering spirits.

According to folk tales, the gate of hell opens annually during this time -- the seventh month on the lunar calendar which this year falls in August, letting its dwellers come to the human world to feast.

But as concerns about the environment and global warming grow, authorities and religious groups are calling for a change to the old ways of worshipping.

"We can't ban a folk belief but we hope to change how it is practised to ease pollution and eventually to phase the habit out," said Hui-chuan, an official of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA).

Studies have found that burning one tonne of paper money releases at least an equal amount of carbon dioxide, one of the main gases held responsible for global climate change, and other wastes including benzene, methylbenzene and ethylbenzene -- which could cause cancer and other diseases.

Burning incense sticks also produces methylbenzene and other hazardous chemicals.

The "Ghost Month" festivities peaked on the 15th day, or the "Ghost Festival," which is known as Chungyuan to Taoists or Ullambana to Buddhists, in tens of thousands of temples across the island.

The two faiths are pre-dominant in Taiwan, with seven to eight million believers each in a population of 23 million.

On the 15th day, faithfuls thronged temples to pay their respects and give offerings to the spirits, and many continue to do so here. Some temples held parades and a special ritual called "grappling with the ghosts" with participants climbing a high pole smeared with butter. In the old days the fastest climber took home the offerings for food and now cash prizes.

In some port cities, the festival is marked by setting ablaze paper lanterns in the shape of a house or lotus carrying paper money to the sea to appease the drowned.

There is no data on the amount of paper money burnt annually, but last year Taiwan manufactured 113,000 tonnes of the offering, with a small piece of gold or silver foil glued to the centre, for religious and funerary purposes, according to the EPA.

"Burning paper money not only pollutes the air and affects people's health, but causes so many trees to be cut down," said Hsiao, head of the EPA's department of air quality protection.

Environmental agencies are urging people to use fewer incense sticks and are offering to collect the paper money from households and temples to burn in state incinerators that can treat the exhaust.

Monks are also hired to perform rituals to "cleanse" the incinerators normally used for disposing of garbage to put the faithful at ease that the spirits are being respected.

The popular Long Shan Temple in Taipei, which enshrines Buddhism and Taoism deities, was among the first to endorse the initiative.

"In the past, we burnt several truckloads of paper money brought by our followers in 'Ghost Month.' The stoves cracked after burning non-stop and the smoke was terrible," said Chang Chun-hung, a spokesman for the temple.

Paper money is no longer used in the temple, which now sends a small van of paper money -- from those who cling to the old rite -- to environmental authorities for disposal.

"It is difficult to stop an age-old custom but gradually our followers are accepting the change and use less paper money," he said.

Some religious groups, notably the Buddhist charity and environmental foundation Tzu Chi, encourage their members to donate the money meant for offerings to those in need.

Tzu Chi, which has made "saving energy, lowering carbon emissions" one of its mottos in recent years, called for a complete stop to burning paper money and killing animals in worship rituals.

"We believe that if a person is sincere, his or her prayers will be answered without such offerings," said spokesman Charlie Ke.

Farmers to Bear Brunt of Global Warming Legislation

Farmers around the world will soon be paying a steep price for global warming legislation, according to the Carbon Sense Coalition (CSC), an international group of citizens and scientists concerned about the economic and social costs of over-the-top global warming legislation.


Penalties Will Dwarf Benefits

CSC Chairman Viv Forbes, an Australian rancher and soil scientist, warns global warming legislation will inevitably include restrictions on emissions from farm animals. The costs imposed on farmers to significantly reduce agricultural carbon emissions or purchase carbon credits for them will dwarf any promised farm income resulting from carbon restrictions, Forbes says.

"Australia and New Zealand lead the world in harvesting solar energy and carbon dioxide to produce an abundance of clean, green food," observed Forbes. "Why, then, are both the New Zealand and the Australian governments proposing to force farm animals into their emissions trading quagmire? And why are they subsidizing the conversion of farmland producing food into forests producing nothing but carbon credits or crops producing ethanol motor fuel? What are future generations going to eat?"


Bait and Switch Tactics

Forbes fears current efforts to entice farmers to support carbon dioxide restrictions will quickly be replaced by onerous penalties against agriculture once legislation is on the books.

After such "sleight of hand" tactics, Forbes says, farmers will have "so few votes and such incompetent leadership that they will pay the carbon tax" associated with any carbon reduction scheme.


Governments, NGOs Slam Farmers

A December 2006 report from the Livestock, Environment, and Development (LEAD) Initiative, supported by the World Bank, European Union, United States Agency for International Development, and United Nations, claims farmers are doing more damage to the Earth's climate than all the SUVs in the world combined.

The report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," asserts the "livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

Once global warming activists have their legal mandates to restrict carbon dioxide, it is only a matter of time before activists target farmers and subject them to the brunt of punishment under any carbon reduction scheme, Forbes said.

Global Warming Activists Press Anti-Meat Campaign

Global warming activists are putting agriculture firmly in their crosshairs, launching new efforts to restrict meat production and consumption.

This latest anti-meat campaign builds on prior efforts to restrict various forms of agriculture in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"This is a new level of silliness," said Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director for The Heartland Institute.

"Telling people not to eat meat will have no measurable effect on global temperatures but will have a devastating effect on American and global farmers. This is more in line with religious veganism, complete with quasi-religious dietary restrictions, than with climate science."


Hamburgers Attacked

Typical among the recent assaults on agriculture in general and meat production in particular is the worldchanging.org Web site. According to the site, U.S. hamburger production and consumption emit 160 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent into the atmosphere every year. The United States should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by reducing its meat consumption, groups such as this one say.

Many analysts view the current criticism of agricultural products as quite ironic given the ongoing efforts by global warming activists to tell farmers they will make money from global warming legislation, through subsidies for wind power.

"It is funny how global warming activists are targeting farmers as perpetrators of global warming emissions," noted Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

"For quite some time activists have told farmers that global warming legislation will benefit them via opportunities such as the siting of wind farms, yet now farmers find themselves in the activists' crosshairs," Burnett noted.

"I see no inconsistency between encouraging wind farms and discouraging meat-eating. They will both have positive effects on CO2 and seem to be largely, if not entirely, independent," said Erin Baker, assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.


All Farmers Criticized

Global warming activists say keeping livestock at a farm uses too much energy. A farm, they argue, requires deforestation to clear land for pasture and crops, and energy is needed to run slaughterhouses and for fertilizer application and meat processing.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations attributes 18 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions to livestock.

According to the London Guardian, "Producing 1 kg of beef results in more CO2 emissions than going for a three-hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home. ... The emissions are equivalent to the amount of CO2 released by an average car every 160 miles, and the energy consumption is equal to a 100W bulb being left on for 20 days."

The latest attacks on agriculture follow a December 2006 report from the Livestock, Environment, and Development (LEAD) Initiative, supported by the World Bank, European Union, U.S. Agency for International Development, and United Nations. It claimed farmers are doing more damage to the Earth's climate than all the SUVs in the world combined.

The report, titled "Livestock's Long Shadow," asserts the "livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."


No Need for Panic

But Amy Kaleita, environmental policy fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, cites the importance of cattle for both consumers and farmers. "Worldwide, livestock production provides livelihoods for 1.3 billion people, and particularly in developing countries, livestock are also a source of renewable energy for farming activities, and a source of organic fertilizer.

"At the same time," Kaleita continued, "there are a variety of conservation and production strategies that allow for continued livestock production and meat consumption while also decreasing net emissions, so this need not and should not be an all-or-nothing question."

"Maybe if these people would eat more meat, their blood-sugar levels would rise and they could think more clearly," observed Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"I think what this shows is that [global warming alarmism] is really about controlling people's lives rather than saving the planet," Lewis added. "If they can reach into your kitchen and control what you eat, what farmers will raise, then they attain a new power never before realized by government. Is this really about fighting global warming, or vegan activists finding a new outlet and a new justification for their value systems?

"These people are looking for some kind of green equivalent of religious ritual. Almost all religions require sacrifices, some including dietary restrictions, and now global warming has its own dietary restrictions," said Lewis.

Blumenauer To Address Town Hall Meeting On Global Warming

Global warming and energy independence are on the agenda of a town hall meeting in Portland Thursday night. Oregon State Representatives Jackie Dingfelder and Ben Cannon are going to discuss the issue at the Portland Community College.

Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer will also attend the town hall meeting. He says Oregon will face great difficulties from the effects of global warming.

Earl Blumenauer: “We will be challenged because we will lose snow pack that we rely upon for energy and water, it will change our agricultural patterns and it’s going to make a much different situation in terms of storm events.“

Blumenauer says there are also great opportunities for Oregon in the fight against global warming.

He says new technologies such as wind energy could create tens of thousands of jobs in the state.

Future Impact Of Global Warming Is Worse When Grazing Animals Are Considered, Scientists Suggest

ScienceDaily (Aug. 21, 2008) — The impact of global warming in the Arctic may differ from the predictions of computer models of the region, according to a pair of Penn State biologists. The team -- which includes Eric Post, a Penn State associate professor of biology, and Christian Pederson, a Penn State graduate student -- has shown that grazing animals will play a key role in reducing the anticipated expansion of shrub growth in the region, thus limiting their predicted and beneficial carbon-absorbing effect.

The team's results will be published in the online Early Edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Most computer models indicate that shrubs will thrive and spread as a result of global warming. And because shrubs have an increased ability over grasses and other small plants to absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, many scientists believe that shrubs will absorb some of this carbon dioxide and, thereby, lessen the impact of climate change. While Post and Pederson agree that global warming will promote the growth of shrubs, they argue that grazing by muskoxen and caribou will reduce the carbon-mitigating benefit of the plants.

"If you imagine a chessboard on which the dark squares are shrubs and the light squares are grasses, warming alone would tend to increase the size of the dark squares until the chess board is completely filled in," said Post. "Our experiment suggests that herbivores, like caribou and muskoxen, will slow this process, inhibit it, or perhaps even increase the size of the white squares on the chessboard."

The researchers conducted a novel five-year experiment in West Greenland in which they compared the effects of grazing by muskoxen and caribou in plots treated with increased temperatures versus those left untreated. The scientists used warming chambers to increase temperatures in certain plots. Like miniature open-topped greenhouses, the warming chambers inhibit the flow of air across the surface of the ground, thus reducing the cooling effect of wind and allowing warm air to accumulate inside the chamber.

Post and Pederson found that muskoxen graze more heavily in certain areas than caribou, perhaps due to their sedentary nature.

To document the effects of warming alone on vegetation, the scientists constructed fences around several plots to exclude muskoxen and caribou. They found that warming did, indeed, promote the growth of shrubs, but they also found that, in the warmed plots outside the fences, muskoxen and caribou reduced this growth by 19 percent. In particular, the animals reduced the growth of dwarf birch by 46 percent and willow by 11 percent.

Post's research also revealed that muskoxen -- rather than the more numerous caribou -- were responsible for most of the grazing. "This discovery is quite surprising, considering that muskoxen occur at such a low density at our site," said Post, who added that the result may be due to the sedentary nature of Muskoxen which, in contrast to caribou, tend to graze in one location for long periods of time. Muskoxen at Post's site also occur at lower densities than they do elsewhere in Greenland, Canada, and Alaska, so Post suspects that the effects of grazing in other areas could be even more pronounced.

"Careful management and conservation of existing populations of muskoxen and caribou, as well as other large herbivores, should be a priority in plans to mitigate the effects of climate change on ecosystems," said Post. "Until now, these animals seem to have been regarded more as background noise than as an active component of the ecosystem's response to warming."

In addition to the impact of muskoxen and caribou, Post and Pederson also measured the impact of an unexpected moth outbreak on vegetation in their plots. They found that by munching on the leaves and stems of plants, the moths contributed significantly to the reduction of live plant tissues.

"Our results suggest that herbivores in the Arctic and elsewhere may constrain the increase in shrub growth that is projected by current models of global warming. Their grazing could have important consequences for the ability of shrubs to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. Insect outbreaks may become more frequent with future warming, as well, and our results also suggest an important role of such outbreaks in reducing shrubs," said Post. "On the practical and policy sides of this story, we need to be aware that the 'carbon dioxide sponge' -- represented especially by shrubs and trees -- may not be as big as we thought it was. This finding is yet another reason to think carefully about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions."

This research was supported, in part, by grants from the Committee for Research and Exploration of the National Geographic Society and the National Science Foundation.

Legislature takes aim at urban sprawl and global warming

Will Californians drive less to reduce global warming? Maybe not on our own -- but state officials are ready to nudge us.

The Legislature is on the verge of adopting the nation's first law to control planet-warming gases by curbing sprawl. The bill, sponsored by incoming state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), is expected to pass the Assembly today and the Senate on Friday.


Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill, but sponsors expect him to sign it once the state passes a budget.

The legislation, SB 375, would offer incentives to steer public funds away from sprawled development. The state spends about $20 billion a year on transportation, and under the new law, projects that meet climate goals would get priority.

An earlier version of the bill was blocked last year by the building industry and by organizations representing cities and counties. Developers feared their suburban projects would be delayed or halted. Local officials were wary of ceding zoning powers and transportation planning to the state.


But momentum for the legislation has grown as the state seeks to implement its landmark 2006 global warming law, which would slash California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a 30% cut from expected emissions. To accomplish that, state officials say, fuel-efficient cars and factories won't be enough. Subdivisions, commercial centers and highways must be planned so that Californians can live and work closer together, reducing the amount they drive.

"Our communities must change the way they grow," Steinberg said.

A compromise 17,000-word bill was hammered out this month and endorsed by builders, environmentalists and local officials. It requires the state's 17 metropolitan planning organizations and its regional transportation plans to meet concrete targets to reduce global-warming emissions. The targets will be set by the state Air Resources Board. "California led the way into our culture of car dependence, so it is only appropriate that the state lead the way out," said David Goldberg, a spokesman for Smart Growth America, a Washington-based nonprofit. The law could "provide a model for other states," he added, noting that the number of miles Americans drive has risen at more than double the rate of population growth in recent decades.

Scientists agree that the earth is heating up at a dangerous pace, in part because of excess carbon dioxide and other gases from vehicles, power plants and other human sources. The expected effects in California include coastal flooding from rising sea levels, reduced water supply and the disappearance of many species of plants and animals, according to researchers.

The legislation would lead to better-designed communities and save consumers on gas bills, advocates said. Thomas Adams, board president of the California League of Conservation Voters, called it the most important land-use bill in California since the Coastal Act in the 1970s. "It is also the first legislation to link transportation funding with climate policy," he said.

Turkey: Global warming and climate change at Izmir Fair

Global Warming and climate change" is the main theme of Izmir international Fair, the Turkey's oldest tradeshow, considered as the cradle of the nation's fair and expo industry, local media report.

The 77th edition will start tomorrow and will focus on global warming problem in addition to cultural, art and education exhibitions.

A total of 1,030 companies have registered to participate and 1.5 million people are expected to visit the 10 days fair with an increase from last year's 1.44 million attendance levels.

Some 60 companies are directly involved in global warming and climate change issues and they are expected to introduce new solar and wind energy technology in addition to electricity and water savings systems, solid waste recycling systems, energy efficient products and new air conditioning products.

One of the companies that will introduce water treatment products will process water from a pool located on the fairgrounds and serve it to visitors as drinking water.

For the first time solar and wind energy will be used in some parts of the lighting system of the 70,000 square meter fairgrounds.

Izmir Fair Services Culture and Art Affairs Trade Inc. (Izfas) will provide the necessary energy to illuminate some of the streets and halls using solar panels installed in the fairgrounds.

The system is planned to light the whole fairground next year and will subsequently be expanded to also light up some of Izmir's streets.

SB 375 On Global Warming and Land Use is the Bill to Watch in the California Legislature

Last week Senator Darrell Steinberg spoke before CLCV and our friends at the latest Environmental Leadership Forum. Steinberg is one of just a handful of legislators who can boast a 100% CLCV score after six years in the Assembly and one year in the Senate. It’s probably no surprise then why the environmental community was overjoyed when we heard he was picked by his colleagues to succeed Don Perata as the next Senate President pro Tem.

But instead of talking about assuming the mantle of leadership, Steinberg chose to focus his discussion on his landmark bill SB 375 on Global Warming and Land Use. This bill, if passed, will be the very first bill in the United States that combines transportation and land-use issues with the climate crisis. “It is also the first legislation to link transportation funding with climate policy,” said CLCV’s Board President Tom Adams.

Though many legislators are working hard to help California meet its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% in twelve years (as mandated by AB 32) Steinberg took on the task of handling the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions: sprawl. The problem is that people drive too much because they have to. If you live 25 miles from work you can buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, carpool more, and maintain your car in order to pollute less, but in the end you still have to drive 25 miles -and you will pollute. As Tom Adams said, the bottom line is that “emissions from cars and light trucks are the largest single source of greenhouse gas in California [and] we will never be able to achieve our climate goals unless we locate housing closer to jobs. The number of miles that people drive is increasing almost twice as fast as the population growth.”

SB 375 has been one of the two top CLCV priority bills since before its introduction to the Senate last year. As a leading expert in the state on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and land-use issues, Tom Adams was and has been instrumental in helping Steinberg compose the bill from day one. The staff at CLCV have also been advocating for the bill in a number of ways from lobbying legislators in Sacramento, building grassroots support for the bill by going door-to-door to activating our membership to tell their legislators to vote for the bill’s passage. Meanwhile, Senator Steinberg has spent the last two years working with a variety of stakeholders including environmental groups, the builders, and even local government groups like the League of Cities who had been reluctant to support the bill until recently. His efforts have created one of the most impressive coalitions of rival groups to ever back a single legislative bill. As George Skelton remarked in his column, “it’s an unusual coalition: environmentalists and home-builders.”

As noted in a separate LA Times story, SB 375 is expected to come up for a vote on the Assembly floor before the end of this week and now has enough votes to pass. Considering that the bill was still several votes shy of passage just three weeks ago, it goes to show you how important this piece of legislation is and how hard Senator Steinberg and CLCV have been working on this bill.

As always, Governor Schwarzenegger has not been vocal about his position on the bill, but if he’s sincere about his commitment to fight the climate crisis, this bill should be at the top of his list of bills he’s eager to sign. No other bill that hit his desk last year or will hit his desk this year will go as far into ensuring California will reach its AB 32 goals like Steinberg’s SB 375 will.

Mike Young graduated from Pepperdine University with a B.A. in Political Science and Philosophy in 2005. Today, Mike is a staff member of the California League of Conservation Voter’s Los Angeles office and a board member of the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters.

Geoengineering Madness

“When in doubt do nowt” was how I heard it growing up in rural England. Nowt is dialect for nought. J Whyte-Melville expressed it formally in 1874 as, “When in doubt what to do, he is a wise man who does nothing.”

But the degree of certainty promoted by the IPCC and adherents to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory has effectively cancelled doubt.

As a result things are being said and actions taken even by supposedly wise men that only underline the dangers inherent in lack of understanding. Often these actions contradict the arguments on which they are based.

Irony heaps on irony in the climate debate as we are led down the path of certainty about the problem and the cause. We now have people who blame humans for causing global warming and climate change taking deliberate action to cause cooling and counteract climate change. So, the solution to human interference is more human interference. Sadly, this assumes that you know what you’re doing that the problem is correctly identified and you’re prepared to accept the responsibility and deal with the outcome of your actions.

Four reports illustrate what they are trying to do. Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen proposed the idea of adding sulphur to the atmosphere in 2006 in order to create a haze and reduce sunlight reaching the surface. It would be like lowering a screen in a greenhouse.

The objective is to create droplets that will block the sun and create cooling, but the consequences are potentially catastrophic. If nothing else the droplets produced are sulfuric acid and wasn’t it just a few years ago we were besieged with concern about acid rain? We also hear about the catastrophe of changing pH (acidity level) of the oceans due to global warming.

Increasing acid rain over the oceans would clearly exacerbate this problem. Of course, this assumes the changing pH level is a problem, but it was promoters of AGW saying it, not me.

The second plan proposed by German researchers is to create large-scale reflective sheets to block sunlight and reduce glacier melt. Apart from the problem of scale there appears to be a complete lack of understanding of glacier dynamics. This is reflected in the public debate engendered by Al Gore over Kilimanjaro. Glaciers are as much if not more about the dynamics of snowfall. In that area covered by the screen the glacier is condemned not to grow. At the same time it can decrease in volume under the screen through the process of sublimation. This is the change of ice, solid water, to water vapor, a gas. (You may know it as freezer burn). Who is going to keep the screen clear of snow? An ultimate irony may be the screen being buried and subsumed into the glacier as an icy folly. If they clear the snow the screen will prevent snow accumulating and thus doom the glacier anyway. (Source)

A third plan was put into action about a year ago and it involved spreading iron filings on the surface of the Pacific Ocean. The objective was to increase the rate of CO2 absorption to offset the increase in atmospheric CO2, which the IPCC reports is due to human production. They also tell us they are 90% certain it is the cause of global warming.

As this report indicates, the results were less than stellar, which underlines the difference between theory and reality. There are many other problems. For example, they assume differences in the amount of iron are unnatural as are the variations in the number of phytoplankton. This false thinking is driven by the false assumption that change and variability are not natural in nature. They don’t appear to consider the impact on the surface water chemistry engendered by adding more iron.

In their foolish attempts to appear ‘green’, Shell Oil is funding a project to add lime to ocean waters to increase the rate of CO2 absorption. It would increase alkalinity and the oceans ability to absorb CO2. It is as foolish as all the others not considering the chemical and ecological implications to ocean surface waters. The only comment this deserves is the cynical observation that it would offset the increased acidity created by the sulphur experiment.

There are many proposals in modern times to modify the climate. In the 1960s and 1970s when global cooling was the concern, the Soviet government proposed construction of a dam across the Bering Straits. It was theorized this would reduce the flow of cold arctic water into the North Pacific and thus warm that body of water. Overall this creates warmer air in the middle and high latitudes that would circle the globe and ultimately warm up the southern and central regions of the Soviet Union. There were proposals to build large reflectors in space to direct more sunlight to the surface, including proposals to direct them specifically on northern cities for heat and longer daylight.

Major differences between these proposals and the current geoengineering madness are they did not assume the cooling was man-made and nothing was done. Now the insanity of man-made solutions is based on the false assumption that human CO2 is the cause and actions are being taken. But let’s assume for a moment that it is CO2 causing the warming. What would have happened if they had decided to offset the cooling of the 1970s by adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

The world has cooled since 2000 and many climate scientists expect the cooling to continue at least until 2035. If the sulphur project is successful, how much will it exacerbate the cooling? Will the actions cause the very problem of unnatural climate change they claim to prevent?

Some claim we must take these risks to offset what they describe as the great-uncontrolled experiment of changing global climate. This is an extension of the humans-are-to-blame-for-every-change syndrome in the religious view of environmentalism. We must pay a penance for our sins. It assumes humans are to blame for the warming.

The scientific problems and side effects are serious enough, however, there are much larger questions. Who gives permission for these experiments that change vast segments of the atmosphere? Who monitors what they are doing and how extensive the potential damage? What if the cloud of sulphur drifts over a sovereign nation who was not consulted? Who is protecting the oceans from potentially damaging actions? Who will pay for any damage?

The certainty with which the IPCC and AGW proponents make their claims leads to a demand for action. They have denied doubt: the science is settled; the debate is over so we must act. In fact, there is considerable doubt so it is far wiser to do nowt. But then wisdom and calm on these issues is another missing variable.

Global warming isn't just hot air

Robert Wilson says, "It is true that CO2 levels have risen some 18 to 20 per cent over the past 100 years. But average global temperatures have emphatically not. This statement cannot be supported by well-known data."

Wilson seems to be attacking a straw man here. Who is claiming that average global temperatures have risen 18 to 20 per cent in the last century? Not the IPCC, not NASA.

Wilson says that, "Over the past 100 years, we have had two distinct warming periods (1900-1940 and 1980-2003)" and "one cooling period (1950-1975)." The IPCC also states that there have been two warming periods and an intervening cooling period, but that the later period has not ended.

Frequently Asked Question 3.1, derived from the AR4 report by IPCC Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html) notes that "Warming in the last century has occurred in two phases, from the 1910s to the 1940s (0.35°C), and more strongly from the 1970s to the present (0.55°C). An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years, and 11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years [(1995 to 2006)]." There was "a slight cooling (0.1°C)" between the 1940s and 1970s.

Wilson states, "Now it is becoming very clear within the past few years that another cooling period has just begun." Yet the NASA webpage Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation states, "The year 2007 tied for second warmest... behind the record warmth of 2005," and adds, "It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years."

Wilson states, "According to the latest information from NASA, the warmest year of the 20th century was way back in 1937." Wilson is likely referring to a "minor data processing error" that led NASA to re-evaluate its global temperature data (see the NASA 2007 Summation webpage cited previously).

Unfortunately, Wilson's statement is problematic in several respects. First, the year in question is 1934, not 1937. Also, NASA states the years 1934, 1998 and 2005 are in a "statistical tie" as "the warmest year(s)" in the contiguous United States, as can be seen in Figure 4b ("U.S. Temperature") on the same webpage.

Figure 4a ("Global Temperature") next to it shows global temperatures since the 1980s as warmer than the warmest temperatures from the 1910s to 1940s warming phase, and climbing steadily.

Wilson states, "As reported by the Associated Press, seven northern California glaciers are now advancing, and in fact nearly half of glaciers worldwide are now advancing--not retreating."

Here is a quote from the AP article that Wilson cites: "Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks [in California] are a rare exception: they are the only long-established glaciers in the lower 48 states that are growing." Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing due to "changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean" it adds, i.e., climate change.

Wilson encourages people to search for the "truth" about global warming. I would very much encourage Courier readers to do as I did upon reading his letter, which is to check it for accuracy. Visit the NASA website, go to www.realclimate.org (a website about climate science by climate scientists), and review the contents of Wilson's letter and my letter for yourselves.

Choking Suburbs To Stop Global Warming

The California legislature is poised to pass a first-in-the-nation inhibition to sprawl.

While green-minded folks have long bemoaned sprawl for replacing forests and farmland with pavement and pesticide-treated patches of grass, it's concern over global warming that has the legislature moving.

Sprawling suburban and exurban development contributes to global warming by spreading people out, so that their homes are separated from their work, school and recreation by such great distances that cars are the only method available to get from here to there. All those cars add to pollution that contributes to climate change. It goes deeper, as land carved up for suburbia would absorb more carbon emissions if left alone, for instance, and because city dwellers living in multi-story buildings use less energy for heating and other energy costs, per capita, but transportation is a key factor.

California isn't going to pass some Draconian law against building a home in the suburbs. The state will just stop playing enabler to our sprawl addiction. If the law passes, and Gov. Schwarzenegger signs it, it would simply prioritize spending on road-building with climate protection as a chief priority.

The end result will likely be the same: No state-built highway on-ramp, no new pricey new private subdivision.

There are alternatives to sprawl. It doesn't mean the end to quiet communities in the country, or that everyone must live in a big city. New urbanism (alternately known as "smart growth," "neo-traditionalism," and a half-dozen other terms) promote small, sustainable communities built around public transportation hubs, where schools, work and shopping are within walking or biking distance of most homes.

California, of course, isn't the only state with a sprawl addiction enabled by state spending. But it is among the few to have taken global warming so seriously: It aims to dial-back the clock on its carbon emissions, so that by 2020, it will be emitting only as much as it did in 1990.

The rest of the country could learn from California's example. Nine of the 10 fastest-growing counties are located in the South or West, with water-stressed areas like Phoenix, Atlanta and parts of Texas among the leaders.

If concern over the availability of water in these drought-ridden (or desert) areas, concern over global warming should.

Olbermann Mocks Canceled Anti-Global Warming Event; Group Fires Back

Consider the source on this one, but the face of liberalism on cable television, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, finds it “ironic” an event meant to shed light on the “hoax of global warming” would be canceled due to tropical weather.

Olbermann, on the August 19 broadcast of MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” took aim at the Americans for Prosperity’s “Hot Air Tour.” AFP defines the tour’s mission as “exposing the ballooning of global warming hysteria.”

“Number three: Irony-gate. Americans for Prosperity, one of the many corporate-funded lobbying groups working hand-in-hand with big oil and the administration and other people who make more money the more there is doubt that there is global warming – this group was to have town hall meetings tonight and Thursday in Florida to spread its word about global warming alarmism,” Olbermann said.

Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, responded to Olbermann’s definition of AFP as being a “corporate-funded lobbying group.” He called Olbermann’s statement “outrageous” and noted AFP is a “grassroots operation.”

“He called us a corporate-front group, which is pretty outrageous,” Phillips said to the Business & Media Institute. “We had 200-and-something people at an event last night, yesterday evening in Ft. Collins, Colo. I don’t think those folks consider themselves corporate insiders – all those families and folks that were out.”
Olbermann called the cancellation due to the weather surrounding now-Hurricane Fay ironic, suggesting there’s a link between tropical weather and the phenomenon of global warming.

“This announcement from the group, quote, ‘The August 14 Fort Myers town hall and August 21 West Palm Beach town hall will be rescheduled as a result of Tropical Storm Fay. We apologize for any inconvenience.’ Global warming deniers meetings postponed by tropical storms. As late great Bill Hicks used to say, ‘It’s irony is pretty base, but it’s still a hoot.’”

Phillips noted the trend is consistent with Olbermann’s rhetoric – global-warming alarmists using natural calamities to advance their pet causes.

“It’s ironic that guys like him and global warming extremists will use any weather event – whether it’s a hot spell, whether it’s a hurricane or a tropical storm or a hailstorm or a snowstorm – anything, any weather event – they’ll try to tie it to their pet cause which is ideological extremism at its worst.”

He also noted Olbermann’s and other’s disregard for science.

“It shows just how silly and ideologically driven they are,” Phillips said. “They don’t look at the science. They don’t look at any factors. It’s just an ideological extremism. It would be funny if it were not so serious for our nation.”

Ban Pledges Support for Pacific Islands Over Climate Change

The United Nations will create a climate change center to help Pacific island nations threatened by rising seas because of global warming, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

``Climate change is not science fiction,'' Ban said in a message to this week's summit of the Pacific Islands Forum, a group of 16 nations. ``As your countries know all too well, it is real and present.''

Fishing industries around the world are most exposed to climate change, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization said in a report last month, citing the effect on the growth, reproduction and disease of fish. About 42 million people, most of them in developing countries, work in the global fishing industry, according to the FAO.

Pacific islands, where people traditionally derive most food and income from the sea and live close to the shoreline, are vulnerable because many of them are low-lying atolls only a few meters above sea level. A 0.74 degree Celsius (1.3 degree Fahrenheit) increase in the global temperature since 1901 has caused polar ice caps to melt, resulting in seas rising 0.31 centimeters a year since 1993.

Temperatures will probably increase by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year. Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches), it said.

Most Vulnerable

``Fisheries located in deltas, coral atolls and ice- dominated coasts will be vulnerable to flooding and coastal erosion because of rises in sea level,'' the FAO said.

The UN and Samoa, a member of the Forum, will create and run the Inter-Agency Climate Change Center, which will support work already carried out by UN agencies in the region in areas including fisheries and farming, Ban said in a statement on the UN's Web site.

The Pacific Islands Forum, which aims to promote good governance, economic growth and sustainable development, is meeting this week in Niue. Its members also include Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

The sea level around Kiribati, which has 1,143 kilometers (710 miles) of coastline, has been rising 5.3 millimeters a year since 1993, according to Australia's National Tidal Centre. In Tonga, it has risen 7 millimeters a year, in Tuvalu 5.7 millimeters a year, in the Solomon Islands 6.5 millimeters and 6.2 millimeters a year in Papua New Guinea.

Critical Challenge

``One of the key areas of cooperation is the critical global challenge of climate change,'' Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said yesterday on his way to the summit. ``In consultations with fellow heads of government from the Pacific island countries, we are confronted front and center with the impact of climate change on regional states.''

Rudd's government ratified the Kyoto Protocol on combating global warming after taking office last December.

Pacific leaders will want to discuss global warming ``with Australia now on board and having ratified the Kyoto Protocol and taking a very full and constructive part in international negotiations,'' New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark said in Auckland yesterday. New Zealand signed the Protocol in 2002.

The Kyoto Protocol is the only binding worldwide agreement that commits countries to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are the biggest contributor to global warming.

Ten states formed the Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Program in 1997. It focuses on assessing how vulnerable countries in the region are and looks at ways to respond to the threat. The group reports to the UN Convention on Climate Change and is supported by Australia and New Zealand.

Kufuor calls for firm global action on climate change

About 160 nations resumed talks on a new climate treaty in Accra on Thursday with Ghana warning that time was short to work out a deal that will need billions of dollars a year to help the poor adapt to global warming.

President John Agyekum Kufuor has called on world leaders to move beyond rhetoric and act firmly to address the global threat posed by climate change in a way that would be satisfactory to all.

Both developed and developing countries, he said, must share in the responsibility to deal with the problem, identified by the United Nations Human Development Report, as "the defining development issue of our generation".

He said while the poor and vulnerable nations did their bit by committing to plans for climate resilient development, the rich on their part should provide sustained long-term funding in terms of technology transfer and capacity building.

President Kufuor was addressing the opening session of the Accra Climate Talks at the Accra International Conference Centre on Thursday.

He welcomed the "Bali Action Plan", which provided a road map towards a new global agreement on climate change as encouraging. Not only has it led to the launch of the Adaptation Fund, with Ghana represented on its inaugural Board, but has generated a new momentum on technology development and transfer as well as scaled up related investment.

Additionally, action had been initiated on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, something key for many African countries, he said.

President Kufuor noted that initial estimates of costs of adaptation differed significantly but that they ran into tens of billions of dollars per year.

He spoke of the need for solid evidence to inform national responses and determine international financing needs and mechanisms.

It was on account of this that Ghana had agreed to participate in a multi-country study of the economies of adaptation to climate change.

Ghana's position, President Kufuor said, was that, "additional to general commitment to development financing projected to 2015, developing countries needed adequate and predictable finance from the international community, to be allocated on the basis of need, taking into account various levels of poverty and vulnerability".

"Funding also needs to be governed and delivered in a way that builds climate resilience into development and allows Governments to lead the development process."

Ms. Connie Hedegaard, Minister of Climate and Energy, Denmark, said agreeing to half emissions by 2015 needed to be backed by political will.

"We have to move from the era of words to the era of action." The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Mr Yvo de Boer, said the Accra Talks were an important opportunity to pay closer attention to problems that confronted Africa.

Mr Kwadwo Adjei-Darko, Minister of Local Government, Environment and Rural Development, expressed worry about the dumping of old and junk computers on Africa.

This, he noted, was generating hazardous risks and must stop.

Africa meeting key step in climate talks: UN climate chief

Rich nations will come under pressure at climate talks in Africa this week to get specific about how quickly and by how much they intend to cut their carbon footprints, said the UN climate chief.

The expert-level gathering in Accra, Ghana kicks off today, and will lay the technical groundwork for a major UN meeting in Poznan, Poland at the end of the year.

"I expect rich countries to agree on the ranges by which they feel that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced," Yvo de Boer told AFP.

"Specific targets will probably come in Copenhagen," he said, referring to the December 2009 UN conference where the world's nations have pledged to validate a successor plan for tackling global warming after the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012.

Negotiations since a breakthrough in Bali last year have been stymied by a rift between rich and developing nations.

China and India have called on developed countries to lead the way in cutting CO2 emissions, while the United States and Japan say these industrialising giants must also agree to binding commitments.

The European Union stands somewhere in between, having pledged to reduce carbon pollution by at least 20 percent before 2020, compared to 1990 levels.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that even deeper cuts worldwide may be needed to stave off potentially catastrophic impacts from global warming ranging from drought to extreme weather to rising sea levels.

Time is running out to reach an accord, said de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the forum for worldwide talks on tackling climate change and its effects.

Negotiators feel "if not an emergency, at least a sense of urgency," he said in a phone interview, noting that the UN has added four additional negotiating sessions to an already packed schedule next year.

"The Accra meeting is very important in terms of determining what instruments rich countries can use in order to achieve their targets over the longer term," de Boer said.

Separate working groups will address key components in any future climate change agreement: whether the Kyoto list of six greenhouse gases will be expanded and how they will be measured; the role of global industry-specific initiatives, favored by Tokyo and Washington; and how to integrate the impact of deforestation.

Every year more than 30 million hectares (74 million acres) of forest -- which soak up 20 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- are lost largely due to illegal logging and slash-and-burn agriculture.

The meeting will also focus on technical and financial assistance for developing countries, both to help cut emissions and to cope with the consequences of climate change.

"I hope that, in all these areas, countries will come to Accra with very specific proposals on the kind of language to be included in the Copenhagen agreement," de Boer said.

De Boer criticised the G8 summit goal -- unveiled last month -- of halving global warming emissions by 2050 as too vague and too distant.

"Are we talking about a binding target or an aspirational target? Who is going to be taking what share of that target? These things are not clear," he said.

The baseline against which the goal is to be measured, he added, is also unclear: Europe uses 1990, the IPCC has recommended 2000, and the Japanese prime minister spoke after the summit of 2008.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri called last month on Europe to "show the way."

It it does not, he said, "I am afraid that all attempts to manage the problem of climate change will collapse."

Americans Urge for Climate Change Action

Two-thirds of adults in the United States think their country should tackle global warming regardless of what other countries do, according to a poll by TNS, ABC News, Stanford University and Planet Green. 68 per cent of respondents think their country should start combating climate change even if others do less.

Conversely, 18 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should only act if other countries such as China and India commit as well, and 13 per cent believe no action is necessary.

The term global warming refers to an increase of the Earth’s average temperature. Some theories say that climate change might be the result of human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report which states that global warming has been "very likely"—or 90 per cent certain—caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

In 1998, several countries agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, a proposed amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement commits nations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. has not ratified the treaty, which is due to expire in 2012.

In October 2007, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

On Aug. 19, Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd said the next U.S. president would certainly deal with climate change, saying, "What is heartening on that question is that both candidates, Republican and Democrat, have indicated that they will be moving on this, and with an ambitious set of targets."

New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark said she hopes the U.S. eventually joins the Kyoto Protocol, adding, "If, post-election, the U.S. joins the Kyoto system, its involvement would take away the excuses for inaction from developing countries like China and India."

Polling Data

Do you think the United States should take action on global warming only if other major industrial countries such as China and India agree to do equally effective things, that the United States should take action even if these other countries do less, or that the United States should not take action on this at all?

Take action only if others do 18%

Take action even if others do less 68%

Not take action at all 13%

Unsure 2%

'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.

How can we cut car pollution?

Cost-effective technologies to reduce global warming pollution from cars and light trucks of all sizes are available now. There is no reason to wait and hope that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will solve the problem in the future. Hybrid gas-electric engines can cut global warming pollution by one-third or more today; hybrid sedans, SUVs and trucks from several automakers are already on the market.

But automakers should be doing a lot more: They've used a legal loophole to make SUVs far less fuel efficient than they could be; the popularity of these vehicles has generated a 20 percent increase in transportation-related carbon dioxide pollution since the early 1990s. Closing this loophole and requiring SUVs, minivans and pick-up trucks to be as efficient as cars would cut 120 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution a year by 2010. If automakers used the technology they have right now to raise fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks to a combined 40 m.p.g., carbon dioxide pollution would eventually drop by more than 650 million tons per year as these vehicles replaced older models.

Is it possible to cut power plant pollution and still have enough electricity?

Yes. First, we must use more efficient appliances and equipment in our homes and offices to reduce our electricity needs. We can also phase out the decades-old, coal-burning power plants that generate most of our electricity and replace them with cleaner plants. And we can increase our use of renewable energy sources such as wind and sun. Some states are moving in this direction: California has required its largest utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2017, and New York has pledged to compel power companies to provide 25 percent of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2013.

Do we need new laws requiring industry to cut emissions of global warming pollution?

es. The Bush administration has supported only voluntary reduction programs, but these have failed to stop the growth of emissions. Even leaders of major corporations, including companies such as DuPont, Alcoa and General Electric, agree that it's time for the federal government to create strong laws to cut global warming pollution. Public and political support for solutions has never been stronger. Congress is now considering fresh proposals to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from America's largest sources -- power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels.

Stricter efficiency requirements for electric appliances will also help reduce pollution. One example is the 30 percent tighter standard now in place for home central air conditioners and heat pumps, a Clinton-era achievement that will prevent the emission of 51 million metric tons of carbon -- the equivalent of taking 34 million cars off the road for one year. The new rule survived a Bush administration effort to weaken it when, in January 2004, a federal court sided with an NRDC-led coalition and reversed the administration's rollback.

Why aren't these technologies more commonplace now?

Because, while the technologies exist, the corporate and political will to put them into widespread use does not. Many companies in the automobile and energy industries put pressure on the White House and Congress to halt or delay new laws or regulations -- or even to stop enforcing existing rules -- that would drive such changes. From requiring catalytic converters to improving gas mileage, car companies have fought even the smallest measure to protect public health and the environment. If progress is to be made, the American people will have to demand it.

How can we cut global warming pollution?

It's simple: By reducing pollution from vehicles and power plants. Right away, we should put existing technologies for building cleaner cars and more modern electricity generators into widespread use. We can increase our reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and geothermal. And we can manufacture more efficient appliances and conserve energy.

What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?

The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.

Could global warming trigger a sudden catastrophe?

Recently, researchers -- and even the U.S. Defense Department -- have investigated the possibility of abrupt climate change, in which gradual global warming triggers a sudden shift in the earth's climate, causing parts of the world to dramatically heat up or cool down in the span of a few years.

In February 2004, consultants to the Pentagon released a report laying out the possible impacts of abrupt climate change on national security. In a worst-case scenario, the study concluded, global warming could make large areas of the world uninhabitable and cause massive food and water shortages, sparking widespread migrations and war.

While this prospect remains highly speculative, many of global warming's effects are already being observed -- and felt. And the idea that such extreme change is possible underscores the urgent need to start cutting global warming pollution.

Is there really cause for serious concern?

Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:

Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.

Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.

Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.

Is global warming making hurricanes worse?

Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm. In fact, scientists have found that the destructive potential of hurricanes has greatly increased along with ocean temperature over the past 35 years.

Are warmer temperatures causing bad things to happen?

Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.

What causes global warming?

Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.

What causes global warming?

Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use.

Global Warming: Earth Observatory

Over the last five years, 600 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sifted through thousands of studies about global warming published in forums ranging from scientific journals to industry publications and distilled the world’s accumulated knowledge into this conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

Far from being some future fear, global warming is happening now, and scientists have evidence that humans are to blame. For decades, cars and factories have spewed billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and these gases caused temperatures to rise between 0.6°C and 0.9°C (1.08°F to 1.62°F) over the past century. The rate of warming in the last 50 years was double the rate observed over the last 100 years. Temperatures are certain to go up further.

But why should we worry about a seemingly small increase in temperature? It turns out that the global average temperature is quite stable over long periods of time, and small changes in that temperature correspond to enormous changes in the environment. For example, during the last ice age, when ice sheets a mile thick covered North America all the way down to the northern states, the world was only 9 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today. Much of modern human civilization owes its existence to the stability in the average global temperature since the end of the last ice age—a stability that allowed human cultures to transition from roaming, hunter-gatherer societies into more permanent, agriculture-supported communities. Even the temperature change of a degree or two that has occurred over the last century is capable of producing significant changes in our environment and way of life.

In the future, it is very likely that rising temperatures will lead to more frequent heat waves, and virtually certain that the seas will rise, which could leave low-lying nations awash in seawater. Warmer temperatures will alter weather patterns, making it likely that there will be more intense droughts and more intense rain events. Moreover, global warming will last thousands of years. To gain an understanding of how global warming might impact humanity, it is necessary to understand what global warming is, how scientists measure it, and how forecasts for the future are made.

Earth's Plate Tectonics May Eventually Stop

The Pacific is the biggest ocean on Earth, but it’s getting smaller every day. Australasia and the Americas are inching closer together, and in about 350 million years the Pacific will effectively close.

That’s when plate tectonics — the process driving all that slow motion, and one that geologists have assumed to be continuous — may grind to a halt.

Plate tectonics is the movement of enormous sections of Earth’s crust—the plates. New crust forms where plates separate on the seafloor, and existing crust sinks into the mantle when a neighboring plate overrides it at what’s called a subduction zone.

Today, most subduction zones are in the Pacific, and they’ll vanish along with that ocean. Contrary to widespread opinion, others are unlikely to replace them elsewhere, say Paul G. Silver of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and Mark D. Behn of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

That would stop plate tectonics worldwide — at least for a geological while.

Silver and Behn point to the Tethys Ocean, an ancient sea that shrank to nothing when squeezed by Africa and India drifting against Eurasia. The disappearing act spawned no new local subduction zones, showing that once lost, the zones aren’t readily replaced.

Plate tectonics may have already taken a global hiatus 900 million years ago, when several continents collided to form the supercontinent Rodinia. The team says various geological indicators suggest that during Rodinia’s 140-million-year existence, the world’s plates were at a standstill.

The research was detailed in the journal Science earlier this year.

Rising Seas and Stronger Storms Threaten New York City

Global warming could substantially raise sea levels around New York City over the next century and put the Big Apple at greater risk of being flooded by hurricane waves, a new computer model predicts.

Sea level around the city could jump 15 to 19 inches by 2050 and by more than three feet by 2080, according to the model.

"With sea levels at these higher levels, flooding by major storms would inundate many low-lying neighborhoods and shut down the entire metropolitan transportation system with much greater frequency," said study team member Vivien Gornitz of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University in New York.

Hurricane risk

While rare, hurricanes have hit New York City before. The strongest was a Category 4 hurricane at its peak in the Caribbean, which made landfall at Jamaica Bay on Sept. 3, 1821 with a 13-foot storm surge that flooded much of lower Manhattan.

Also, the Category 3 "Great Hurricane of 1938" [image] tore through central Long Island and ripped into southern New England on Sept. 21, 1938. The storm, which killed at least 600 people, pushed a wall of water up to 35 feet high in front of it, sweeping away protective barrier dunes and buildings.

Officials have long warned that a similar storm striking Manhattan would be devastating today. Of particular concern: massive subway flooding.

Frightening future

If sea levels rise as predicted, New York City would face an increased risk of flooding by hurricane storm surge, the researchers say. Storm surge is an above normal rise in sea level caused by a hurricane.

The new model used data collected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Hurricane Center to calculate the amount of damage hurricane-induced storm surges would inflict on the city. A previous study in 1995 predicted that a Category 3 hurricane could create surges of up to 25 feet at JFK Airport, 21 feet at the Lincoln Tunnel entrance, 24 feet at the Battery and 26 feet at La Guardia Airport.

The estimates did not include the effects of tides or boosted wave heights on top of the surge.

Even an increase of as little as 1.5 inches in normal sea level could contribute to flooding many parts of the city if a Category 3 hurricane were to strike, said Gornitz and fellow researcher Rosemary Rosenzweig. Hurricanes are ranked from 1 to 5, with 5 being the strongest and most destructive.

Areas that could potentially be flooded [image], the researchers said, include the Rockaways, Coney Island, much of southern Brooklyn and Queens, portions of Long Island City, Astoria, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, Queens, lower Manhattan and eastern Staten Island, from Great Kills Harbor north to the Verrazano Bridge.

The findings will be presented this week at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Philadelphia.

Already rising sea levels around the world have been rising steadily, by fractions of an inch, during most of the 20th century, but the rate of increase has nearly doubled, to 0.12 inches per year, within the last decade. Scientists believe warming of the world's oceans and melting glaciers caused by global warming are to blame.

A 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that a global warming of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) could raise sea levels 4 inches to 3 feet by the end of the century.

Recent studies have also linked human-caused global warming to increases in hurricane strength and duration, but some scientists attribute the changes to natural cycles in global weather patterns.

New York City Ponders Possibly Catastrophic Climate Changes

NEW YORK (AP) -- Flooded subways. Bridges deteriorating in the hot sun. Rising seas nipping at the edges of Manhattan. Those scenarios are up for review by a panel of scientists, government officials and private sector representatives studying how the city's infrastructure will hold up to climate change.

The Climate Change Adaptation Task Force met Tuesday for the first time as part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to address global warming in New York City, which already includes orders to switch the city's taxi fleet to hybrids by 2012 and to retrofit city buildings to meet greener standards.

Experts on the panel said the potential consequences of global warming could include more frequent storms, flooding throughout the city's coastal and lowland areas, repeated blackouts on a power grid stressed to its limits and bridges that deteriorate under the heat.

"We have to adapt to the environmental changes that have already taken place, or that we can reasonably expect will occur because of climate change," Bloomberg said.

The panel will begin its work by studying the city's infrastructure to better understand the city's preparedness for possibilities such as more catastrophic storms, hotter temperatures and a rising sea level.

"The city was built with an assumption of an environmental baseline, and climate change in many ways changes that baseline," said panel co-chair William Solecki, director of The Institute for Sustainable Cities at Hunter College.

"Some of these transformations can potentially be catastrophic as large storms; others might be more subtle and difficult to discern over the short term," Solecki said.

The mayor has asked the group to produce a report and inventory of existing at-risk infrastructure, plus plans to make those areas more secure, in one year.

The panel has also been asked to draft guidelines for new construction that take into account anticipated effects of climate change.

Plants and Animals Move as Climate Warms

Climate change has shifted the boundaries of plant and animal habitats, with some birds in the United States extending their boundaries northward and trees moving farther up mountains, new studies show.

Between 2000 and 2005, New York state's Department of Environmental Conservation had thousands of volunteers all over the state observe and report the birds they could identify, creating a Breeding Bird Atlas of the various species' breeding ranges.

Researchers at the State University of New York (SUNY) compared this atlas to another one conducted between 1980 and 1985 for 83 species of birds that traditionally have bred in New York and found that many had extended their range boundaries northward, some by as many as 40 miles (64 kilometers).

"But the real signal came out with some of the northerly species that are more common in Canada and the northern part of the U.S.," said Benjamin Zuckerberg, a Ph.D. student at SUNY. "Their southern range boundaries are actually moving northward as well, at a much faster clip."

Some of the species making this southern boundary shift are the Nashville warbler, a little bird with a yellow belly; the pine siskin, a common finch that resembles a sparrow; and the red-bellied woodpecker, considered the most common woodpecker in the Southeast.

The shifts, announced today, are occurring in a relatively short amount of time, the researchers also pointed out, happening in a matter of decades. These changes are also consistent with the predictions of regional warming, they added.

Warming is also forcing some mountain plant species to adapt by moving to higher altitudes as it kills them in their traditional ranges. In Southern California, for example, warming temperatures and longer dry spells have killed thousands of tree and plants, while pushing their habitats an average of 213 feet up the Santa Rosa Mountains over the past 30 years, according to a new study detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Previous studies have also catalogued the ways that climate change is knocking the nature out of whack: birds are migrating earlier in the season; reptiles and amphibians are also heading for the hills to reach cooler climes; and the timing of plant blooms is shifting as the Earth heats up.

How Lunar Soil Could Power the Future

The moon is once again a popular destination, as several space-faring nations are talking about setting up bases there. One reason would be to mine fuel for future fusion reactors.

The fuel in this case is helium-3, a lighter isotope of the helium used in balloons. In high energy collisions, helium-3 fuses with other nuclei to release more energy and less waste than the reactions in traditional nuclear reactors.

"If we can show that we can burn helium-3, it is a much cleaner and safer energy source than other nuclear fuels," said Gerald Kulcinski, director of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Just 40 tons of this stuff has enough potential energy to meet the total U.S. electricity demand for a year. However, there is almost no helium-3 on Earth. The closest supply is on the moon.

Several space agencies, notably in China, Russia and India, have mentioned helium-3 as a potential payoff for their lunar projects.

"I don't think that the main motivation to go back to the moon is helium-3," Kulcinski said. "But over the long-term, we do face an energy problem."

Fusion solution

All current nuclear power is based on fission, in which a large nucleus (such as uranium) breaks apart into smaller nuclei.

The alternative is fusion, in which two small nuclei come together to form a bigger nucleus and release copious amounts of energy.

A commercial fusion reactor has never been built, but a prototype called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) has just begun construction in Cadarache, France. The plan is to generate the needed 100 million degree plasma by the year 2016, but a power plant that can supply electricity might not come online for another 20 years after that.

The reaction that will occur in ITER is the fusing of two hydrogen isotopes: deuterium and tritium. One concern is that tritium is radioactive and a component of nuclear weapons, so care must be taken in dealing with it.

Another problem is the highly energetic neutrons emitted from the deuterium-tritium reaction. These neutrons slam into the reactor walls and cause structural damage. It is expected that the walls in ITER will have to be replaced every one to two years, Kulcinski said.

This is why Kulcinski and others advocate trading the tritium with non-radioactive helium-3.

"The advantage is that it makes very few neutrons," said Rich Nebel of Emc2 Fusion, a company based in Santa Fe, N.M. "This reduces radiation issues and also greatly simplifies the engineering."

Furthermore, the reaction products of helium-3 fusion are charged, so their energy can be directly converted into electricity without having to go through the inefficient step of boiling water to make steam.

Helium sources

Despite its apparent attractiveness, helium-3 is often neglected by fusion researchers. One reason is that the Earth has very little of it. A small portion of helium-3 is collected as an unwanted by-product inside nuclear weapons and sold for about $1,000 per gram, Kulcinski said.

A continuous supply of helium-3 can be found in the solar wind, but our planet's magnetic field deflects these particles away. The same is not true on the moon. The moon has collected 1 million to 5 million tons of helium-3, from the solar wind, over its 4.5 billion year history, Kulcinski said.

Evidence for this was found in the lunar rocks (brought back by the Apollo astronauts and Russian rovers) at a level of 10 to 20 parts per billion.

"Helium-3 is present on the moon, but in very small concentration levels, meaning that many hundreds of millions of tons of soil must be processed to extract a ton of helium-3," said Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute, a NASA-funded research institution.

This extraction requires heating lunar dust particles to around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit (700 degrees Celsius), Spudis said.

Kulcinski and his colleagues have designed rovers that could move along the surface, scraping up lunar soil and heating it with concentrated sunlight.

Such a mining operation would retrieve 300 times more energy than it uses (including all the energy to fly to the moon and back), Kulcinski estimates. In comparison, mining coal returns 15-20 times the energy put in. His team has estimated that it might cost around $800 million to bring back each ton of lunar helium-3.

This might sound like a lot, but if you could sell the fusion energy at a price comparable to gasoline based on oil at $100 per barrel, the helium-3 would be worth $10 billion per ton.

"Our real challenge is not obtaining the helium-3; it is demonstrating that we can burn it," Kulcinski said.

Tough to burn

Burning helium-3 requires higher initial energy than burning hydrogen isotopes. This is why ITER is not considering helium-3 as a possible fuel at this time.

However, Kulcinski's group works on a different method — called inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) — for achieving fusion reactions. Instead of using magnetic fields to confine a very hot plasma like ITER plans to do, IEC works by accelerating nuclei towards each other with electric fields.

Kulcinski and his collaborators have managed to sustain nuclear fusion in their small prototype system. The company Emc2 Fusion is also working on a similar design.

However, all of these IEC demonstrations, at least for now, require much more input energy than they can deliver. Most researchers agree that helium-3 is unlikely to be the first fuel used in fusion reactors.

"One should never say never — it may come to pass that helium-3 could become an important source of energy in the coming century," Spudis said. "That time has not come yet. And I suspect that it is still some time off."

Limit Found to Tree Height

The Douglas fir has earned a towering reputation for its ability to soar higher than most trees. But there's a limit to how tall it can grow, and a new study explains why: If it grows too tall, a tree cannot transport water to the highest leaves.

This study showed that somewhere between the height of a 30- or 35-story building, Douglas firs can't transport water any higher. This predicted range corresponds with the world's tallest Douglas fir, standing in at 326 feet. (The world's tallest tree is a California redwood, which stands 379 feet.)

"As you go higher and higher in a Douglas fir tree, it's almost like experiencing a drought," said Rick Meinzer, a Forest Service scientist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Evaporation of water from leaves sucks both water and air bubbles. In Douglas firs, this transport relies on dead cells that act like valves and make up most of this tree's wood and prevent air bubbles from traveling up through trees.

By rejecting the spread of air bubbles through these valves, this tree also prevents water from being pulled higher.

The findings, detailed this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were made by a team of scientists from Oregon State University and the U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

U.S. Droughts Can Last Centuries

Dips in the sun's activity have triggered centuries-long droughts in eastern North America, according to a new study that examined the geologic record stored within a stalagmite from a West Virginia cave.

The link between periodic droughts and changes in solar activity initially was proposed by geologist Gerald Bond. He suggested that every 1,500 years, weak solar activity caused by fluctuations in the sun's magnetic fields cooled the North Atlantic Ocean and created more icebergs and ice rafting, or the movement of sediment to the ocean floor. This caused less precipitation to fall, creating drought conditions.

The climate record preserved by trace elements such as strontium, carbon and oxygen in stalagmites is clearer and more detailed than records previously taken from lake sediments. During dry periods, strontium is concentrated in stalagmites. Carbon isotopes also record drought because drier soils slow biological activity.

For the new study, researchers cut and polished a stalagmite taken from Buckeye Creek Cave, and drilled out 200 samples. The metals and isotopes in the stalagmites' growth layers were weighed and analyzed to determine how the concentrations changed over time.

The stalagmite's record provides evidence that there were at least seven major droughts during the Holocene era in eastern North America. Some of these, from about 6,300 to 4,200 years ago, were particularly pronounced, lasting for decades or even entire centuries.

"This really nails down the idea of solar influence on continental drought," said geologist Gregory Spring of Ohio University and the study's leader. The results of the study are detailed online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Modern droughts may not follow this same pattern of periodic long-term droughts caused by weak solar activity, as cooling in the North Atlantic Ocean today actually increases moisture and precipitation.

The climate record does suggest that North America could face a major drought event again in 500 to 1,000 years, though Springer said that human-induced global warming could offset the cycle.

"Global warming will leave things like this in the dust," he said. "The natural oscillations here are nothing like what we would expect to see with global warming."

In fact, new research from the University of Arizona in Tucson has linked human-driven changes in the westerly winds to drought conditions in the American Southwest, which has been plagued by drought for much of the last decade.

Since the 1970s, the winter storm track in the western United States has shifted northward, bringing fewer winter storms and less rain and snow to the region, the researchers found. This precipitation deficit can affect water resources later in the year and cause more and larger forest fires.

Is Climate Change Happening Really?

Climate change is already happening and represents one of the greatest environmental, social and economic threats facing the planet. The European Union is committed to working constructively for a global agreement to control climate change, and is leading the way by taking ambitious action of its own.

The warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level. The Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.76° C since 1850. Most of the warming that has occurred over the last 50 years is very likely to have been caused by human activities.

In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that, without further action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the global average surface temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century, and by up to 6.4°C in the worst case scenario. Even the lower end of this range would take the temperature increase since pre-industrial times above 2°C - the threshold beyond which irreversible and possibly catastrophic changes become far more likely.

Projected global warming this century is likely to trigger serious consequences for mankind and other life forms, including a rise in sea levels of between 18 and 59 cm which will endanger coastal areas and small islands, and a greater frequency and severity of extreme weather events.


Human activities that contribute to climate change include in particular the burning of fossil fuels, agriculture and land-use changes like deforestation. These cause emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main gas responsible for climate change, as well as of other 'greenhouse' gases. To bring climate change to a halt, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly.

The European Union has long been at the forefront of international efforts to combat climate change and has played a key role in the development of the two major treaties addressing the issue, the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, agreed in 1997.

The EU has been taking serious steps to address its own greenhouse gas emissions since the early 1990s. In 2000 the Commission launched the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP). The ECCP has led to the adoption of a wide range of new policies and measures. These include the pioneering EU Emissions Trading System, which has become the cornerstone of EU efforts to reduce emissions cost-effectively, and legislation to tackle emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases.

Monitoring data and projections indicate that the 15 countries that were EU members at the time of the EU's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 will reach their Kyoto Protocol target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This requires emissions in 2008-2012 to be 8% below 1990 levels.

However, Kyoto is only a first step and its targets expire in 2012. International negotiations are now taking place under the UNFCCC with the goal of reaching a global agreement governing action to address climate change after 2012.

In January 2007, as part of an integrated climate change and energy policy, the European Commission set out proposals and options for an ambitious global agreement in its Communication "Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius: The way ahead for 2020 and beyond".

EU leaders endorsed this vision in March 2007. They committed the EU to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% of 1990 levels by 2020 provided other developed countries commit to making comparable reductions under a global agreement. And to start transforming Europe into a highly energy-efficient, low-carbon economy, they committed to cutting emissions by at least 20% independently of what other countries decide to do.

To underpin these commitments, EU leaders set three key targets to be met by 2020: a 20% reduction in energy consumption compared with projected trends; an increase to 20% in renewable energies' share of total energy consumption; and an increase to 10% in the share of petrol and diesel consumption from sustainably-produced biofuels.

In January 2008 the Commission proposed a major package of climate and energy-related legislative proposals to implement these commitments and targets. These are now being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, and EU leaders have expressed their wish for agreement to be reached on the package before the end of 2008.

See also:

New Data Show Global Warming Kills Marine Life

Satellite data revealed for the first time that global warming could devastate key marine life, scientists announced today.

The decade-long analysis showed that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined.

Tiny marine plants, called phytoplankton, impact the network of organisms that directly or indirectly depend on them for food. Changes in ocean color--a measure of phytoplankton mass--detected from space allowed researchers to calculate their photosynthetic rates and correlate these changes to the climate.

As rising air temperatures heat up the ocean's surface, this water becomes less dense and separates from the cold dense layer below, which is full of nutrients. Since phytoplankton need light for photosynthesis, these floating plants are restricted to the surface layer--now separated from nutrients needed for growth.

When phytoplankton is abundant, the color of the water shifts from blue to green. These marine plants remove carbon dioxide and convert it to organic carbon, accounting for almost half of the Earth's photosynthesis.

During periods of cooler temperatures, there is a flowering of these marine plants. Such was the case in late 1999 when the oceans were recovering from a strong El Nino and the globe was cooling.

But between 2000 and the present, researchers found that as the oceans warmed and became more stratified, phytoplankton productivity declined by 190 million tons of carbon each year.

"This clearly showed that overall ocean productivity decreases when the climate warms," said lead author Michael Behrenfeld of Oregon State University.

Unlike terrestrial plants that can stick around for hundreds of years, these tiny greens have quick turnover rates. Every two to six days, predators munch down the entire global phytoplankton mass.

"This very fast turnover, along with the fact that phytoplankton are limited to just a thin veneer of the ocean surface where there is enough sunlight to sustain photosynthesis, makes them very responsive to changes in climate," Behrenfeld said. "This was why we could relate productivity changes to climate variability in only a 10-year record. Such connections would be much harder to detect from space for terrestrial plant biomass."

The problem could create a vicious cycle.

As the carbon dioxide levels rise, phytoplankton production is reduced. This means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse gas, which worsens the overall problem, Behrenfeld said.

The study is detailed in the Dec. 7 issue of the journal Nature.

Oceans Running Low on Oxygen

Parts of the world's oceans are running low on oxygen, a new study finds.

Fertilizers and other chemical pollutants in river runoff fuel blooms of algae that cause oxygen levels to dip precipitously when they die. A review of research into these so-called "dead zones," detailed in the Aug. 15 issue of the journal Science, finds that the number of dead zones has roughly doubled every decade since the 1960's.

The study authors, Robert Diaz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Rutger Rosenberg of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, tallied 405 dead zones in coastal waters worldwide today, affecting about 95,000 square miles (245,000 square kilometers) of ocean, an area about the size of New Zealand.

While that may seem small compared to the total coverage of the oceans, the local effects can be devastating to marine ecosystems.

These dead zones occur when fertilizer runoff dumps excess nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, into coastal waters, providing food for algae. When these microscopic plants die and sink to the ocean bottom, bacteria feed on them and subsequently consume all the oxygen dissolved in the water.

This leaves fish and other bottom-dwelling sea creatures without enough oxygen to survive, causing mass die-offs and displacements. Typically, the researchers noted, these events aren't noticed until they threaten valuable fish stocks.

The world's largest dead zone is in the Baltic Sea. The largest dead zone in the United States sits in the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi River and is about the size of New Jersey. Scientists have predicted that the Gulf dead zone could grow larger than ever this summer.

Diaz and Rosenburg said that dead zones now rank as one of "the key stressor[s] on marine ecosystems," along with over-fishing and habitat loss.

"There is no other variable of such ecological importance to coastal marine systems that has changed so drastically over such a short time as dissolved oxygen," they wrote.

With the possibility that climate change could exacerbate the situation through changes in ocean circulation, Diaz and Rosenburg recommend cutting back the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilizer that runs off into rivers.

More Shareholders Supporting Climate Resolutions

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- Support for climate-change proposals may be growing among investors in big U.S. companies.

Shareholder resolutions related to climate change more than doubled over the past five years, according to statistics gathered by a coalition of public interest groups, environmental organizations and pension funds. Moreover, the coalition, Boston-based Ceres, says support for those measures averaged more than 23 percent in 2008, a new high.

While that's not enough to pass a resolution, Ceres contends rising vote totals compel companies to act, like a plan by Ford Motor Co. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2020.

"It's easy to ignore 3 or 5 percent votes, but it's pretty hard to ignore 22 percent votes or 39 percent votes," said Dan Bakal, director of electric power programs for Ceres.

Bakal said shareholder activism led to new reports from Allegheny Energy and other large electricity producers that outline strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The companies faced climate change resolutions this year. The proposals were withdrawn after companies agreed to issue the reports, Bakal said.

"It's an indication of movement," he said.

It was similar to what happened after shareholders voted against a climate change resolution last year, Allegheny spokesman Allen Staggers said.

"That proposal was rejected by stockholders. However, the company elected to prepare a report simply because it had been a timely issue," he said. "The chairman thought it was the right thing to do at the time."

Deciding to issue a report or take some other action, often with the side benefit of lowering costs or increasing efficiency, is an understandable reaction by companies, said Karen Schnatterly, an assistant professor of management at the University of Missouri.

"They look good," she said.

Ceres says 57 climate-related shareholder resolutions were filed with U.S. companies in 2008, up from 43 in 2007 and 31 in 2006.

Support likewise has climbed from an average of 17.8 percent in 2006 and 21.6 percent last year. This year, support averaged 23.5 percent, according to Ceres.

Fewer than half the resolutions end up before shareholders. Ceres says 26 went to a vote in 2008, and 25 were withdrawn after companies agreed to address the issue. Five others were withdrawn by proponents due to technicalities or left out of proxy statements by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Despite Ceres' claims of success, so far none of the proposals has come close to passing. The best showing the group can cite is a resolution rejected by the owners of better than 60 percent of Pittsburgh-based coal mine operator Consol Energy shares.

Thus far, Bakal said he knows of no action by Consol despite the relatively high level of shareholder support.

Consol, which links the vote total to support by an institutional investor advisory service, sees little value in a report, spokesman Tom Hoffman said.

"We produce coal and natural gas," Hoffman said. "It just doesn't seem to us that there is a whole lot of value to shareholders to do a study to tell them what they already know."

Charles Elson, corporate governance chair at the University of Delaware, says the lack of victories shows social issues simply haven't attracted mainstream investors, despite support from some large pension funds.

"I don't think it's caught on yet," Elson said.

Clinton: US Should Demonstrate Energy Solutions

LAS VEGAS (AP) — The United States can capture the world's imagination by creating an energy independent state, territory or nation, former President Bill Clinton told an energy summit.

"We have got to convince people this can be done and it would be good economics," Clinton told the politicians and energy experts meeting at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"There should be one state to prove you could do it — and it should be you," Clinton said Monday. "I promise if you do, it would rock the world."

Clinton said Puerto Rico would be a prime candidate for energy independence because it imports most of its power at a high cost to the people. Clinton also suggested several nations, including Rwanda, Papa New Guinea or one of the Caribbean nations — places that have low power demand and are sunny and windy.

The group plans to develop recommendations Tuesday and bring them to the Democratic and Republican parties.

"I say, 'Let's bring it on,'" said Jim Owen, spokesman for Edison Electric Institute, the private utility industry's trade association. "Let's see what proposals come out of it."

Owen called Clinton's agenda "ambitious" but said it included suggestions that the nation's utilities would support, such as expanded research for carbon dioxide storage and accelerating a shift toward plug-in hybrid electric cars.

Clinton also called for an overhaul of the nation's electricity grid — a complex undertaking he said could cost as much as a trillion dollars. Clinton said too much energy is going to waste in places where wind and solar energy are abundant because the United States hasn't built transmission lines to transport the power to faraway places.

"I'm positive it needs to be done because I'm tired of standing in windy places where they have no options," he said.

Global Warming Unites Science and Religion

BOSTON (AP)—Some leading scientists and evangelical Christian leaders have agreed to put aside their fierce differences over the origin of life and work together to fight global warming.

Representatives met recently in Georgia and agreed on the need for urgent action. Details on the talks will be disclosed in Washington on Wednesday.

"Whether God created the Earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over billions of years, the issue we agree on is that it needs to be cared for today,'' said Rich Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches.

Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, agreed, saying: "Scientists and evangelicals have discovered that we share a deeply felt common concern and sense of urgency about threats to life on Earth and that we must speak with one voice to protect it.''

Chivian and Cizik, both of whom participated in the talks, declined further comment.

In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming, saying that human-induced climate change is real, that its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and that Christian moral convictions demand an urgent response.

They argued that governments, businesses, churches and individuals all have a role to play. Signatories included presidents of evangelical colleges, aid groups, churches and pastors of megachurches.

The powerful National Association of Evangelicals, however, did not join the initiative. It is unclear whether Cizik's involvement in the new campaign will lead the organization to adopt the environment as a central part of its agenda.

Evangelicals and scientists previously failed to launch a large-scale joint initiative, partly because of differences between evolutionary science and a literal interpretation of the Bible—a rift that dates back to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Those who met in Georgia, however, are expected to argue that the threat to life on Earth is too great to let the rift prevent them from working together to combat greenhouse emissions.

Speakers at the Wednesday announcement will include megachurch pastor Joel Hunter, who refused to take the leadership of Christian Coalition of America because the organization would not let him expand its agenda to include the environment and poverty.

Others are Harvard biologist and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Edward O. Wilson and NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who came under fire from the White House after a 2005 lecture in which he called for urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming.

"The evangelicals have a lot of clout on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and their voice would be a very welcome one,'' said Jim Presswood of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Ten Top CEOs to President Bush: Protect the Climate

WASHINGTON (AP)—The chief executives of 10 major U.S. corporations, on the eve of the State of the Union address, urged President George W. Bush on Monday to support mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution and establish reductions targets.

"We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection,'' the executives from a broad range of industries said in a letter to the president.

Bush, who in the past has rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse'' gases, was expected to address climate change in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but has repeatedly argued that voluntary efforts are the best approach.

Major industry groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers continue to oppose so-called "cap and trade'' proposals to cut climate changing pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

But the 10 executives, representing major utilities, aluminum and chemical companies and financial institutions, said mandatory reductions are needed and that "the cornerstone of this approach'' should be a cap-and-trade system.

Members of the group, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, include chief executives of Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp.

At a news conference, the executives said that mandatory reductions of heat-trapping emissions can be imposed without economic harm and would lead to economic opportunities if done economy-wide and with provisions to mitigate costs.


Many of the companies already have voluntarily moved to curb greenhouse pollution, they said. But the executives also said they do not believe voluntary efforts will suffice.

"It must be mandatory, so there is no doubt about our actions,'' said Jim Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy. "The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now.''

Fred Krupp, president of Environmenal Defense, a member of the alliance, called the executives' support "a game changer'' in the debate over climate. "We are asking Congress to not wait for a new administration and not wait for the presidential debates.''

In the letter the executives urged Congress "to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.'' The legislation should cut these releases 10 percent below today's levels within a decade and at least 60 percent by 2050, according to the action plan.

At his daily news briefing, White House press secretary Tony Snow dismissed any call for mandatory carbon caps to deal with climate. "There's been some talk about, sort of, binding of economy-wide carbon caps in the speech, but they are not part of the president's proposal,'' said Snow.

The first days of the new Democrat-led Congress have seen a rush of legislation introduced to address climate change, all of which have some variation of a cap-and-trade approach to dealing with climate change.

Among those pushing cap-and-trade climate bills are two leading presidential aspirants, Sens. Barack Obama, a Democrat, and John McCain, a Republican.

Essentially such a mechanisms would have mandatory limits of greenhouse gas emissions, but would allow companies to trade emission credits to reduce the cost. Companies that cannot meet the cap could purchase credits from those that exceed them or in some cases from a government auction.

Also signing the letter to Bush were the executives of Lehman Brothers, PG&E Corp., PNM Resources, FPL Group and four leading environmental organizations.

Climate Changing in Washington

NEW YORK (AP)—Maybe it's the weird winter weather, or the newly Democratic Congress. Maybe it's the news reports about starving polar bears, or the Oscar nomination for Al Gore's global warming cri de coeur, "An Inconvenient Truth.'' Whatever the reason, years of resistance to the reality of climate change are suddenly melting away like the soon-to-be-history snows of Kilimanjaro.

Now even George W. Bush says it's a problem.

For years, the president and his supporters argued that not enough was known about global warming to do anything about it. But during last week's State of the Union address Bush finally referred to global warming as an established fact.

"These technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change,'' Bush said in proposing a series of measures to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years.

Not enough

Environmentalists and scientists who study the problem say the nostrums Bush proposed Tuesday night will do little to prevent the serious environmental effects that the globe faces in coming decades.

Environmentalists favor imposing a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions tied to a market-based emissions trading system. Several of the global warming bills that have been introduced to the new Democrat-controlled Congress would do exactly that. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed creating a new global warming committee to consider the legislation.

"We want the pressure on. The pressure will drive the development of new technologies,'' said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who introduced one of the global warming bills.

Many industry leaders have come to realize that such measures may be more an opportunity than a hindrance. The day before Bush's speech the chief executives of 10 corporations, including Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp., called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

"It must be mandatory, so there is no doubt about our actions,'' said Jim Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy. "The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now.''

And a week before the State of the Union address a dozen evangelicals called action against global warming a "moral imperative'' in a joint statement with scientists from the Centers for Disease Control, NASA, Harvard and other institutions.

Tide is turning

There is still plenty of opposition to action on global warming in both the evangelical and business communities, but the tide is clearly turning.

"You're seeing a major political shift that is fairly broad-based,'' said Robert Watson, a scientist at the World Bank and former chairman of the United Nations scientific panel responsible for evaluating the threat of climate change.

Scientists have been at the vanguard of the climate change issue for decades. As early as 1965 a scientific advisory board to President Johnson warned that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to "marked changes in climate'' by 2000.

In 1988 the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Though assailed by critics as an overly alarmist organization, the panel actually represents a relatively cautious assessment of global warming because it relies on input from hundreds of scientists, including well-known skeptics and industry researchers.

Every five or six years since 1990, the IPCC has released an updated assessment of the environmental threat posed by global warming. And every time, a single memorable and increasingly alarming statement has stood out from the thousands of pages of technical discussion.

The first report noted that Earth's average temperature had risen by 0.5 to one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, a warming consistent with the global warming predictions but still within the range of natural climate variability.

"The observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability,'' the scientists concluded.

But by 1995 that possibility had all but vanished: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate,'' the second IPCC report concluded.

Six years after that: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.''

Abundant evidence

Since then, scientists have accumulated abundant evidence that global warming is upon us. They have documented a dramatic retreat of the Arctic sea in recent summers, accelerated melting on the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps and the virtual collapse in mountain glaciers around the globe. They have found plants and animals well poleward of their normal ranges. They have recorded temperature records in many locations and shifts in atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Globally, the planet is the warmest it has been in thousands of years, if not more.

Emboldened by these discoveries, scientists just in the last month have issued some dire warnings. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, originally formed in response to the dangers of nuclear weapons, cited the climate change threat in moving its "doomsday clock'' two minutes closer to midnight. And Britain's meteorological agency announced just three days into the year that 2007 has a 60 percent likelihood of being the warmest year on record, thanks to the combined effects of global warming and El Nino.

"You just can't explain the observed changes that we've seen in the last half of the 20th century by invoking natural causes,'' said Benjamin Santer, a U.S. government scientist who was involved in previous IPCC assessments.

The scientists who will gather in Paris this coming week to complete the first section of this year's IPCC report are not allowed to talk about the early drafts that have been circulating in recent months.

But there is little doubt that when the report is released on Friday it will include references to some of the specific environmental effects of global warming that have already been observed, and an even stronger statement about the imminent threat of global warming.

White House Accused of Misleading Public on Global Warming

WASHINGTON (AP)—The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming.''

Also Today: U.N. Chief Asked to Call Urgent Climate Summit
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security,'' said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists.''

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger,'' Waxman said.

Administration officials were not scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change. Present Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Waxman said his committee had not received documents it requested from the White House and other agencies, and that a handful of papers received on the eve of the hearing "add nothing to our inquiry.''

Two private advocacy groups, meanwhile, presented to the panel a survey of government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming'' or "climate change'' from a report.

The questionnaire was sent by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group. The report also was based on "firsthand experiences'' described in interviews with the Government Accountability Project, which helps government whistleblowers, lawmakers were told.

At the same time, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sought to gauge her colleague's sentiment on climate change. She opened a meeting where senators were to express their views on global warming in advance of a broader set of hearings on the issue.

Among those scheduled to make comments were two presidential hopefuls—Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. Both lawmakers favor mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, something opposed by President Bush, who argues such requirements would threaten economic growth.

The intense interest about climate change comes as some 500 climate scientists gather in Paris this week to put the final touches on a United Nations report on how warming, as a result of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, is likely to affect sea levels.

They agree sea levels will rise, but not on how much. Whatever the report says when it comes out at week's end, it is likely to influence the climate debate in Congress.

At the Waxman hearing, the two advocacy groups said their research—based on the questionnaires, interviews and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act—revealed "evidence of widespread interference in climate science in federal agencies.''

The groups report described largely anonymous claims by scientists that their findings at times at been misrepresented, that they had been pressured to change findings and had been restricted on what they were allowed to say publicly.

The survey involved scientists across the government from NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency to the department's of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense and Interior. In all the government employees more than 2,000 scientists who spend at least some of their time on climate issues, the report said.

U.N. Chief Asked to Call Urgent Climate Summit

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP)—The top U.N. official for the environment asked Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday to convene an emergency international summit to combat global climate change, an official said, joining a growing chorus of world leaders and scientists calling for urgent action to cut greenhouse gases.

Ban met with the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, Achim Steiner, who recommended the summit take place later this year, an official close to the talks said.

Ban was sympathetic to the idea, the official said on condition of anonymity because the talks were not public.

"Climate change is one of the most important and urgent agendas that the international community has to address before 2012,'' the U.N. chief said.

Discussions about the summit come as an authoritative report, compiled by 2,000 climate experts and other scientists, is expected to be released Friday in Paris, warning that human-caused global warming is destined to get much worse. The report is by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was created by the United Nations in 1988 and releases its assessments every five to six years.

Kenya has agreed to host a possible summit, Ban said. He is scheduled to meet Kenyan president Mwai Kibaki on Wednesday to discuss such a meeting.

Nick Nuttall, spokesman for the U.N.'s Environment Program, said the summit could be held between July and December.

Nuttall said the impetus for such a summit is the acknowledgment by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last week that climate change needs to be addressed, as well as the Jan. 10 proposals by the European Union for a new European energy policy that stresses the need to slash carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

"There's a lot of momentum that has being building,'' for such a summit, Nuttall said. "We have a window of opportunity.''

World temperatures have risen to levels not seen in thousands of years, propelled by rapid warming the past 30 years, scientists say. They attribute at least some of the past century's 1-degree rise in global temperatures to the atmospheric accumulation of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, byproducts of power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel-burning sources.

The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.

Scientists have said that continued temperature increases could seriously disrupt the climate.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires 35 industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The U.S. and Australia are the only major industrial nations to reject Kyoto.

Kyoto parties are discussing what kind of timetables and quotas should follow that pact's expiration in 2012.

They also are weighing ways to draw the United States, the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, into a mandatory system of emissions caps. Many look toward the scientists' upcoming assessment for support.

Although Bush acknowledged last week that climate change needs to be addressed, he continues to oppose mandatory emission caps, arguing that industry through development of new technologies can deal with the problem at less cost.

In Washington, meanwhile, two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at playing down the threat of global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming'' or "climate change'' from a report.

The questionnaire was sent by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group. The report also was based on "firsthand experiences'' described in interviews with the Government Accountability Project, which helps government whistleblowers, lawmakers were told.

The History of Climate Change Science

Here are gathered in chronological sequence the most important events in the history of climate change science. The list of milestones includes major influences external to the science itself.

1800-1870

Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.

1824

Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.

1859

Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.

1896

Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

1897

Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.

1870-1910

Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918

World War I. Governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925

Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energy.

1930s

Global warming trend since late 19th century reported.

Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.

1938

Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.

1939-1945

World War II. Grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

1945

U.S. Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change.

1956

Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset.

Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere.

Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.

1957

Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination to climate studies.

Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.

1958

Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water.

1960

Downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s is reported.

Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. The level is 315 ppm.

1962

Cuban Missile Crisis, peak of the Cold War.

1963

Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.

1965

Boulder meeting on causes of climate change, in which Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of the climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts.

1966

Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores shows the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.

1967

International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction but including climate.

Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees.

1968

Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would sea levels catastrophically.

1969

Astronauts walk on the Moon, and people perceive the Earth as a fragile whole.

Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks.

Nimbus III satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements.

1970

First Earth Day. Environmental movement attains strong influence, spreads concern about global degradation.

Creation of U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world’s leading funder of climate research.

Aerosols from human activity are shown to be increasing swiftly. Bryson claims they counteract global warming and may bring serious cooling.

1971

SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global climate change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort.

Mariner 9 spacecraft finds a great dust storm warming the atmosphere of Mars, plus indications of a radically different climate in the past.

1972

Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the span of a thousand years or so.

1973

Oil embargo and price rise bring first “energy crisis.”

1974

Serious droughts and other unusual weather since 1972 increase scientific and public concern about climate change, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; journalists talk of ice age.

1975

Concern about environmental effects of airplanes leads to investigations of trace gases in the stratosphere and discovery of danger to ozone layer.

Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2.

1976

Studies find that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect

Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks.

Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors in the future of the climate.

Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods.

1977

Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming as the biggest climate risk in next century.

1978

Attempts to coordinate climate research in U.S. end with an inadequate National Climate Program Act, accompanied by temporary growth in funding.

1979

Second oil “energy crisis.” Strengthened environmental movement encourages renewable energy sources, inhibits nuclear energy growth.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5EC global warming.

World Climate Research Programme launched to coordinate international research.

1981

Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement; political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming.

IBM Personal Computer introduced. Advanced economies are increasingly delinked from energy.

Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming.

Some scientists predict greenhouse warming “signal” should be visible by about the year 2000.

1982

Greenland ice cores reveal drastic temperature oscillations in the span of a century in the distant past.

Strong global warming since mid-1970s is reported, with 1981 the warmest year on record.

1983

Reports from U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency spark conflict, as greenhouse warming becomes prominent in mainstream politics.

1985

Villach conference declares expert consensus that some global warming seems inevitable, calls on governments to consider international agreements to restrict emissions.

Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature went up and down together through past ice ages, pointing to powerful biological and geochemical feedbacks.

Broecker speculates that a reorganization of North Atlantic Ocean circulation can bring swift and radical climate change.

1987

Montreal Protocol of theVienna Convention imposes international restrictions on emission of ozone-destroying gases.

1988

News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts plus testimony by Hansen.

Toronto Conference calls for strict, specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Ice-core and biology studies confirm living ecosystems make climate feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established.

Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 350 ppm.

After 1988 it is difficult to identify historical milestones. Not only do we lack perspective, but the effort was so large that progress on a given topic, even more than before, came through a variety of results spread over several groups and several years.

A TENTATIVE LIST:

1989

Fossil-fuel and other industries form Global Climate Coalition in US to lobby politicians and convince the media and public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action.

1990

First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely. Industry lobbyists and some scientists dispute the tentative conclusions.

1991

Mt. Pinatubo explodes; Hansen predicts cooling pattern, verifying (by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects.

Global warming skeptics emphasize studies indicating that a significant part of 20th-century temperature changes were due to solar influences. (The correlation would fail in the following decade.)

Studies from 55 million years ago show possibility of eruption of methane from the seabed with enormous self-sustained warming.

1992

Conference in Rio de Janeiro produces UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but US blocks calls for serious action.

Study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in same range as predicted independently by computer models.

1993

Greenland ice cores suggest that great climate changes (at least on a regional scale) can occur in the space of a single decade.

1995

Second IPCC report detects "signature" of human-caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century.

Reports of the breaking up of Antarctic ice sheets and other signs of actual current warming in polar regions begin affecting public opinion.

1997

Toyota introduces Prius in Japan, first mass-market electric hybrid car; swift progress in large wind turbines and other energy alternatives.

International conference produces Kyoto Protocol, setting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if enough nations sign onto a treaty.

1998

The warmest year on record, globally averaged (1995, 1997, and 2001-2006 were near the same level). Borehole data confirm extraordinary warming trend.

Qualms about arbitrariness in computer models diminish as teams model ice-age climate and dispense with special adjustments to reproduce current climate.

1999

Criticism that satellite measurements show no warming are dismissed by National Academy Panel.

Ramanathan detects massive "brown cloud" of aerosols from South Asia.

2000

Global Climate Coalition dissolves as many corporations grapple with threat of warming, but oil lobby convinces US administration to deny problem.

Variety of studies emphasize variability and importance of biological feedbacks in carbon cycle, liable to accelerate warming.

2001

Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented since end of last ice age, is "very likely," with possible severe surprises. Effective end of debate among all but a few scientists.

Bonn meeting, with participation of most countries but not US, develops mechanisms for working towards Kyoto targets.

National Academy panel sees a "paradigm shift" in scientific recognition of the risk of abrupt climate change (decade-scale).

Warming observed in ocean basins; match with computer models gives a clear signature of greenhouse effect warming.

2002

Studies find surprisingly strong "global dimming," due to pollution, has retarded arrival of greenhouse warming, but dimming is now decreasing.

2003

Variety of studies increase concern that collapse of ice sheets (West Antarctica, perhaps Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had believed.

Deadly summer heat wave in Europe accelerates divergence between European and US public opinion.

2004

In controversy over temperature data covering past millenium, most conclude climate variations were substantial, but not comparable to the post-1980 warming.

First major book, movie and art work featuring global warming appear.

2005

Kyoto treaty goes into effect, signed by major industrial nations except US. Japan, Western Europe, regional US entities accelerate work to retard emissions.

Hurricane Katrina and other major tropical storms spur debate over impact of global warming on storm intensity.

Earth Will Survive Global Warming, But Will We?

The notion that human activity, or the activity of any organism, can affect Earth on a planetary scale is still a hard one for many people to swallow. And it is this kind of disbelief that fuels much of the public skepticism surrounding global warming.

A poll conducted last summer by the Pew Research Center found that only 41 percent of Americans believe the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming. But in a meeting this week in Paris, officials from 113 nations have agreed that a highly anticipated international report will state that global warming was "very likely'' caused by human activity.

The idea that biology can alter the planet in broad and dramatic ways is widely accepted among scientists, and they point to several precedents throughout the history of life.

Gore on Climate Change Concerts

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Al Gore announced on Thursday a series of worldwide concerts to focus on the threat of climate change, with a powerhouse lineup from the Red Hot Chili Peppers to Snoop Dogg to Bon Jovi.

The 24-hour event on July 7 is part of a campaign, Save Our Selves -- The Campaign for a Climate in Crisis, that promoters hope will trigger a broad movement to address what the former vice president calls a global climate crisis.

"In order to solve the climate crisis, we have to reach billions of people,'' the environmental activist, filmmaker and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee said in a statement. "The climate crisis will only be stopped by an unprecedented and sustained global movement.''

Gore is often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008 despite his repeated statements that he's not running. Recently, some former aides met in Boston to discuss a campaign to draft the former vice president.

The concerts on seven continents will bring newfound publicity to Gore, who already is enjoying celebrity status with his Oscar-nominated documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth.'' Gore said he was thrilled that the film, on the perils of global warming, was nominated for best documentary and for best song, the latter nod coming for Melissa Etheridge's "I Need to Wake Up.''

The Academy Awards are Feb. 25.

More than 100 performers are scheduled to appear at the July concerts, including Etheridge, the Foo Fighters, Lenny Kravitz, Sheryl Crow, John Mayer, Duran Duran, Korn, Pharrell, the Black Eyed Peas, Akon, Enrique Iglesias, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw.

Promoters said the Live Earth concerts will take place in Shanghai, China; Johannesburg, South Africa; Sydney, Australia; London and cities to be announced in Japan, Brazil and the United States.

Promoters said the concerts -- dubbed Live Earth -- could reach 2 billion people through attendance or broadcasts. Proceeds will create a foundation to combat climate change led by The Alliance for Climate Protection, which is chaired by Gore.

Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming

SAN FRANCISCO—While the evidence is clear that human-caused global warming is occurring and is a threat to many humans and other organisms on the planet, many Americans have been slow to buy the whole argument.

Yesterday at its annual meeting here, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest science organization in the world, issued a consensus statement that "global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and is a growing threat to society,'' Earlier this month the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change issued a statement that global warming will "continue for centuries" and is "very likely caused by man."

While these statement may have changed public opinion in recent weeks, last year a joint poll between ABC News, Time, Stanford University and Ohio State University found that only 3 in 10 Americans believed that global warming is caused by humans. Less than 40 percent of the nation’s public called global warming is an immediate and serious problem.

"Americans are very much on the same wavelength with the scientific community about the basics of the issue," Jon Krosnick, professor of communication and of political science from Stanford University said during a talk here yesterday. "But they lack certainty" about how bad the problem really is

Despite Warnings, Ocean Circulation Not Slowing Down

Scientific evidence and Hollywood's "The Day After Tomorrow" have fueled fears that global warming could disrupt the Atlantic Ocean's main circulation system and drastically alter global weather patterns, but there is no firm evidence that shows this is actually happening, says a prominent oceanographer.

The main ocean circulation system, called the global conveyor belt, helps redistribute heat around the planet. Warm surface water flows poleward from the tropics and cools, becoming denser and eventually sinking when it reaches the North Atlantic. The cooled water then returns along the bottom of the ocean to the tropics.

Scientists worry that because human-induced global warming seems to be increasing temperatures most rapidly at the poles, the air above the water will warm it up, preventing it from sinking and thus slowing down the circulation.

How Global Warming Can Chill the Planet
"There's reason that we might expect a slowdown," said Susan Lozier of Duke University, who will present her research in an American Meteorological Society seminar on Wednesday. But she says there is no evidence yet to suggest that it is.

Lozier said there are problems detecting such changes because the ocean is so large and currents are highly variable, and "the ocean is really, really undersampled," so scientists don't have enough data to see long-term trends.

Circulation changes are also more complicated because salinity, or the concentration of salt in the water, also affects its density, while certain changes in salinity and temperature can compensate for each other.

Snowball Effect Fuels Arctic Meltdown
If the conveyor belt were to shut down, it would happen over decades, not days or years, Lozier said.

Lozier will call for more thorough monitoring of the ocean to better detect changes in ocean circulation and its impact on climate.

A shutdown could affect rainfall patterns, because ocean circulation is instrumental in determining global weather. Fellow AMS presenter Richard Seager, of Columbia University, will talk about how droughts in the American West, like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, are connected to cooler, drier conditions in the Pacific and how models show that these droughts will become more prevalent in the next century.

Old Data Supports Global Warming Link to Stronger Hurricanes

Scientists have found new evidence for a link between global warming and stronger Atlantic hurricanes in old satellite data.

A common criticism of research purporting a connection between these two phenomena is that it relies on a hodge-podge of satellite data of different quality and collected with different techniques over several decades.

It is one of the prices scientists pay for constantly upgrading to the latest technology to conduct their work.

“To study climate requires going back in the historical record and that’s what introduces the problems,” said lead scientist James Kossin, a meteorologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “At any given time, you can say they’re doing their best with the instruments they have, but technology changes and those instruments change.”

To address this side-effect of constant technology turnover, Kossin and his team “degraded” modern satellite data of every ocean basin from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) to 1983 standards. For example, current satellites have a spatial resolution of about 2.5 miles and can conduct a new scan every half hour or so. Satellites in 1983 had a spatial and temporal resolution of five miles and three hours, respectively.

"This new dataset is unlike anything that's been done before," Kossin said. "It's going to serve a purpose as being the only globally consistent dataset around. The caveat of course, is that it only goes back to 1983."

The researchers analyzed their new dataset for possible connections between warmer temperatures and hurricane activity. Their results agreed with recent studies that found an intimate link between rising sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and increased Atlantic hurricane activity. Recent studies suggest rising SSTs are associated with global warming.

However, this link was only true for the Atlantic and the eastern Pacific Oceans. It was not observed in any of the other ocean basins.

”The trends appear to be inflated or spurious everywhere else, meaning that we still can’t make any global statements,” Kossin said.

It is unclear why the Atlantic Ocean appears to be more sensitive to climate change than other oceans.

“The average conditions in the Atlantic at any given time are just on the cusp of what it takes for a hurricane to form,” Kossin said. “So it might be that imposing only a small (man-made) change in conditions creates a much better chance of having a hurricane.”

The researchers are working on including data from even further back in the historical record, but Kossin says the limit will probably be 1971, when the first geostationary satellite for studying climate was launched.

“That data from the early 1970s is really hard to get,” Kossier told LiveScience. “Most of it is probably on degrading tapes and things like that. But [scientists] are working actively on that at NCDC.”

If Global Warming is Real, Why is it Still Snowing?

If Global Warming is Real, Why is it Still Snowing?

If it’s supposed to be getting warmer, then why am I bundled up in a wool coat in March? How could record chills occur in the Northeast? Why would major snowstorms still strike?

Some media outlets love to point out such oddities. It makes for great headlines.

But the fact that our globe is warming doesn’t mean that the entire population of Earth will be sporting tank tops year-round. In fact it could be snowing precisely because of global warming. Say what?

Here’s how it works: The scientific consensus is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. As this warming trend continues, weather becomes more intense and many places will actually experience heavier precipitation, in the form of rain or snow (oddly, scientists don't even know how much of either falls on the planet each year).

When the oceans heat up, evaporation increases and more water vapor ends up in the air. When this wet mass of air moves from over the oceans to land, heavier storms form. This disruption of normal weather patterns also means that while some parts of the world will experience flooding or more intense snowstorms, others may get robbed of their share of rain and snow and face droughts. In the real extreme forecasts, some forests could become deserts.

NASA: Arctic Meltdown Threatens Ice Cap's Stability

Perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster each summer than it can be replaced during winter, a new study confirms.

A study released last year found that perennial sea ice—which is at least 10 feet thick and remains throught the seasons and through the years—dropped 14 percent from 2004 to 2005.

The new study, detailed today in a NASA statement, finds that the ice is not being replaced, threatening the overall stability of the Arctic summer ice cap, which other studies have predicted could disappear completely by 2040.

When perennial ice disappears, it is sometimes replaced by thinner seasonal ice, some of which melts the following summer.

"Recent studies indicate Arctic perennial ice is declining seven to 10 percent each decade," said Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Our study gives the first reliable estimates of how perennial ice replenishment varies each year at the end of summer. The amount of first-year ice that survives the summer directly influences how thick the ice cover will be at the start of the next melt season."

Using satellite data from NASA's QuikScat and other data, Kwok studied six annual cycles of Arctic perennial ice coverage from 2000 to 2006. The scatterometer instrument on QuikScat sends radar pulses to the surface of the ice and measures the echoed radar pulses bounced back to the satellite. These measurements allow scientists to differentiate the seasonal ice from the older, perennial ice.

Kwok found that after the 2005 summer melt, only about four percent of the nearly 965,000 square miles of thin, seasonal ice that formed the previous winter survived the summer and replenished the perennial ice cover. That was the smallest replenishment seen in the study.

As a result, perennial ice coverage in January 2006 was about 14 percent smaller than the previous January.

Ice can be depleted either by melting or by floating away. In 2005, the study found, the typically small amount of ice that moves out of the Arctic in summer was unusually high—about 7 percent of the perennial ice coverage area. Kwok said the high amount was due to unusual wind conditions at Fram Strait, an Arctic passage between Antarctic Bay in Greenland and Svalbard, Norway. Troughs of low atmospheric pressure in the Greenland and Barents/Norwegian Seas on both sides of Fram Strait created winds that pushed ice out of the Arctic at an increased rate.

The effects of ice movement out of the Arctic depend on the season. When ice moves out of the Arctic in the summer, it leaves behind an ocean that does not refreeze. This, in turn, increases ocean heating and leads to additional thinning of the ice cover.

These findings suggest that the greater the number of freezing temperature days during the prior season, the thicker the ice cover, and the better its chances of surviving the next summer's melt, according to the NASA statement.

"The winters and summers before fall 2005 were unusually warm," Kwok said. "The low replenishment seen in 2005 is potentially a cumulative effect of these trends."

Kwok also examined the 2000-2006 temperature records within the context of longer-term temperature records dating back to 1958. He found a gradual warming trend in the first 30 years, which accelerated after the mid-1980s.

"The record doesn't show any hint of recovery from these trends," he stated. "If the correlations between replenishment area and numbers of freezing and melting temperature days hold long-term, its expected the perennial ice coverage will continue to decline."

Kwok points to a possible trigger for the declining perennial ice cover. In the early 1990s, variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale atmospheric seesaw that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean, were linked to a large increase in Arctic ice export. It appears the ice cover has not yet recovered from these variations.

"We're seeing a decreasing trend in perennial ice coverage," he said. "Our study suggests that, on average, the area of seasonal ice that survives the summer may no longer be large enough to sustain a stable perennial ice cover, especially in the face of accelerating climate warming and Arctic sea ice thinning."

Gambling on Global Warming Goes Mainstream

An MIT meteorologist said three years ago that he would bet money that global average temperatures would cool back down in 20 years. The quote triggered a flurry of Internet dialogues and prompted scientists to challenge each other to make bets on climate-change issues.

One scientist took the wagering meteorologist, Richard Lindzen, up on his bet, but the deal fell apart over a disagreement about odds.

Now, an online gambling service is giving the public a chance to do what scientists have been doing among themselves for years. The service, BetUS.com, announced it will give members a chance to wager on various global warming-related issues.

But scientists warn the odds are designed to part suckers from their cash.

Global Warming

Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate forever.

While many view the effects of global warming to be more substantial and more rapidly occurring than others do, the scientific consensus on climatic changes related to global warming is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 °C over the past 100 years. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other human activities, are believed to be the primary sources of the global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years.

Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have recently predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100. Changes resulting from global warming may include rising sea levels due to the melting of the polar ice caps, as well as an increase in occurrence and severity of storms and other severe weather events.

For more information on global warming, including the long-term effects of global warming, the causes of global warming, the latest global warming news, and more, just select any global warming article or other interactive feature below.

Earth Observatory

Over the last five years, 600 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sifted through thousands of studies about global warming published in forums ranging from scientific journals to industry publications and distilled the world’s accumulated knowledge into this conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

Far from being some future fear, global warming is happening now, and scientists have evidence that humans are to blame. For decades, cars and factories have spewed billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and these gases caused temperatures to rise between 0.6°C and 0.9°C (1.08°F to 1.62°F) over the past century. The rate of warming in the last 50 years was double the rate observed over the last 100 years. Temperatures are certain to go up further.

Our Future - Climate Change

Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior, its components and their interactions. Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding and the increase in computer power, though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system. The first step in any modeled projection of climate change is to first simulate the present climate and compare it to observations. If the model is considered to do a good job at representing modern climate, then certain parameters can be changed, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases, which helps us understand how the climate would change in response. Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer climate model simulates the climate and on our understanding of how forcing functions will change in the future.
The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.
According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase.
Precipitation is also expected to increase over the 21st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics, with much of the increase coming in more frequent heavy rainfall events. However, over mid-continental areas summer-drying is expected due to increased evaporation with increased temperatures, resulting in an increased tendency for drought in those regions.
Snow extent and sea-ice are also projected to decrease further in the northern hemisphere, and glaciers and ice-caps are expected to continue to retreat.

Climate Change is driven by Sun

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Rising Sea Level

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Depending on which greenhouse gas increase scenario is used (high or low) projected sea-level rise is projected to be anywhere from 0.18 (low greenhouse gas increase) to 0.59 meters for the highest greenhouse gas increase scenario. However, this increase is due mainly to thermal expansion and contributions from melting alpine glaciers, and does not include any potential contributions from melting ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica. Larger increases cannot be excluded but our current understanding of ice sheet dynamics renders uncertainties too large to be able to assess the likelihood of large-scale melting of these ice sheets

Importance of Climate Change in long term context

Paleoclimatic data are critical for enabling us to extend our knowledge of climatic variability beyond what is measured by modern instruments. Many natural phenomena are climate dependent (such as the growth rate of a tree for example), and as such, provide natural 'archives' of climate information. Some useful paleoclimate data can be found in sources as diverse as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments (including fossil insects and pollen data), speleothems (stalactites etc), and ocean sediments. Some of these, including ice cores and tree rings provide us also with a chronology due to the nature of how they are formed, and so high resolution climate reconstruction is possible in these cases. However, there is not a comprehensive 'network' of paleoclimate data as there is with instrumental coverage, so global climate reconstructions are often difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, combining different types of paleoclimate records enable