tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148999882024-03-23T10:52:18.640-07:00Climate Change NewsSome interesting stories which didnt make my blog, "Climate Change Action"Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-41210893750229242212007-06-10T14:54:00.000-07:002007-06-10T15:01:20.522-07:00Prepare for a torrent of forced migrationsJune 01, 2007 <br/><a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=31&articleID=E82F5561-E7F2-99DF-36D3CB7EB5DA209C">Climate Change Refugees (extended version)</a> <br/><br/><strong><blockquote><span>As global warming tightens the availability of water, prepare for a torrent of forced migrations.</span></blockquote></strong><br/><br/>By Jeffrey D. Sachs <br/><br/><br/><strong>Human-induced climate and hydrologic change is likely to make many parts of the world uninhabitable, or at least uneconomic.</strong> Even if there are some "winners" from climate change perhaps farmers in high-latitude farm regions where the growing season will be extended by warmer temperatures there will also be large numbers of undeniable losers. Over the course of a few decades, if not sooner, hundreds of millions of people may be compelled to relocate because of environmental pressures. <br/><br/><strong>To a significant extent, water will be the most important determinant of these population movements.</strong> Dramatic changes in the relationship between water and society will be widespread, as emphasized in the new report from Working Group II of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. These shifts may include rising sea levels, stronger tropical cyclones, the loss of soil moisture under higher temperatures, more intense precipitation and flooding, more frequent droughts, the melting of glaciers and the changing seasonality of snowmelt. Combined with the human-induced depletion of groundwater sources by pumping, and the extensive pollution of rivers and lakes, mass migrations may be unavoidable.<br/><br/><br/><img src="http://sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/images/Refugees_India_2006.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br/><br/><strong>Impacts will vary widely across the world.</strong> It will be important to keep our eye on at least four zones: low-lying coastal settlements which are especially vulnerable to rising sea levels; farm regions which are dependent on rivers fed by glacier melt and snowmelt; sub-humid and arid regions which are likely to experience greater drought frequency; and humid areas in Southeast Asia vulnerable to changes in monsoon patterns. <br/><br/><strong>A significant rise of sea levels, even by a fraction of a meter, much less by several meters, could wreak havoc for tens or even hundreds of millions of people.</strong> One recent study by Gordon McGranahan, Deborah Balk, and Bridget Anderson (2007) found that although coastal areas less than 10 meters above sea level constitute only 2 percent of the world's land area, they contain 10 percent of the world's population. (High-density urban settlements are commonly located on coastlines for convenient access to international trade.) These low-elevation coastal zones are highly vulnerable to storm surges and increased intensity of tropical cyclones call it the New Orleans Effect. <br/><br/><br/><strong><blockquote><span>Hundreds of millions of people may be compelled to relocate.</span></blockquote></strong><br/><br/><strong>Regions much further inland will wither.</strong> Hundreds of millions of people, including many of the poorest farm households, live in river valleys where irrigation is fed by glacier melt and snowmelt. The glaciers are disappearing, and the annual snowmelt is coming earlier each year, synchronizing it less and less well with the summer growing season. <br/><br/><strong>Thus, the vast numbers of farmers in the Indo-Gangetic Plain and in China's Yellow River Basin will most likely face severe disruptions in water availability.</strong> Yet those regions are already experiencing profound water stress due to unsustainable rates of groundwater pumping performed to irrigate large expanses of Northern China and Northern India. Surface water bodies in these regions are already over-appropriated and degraded. <br/><br/><strong>In Africa, all signs suggest that currently subhumid and arid areas will dry further, deepening the food crisis for many of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people.</strong> The severe decline in precipitation in the African Sahel during the past 30 years seems to be related to both anthropogenic warming and aerosol pollutants. The violence in Darfur and Somalia is fundamentally related to food and water insecurity. Cote d'Ivoire's civil war stems, at least in part, from ethnic clashes after masses of people fled the northern dry lands of Burkina Faso for the coast. Worse chaos could easily arise.<br/><br/><img src="http://img.search.com/thumb/2/22/Fires_aqua_sumatra_14oct04.jpg/200px-Fires_aqua_sumatra_14oct04.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br/><br/><br/><strong>In Southeast Asia, each El Ni?o cycle brings drying to thousands of islands in the Indonesian archipelago, with attendant crop failures, famine and peat fires.</strong> Some climatologists hypothesize that global warming could induce a more persistent El Ni?o state; if so, the 200 million people in Indonesia and neighboring areas could experience lasting drought conditions.<br/><br/><br/><strong>Until now, the climate debate has focused on the basic science and the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. </strong>That stage is now ending, with a resounding consensus on the risk of climate change and the need for action. Attention will now increasingly turn to the urgent challenge of adapting to the changes and helping those who are most affected. <br/><br/><strong>Some hard-hit places will be salvaged by better infrastructure that protects against storm surges or economizes on water for agriculture.</strong> Others will shift successfully from agriculture to industry and services. Yet some places will be unable to adjust altogether, and populations are likely to suffer and to move. We are just beginning to understand these phenomena in quantitative terms. Economists, hydrologists, agronomists, and climatologists will have to join forces to take the next steps in scientific understanding.<br/>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-55430202520267775772007-03-18T17:03:00.000-07:002007-03-18T17:10:58.784-07:00Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science<span style="font-weight: bold;">Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science<br /><br />Testimony of James E. Hansen 4273 Durham Road, Kintnersville, PA<br />to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform<br /><br />United States House of Representatives 19 March 2007</span><br /><br />---<br /><br />Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Contents</span><br /><br />1. Rationale of Presentation<br /><br />2. My Experience<br /><br />A. White House Approval and Editing of Congressional Testimony<br /><br />B. Communication Constraints by NASA Office of Public Affairs<br /><br />C. Executive Control of Purse Strings<br /><br />3. Practical Impact of Political Interference with Climate Change Science<br /><br />A. Communication of Climate Change Threat<br /><br />B. Delay of Action: Potential Economic Benefits Become Costs<br /><br />C. Moral and Legal Burdens<br /><br />4. Issues and Questions Raised<br /><br />A. Propriety of Filtering Congressional Testimony<br /><br />B. Politicization of Public Affairs Office<br /><br />C. Executive Control of the Purse Strings<br /><br />5. Summary Implications of Climate Change Science<br /><br />A. Status of Science<br /><br />B. Impact of Political Interference on Quality of Decision Making<br /><br />C. Recommendations to Policy-Makers<br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Rationale of Presentation</span></span></li></ul><br />I provide this testimony because I believe that my experiences illustrate flaws that have developed in the functioning of our democracy. And I will use part of my presentation to compare the benefits of early actions to defuse the building climate crisis with the dangers of continued business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions.<br /><br />I claim no expertise in legal matters or politics. My approach is to try to imagine how our forefathers would have viewed our present situation and how they may have dealt with the climate change issue. A well-informed educated public was and is a premise of our democracy; it is easy for me to imagine Benjamin Franklin presenting an objective discussion of climate change that would be thoughtfully received. Another fundamental tenet of our democracy, separation of powers within our government, with checks and balances, is brought into focus by the climate crisis.<br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. My Experience</span></span></li></ul><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A. White House Approval and Editing of Congressional Testimony</span><br /><br />During the past 25 years I have noticed an increase in the degree of political interference with scientific testimony to Congress. My first testimony was to a United States House of Representatives hearing organized by Representative Al Gore in early 1982. I do not recall whether White House approval of that testimony was required, but in any case there were no objections to the content of that testimony1.<br /><br />I testified to the United States Senate about climate change at least three times in the period 1984-1988. These testimonies required approval by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). I did not have direct contact with people in OMB, rather NASA Headquarters (usually the NASA Office of Legislative Affairs) was an intermediary between the scientist (me) and OMB. In one case I strongly objected to changes that OMB made to my testimony, because I felt that the changes substantially altered the conclusions of our research and served to reduce concern about possible human-made climate change.<br /><br />In this case the NASA intermediary in the Office of Legislative Affairs volunteered the information that I had the right to testify as a private citizen and present my testimony with the wording that I preferred. I took advantage of that right, testifying as a private citizen, and never felt any repercussions for doing so.<br /><br />In 1989, after climate change had become of greater public and political concern, the constraints on communication via congressional testimony became stricter, at least in my experience. When I submitted written testimony to NASA Headquarters in 1989 for presentation to a Senate Committee chaired by Senator Gore, my secretary was instructed by NASA Headquarters to send the original typescript to NASA Headquarters so that they could insert several changes that were required by the White House OMB. When I was informed of this I was angered, intercepted the typescript, and insisted that any changes had to be made in my office. Several acceptable rewordings were negotiated (NASA Headquarters being the intermediary between OMB and me), but three changes2 that OMB required were unacceptable to me. Unlike the case earlier in the 1980s, I was told by NASA Headquarters that I needed to accept the changes or not testify. I agreed to accept the changes, but I then sent a fax to Senator Gore requesting that he ask me during the hearing about those specific statements, because I wanted to make clear that they were the opinion of the White House OMB, not my opinion. (This exchange was briefly shown in the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”.)<br /><br />Review and editing of scientific testimony by the White House OMB seems to now be an accepted practice. The explanation I was given for why budgetary people should be allowed to review and edit scientific testimony was that NASA plans need to be consistent with the Administration’s budget. Discussion with NASA personnel in Legislative Affairs and in Science program offices suggests that people at NASA Headquarters believe that NASA must “play ball” with OMB if it wishes to be treated well in its annual funding. It seems to me that this raises constitutional questions, because it is my understanding that the Constitution provides the power of the purse strings to Congress, not the Executive Branch of our government. I return to this issue in Section 4 below, after discussing in Section 3 the practical impacts of this political interference in climate science.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">B. Communication Constraints by NASA Office of Public Affairs</span><br /><br />The Office of Public Affairs in science agencies such as NASA exists for the purpose of helping communicate scientific results to the public. During my career I have noticed an increasing politicization of Public Affairs at the Headquarters level, with a notable effect on communication from scientists to the public. I refer not to the professionals in the Public Affairs offices at the NASA science centers, but to Public Affairs at NASA Headquarters, which is in charge overall and is generally headed by a political appointee. Interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current Administration than at any time in my career. As I was quoted on the 2006 calendar of the Freedom Forum “In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now.”<br /><br />The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current Administration has been to make the reality of climate change less certain than the facts indicate and to reduce concern about the relation of climate change to human-made greenhouse gas emissions. For example, one of my staff members submitted a story based on his paper that found the ocean was less effective at removing human-made CO2 than had previously been estimated. Public Affairs decided that this story should not be provided to the media. Another staff member had to attend a ‘practice’ press conference, in which he was asked whether anything could be done to stem accelerating loss of sea ice. When he suggested “we could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases” he was told sternly “that’s unacceptable!”, with the explanation that scientists are not allowed to say anything that relates to policy<br /><br />An important example of political interference with the public’s right to know has occurred with press releases relating to global warming science that have gone from NASA Headquarters to the White House for review, approval or disapproval, and editing. That this practice is inappropriate, if not illegal, is indicated by the response from NASA Public Affairs when I made note of this practice in a public talk (Reference 3). The NASA Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs traveled from Headquarters to Goddard Space Flight Center to deliver an oral “dressing down” of the professional writer at Goddard Public Affairs who had informed me about this practice. The writer was admonished to “mind his own business”. This dressing down was delivered in front of the writer’s boss. Such reprimands and instructions are delivered orally. If NASA Headquarters Public Affairs is queried by media about such abuses, they respond “that’s hearsay!”, a legal term that seems to frighten the media. My suggestion for getting at the truth is to question the relevant participants under oath, including the then NASA Associate Administrator for Earth Sciences, who surely is aware of who in the White House was receiving and reviewing press releases that related to climate change.<br /><br />Communication constraints by NASA Headquarters Public Affairs came to light in December 2005, after some of the instructions by Headquarters Public Affairs were written down in memos and e-mails. This occurred shortly after my “Keeling” talk (Reference 4) at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco and the release within a week thereafter of our (GISS, Goddard Institute for Space Studies) analysis of global temperature, which showed record global temperature in 2005. NASA Headquarters Public Affairs was furious about the media attention, their anger being sparked by a call from the White House objecting to the publicity on global warming. The consternation, expressed during several three-way telecons between Headquarters-GSFC/Greenbelt-GISS/New York, was described by a participant as a “shit-storm”. The upshot was a new explicit set of constraints on me, including requirement that any media interviews be approved beforehand and that Headquarters have the “right of first refusal” on all interviews, that I provide my calendar of all planned talks and meetings, and that I obtain prior approval for every posting on the GISS web site.<br /><br />These orders were delivered orally, as usual, as was a threat of “dire consequences” if I did not comply. However, a new young political appointee at Public Affairs, apparently was not well-schooled in the rules and left a paper trail, including a description of a specific instance in which Public Affairs barred me from speaking to NPR, offering the Associate Administrator in my stead. These indiscretions were perhaps the primary reason for his departure from NASA, rather than the fact that his resume failed to show that he was one course short of the university degree that he claimed. However, he was not acting on his own or affecting communication with the public in a way contrary to the wishes of his bosses. The paper trail that he left showed that the problem starts at the top, the decision to bar me from speaking with NPR being made “on the ninth floor” of Headquarters.<br /><br />It became clear that the new constraints on my communications were gong to be a real impediment when I was forced to take down from our web site our routine posting of updated global temperature analysis. At that time I decided to write down the constraints that I had been placed under and to inform the media. An article appeared in the New York Times by Andy Revkin, who had the courage to go with a story that had a limited paper trail. To NASA’s credit, the Administrator promptly issued an unequivocal statement in support of scientific openness.<br /><br />However, in no way has the impact of deception of the public about climate change been undone by NASA’s forthright decision in favor of scientific openness. There remains a vast gap between what is understood about global warming, by the relevant scientific community, and what is known about global warming by those who need to know, the public and policy-makers. This gap should be of concern to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, because it relates in part to ways in which the functioning of our government is departing from the intentions of our forefathers. Of special relevance is the usurpation of congressional prerogatives by the executive branch, especially via increased control of the purse strings.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">C. Executive Control of Purse Strings</span><br /><br />The American Revolution launched the radical proposition that the commonest of man should have a vote of equal weight to that of the richest, most powerful citizen. Our forefathers devised a remarkable Constitution, with checks and balances, to guard against the return of despotic governance and subversion of the democratic principle for the sake of the powerful few with special interests. They were well aware of the difficulties that would be faced, however, placing their hopes in the presumption of an educated informed citizenry, an honestly informed public.<br /><br />I have sometimes wondered how our forefathers would view our situation today. On the positive side, as a scientist, I like to imagine how Benjamin Franklin would view the capabilities we have built for scientific investigation. Franklin speculated that an atmospheric “dry fog” produced by a large volcano had reduced the sun’s heating of the Earth so as to cause unusually cold weather in the early 1780s, as he noted that the enfeebled solar rays when collected in the focus of a “burning glass” could “scarce kindle brown paper”. As brilliant as Franklin’s insights may have been, they were only speculation as he lacked the tools for quantitative investigation. No doubt Franklin would marvel at the capabilities provided by earth-encircling satellites and super-computers that he could scarce have imagined.<br /><br />Yet Franklin, Jefferson and the other revolutionaries must be distraught by recent tendencies in America, specifically increasing power of special interests in our government, concerted efforts to deceive the public, and arbitrary actions of government executives that arise from increasing concentration of authority in a unitary executive, in defiance of the aims of our Constitution’s framers. These tendencies have dramatic impact on the global warming story.<br /><br />Last year, about one month after the media hubbub about NASA Public Affairs’ censoring of science, the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was altered surreptitiously by executive action and the budget for Earth Science Research and Analysis was slashed retroactively to the beginning of the fiscal year, thus subverting constitutional division of power. Many people are aware that something bad happened to the NASA Earth Science budget last year, yet the severity of the cuts and their long-term implications are not universally recognized. In part this is because of a stealth budgeting maneuver, which I suspect most members of Congress are not aware of.<br /><br />When annual budgets for the coming fiscal year are announced, the differences in growth from the previous year, for agencies and their divisions, are typically a few percent. An agency with +3 percent growth may crow happily, in comparison to agencies receiving +1 percent. Small differences are important because every agency has fixed costs (civil service salaries, buildings, other infrastructure), so new programs or initiatives are strongly dependent upon any budget growth and how that growth compares with inflation.<br /><br />When the administration announced its fiscal 2007 budget, NASA science was listed as having typical changes of 1 percent or so. However, Earth Science Research and Analysis actually had a staggering reduction of about 20 percent from the 2006 budget that Congress had passed. How could that be accomplished? Simple enough: reduce the 2006 research budget retroactively by 20 percent! One-third of the way into fiscal year 2006, NASA Earth Science was told to go figure out how to live with a 20-percent loss of the current year’s funds.<br /><br />The Earth Science budget was further tightened in 2007 and is almost a going-out-of-business budget. From the taxpayers’ point of view it makes no sense. An 80 percent budget must be used mainly to support infrastructure (practically speaking, you cannot fire civil servants; buildings at large facilities such as Goddard Space Flight Center will not be bulldozed to the ground; and the grass at the centers must continue to be cut). But the budget cuts wipe off the books most planned new satellite missions (some may be kept on the books, but only with a date so far in the future that no money needs to be spent now), and support for contractors, young scientists, and students disappears, with dire implications for future capabilities.<br /><br />Bizarrely, this is happening just when NASA data are yielding spectacular and startling results. Two small satellites that measure the Earth’s gravitational field with remarkable precision found that the mass of Greenland is now decreasing by about 150 cubic kilometers of ice per year and West Antarctica by a similar amount. The area on the ice sheets with summer melting has increased markedly, major ice streams (portions of the ice sheet moving most rapidly toward the ocean and discharging icebergs) have increased doubled in flow speed, and the area in the Arctic Ocean with summer sea ice has decreased 20 percent in the last 25 years.<br /><br />One way to avoid bad news: stop the measurements! Only hitch: the first line of the NASA mission is “to understand and protect our home planet.” Maybe that can be changed to “…protect special interests’ backside.”<br /><br />I should say that the mission statement used to read “to understand and protect our home planet.” That part has been deleted—a shocking loss to me, as I had been using that phrase to justify speaking out about the dangers of global warming. The quoted mission statement had been constructed in 2001 and 2002 via an inclusive procedure involving representatives from the NASA Centers and e-mail interactions with NASA employees. In contrast, elimination of the “home planet” phrase occurred with no fanfare in a spending report delivered to Congress in February 2006, the same report that retroactively slashed the Earth Science research budget. In July 2006 I asked dozens of NASA employees and management people (including my boss) if they were aware of the change. Not one of them was. Several expressed concern that such management changes by fiat would have a bad effect on organization morale.<br /><br />These budgetary goings-on in Washington were noted in editorials of The Boston Globe: “Earth to NASA: Help!” (June 15, 2006) and “Don’t ask; don’t ask” (June 22, 2006), both decrying the near-termination of Earth measurements. Of course, the Globe might be considered “liberal media”. But it is conservatives and moderates who should be most upset, and I consider myself a moderate conservative. When I was in school we learned that Congress controlled the purse strings; it is in the Constitution. But it does not really seem to work that way, not if the Administration can jerk the science budget around the way they have. It seems more like David Baltimore’s “Theory of the Unitary Executive” (the legal theory that the president can do pretty much whatever he wants) is being practiced. My impression is that conservatives and moderates would prefer that the government work as described in the Constitution, and that they prefer to obtain their information on how the Earth is doing from real observations, not from convenient science fiction (see Reference 5).<br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Practical Impact of Political Interference with Climate Change Science</span></span></li></ul><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A. Communication of Climate Change Threat</span><br /><br />There is little doubt that the Administration’s downplaying of evidence about global warming has had some effect on public perception of the climate change issue. The impact is to confuse the public about the reality of global warming, and about whether that warming can be reliably attributed to human-made greenhouse gases.<br /><br />However, I believe that the gap between scientific understanding of climate change and public knowledge about the status of that understanding probably is due more to the impact of special interests on public discourse, especially fossil fuel special interests, rather than political interference with climate change science.<br /><br />I have no knowledge of whether special interests have had a role in political interference with climate change science. Nevertheless, it is my personal opinion that the most fundamental government reform that could be taken to address climate change and government accountability in general would be effective campaign finance reform.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">B. Delay of Action: Potential Economic Benefits Become Costs</span><br /><br />The effect of leaving the public confused about the reality of human-caused climate change is to delay actions needed to put the nation and the world on an energy pathway that would preserve creation, the planet that civilization developed on. If these actions are taken early, changes can be phased in gradually with great economic benefit to the nation.<br /><br />Delay, on the other hand, means that changes will need to be made rapidly and thus inefficiently. Less appropriate technologies must be, in effect, “bull-dozed” before they are “worn out”, and our industry will not be ready with more appropriate technology. Early action would provide our industry a long-term competitive advantage.<br /><br />An example is provided by vehicle efficiency. The 30% improvement in automobile and light truck efficiencies proposed by California, if adopted nationally, would result in an annual reduction in oil import requirements of more than $100 billion dollars, with oil at $50 per barrel (Reference 6). This is opposed by United States automobile manufacturers and oil companies, who, in my opinion, seem more concerned with their short-term profits than with the best long-term interests of the nation, the planet, and future generations.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">C. Moral and Legal Burdens</span><br /><br />The most troubling impact of the political interference with climate change science is the potential burden that we leave for our children and grandchildren. The Administration continually points to China, which will soon pass the United States as the largest emitter of CO2, as a reason for minimalist action by the United States on greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />However, the science unambiguously shows that climate change is driven by cumulative emissions, not current emissions. Cumulative emissions of the United States are more than three times that of any other nation (Reference 7) and will continue to be the largest for decades. Furthermore, rather than negotiating on the terms of the international accord designed to reduce emissions in developed countries and slow the growth of emissions in developing nations, the United States walked away, thus preventing effective implementation.<br /><br />One consequence is that, as indigenous people must abandon their land to rising seas or shifting climatic zones, they will be well aware of the principal source of the problem. Thus if we continue on this course, failing to effectively address climate change, we will leave a heavy moral burden, and perhaps a legal burden, for our children.<br /><br />If the science and communication of the science were not interfered with, and if our children were allowed to express a preference, would they choose the current path of our government for energy and climate? I think not. Even with knowledge that fundamental changes will be needed to phase into a different energy course, I am confident they would want the United States to play a leadership role.<br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Issues and Questions Raised</span></span></li></ul><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A. Propriety of Filtering Congressional Testimony</span><br />What is the basis, what is the rationale, by which Congress allows the Administration to filter, edit and alter scientific testimony of government scientists delivered to Congress? Is this behavior a right that is granted to the Executive branch by the Constitution or authorized by other official instruments?<br /><br />Presumably there is basis for this practice or it would not be tolerated. However, based on my experiences, discussed in part above, it seems to me that the practice is detrimental to the functioning of our democracy. The taxpayers foot the bill for most of the research by government and academic scientists. Thus the public should not be denied the full benefit of knowledge that derives from that research.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">B. Politicization of Public Affairs Office</span><br />The problem stems from the fact that Public Affairs offices at the headquarters level of the science agencies are headed by political appointees. The inevitable result is a pressure for science to show the answers that the party in power prefers to see. This is true independent of which party is in power. Any such pressure contradicts the nature of scientific investigation, which relies on unprejudiced evaluation of all alternatives.<br /><br />The best solution to this problem would be to have the Public Affairs offices professionally staffed, with no political appointees. If this is not possible, they should be renamed as Offices of Propaganda.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">C. Executive Control of the Purse Strings</span><br />When I came to NASA 40 years ago as a 25 year old post-doc it seemed to me that the NASA approach was to focus on excellence in science and engineering. It was expected that Congress and the White House would provide funding based on merits. Perhaps I was naïve. But I did not get any sense that NASA was working for the White House. There has been a huge change between then and now.<br /><br />The Executive branch seems to be exercising greater control in the functioning of our government, in ways that our forefathers probably did not imagine and almost certainly would not approve. This includes White House control of testimony to Congress, White House control of information that scientists provide to the public through Public Affairs, and most decidedly through control of the purse strings.<br /><br />Control of the purse strings is the most powerful of the tools in the hands of the Executive branch. It has a tremendous effect on information that is provided to Congress and to the public. You may think that a government scientist can easily exercise his right of free speech, to speak as a private citizen as I am today. But how many will do so, when the power of the purse strings is held by the Executive branch? You may think that there are plenty of government scientists who are confident of their ability to get a job elsewhere or would not mind being sent off to pasture. But it is not so simple as that. With the purse strings the Executive branch holds hostage your “children”, your science programs, and your colleagues’ livelihood. It is not easy to face your colleagues when they feel that you are damaging their support.<br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Summary Implications of Climate Change Science</span></span></li></ul><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A. Status of Science</span><br />Progress in climate science during the past several years has increased our understanding of how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to forcings, such as human-made emission of gases into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. This understanding derives especially from the Earth’s history, which shows how the Earth responded to changing forcings in the past (Reference 7).<br /><br />The data show that the Earth’s climate has considerable inertia, due especially to the massive oceans and ice sheets. Yet the climate can change dramatically on century time scales, and even on decadal and shorter time scales.<br /><br />The evidence confirms a predominance of positive feedbacks that amplify climate response on short time scales, these feedbacks including increasing atmospheric water vapor and decreasing sea ice cover as the planet becomes warmer. However, the data also indicate the presence of feedbacks on decadal, century and longer time scales. These feedbacks include movement of forests and other vegetation poleward as the climate warms, increased net emission of greenhouse gases from the ocean and biosphere, and decrease in the area and brightness of ice sheets.<br /><br />The predominance of positive feedbacks, along with the inertia of the oceans and ice sheets, has profound practical implications. It means that if we push the climate system hard enough it can obtain a momentum, it can pass tipping points, such that climate changes continue, out of our control. Unless we begin to slow down the human-made climate forcings, there is the danger that we will create a different planet, one far outside the range that has existed in the course of human history (References 7, 8, 9).<br /><br />It is because of these climate feedbacks and the inertia of the ocean and ice sheets that the global warming problem differs fundamentally from the problem of conventional air pollution (Reference 12). By the time that the public can clearly see the existence of climate change, there is momentum in the system for a great deal of additional change. As a result we are probably already very near, if not beyond, the dangerous level of interference with atmospheric composition. I have discussed the possibility of drawing down atmospheric CO2 by burning biofuels in power plants and capturing and sequestering the CO2 (Reference 13). However, by far the most effective actions at this time would be to slow current emissions to the atmosphere, while better understanding and improved technologies are developed.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">B. Impact of Political Interference on Quality of Decision Making</span><br />Political interference in transmittal of information about climate change science to the public has deleterious effects on the quality of decision making. Science cannot make decisions for the public. The public and policy makers must consider all factors in making decisions and setting policy. But these other factors should not influence the science itself or the presentation of science to the public.<br /><br />One consequence of political interference is that the public is not yet well-informed about the nature and scale of actions that will be needed to address climate change. This is important because it will take time for the public and their policy makers to thoughtfully consider these matters. As an example of the nature and scale of actions that I believe will be needed to address climate change, I list in the following section some specific recommendations that I discussed at a recent presentation in Washington (Reference 13).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">C. Recommendations to Policy-Makers</span><br />1. Moratorium on new coal-fired power plants until the technology for CO2 capture and sequestration is available. The reason for this is that about a quarter of CO2 emissions will remain in the air “forever”, i.e., more than 500 years. As a result, I expect that it will be realized within the next decade or so, that all power plants without sequestration must be “bull-dozed” before mid-century. Thus it makes sense to give high priority to energy efficiency and renewable energies in the near-term.<br /><br />2. A gradually but surely increasing price on carbon emissions is needed to drive energy efficiency improvements and innovative technologies. The results will include high-tech high-pay jobs, technologies that will increase our exports and improve our balance of payments, improved energy independence and national security. It will require a strong leader to level with the public that a tax on carbon emissions is needed. If this is introduced along with technology investments, the public should be provided options that will reduce their carbon emissions and limit their taxes. The government should avoid trying to specify the technology “winners”.<br /><br />3. Energy efficiency standards are needed in addition to a price on carbon emissions. Architects and engineers agree that the technology exists now for new and renovated buildings to produce 50 percent less CO2 than existing buildings, and emissions can be further reduced in the future. National adoption of the proposed California vehicle efficiency standards would make a huge reduction in our oil and energy needs, as discussed above. Barriers to efficiency, such as the fact that utilities make greater profits if they sell more energy, rather than if they encourage efficiency, need to be removed.<br /><br />4. Congress should request the National Academy of Sciences to carry out a study on the stability of ice sheets, which is likely to be a driver in determining what level of global warming constitutes “dangerous” interference with the climate system (Reference 11). The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change already provides periodic reports of the science, at about 6-year intervals, but the problem is too urgent and important for the country to rely solely on such assessments. The National Academy of Sciences was established by Abraham Lincoln in part with just such “Service to the Nation” in mind.<br /><br />5. Congress needs to address the following threats to American democracy: (1) the public’s right to unfiltered information, including congressional testimony free of political interference, and Public Affairs (public information) offices that are staffed by professionals not by political appointees, (2) the absence of effective campaign finance reform.<br /><br />As long as these threats to democracy are not addressed it will be difficult to deal with human-made climate change successfully. The Committee on Government Oversight and Reform seems an appropriate place to raise these issues.<br /><br /><br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">References</span></span></li></ul><br />1. Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell, Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Science 213, 957-966, 1981.<br /><br />2. Kerr, R A., Hansen vs. the world on the greenhouse threat Science 244 1041-1043, 1989.<br /><br />3. Hansen, J., Iowa Talk (Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference: A discussion of humanity’s Faustian Climate Bargain and the payments coming due), 2004, www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf<br /><br />4. Hansen, J., Keeling Talk (Is there still time to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with global climate? A tribute to Charles David Keeling), 2005, www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf<br /><br />5. Hansen, J., Swift boating, stealth budgeting, & unitary executives, World Watch 19 (Nov/Dec), 25-31, 2006.<br /><br />6. Hansen, J., D. Cain, R. Schmunk, On the road to climate stability: the parable of the secretary, 2005, www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ateampaper_14nov2005.pdf.<br /><br />7. Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D. Lea, M. Siddall, Trace gases and climate change, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, in press, 2007.<br /><br />8. Hansen, J, and 46 co-authors, Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study, Atomos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 6, 12549-12610, 2006, www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/12549/acpd-6-12549.pdf.<br /><br />9. Hansen, J., The threat to the planet, in July 13 issue of New York Review of Books, 2006, pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen.pdf (also pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_supplement.pdf).<br /><br />10. Hansen, J. Global warming: Connecting the dots from causes to solutions, presentation at National Press Club, 2007, www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dots_feb2007.pdf.<br /><br />11. Hansen, J. Scientific reticence and sea level rise, to be submitted to Environ. Res. Lett., 2007, www.giss.nasa.gov/~jhansen/preprints/ScientificReticence.pdf.<br /><br />12. Hansen, J. Special interests are the big obstacle, The Times (London), p. 53, March 12, 2007.<br /><br />13. Hansen, J. Communicating dangers and opportunities in global warming, presentation given on Dec. 14, 2006, at AGU Fall Meeting. www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/agu_communicating.pdf.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-67623694150159870722007-03-15T14:01:00.000-07:002007-03-15T14:13:21.695-07:00MIT provides blueprint for future use of coal<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/ccs/images/Miller_gas_reformer_H2_CO2_small.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/ccs/images/Miller_gas_reformer_H2_CO2_small.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">Leading academics from an interdisciplinary MIT panel issued a report today that examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens, the global warming crisis. </span><br /><br />The study, "The Future of Coal--Options for a Carbon Constrained World," advocates that the United States assume global leadership on this issue through adoption of significant policy actions.<br /><br />Led by co-chairs John Deutch, Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, the report states that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs.<br /><br />According to Deutch, "As the world's leading energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work. Demonstration of technical, economic and institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give policymakers and the public confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should carbon emission controls be adopted and will maintain the low-cost coal option in an environmentallyacceptable manner."<br /><br />Moniz added, "There are many opportunities for enhancing the performance of coal plants in a<br />carbon-constrained world--higher efficiency generation, perhaps through new materials; novel approaches to gasification, CO2 capture and oxygen separation; and advanced system concepts, perhaps guided by a new generation of simulation tools. An aggressive R&D effort in the near term will yield significant dividends down the road and should be undertaken immediately to help meet this urgent scientificchallenge."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Key findings in this study include:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">-- Coal is a low-cost</span>, per BTU, mainstay of both the developed and developing world, and its use is projected to increase. Because of coal's high carbon content, increasing use will exacerbate the problem of climate change unless coal plants are deployed with very high efficiency and large-scale CCS is implemented.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">-- CCS is the critical enabling technology</span> because it allows significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions while allowing coal to meet future energy needs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">-- A significant charge on carbon emissions is needed</span> in the relatively near term to increase the economic attractiveness of new technologies that avoid carbon emissions and specifically lead to large-scale CCS in the coming decades. We need large-scale demonstration projects of the technical, economic and environmental performance of an integrated CCS system. We should proceed with carbon sequestration projects as soon as possible. Several integrated large-scale demonstrations with appropriate measurement, monitoring and verification are needed in the United States over the next decade with government support. This is important for establishing public confidence for the very large-scale sequestration program anticipated in the future. The regulatory regime for large-scale commercial sequestration should be developed with a greater sense of urgency, with the Executive Office of the President leading an interagency process.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">-- The U.S. government should provide assistance only to coal projects with carbon dioxide capture </span>in order to demonstrate technical, economic and environmental performance.<br />Original story at www.physorg.com/news93106592.html<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">-- Today, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle appears to be the economic choice for new coal plants with CCS. </span>However, this could change with further research development and demonstration, so it is not appropriate to pick a single technology winner at this time, especially in light of the variability in coal type, access to sequestration sites and other factors. The government should provide assistance to several "first of their kind" coal utilization demonstration plants, but only with carbon capture.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">-- Congress should remove any expectation that construction of new coal plants without carbon dioxide capture will be "grandfathered</span>" and granted emission allowances in the event of future regulation. This is a perverse incentive to build coal plants without carbon dioxide capture today.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">-- Emissions will be stabilized only through global adherence to carbon dioxide emission constraints. </span>China and India are unlikely to adopt carbon constraints unless the United States does so and leads the way in the development of CCS technology.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">-- Key changes must be made to the current Department of Energy research development and </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">demonstration program to successfully promote CCS technologies. </span>The program must provide for demonstration of CCS at scale; a wider range of technologies should be explored; and modeling and simulation of the comparative performance of integrated technology systems should be greatly enhanced.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The report is available online at </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://web.mit.edu/coal">http://web.mit.edu/coal</a><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-36825715692704681722007-02-10T11:19:00.000-08:002007-02-10T11:29:39.572-08:00TXU faces a Texas coal rushInteresting article from Fortune Magazine bellow. Other articles about TXU can be found (baptists) <a href="http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/5654401.html">here</a>, (environmental groups)<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2007/02/05/daily25.html"> here</a>, (TU Scientists) <a href="http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/16665485.htm">here</a> and for another one of my posts with a video of activists on the streets check <a href="http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2007/02/billionairs-for-coal-and-rainforest.html">this</a> out.<br/><br/>[UPDATE] Sheryl Crow and Laurie David are now<a href="http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_026211907.html"> planning</a> to tour texas to help build opposition.<br/>==================================================================<br/><strong><br/>For whatever reason - the wreckage of Hurricane Katrina, Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," the plight of polar bears in the Arctic, the Democratic takeover of Congress - this is the moment when corporate America has at long last decided to get serious about global warming.</strong><br/><br/>Joining hands with environmentalists, the CEOs of ten Fortune 500 companies, among them GE (Charts), Alcoa (Charts), DuPont, and utilities Duke Energy and PG&E (Charts), last month called on the government to regulate the greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels. Dozens of big companies, including Wal-Mart (Charts), have pledged to reduce their own emissions of carbon dioxide. In a twist on the theme, Dell (Charts) will arrange to have trees planted for customers who pay $2 to offset the CO2 generated when a computer is plugged into the power grid.<br/><br/>And then there is TXU (Charts).<br/><br/>A $10.4-billion-a-year energy company based in Dallas, TXU is staking its future on coal - the dirtiest of all fuels used to generate electricity. Last spring the company announced plans to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas at a cost of nearly $1 billion apiece. That has set off a firestorm of opposition - lawsuits, pickets, petitions, anti-TXU Web sites, lobbying at the state capitol, even a hunger strike.<br/><br/>One environmental group calculated that the new plants would generate 78 million tons of CO2 each year - more than the emissions of Sweden, Denmark, or Portugal. Texas already ranks first in the U.S. in carbon emissions.<br/><br/>"This is an $11 billion step in the wrong direction," fumes David Hawkins, a climate-change expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And when you're marching backward with $11 billion, you can do a lot of damage."<br/><br/>But TXU is just getting started. The company says it will soon unveil plans to build another eight to 15 coal-burning plants outside Texas, counting on economies of scale to hold costs down. TXU also operates strip mines, which supply 70 percent of the coal it burns.<br/><br/>To explore the logic behind TXU's plans, I went to see Mike McCall, the company executive in charge of selling the coal plants to Texans. A burly, easygoing 49-year-old, McCall is a coal man to his core. He went to the college at the Missouri School of Mines with the financial help of Peabody Coal, the nation's largest producer, worked in coal mines in Illinois, ran a private railroad that shipped coal, and climbed the ladder at TXU to become head of its wholesale electricity unit.<br/><br/>McCall's argument on behalf of coal is straightforward. Coal is abundant, and it is mined in the U.S. It's cheaper than natural gas and more reliable than wind or solar power.<br/><br/>TXU would like to generate more nuclear energy - it plans to apply for permits to build up to three nukes in 2008 - but getting a green light from industry-friendly Texas regulators for coal plants, even with all the brouhaha, is a lot easier than obtaining the federal government's approval to build a nuclear power plant. No new permits for nukes have been issued since the 1970s.<br/><br/>That leaves coal as the best fuel available to satisfy America's ever-expanding appetite for electricity - all our computers and big-screen TVs and air-conditioned homes and offices need juice.<br/><br/>Currently, coal supplies about 52 percent of the nation's electricity, and U.S. demand for electric power is projected to grow by about 1.5 percent a year. (Nationally, more than 150 new coal plants are planned.) With its hot summers, fast-growing population, and expanding industrial base, Texas has an even more urgent need for power; peak demand could exceed supply as soon as the summer of 2008.<br/><br/>"If you care about national security and you care about energy independence," McCall says, "you want to find a way to use coal that's acceptable to the public."<br/><br/>As for climate change, he allows that it's an "important and long-term issue" and says TXU's plants will be designed so that someday they can be retrofitted to capture and store carbon. Right now, there's no way to capture carbon from coal-burning plants. But, McCall says, "we have confidence that technology will come along."<br/><br/>That, say TXU's critics, is hokum.<br/>A long list of opponents<br/><br/>TXU is fighting not just the usual activists from the Sierra Club and Public Citizen but environmental groups like Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which are ordinarily business-friendly. (With GE, DuPont, and others, they formed the coalition of big companies to lobby for carbon caps.)<br/><br/>Opposing the plants, too, are the Democratic mayors of Dallas and Houston, Texas celebrities such as rocker Don Henley, and prominent businesspeople, including real estate scion Trammell S. Crow and Garrett Boone, the chairman of the Container Store.<br/><br/>Albert J. Huddleston, a pro-business Republican who helped finance the Swift Boat television ads against John Kerry in 2004, is funding a lawsuit against TXU because he's concerned about mercury contamination of lakes and fish.<br/><br/>So intense is the fervor that a 50-year-old activist, Karen Hadden, went on a ten-day hunger strike last fall to call attention to the issue. "It is certainly an uphill battle," Hadden says, "but we're trying to keep the pressure on every front."<br/><br/>Opponents have sued Texas regulators as well as TXU. They are asking the Texas legislature to impose a moratorium on new coal plants. They have taken their case to Wall Street, where Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, the lead underwriters for the plants, have come under fire. They are telling the TXU story in Washington as Congress moves closer to setting mandatory caps on greenhouse-gas emissions.<br/><br/>"TXU is becoming the poster child for why we need mandatory federal legislation," says Jim Marston, who runs Environmental Defense's Texas operations.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-68819070722889834022007-02-03T10:05:00.000-08:002007-02-03T11:25:33.055-08:00IPCC 4AR Summary for Policy Makers: What the (UK) Papers Say<span style="font-weight: bold;">The the '<a href="http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf">Summary for Policy Makers</a>' (SPM) of the WG1 Contribution to the Fourth Assesment Report (4AR). </span><br /><br />---<br /><br />The 4AR is comprised of 3 parts, dealing with the science (<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&amp;amp;amp;cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fipcc-wg1.ucar.edu%2F&ei=b9HERfGYL4-AnQPiwem5Dw&usg=__oGOIWIBMMteo2SUFIm7iJMz2RKI=&sig2=GF0mHzXPiqNK-WjSQQ_86Q">WG1</a>), the mitigation of (<a href="http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/ar4.html">WG3</a>) and the adaptation to (<a href="http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html">WG 2</a>) climate change. Each of these three working groups will release a summary and a full report.<br /><br />The<a href="http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf"> summary for policy makers</a> of working group one's findings has just been released and it is what you have hear all the reports about in the media recently.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >What the UK national papers are saying:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">We have moved beyond the debate about weather climate change is or is not happening. I have read all of the leading articles on climate change in the UK papers and none of them deny the basic science, nor the need for action.<br /><br />I last reviewed uk papers when the stern review was released, <a href="http://climatechangenews.blogspot.com/2006/10/stern-review-of-climate-change-media.html">post here</a>.<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Broadsheets</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">Rightwing/Conservative/conservative<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2581392,00.html">Times</a><br /><br />The Times is the clasic uk 'establishment' paper. The ipcc report recieves coverage in several articles, the lead being entitled 'End of Debate over Global Warming'.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/03/warmer103.xml">Telegraph</a><br /><br />The most right wing uk broadsheet. Remember how important the begining of an article is, here is the start of the Telegraphs article, it ends not by instilling uncertainty but by talking about a plan.<br /><br /></span></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">It is now beyond doubt that Earth's climate is warming and "very likely" that most of the increase since the mid-20th century is the result of mankind's activities, a panel of UN scientists said yesterday.</span><br /><br /><span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/10f7d396-b20d-11db-a79f-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=728a07a0-53bc-11db-8a2a-0000779e2340.html">Financial Times</a><br /><br />The Financial Times is THE busines paper in the UK. On the day the report was released the FT gives a rundown on the report. The day after it leads with a call to action for the business community, '</span></span></span>Urgent need for action on climate change'.<br /><br /><span><span style="font-size:130%;">Leftwing/Labour/liberal<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2005119,00.html">Guardian</a><br /><a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2211566.ece">Independant</a><br /><br />Both papers have done little esle for the last couple of days, this is great, if a little predictable!<br /></span><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Tabloids<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433372&in_page_id=1770">Mail</a><br /><br />The end of contrarians in the mail? Not often known for it's progressive stance on...anything, the mail has atlast joined the consensus. It includes the following statement, making the credibility of this report clear: '</span>The evidence in a new report published in Paris has the finest pedigree - the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which draws together 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries.'<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007050523,00.html">Sun</a><br /><br />Again, the sun makes a notable shift in it's coverage of climate change. It dosnet do this spectacularly, mearly by not taking any side swipes at the govornment for the problem!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_method=full%26objectid=18568667%26siteid=94762-name_page.html">Mirror</a><br /><br />The mirror leads with very stongly worded coverage of the issue, this is very interesting to see, climate change being delt with in a serious way within one of the tabloids.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Express (subscription)<br />Star (subscription)</span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" ><br /><br /></span>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-21802646572964285602007-01-18T13:36:00.000-08:002007-01-19T10:16:38.430-08:00Climate Change News: Roundup of Climate Blog Stories (#2)Roundup of recent climate change stories bellow, many of these stories have been highlighted in the sidebar of Climate Change News/Action/Resources as 'Top Climate Blog Stories'.<br /><br />This week the blogosphere has been dealing with questions of <span style="font-weight: bold;">transport</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">future energy solutions</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">negawatts</span> as a source of energy, <span style="font-weight: bold;">carbon offsets</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">weird weather</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">china's development and environmental devastation</span>, and <span style="font-weight: bold;">continued business innovation</span>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.rainforestweb.org/images/cat/palmoil-big.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.rainforestweb.org/images/cat/palmoil-big.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>In the case of <span style="font-weight: bold;">transport</span>, the main developments this week have been <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/ethanol_distill.php">increasing concern</a> over the rapid expansion of <a href="http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/01/08/pressure-rising-over-biofuels-plus-algae-to-biodiesel-developments/">corn based ethanol in the US</a> and more broadly about the <a href="http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2007/01/guest-post-by-almuth-ernsting-global.html">global blueprint</a> for biofuels. <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/big_news_eestor.php">Advancements in ultra-capacitors</a> have been seen, and these promise to increase the durability and performance of electric cars which both utilise energy more efficiently and promise a low emissions route to mobility if renewables can be used to source this power.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://nebardi.wordpress.com/files/2006/06/windpower.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://nebardi.wordpress.com/files/2006/06/windpower.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>The <span style="font-weight: bold;">electricity</span> sector as always has shown some of the more positive trends. Solar power is expanding dramatically, Sharp's largest plant will soon have a <a href="http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47141&src=rss">production capacity of 800MW</a> per year--a large fraction of global manufacturing capacity just a couple of years ago. The rapid rise of both solar and <a href="http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47124&src=rss">wind power</a> is being supported by record, and rapidly increasing <a href="http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/story?id=47121&src=rss">CleanTech investment</a>. Wind power contracts have grown to <a href="http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47102&src=rss">1400MW for Siemens</a> in the US, a figure that would have seemed enormous just a couple of years ago; today several wind farms either already built or in the planning will individually approach this size. In a significant partnership, India and Europe are <a href="http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/story?id=47136&src=rss">starting to undertake serious discussions</a> of how to scale up wind power across the sub-continent. All of this development is starting to be integrated, visions of a '<a href="http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/11/unified_green_field_theory.php">Green Unifying Theory</a>' are being developed. Many discussions are taking place about the contents of such a theory, one component that isn't to likely to be included is coal. That's a shame because in a reversal of the famous dash-to-gas, the UK seems to be undergoing a somewhat smaller but rather disconcerting <a href="http://blog.carbon-360.com/archives/uk-electrics-love-of-coal/">career-to-coal</a>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.beaconpower.com/_img/ProductPhoto_Flywheel.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.beaconpower.com/_img/ProductPhoto_Flywheel.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a>Meanwhile, in <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/intelligent_ven_1.php"><span style="font-weight: bold;">efficiency</span></a>, negawatts have been in the news again, <a href="http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-17744.html">a report just release in Texas</a> has found that they don't actually need new coal, or wind, they need <a href="http://kauaian.net/blog/?p=338">efficiency</a> and this option is remarkably affordable. Technological developments that may help with such improvements in the future include <a href="http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47130&src=rss">frequency regulation using flywheels</a> that produce a tiny fraction of the GHG emissions associated with typical regulation facilities.<br /><br />After '<span style="font-weight: bold;">Carbon Neutral</span>' made it as <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2006-word-of-the-year-carbon-nuetral">word of the year</a> by the Oxford English Dictionary it was perhaps predictable that there would be more <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0110/p13s02-sten.html">scrutiny</a> of this nascent market. This has proved to be the case. In the UK the Environmental Audit Comitte has started an investigation and the <a href="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-01-16T163252Z_01_L16622884_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-CARBON-OFFSETTING.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C2-Business-5">UK government is planning offset standards</a>. I recently also <a href="http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2007/01/self-flagellation-and-carbon-offsets.html">made</a> <a href="http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2007/01/carbon-offsets-development.html">my views on the topic clear</a> and supported my preferred company, MyClimate.<br /><br />All of which has become even more relevant, and discussed due to the <a href="http://kauaian.net/blog/?p=324">extremely</a> <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2006-fifth-warmest-year-on-record">weird</a> 'winter' weather <a href="http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/01/15/2007-off-to-crazy-start/">occurring throughout the northern hemisphere</a>. Weather that is having many <a href="http://sustainablog.blogspot.com/2007/01/weird-winter-weather-and-unforeseen.html">unforceen impacts</a>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://ies.lbl.gov/imagesieua/coal%20power%20plant.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://ies.lbl.gov/imagesieua/coal%20power%20plant.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>In Asian news, ASEAN has come to <a href="http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2007/01/modecome-of-progress-on-climate-change.html">an agreement</a> on encouraging energy efficiency, cheap energy and biofules (ahem..). The tensions between economic development, energy security and climate change are really showing themselves. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/china-s-blistering-economic-growth-raises-fears-over-pollution">China's continuing rapid expansion</a> to the detriment of its environment has been written about over at china dialogue in a <a href="http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/684">two</a> <a href="http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/686">piece</a> article. Meanwhile, more on <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/facing_smog_and.php">Bejing's efforts</a> to clean up prior to the 2012 Olympics can be found here.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.theclimategroup.org/assets/M&S.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.theclimategroup.org/assets/M&S.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Finishing off with some good news, Marks and Spencer's (M&S) has join the growing ranks of businesses <a href="http://blog.carbon-360.com/archives/uk-carbon-neutral-groceries/">prepared to take on</a> (to some degree) the issues of climate change. This <a href="http://kauaian.net/blog/?p=345">general willingness</a> can also be seen the in the <a href="http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=879">continued growth of the Climate Group</a> which has just acquired three new members.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-7466267788141848362007-01-08T05:59:00.000-08:002007-01-08T06:33:49.913-08:00Climate Change News: Roundup of Climate Blog Stories (#1)Roundup of recent climate change stories bellow, many of these stories have been highlighted in the sidebar of Climate Change News/Action/Resources as 'Top Climate Blog Stories'.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.calstart.org/images/Biofuels.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.calstart.org/images/Biofuels.JPG" alt="" border="0" /></a>1. Biofuel concerns increase. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute (and Plan B 2.0) has <a href="http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/01/08/pressure-rising-over-biofuels-plus-algae-to-biodiesel-developments/">called for a halt to the construction of ethanol production facilities </a>due to increasing competition between corn for fuel and cars.<br /><br />2. <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/Desmogblog/%7E3/72243272/democrats-may-form-special-global-warming-committee">Democrats may form global warming committe</a>. This is quite speculative at the moment but could be a highly important development.<br /><br />3. <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/CarbonaraCetInEurope/%7E3/72160389/">UK Electricity Sector shifts towards coal usage</a>.<br /><br />4. <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/CarbonaraCetInEurope/%7E3/71590115/">European Commission </a>has carried out a study into the impacts of climate change on Europe. When considering the quote bellow, please remember that Europe is far more able to adapt to climate change then many contries of the south, and is also less vulnerable for geographic and business reasons.<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">“As many as 87,000 extra deaths a year would occur annually by 2071, assuming a three degree centigrade temperature rise. If efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions limit the rise to 2.2 degrees, additional mortalities would be 36,000 a year.”</span></blockquote><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t790/T790526A.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t790/T790526A.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>5. <a href="http://climate-commons.net/2007/01/04/ayles-ice-shelf/">Ayles Ice Shelf detaches from the Canadian coast</a>, taking 3000 year old ice out into open water.<br /><br />6. <a href="http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/01/08/jacques-chirac-with-peer-pressure-proposal/">Jacques Chirac has announced plans</a> for an international conference with the aim of agreeing to place taxes on good imported from countries which are not signed up to the successor to Kyoto. Interesting idea, removes the penalty for acting first that most countries are afraid of. The Uk Green party and several NGO's have been calling for something of this kind for some time. I don't know if there is the political support at the moment but i think that in the absence of sufficient progress at the UNFCCC level that this issue could have its time within the next 10 years. A very interesting story to watch.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-7777849459878803372007-01-03T15:23:00.000-08:002007-01-03T15:34:30.592-08:00Free Climate Change Public Lecture Series, Spring 2007: Birkbeck University of London<strong>Free Public Lecture Series, Spring 2007 "Conservation and Sustainability"</strong><br/><br/><strong>It's Title?</strong> Living within our Environmental Limits Birkbeck.<br/><br/><strong>Why Go?</strong> Join the debate. All welcome. Free admission.<br/><br/><strong>Location?</strong> Room B04 in 43, Gordon Square, Birkbeck, University of London, WC1H 0PD<br/><br/><strong>Contact?</strong> e-mail: wright[at]britishlibrary.net tel: 020 7485 7903,<br/><br/><strong>When?</strong> All lectures are from 6.30 to 8.30 pm on successive Fridays. Doors open at 6.00pm.<br/><br/><br/><strong><span><span>9 February ‘Solving Global Warming?’</span></span></strong><br/><strong>Professor Mark Maslin</strong> is the Director of the UCL Environment Institute. <br/><br/>He is a leading climatologist with particular expertise in past global and regional climatic change. His areas of scientific expertise include global warming, causes of past and future global climate change, ocean circulation, ice ages, gas hydrates, Amazonia, East Africa, Human evolution and climatic consequences of volcanic eruptions. He has written over 80 scientific articles, 6 popular books, over 20 popular articles, appeared on radio, television and been consulted regularly by the BBC. His latest popular book is the highly successful Oxford University Press “Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction”. This is a pocket sized book which provides a summary of the historical background, scientific debate, future impacts and the politics of global warming.<br/><br/>His lecture will cover the following themes:<br/><br/>Prof. Maslin’s lecture will be framed around the following set of questions. What is global warming? Who is producing the pollution? What are the future climate predictions? Why is it so difficult to model the future? What will the climate of Britain be like in 80 years time? What will be the global impacts of future climate change? Are there solutions to global warming? If so what are the local, national and international solutions to global warming? How can these solutions to global warming be balanced by the need for Developing nations to develop? Is the Kyoto Protocol working? Ultimately is there the political will to make the changes required to ensure solutions to both global warming and world poverty?<br/><br/><span><strong><span>16 February ‘Secure energy and a stable climate – how possible is it?’</span></strong></span><br/><strong>Professor Jim Skea OBE</strong> is Research Director of the UK Energy Research Centre, an interdisciplinary initiative supported by three UK Research Councils. Until 2004, he was Director of the Policy Studies Institute, London.<br/><br/>He was previously Director of the Economic and Social Research Council’s Global Environmental Change Programme. Jim’s first degree is in physics, but his research has been interdisciplinary in character. His main research interests are: energy and environment; climate change; and sustainable development issues more generally. In 2002-03, he acted as Launch Director, for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (Low CVP), a new UK initiative bringing together government departments, automotive and fuel companies, NGOs and the research base. <br/>His lecture will cover the following themes:<br/><br/>Securing radical reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases from the energy sector has emerged as one of the key policy challenges of modern times. This goal must be met while ensuring that people live in comfort and our economy flourishes. There is no single answer. It is obvious that there is huge scope for reductions in energy demand, both through improved efficiency of energy use and through evolving lifestyles and patterns of behaviour. But motivating and coordinating the actions of millions of citizens is a daunting task. On the supply side, renewable technologies offer much as, potentially, does nuclear power and the capture of carbon from power stations emissions. But, again, ensuring the environmental integrity of these options giving incentives for investment is critical. The ultimate challenge is to break the link between transport, oil and carbon. This lecture will explore these issues and point towards options for moving forwards.<br/><span><strong><span><br/>23 February ‘Balancing Water Resources and the Principles of Sustainable Development’</span></strong></span><span><br/></span><strong>Trevor Bishop</strong> is Head of Water Resource Management for the Environment Agency. <br/><br/>Trevor's national responsibilities include Strategic Water Resource Planning, Demand Management, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Hydrometry. Trevor has also recently taken up the role within the Agency as Project Executive for River Basin District Plans under the Water Framework Directive. Prior to his current role Trevor was Head of Regulation and Asset Performance at Mid Kent Water having previously worked for Southern Water Services. Before joining the Water Industry Trevor worked as an environmental consultant and a geologist in the oil industry.<br/><br/>His lecture will cover the following themes:<br/><br/>A new National Water Resource Strategy is currently under development by the Environment Agency for publication in 2008. The strategy will set the agenda for water resources across England and Wales with a planning horizon out to 2050. This lecture will explore the state of our resources, the challenges anticipated over the planning period and the strategic principles which will need to underpin such a long term strategy.<br/><br/>Progress to date has started to polarise some of the key challenges faced by the proper use of water resources under an overarching agenda of sustainable development. The demand for water is set to grow, both as a function of demographics but more significantly due to rising per capita consumption. Not only is our use of water one of the highest in Europe but whilst per capita consumption across Europe is set to reduce still further, ours is forecast to continue its upwards rise. Other key challenges include defining future levels of abstraction, consistent with the principles of sustainable development against a backdrop of new environmental imperatives and climate change. Wider issues to also be covered will include the future role of the water sector within the carbon agenda and the mix of demand management and new resources to meet future challenges.<br/><br/><strong><span><span>2 March Soils, Land Use and Development Policy</span></span></strong><strong><br/></strong><strong>Professor Mark Kibblewhite</strong> is Head of the Department of Natural Resources at Cranfield University.<br/><br/>He is an environmental scientist with a leading role in European land-based natural resources policy. His particular interest is in soil systems and he is the current chairman of the European Soil Bureau Network, as well as coordinator of a pan-European project (ENVASSO) providing technical support to the European Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection and the planned Soil Framework Directive. He joined Cranfield in 2002 from the Environment Agency where he was Head of Land Quality and he previously worked for Hyder Consulting, DTI, ADAS and Severn-Trent. He has an academic background in business economics and marketing, as well as soil science and environmental chemistry.<br/><br/>His lecture will cover the following themes:<br/><br/>Soil is a form of natural capital. It is a living system of great complexity that delivers hugely valuable ecosystem services in both rural and urban environments. The management of soil has profound consequences for future economic and social outcomes. This lecture will describe the soil system and some new scientific insights in to the evolution and functionality of the soil habitat. It will summarise the main threats to soil and critique the strongly emergent soil protection policy agenda within the European Union and the UK. A framework for future soil protection strategy will be explored, focusing on soil within existing and new urban development. This will include options for improving awareness of soil among urban citizens and decision-makers, and the use of new technology for collecting data and reporting information on the spatial extent of soil-based natural capital and the impacts on this from different land allocation and management scenarios. Questions that the lecture aims to answer are “What controls should be placed on future development to protect soil-based natural capital? How can soil within the urban zone be managed best to protect and enhance natural capital? How can the slow pace of soil development be accommodated within a rapidly growing urban economy? How can soils help us to adapt to climate change?”<br/><br/><br/><strong><span><span>9 March London's Waste Strategy: problems and solutions</span></span></strong><br/><strong>Peter Daw and Wayne Hubbard</strong> are Principal Policy Officers - Waste, Greater London Authority<br/><br/>Pete has eight years experience in the waste sector. He has been with the Greater London Authority for the six years. <br/><br/>In that time he has contributed to the development and implementation of the Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy. He is Principal Policy Officer within the Waste Strategy team and is currently working on the case for a single waste authority for London and local authority performance. Peter also helped develop London waste database website www.capitalwastefacts.com in partnership with London Remade. Before joining the GLA, Pete worked for Somerset County Council. He worked on the Somerset Waste Strategy and contract management. <br/><br/>Wayne has ten years experience in the waste industry at all levels of local government. He is the Principal Policy Officer at the Greater London Authority with responsibilities for implementing the Mayor’s Waste Municipal Waste Management Strategy. He is currently involved in preparations for the Examination in Public of the Mayor’s Draft Alterations to the London Plan’s waste policies, and is working with stakeholders to develop new waste infrastructure in London. He is the Secretary of the London Regional Technical Advisory Body (RTAB), and a member of Defra’s Technology Advisory Committee.<br/><br/>Their lecture will cover the following themes:<br/><br/>It will look at some of the challenges facing delivering sustainable waste management in a city-conurbation. London currently relies heavily on landfill in the surrounding Counties. The EU Landfill Directive and the need to manage waste sustainably mean that a step change is needed in how and where London deals with its waste. London's existing waste management arrangements are complex and fragmented adding to the delivery challenge. The speakers will address the policy response to these challenges which is set out in the Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy and his spatial planning strategy the London Plan. The lecture will specifically address the Mayor's preference for increasing recycling and delivering new technologies to manage London's waste as well as the recent review of London's waste governance arrangements and the likely impacts of that review. <br/><br/><span><strong><span>16 March: ‘The Marine Bill: Cornucopia or Pandora’s Box?’</span></strong></span><br/><strong>Dr Peter Jones</strong> is a lecturer in the Department of Geography at University College London, where he runs the MSc in Conservation. <br/><br/>He specialises in interdisciplinary research on the governance of marine protected areas and related marine resource management issues, drawing on and contributing to common-pool resource and marine policy literatures. He is also a member of Natural England's Marine Science Technical Advisory Group.<br/><br/>His lecture will cover the following themes:<br/><br/>It will begin with an outline of the differences between terrestrial and marine ecosystems that influence the appropriateness of management approaches. Recent trends in marine exploitation and the background to the proposed Marine Bill will be discussed. Key issues that will need to be addressed by the Bill will be considered, focusing on the ecosystem approach, the role of the precautionary principle, the role of stakeholders, how marine spatial planning might work and the need for a network of highly protected marine reserves.<br/><br/>The prospects for the Bill will be discussed, recognising that the Bill will need to balance the need to restore marine ecosystems with the need to provide for marine development activities such as fishing, renewable energy generation, aggregate extraction, carbon-dioxide sequestration, and oil/gas extraction. It must also be remembered that increasing certainty for developers and streamlining the development consents process are key objectives of the Bill - it is not just about improving marine ecosystem conservation measures. Finally, the need to address some emerging threats will be outlined, focusing on global warming and the related threat of ocean acidification.<style>i{content: normal !important}</style>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-24533671709758372392006-12-29T17:39:00.000-08:002006-12-29T17:40:12.390-08:00<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrcc5leb30_XcPNCro2n3UTBTUae0k47U1YO0VsQP7Y0BnAPvvFzDqnknHvHkB9aKJJR9g5VliSr7J7f56gygPLf-GaUVezGSocf-LHx9ESU7eRt0-0QzEpw3QgzOdFo0_q4gHWw/s1600-h/BANNER.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5014128674955926914" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrcc5leb30_XcPNCro2n3UTBTUae0k47U1YO0VsQP7Y0BnAPvvFzDqnknHvHkB9aKJJR9g5VliSr7J7f56gygPLf-GaUVezGSocf-LHx9ESU7eRt0-0QzEpw3QgzOdFo0_q4gHWw/s400/BANNER.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-10936202096131249732006-12-16T12:23:00.000-08:002006-12-16T12:37:47.613-08:00The Rich Must Face Their Personal Carbon Responsibility<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.gate1travel.com/india-travel/maps/MapIndia.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.gate1travel.com/india-travel/maps/MapIndia.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.eurocapacity.org/OCP/OpenLettertotheEditor.pdf"><strong>The Rich Must Face Their Personal Carbon Responsibility</strong></a><br />Dear Sir/Madam,<br /><br />We would like to take this opportunity to follow Sunita Narain’s invitation in her latest Editorial<br />(“Climate: the market's Achilles heel”, CSE's Fortnightly News Bulletin, 30 November 30, 2006)to discuss how we can “make space for emissions.”<br /><br />We wholeheartedly agree with Ms Narain’s assessment that the warming of the global<br />atmosphere is possibly the biggest and most difficult economic and political issue the world has<br />ever needed to confront. And we agree with emphasising – in line with Sir Nicolas Stern’s recent<br />review – that the cost of taking mitigation action now is a small fraction of what we would have<br />to pay as the cost of inaction: i.e. the cost of climate change impact damages which we will have<br />to face if we fail to act now. Costs, it has to be emphasised that will be – and, indeed, are already<br />– falling predominantly on the poorest and most vulnerable who are least responsible for the<br />problem. Climate inequity extends beyond mitigation!<br /><br />Ms Narain rightly points out that “the world has changed [and that] there is clear understanding that the rich and the emerging rich world needs to make the transition to a low carbon economy”.<br /><br />But we feel the world has changed even further. While Ms Narain’s discourse is still couched in<br />terms of ‘worlds’ – i.e. remains at the level of countries – we believe the urgency of the situation, and indeed justice, demand that we start including responsibilities and capabilities of individuals as well as of countries in our deliberations on how we deal with the problems of climate change.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">An Issue of Distributive Justice</span></span><br /><br />To explain this, let us assume that we agree, for reasons of equity, to calculate emission<br />restrictions after the Kyoto targets expire in 2012 on a ‘per capita’ basis. More precisely, let us<br />assume that each country would be allocated an emission cap – an ‘assigned amount’ of emission<br />permits – totalling some target per capita amount (a fraction of today’s global average emissions<br />per person) multiplied by the country’s (present day) population.<br /><br />In the case, for example, of India – whose current emissions per inhabitant are much lower than<br />the world average – this would entail a considerable surplus of emission permits. And as long as<br />there are surplus permits, India would hence not be forced to introduce emission mitigation<br />measures to stay within its assigned amount. Indeed, under an international trade in such permits,<br /><br />India could legitimately earn significant export revenues from the sale of these surplus permits.<br />So much for the ‘big picture’. To illustrate our point let us now take a closer look at the domestic<br />situation. In other words, let us ask what would be an equitable distribution of, to stay with the<br />example, India’s domestic ‘ecological space’. Even though the national emission cap – i.e. the<br />over-all size of this space – would not require India to introduce any domestic mitigation<br />measures, we believe that considerations of domestic equity would do. Why? Because anyone<br />emitting more than the agreed average target would occupy part of the Indian ecological space of someone in India who is emitting less. And distributive justice would demand that those who<br />occupy more than their fair share of domestic ‘ecological space’ – i.e. who emit more than that<br />target average – should either make room for those of their compatriots who do not (i.e. reduce<br />their emissions), or at least compensate them for the use of their space.<br /><br />The fact that a national target is ‘non-binding,’ in other words, does not mean that ‘business as<br />usual’ is morally justifiable, for the strictures of distributive justice would still demand that the<br />(carbon) rich either reduce their carbon footprints to give the (carbon) poor their fair share of the domestic ecological space, or pay an appropriate compensation.<br /><br />Of course, it is unlikely that India – or, for that matter, any other developing country – is going to adopt any form of cap on their overall emissions in the near future, which makes the issue of<br />equitably sharing a limited domestic ecological space a rather moot one. And yet there are other,<br />equally pertinent reasons why (carbon) rich individuals have a moral duty to reduce their<br />emissions, where ever they may be domiciled.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">An Issue of Compensatory Justice</span></span><br /><br />The crucial fact, particularly from the point of view of the poor and vulnerable, is that emissions<br />are not just a matter of occupying one’s fair share of ecological space, it is also a matter of<br />causing harm, something which is in danger of being overlooked if one’s focus is solely on the<br />just allocation of emission rights.<br /><br />Indeed, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability<br />demands that whoever is capable should not only reduce their responsibility but contribute to<br />compensate for the harm done. And this, we believe, applies not only to countries, but also to<br />individuals, regardless of creed, colour or, for that matter, nationality.<br /><br />For example, if we assume that the global sustainable ecological space – i.e. the level of<br />emissions that can annually be emitted without causing harm – were given by the 1900 global<br />fossil fuel emissions level (approx 2GtCO2), the personal sustainable ecological space would<br />currently be around 300kgCO2/cap. In other words, everyone on the planet would have a budget for (at most) 300kg of harmless fossil carbon emissions. Any additional emissions are harmful and thus carry responsibility. Of course, in a great many cases, the additional emissions are due to subsistence activities and thus should not be held culpably responsible. However, there are personally attributable emissions, such as the ones associated with (international) air travel, which can hardly be excused on these grounds. People who travel by air are capable to face the personal responsibility for that activity and should be made to do so.<br /><br />This is why we support the idea put forward at the recent Nairobi UN climate conference by<br />Bangladesh on behalf of the Group of Least Developed Countries to introduce an international air travel adaptation levy. And this is why we would like to reciprocate Ms Narain’s call to action<br />and invite the Centre for Science and Environment to join us in promoting the idea that (carbon)<br />rich individuals, as well as countries, need to face up to the responsibility entailed by what its<br />founder Anil Agarwal so aptly referred to as ‘luxury emissions.’<br /><br />Yours sincerely<br /><br />Dr Benito Müller<br />Oxford Climate Policy (ocp)<br />Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES)<br /><br />Dr Saleemul Huq<br />Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS)<br />International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-49280005308930848392006-12-14T10:11:00.000-08:002006-12-14T10:19:14.126-08:002006 likely to be another hot one.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/globalwarming5.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/globalwarming5.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">From the Friends of the earth mailing list:</span><br /></span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >The Global Land and Sea Surface temperature figures for November have now arrived. The usual conventions apply. SST means Sea Surface Temperature, Land means Land Surface Temperature. Numbers are in degrees Celsius above the 1961 – 90 global average . Add 0.09 too these figures to obtain the rise in temperature since 1976.</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" > </span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-size:11;">. SST South 0.19 North 0.58 Globe 0.38</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-size:11;"> Land South 0.52 North 0.92 Globe 0.72</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-size:11;"> Land and SST South 0.23 North 0.65 Globe 0.44</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-size:11;"> </span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >The Global temperature for the first 11 months of 2006 is 0.42 degrees Celsius above the 1961 – 90 global average temperature which makes it the sixth warmest year on record. The Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit are forecasting the same temperature and position for 2006 as a whole. These figures come from the Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit.</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" > </span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >NOTE WELL.</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" > </span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 41.25pt; text-indent: -23.25pt;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><span>1<span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:78%;" ><span> </span></span></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >1998 was the warmest year on record. The eight warmest years on record have all been since 1997 and the 10 warmest since 1995.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 41.25pt; text-indent: -23.25pt;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><span>2<span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:78%;" ><span> </span></span></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >There is very little difference in temperature between the second warmest year on record and the eight . 1998 was 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than the second warmest year on record 2005 and 1997 the eight warmest year on record was significantly warmer than the ninth 1995. There is little point in ranking the years between 3<sup>rd</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> inclusive because they are so close in terms of temperature and hence there must be uncertainty about the exact ranking. </span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 41.25pt; text-indent: -23.25pt;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><span>3<span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:78%;" ><span> </span></span></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >It makes more sense to say that since 2001 global temperatures have been very stable and more than half a degree Celsius above the global level until 1976. In detail it can be said that 1997 and 1998 was a very warm period followed by a slightly cooler period in 1999 and 2000, the latter year being only the 12<sup>th</sup> warmest on record, and this has been followed by the present warm period. According to James Hansen and others this last period is as warm as the Holocene optimum 7,000 years ago and the earth has not been warmer than this recent six year spell than for 130.000 years ago before the start of the last ice age.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 41.25pt; text-indent: -23.25pt;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><span>4<span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:78%;" ><span> </span></span></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >NASA who had 2005 as the warmest year on record are saying this year is more than 0.2 degrees Celsius cooler than last. No other climate unit is saying anything similar. Certainly 2006 does not seem that much cooler than 2005 on a global scale I cannot accept this. My view is that there is something wrong with the way the NASA figures are arrived at. I do not accept either that 2005 was the warmest year on record, 1998 was the warmest.</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" > 5 2006 seems likely to be the warmest year on record in England possibly by a considerable margin which though true is very odd considering the global </span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" > temperature figures.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 41.25pt; text-indent: -23.25pt;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><span>5<span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:78%;" ><span> </span></span></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Some say that Global Warming is taking off now. This is untrue as far as surface temperatures are concerned. They see rapid melt of mountain glaciers and think warming is taking off. Mountain glaciers are melting rapidly because with global temperatures stable since 2001 melting carries on continuously. As more land becomes snow and ice free the suns rays are absorbed rather than reflected, the albedo effect, thus local temperatures rise and more ice and snow melts. Also of course most of the ice and snow, by area, on mountains is only just above the snow line so is very vulnerable to warming.. The area of this local warming is so small that it has very little effect on global temperatures.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 18pt;"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" > </span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >My view is that at some point global temperatures will surge. Global Warming is the greatest threat humanity faces. I had expected global temperature to be warmer now than it actually is, but was clearly wrong. It should be acknowledged however that there is a genuine sceptic argument which can say that if global temperatures have been stable for the last six years, and global temperatures have risen by 0.75 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years and 0.53 degrees Celsius in the last 30 years then clearly there has not risen as much as global warming theory suggests they ought to have risen. This implies that the theory is wrong. I don’t accept this myself but it is a valid argument. We will here more of this until the global temperature rises significantly.</span></span></p><br /><p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" > </span></span></p>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-2956933163066040072006-12-11T16:14:00.000-08:002006-12-11T16:16:16.803-08:00Accountability: the other climate change<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Stern Review’s report on the economics of climate change published on 30 October 2006 is an impressive document that calls for action to meet a global challenge on a civilisational scale. It is also unlikely – on present evidence – to have the effect required, for one simple reason.</span></strong><br /><br />Today’s vested political and economic interests are likely to prevent us from effectively addressing climate change, and so securing a decent future on this planet. It’s ghastly, it sticks in the throat, and it’s awesome to think it even as I write it. But it’s probably true.<br /><br />This prognosis is suggested by Jared Diamond’s best-selling analysis of why societies collapse. Societies are endangered, he argues, when their elites insulate themselves from the negative impact of their own actions in pursuit of power and privilege. His paradigmatic case is of Easter Island, where the overuse of wood products in the production of competing religious totems eventually destroyed its inhabitants’ survival prospects.<br /><br /><br />Jared Diamond argues that this self-destructive spiral might have been halted if those with the power to enforce the cutting down of wood had far earlier suffered the economic and political consequences of this process. As economists would have it, these leaders succeed for too long to “externalise” these costs onto the shoulders, and ultimately the lives of others.<br /><br />But surely, some might argue, this could not happen to the rich countries of the world, with the knowledge they have, their many institutions for collective action and capacity to hold those with power to account?<br /><br /><br />Here, however, is exactly where the problem lies: a lack of accountability where it really matters. In the microcosmic areas of social life - fines for taking our children on holiday before the school break, or for allowing our dogs to do what is natural to them in the park – we are overwhelmed by accountability mechanisms. Yet on big, important, collective issues, accountability mechanisms are either non-existent or failing. After all, no rich-nation leader will pay the human and financial costs of the Iraq war, or compensate for the poverty resulting from the failure of the Doha trade round.<br /><br />Jared Diamond’s story shines a sad and disturbing light on our current situation. Our elite do not feel enough pain to allow, let alone lead in making the changes we need.<br /><br />So what is to be done? Pragmatism and a hard-headed reading of history suggest that “the people” are unlikely to resolve our current crisis. Far from it, we are more likely to degenerate into a toxic blend of hedonism and divided fundamentalisms. Faced with an apparently insoluble problem, the citizens of the world will unite in partying until the curtain comes down.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>The terms of debate</strong><br /></span><br />Yet there is an alternative – unpalatable but essential. If we cannot make those with power feel the pain, can we help them to profit from taking us along the right path?<br /><br />This would involve rewarding political leaders who take a stand on climate change, who are willing to tell citizens the tough story, make enemies of those who would deny, and dedicate themselves to creating coalitions of the unwilling. Such political leaders must be empowered, whether by the ballot-box or the amplifying effects of global civil society and the media. And those leaders who choose to pipe an old tune, whoever and wherever they are, along with their advisors and sponsors, must be exposed in their naked splendour for all to see.<br /><br />And that brings us to business leaders. Business will not solve climate change by what it does not do; compliance will only ever be a marginal part of any serious solution. Business will make a difference by what it does and does best: inventing, making and selling new products and services. (That is why our Accountability Rating of the world’s largest hundred companies measures how smart rather than how moral they are in embedding social and environmental dynamics into their business models and practices).<br /><br />Co-opting those who can make, or prevent, change requires that “corporate responsibility” grows up and becomes a driver in shaping a global, responsible competitiveness between nations and regions. We need global markets where money is to be made by doing the right thing, creating value and profit by “internalising externalities” that will otherwise destroy us.<br /><br />Business cannot, and will not do this on its own. Reshaping markets requires unlikely alliances between business, governments and civil society. We have proven we can do this across such diverse challenges as labour standards, access to life-saving drugs, corruption and animal rights. We can and must do it for climate change, reshaping the terms on which business is done to our collective good.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Who will take the lead?</span></strong><br /><br />On Easter Island, no leader emerged from any of the dozen clans to reshape timber markets. It is instructive to consider which countries or regions - today’s global “clans” - will provide leadership in driving forward responsible competitiveness tomorrow.<br /><br />Europe has enormous potential, with its leadership on Kyoto and its history of linking social inclusion and markets. But a region characterized (by Nick Robins) as having a “responsibility surplus and an innovation deficit” has to date failed to turn this “social good” to its competitive advantage.<br /><br />The United States too is an unlikely candidate, essentially the mirror-image of Europe's strengths and weaknesses, over-innovating without focus on the things that count. Directing its business community towards long-term issues is, with some notable exceptions, a contradiction in terms. It would require a seismic shift in the time-horizons and interests of the American electorate and its investment community, unlikely although not impossible on both counts.<br /><br />Perhaps then we need to bet on China for leadership. We might point today to its dirty economy in more senses than one. But China's culture and practice of decision-making is like no other, rooted in a history of long-termism. Could it be that tackling climate change will be China's equivalent of the moai in the era of their creation: a powerful symbol of emerging leadership?Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-28622031874661526932006-12-11T16:11:00.000-08:002006-12-11T16:17:29.439-08:00Trading in a carbon limited world<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Reducing carbon emissions requires all of us to change our behaviour. But how? Matt Prescott explores the potential for a market mechanism that will transform our personal economies and could help save the planet.</span></strong><br /><br />The idea of trading carbon as commodity began with Kyoto. Now the carbon market appears to be here to stay. There is a strong interest at all levels – individual, business and government, in engaging with this newcomer in the financial world.<br /><br />Carbon is an unusual commodity. It evokes a great deal of emotion and is tied to areas of social and environmental thinking that have never previously been aligned with conventional capitalist thinking. But through the carbon market we are beginning to see the ecological future of our planet priced and traded as a commodity.<br /><br />Whilst this may sound like an unfeeling solution to the climate change crisis, environmental groups in the west are warming to the carbon market’s potential. Why? Because we need to reduce emissions dramatically in the next ten years, according to the world’s leading climate scientists. With time so short, we have to go with the biggest tool we’ve got – the market.<br /><br />Carbon trading is one of the mechanisms approved by the Kyoto Protocol for nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol created the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to enable emissions being saved in one part of the world to be sold in another. The result is a vast number of projects, mostly in developing nations, being certified for emissions reductions. Renewable energy projects such as wind power are common. These are checked to avoid ‘double counting’ and sold into one of a number of carbon markets from where the credits can be purchased.<br /><br />The outcomes, in terms of environmental and social impact have been mixed so far, and the Kyoto Protocol is under fire for failing to deliver anything near the emission reductions the world needs. Indeed global emissions are continuing to rise and few countries can claim to have bucked the trend. But much has been learned since Kyoto and the learning curve is getting steeper.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Learning from the EU</span></strong><br /><br />The European Union has been operating an Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) since January 2005, with the first phase due to end in December 2007. beyond which the second phase will coincide with the first Kyoto commitment period which operates from 2008 to 2012 and requires signed-up developed nations to have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by around 5% below their 1990 levels. At its peak, the price for a tonne of carbon (CO2 equivalent) was above €30. Currently it is hovering around €12.<br /><br />This is a "cap and trade" scheme. In such a scheme, those that emit carbon are each given credits -- an allowance that entitles them to emit a specific amount of carbon. The total amount of credits cannot exceed the cap – which is the overall limit of total agreed emissions. The EU ETS covers around 40% of total greenhouse gas emissions from EU nations in several industry sectors such as paper, mineral and energy. The basic logic of any cap and trade scheme is that the market will find the cheapest savings. Any organisation covered by the scheme has two options if it exceeds its permitted allowance. It can purchase the more emissions rights in the market or it can reduce its own emissions through greater energy efficiency. According to the theory of the market, each installation will tend to make the most economically rational decision within its capped "carbon budget".<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Global impacts</span></strong><br /><br />Many project-based carbon reductions take place in China and India – two fast growing economies which offer many opportunities to deliver verifiable reductions because the pace of development of their energy infrastructure is so fast. Investment in clean renewable energy technologies aided by the finance made available through the carbon market makes low carbon developments more attractive to them. As the market for carbon expands, there is an ever greater opportunity to further reduce emissions.<br /><br />On many fronts, carbon trading has so far proved to be a successful mechanism, though some criticise it for its traditional capitalist approach. However, criticism is muted, given the current lack of alternatives. Given the urgent need to reduce emissions, a strong carbon market offers a way to unlock the creative potential of many of the world’s great financial and cultural centres to try to solve the greenhouse gas emissions problem.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">You, the new actor</span></strong><br /><br />At the present time, 44% of emissions in the UK are attributable directly to individuals, but the individual is not currently a player in the carbon market. In a globalised carbon market, the initiative to reduce emissions may not stay with governments. Companies and communities who recognise the scale of the threat of climate change to their own futures and the future of their families could themselves become the drivers.<br /><br />As a concerned citizen, one could buy verified carbon reductions and not sell them – hence removing carbon from the market and therefore forcing the price up, but the RSA does not believe this is enough. We are looking at an entirely new approach to individual carbon trading which we hope could hold the key to balancing the development of the economy with the need to control carbon emissions in a fast, effective and equitable manner. It is the new show in town.<br /><br />At present, there are few actors in the EU ETS – 12,000 installations, representing approximately 45% of EU CO2 emissions. The RSA conceives of every individual in the UK becoming an actor and, if the scheme succeeds, every individual in the EU – nearly 500 million people.<br /><br />It would work like this: The government of the UK would allocate to each adult in the UK an equal per capita share of the 44% of the country’s emissions that are attributable directly to individuals (through fuel and electricity purchases). The remaining 56% of the UK’s carbon emissions would be auctioned to government and business.<br /><br />That 56% operates in much the same way as the EU ETS. However individuals are now actors in the same market. If they emit less than their personal allocation, they can sell their emissions rights to those emitting more than their share.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Decoupling emissions from growth</span></strong><br /><br />So what would happen if each person was financially responsible for his or her own emissions? Firstly we would find out where our allowance was going: do we drive a big car? Do we leave the lights on? Do we have the heating turned up too high? Do we take many flights? If there was a strong financial incentive and individual access to the market, we think we would see a rapid move away from wasteful to low-carbon lifestyles. People would look for low-carbon products and services to save on their emissions allocations. If there was demand for low-carbon products, entrepreneurs, in turn, would develop and produce them for the market.<br /><br />Each year, to fight climate change, the carbon budget will have to shrink. As the budget is shrunk, the goods and services required to meet the lowered targets will become available and affordable and a new low-carbon culture will continue to propel this change.<br /><br />It would be good in other ways, too. It would enhance public health and energy security and, indeed, the Contraction and Convergence model could also be delivered through this mechanism. So what starts out looking like an idea with a strong core of market economics, on closer inspection turns into something which speaks to the heart of a strong and just society.<br /><br /><br />Matt Prescott is the director of CarbonLimited. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) is at the heart of work to further the debate on personal carbon trading through the CarbonLimited project. CarbonLimited runs until December 2008 and is delivering a programme of research, public debate and piloting. www.rsacarbonlimited.orgCalvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-15027827967473194222006-12-11T07:55:00.000-08:002006-12-11T08:06:11.565-08:00Livestock impacts on the environment.<span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Livestock impacts on the environment. The challenge is to reconcile two demands: for animal food products and environmental services.</strong></span> <br/><br/>A new report from FAO says livestock production contributes to the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. However, the report says, the livestock sector's potential contribution to solving environmental problems is equally large, and major improvements could be achieved at reasonable cost. <br/><br/>Based on the most recent data available, Livestock's long shadow takes into account the livestock sector's direct impacts, plus the environmental effects of related land use changes and production of the feed crops animals consume. It finds that expanding population and incomes worldwide, along with changing food preferences, are stimulating a rapid increase in demand for meat, milk and eggs, while globalization is boosting trade in both inputs and outputs. <br/> ===================================================================<br/><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#333399;">Despite its wide-ranging environmental impacts, livestock is not a major force in the global economy, generating just under 1.5 percent of total GDP. But the livestock sector is socially and politically very significant in developing countries: it provides food and income for one billion of the world's poor, especially in dry areas, where livestock are often the only source of livelihoods. "Since livestock production is an expression of the poverty of people who have no other options," FAO says, "the huge number of people involved in livestock for lack of alternatives, particularly in Africa and Asia, is a major consideration for policy makers."</span></strong> <br/></div>===================================================================<br/><br/>In the process, the livestock sector is undergoing a complex process of technical and geographical change. Production is shifting from the countryside to urban and peri-urban areas, and towards sources of animal feed, whether feed crop areas or transport and trade hubs where feed is distributed. There is also a shift in species, with accelerating growth in production of pigs and poultry (mostly in industrial units) and a slow-down in that of cattle, sheep and goats, which are often raised extensively. Today, an estimated 80 percent of growth in the livestock sector comes from industrial production systems. Owing to those shifts, the report says, livestock are entering into direct competition for scarce land, water and other natural resources. <br/><br/>Deforestation, greenhouse gases. The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. Grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth's terrestrial surface, while feed crop production requires about a third of all arable land. Expansion of grazing land for livestock is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America: some 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, and feed crops cover a large part of the reminder. About 70 percent of all grazing land in dry areas is considered degraded, mostly because of overgrazing, compaction and erosion attributable to livestock activity. <br/><br/>At the same time, the livestock sector has assumed an often unrecognized role in global warming. Using a methodology that considered the entire commodity chain (see box below), FAO estimated that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. It accounts for nine percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, most of it due to expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops. It generates even bigger shares of emissions of other gases with greater potential to warm the atmosphere: as much as 37 percent of anthropogenic methane, mostly from enteric fermentation by ruminants, and 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, mostly from manure. <br/> New measurement for greenhouse gases<br/><br/><span style="color:#000099;">===================================================================<br/><div align="center"><strong>Scientists usually tie their estimates of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming to sources such as land use changes, agriculture (including livestock) and transportation. The authors of Livestock’s long shadow took a different approach, aggregating emissions throughout the livestock commodity chain - from feed production (which includes chemical fertilizer production, deforestation for pasture and feed crops, and pasture degradation), through animal production (including enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide emissions from manure) to the carbon dioxide emitted during processing and transportation of animal products.</strong> <br/></div>===================================================================</span><br/><br/>Livestock production also impacts heavily the world's water supply, accounting for more than 8 percent of global human water use, mainly for the irrigation of feed crops. Evidence suggests it is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants, principally animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feed crops, and sediments from eroded pastures. While global figures are unavailable, it is estimated that in the USA livestock and feed crop agriculture are responsible for 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads in freshwater resources. The sector also generates almost two-thirds of anthropogenic ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems. <br/><br/>The sheer quantity of animals being raised for human consumption also poses a threat of the Earth's biodiversity. Livestock account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the land area they now occupy was once habitat for wildlife. In 306 of the 825 terrestrial eco-regions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, livestock are identified as "a current threat", while 23 of Conservation International's 35 "global hotspots for biodiversity" - characterized by serious levels of habitat loss - are affected by livestock production. <br/><br/>Two demands. FAO says "the future of the livestock-environment interface will be shaped by how we resolve the balance of two demands: for animal food products on one side and for environmental services on the other". Since the natural resource base is finite, the huge expansion of the livestock sector required to meet expanding demand must be accomplished while substantially reducing its environmental impact. <br/><br/>Greater efficiency in use of resources will be "the key to retracting livestock's long shadow". Although a host of effective technical options - for resource management, crop and livestock production, and post harvest reduction of losses - are available (see box below), current prices of land, water and feed resources used for livestock production do not reflect true scarcities, creating distortions that provide no incentive for efficient resource use. "This leads to the overuse of the resources and to major inefficiencies in the production process," FAO says. "Future policies to protect the environment will therefore have to introduce adequate market pricing for the main inputs."<br/> <strong><br/><span style="color:#333399;">=============================================================</span></strong><br/><br/><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#333399;">Action on many fronts<br/> <br/>The FAO report recommends a range of measures to mitigate livestock's threats to the environment:<br/> <br/>Land degradation: Restore damaged land through soil conservation, silvopastoralism, better management of grazing systems and protection of sensitive areas.<br/> <br/>Greenhouse gas emissions: Sustainable intensification of livestock and feed crop production to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and pasture degradation, improved animal nutrition and manure management to cut methane and nitrogen emissions.<br/> <br/>Water pollution: Better management of animal waste in industrial production units, better diets to improve nutrient absorption, improved manure management and better use of processed manure on croplands.<br/> <br/>Biodiversity loss: As well as implementing the measures above, improve protection of wild areas, maintain connectivity among protected areas, and integrate livestock production and producers into landscape management. <br/></span></strong><span style="color:#333399;"><strong>=============================================================</strong></span><strong><span style="color:#333399;"><br/><br/></span></strong><div align="left"> markets and various types of cost recovery will be needed to correct the situation. In the case of land, suggested instruments include grazing fees, and better institutional arrangements for controlled and equitable access. The removal of livestock production subsidies is also likely to improve technical efficiency - in New Zealand, a drastic reduction in agricultural subsidies during the 1980s helped create one of the world's most efficient and environmentally friendly ruminant livestock industries. <br/><br/>Removal of price distortions at input and product level will enhance natural resource use, but may often not be sufficient. Livestock's long shadow says environmental externalities, both negative and positive, need to be explicitly factored into the policy framework. Livestock holders who provide environmental services need to be compensated, either by the immediate beneficiary (such as downstream users enjoying improved water quantity and quality) or by the general public. Services that could be rewarded include land management or land uses that restore biodiversity, and pasture management that provides for carbon sequestration. Compensation schemes also need to be developed between water and electricity providers and graziers who adopt grasslands management strategies that reduce sedimentation of water reservoirs. <br/><br/>Likewise, livestock holders who emit waste into waterways or release ammonia into the atmosphere should pay for the damage. Applying the "polluter pays" principle should not present insurmountable problems for offenders, given the burgeoning demand for livestock products. <br/><br/>Consumer pressure. Finally, FAO says, the livestock sector is usually driven by diverse policy objectives, and decision-makers find it difficult to address economic, social, health and environmental issues at the same time. The fact that so many people depend on livestock for their livelihoods limits the policy options available, and leads to difficult and politically sensitive trade-offs. <br/><br/>Information, communication and education will play critical roles in enhancing a "willingness to act". With their strong and growing influence, consumers are likely to be the main source of commercial and political pressure "to push the livestock sector into more sustainable forms", Livestock's long shadow says. Already, growing awareness of threats to the environment is translating into rising demand for environmental services: "This demand will broaden from immediate concerns - such as reducing the nuisance of flies and odours - to intermediate demands for clean air and water, then to the broader, longer-term environmental concerns, including climate change and loss of biodiversity".<br/></div><br/> <span style="color:#000099;"><strong>=============================================================<br/>Back to the countryside?<br/><br/>Intensive animal production systems produce high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus wastes and concentrated discharges of toxic materials. Yet those systems are often located in areas where effective waste management is more difficult. The regional distribution of intensive systems is usually determined not by environmental concerns but by ease of access to input and product markets, and relative costs of land and labour. In developing countries, industrial units are often concentrated in peri-urban environments because of infrastructure constraints.<br/> <br/> "Environmental problems created by industrial production systems derive not from their large scale, nor their production intensity, but rather from their geographical location and concentration," FAO says. It recommends reintegration of crop and livestock activities, which calls for policies that drive industrial and intensive livestock to rural areas with nutrient demand.<br/>==========================================================</strong></span><span style="color:#000099;"><strong>===</strong></span><br/></div>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-68367082040090630552006-12-11T06:54:00.000-08:002006-12-11T06:55:45.011-08:00Miliband plans carbon trading 'credit cards' for everyone<strong> <a href="http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1969163,00.html">Miliband plans carbon trading 'credit cards' for everyone</a></strong><br/><br/>Patrick Wintour<br/>Monday December 11, 2006<br/><br/>Guardian<br/>Every citizen would be issued with a carbon "credit card" - to be swiped every time they bought petrol, paid an energy utility bill or booked an airline ticket - under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme that could come into operation within five years, according to a feasibility study commissioned by the environment secretary, David Miliband, and published today.<br/><br/>In an interview with the Guardian Mr Miliband said the idea of individual carbon allowances had "a simplicity and beauty that would reward carbon thrift".<br/><br/>He acknowledged the proposal faced technical difficulties, but said ministers needed to seek ways of overcoming them.<br/><br/>The idea was floated in a speech in the summer, but the detailed proposals show Mr Miliband is serious about trying to press ahead with the radical idea as a central part of his climate change strategy.<br/><br/>Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else. And they could sell any surplus.<br/><br/>The study was prepared by the Centre for Sustainable Energy for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It argues that firms like Tesco have shown that complex computer schemes logging billions of transactions are feasible. "Tesco Clubcard is collecting, storing and analysing some 50bn pieces of data a year," it says.<br/><br/>The study also claims that individual carbon trading is less regressive than carbon taxes, as the poor emit less than the rich. Instead of flat "green" taxes it proposes a hybrid system using permits and taxes, with the permits possibly issued, tracked and traded through the existing banking system using pin and chip technology. Carbon allowances could be treated as bank accounts.<br/><br/>The report admits huge questions would have to be resolved, including the risk of fraud, the relationship to ID cards, and costs. However Mr Miliband said "bold thinking is required because the world is in a dangerous place".<br/><br/>He said: "It is a way of pricing carbon emissions into individual behaviour and it would recognise carbon thrift, as well as economic thrift. Twenty years ago if I had said 8 million people would have a Tesco loyalty card, no one would have believed me." The scheme will be discussed at a special cabinet committee on the future role of the state convened for today.<br/><br/><style>i{content: normal !important}</style><style>i{content: normal !important}</style>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-31872325190389820902006-12-09T07:14:00.000-08:002006-12-09T07:20:45.272-08:00Key Tax Bill for Renewables Moves Closer in US08 December 2006<br /><br /><strong>Key Tax Bill for Renewables Moves Closer to Vote Tax extensions promise to be an early Christmas present for the U.S. renewable energy industries.</strong><br /><br />by Stephen Lacey, Staff Writer Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]<br /><br />The 109th Congress is poised to pass the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, a $40 billion tax bill that will extend key tax credits for the U.S. renewable energy industries until December 31, 2008.<br /><br />"We were on fourth down and we just made a key conversion. Now we have another four downs to drive into the end zone."<br /><br />-- Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association<br /><br />The comprehensive bill will extend the investment tax credit, research and development tax credit, and credits for renewable energy bonds. Although the bill only extends these credits for another year, renewable energy advocates are hailing it as a major step forward for the wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydropower industries -- and could set up Congressional action for longer term extensions next year.<br /><br />"This bill is a patch, and emphasizes the importance for Congress to enact long-term, comprehensive clean energy legislation when they return in January," said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).<br /><br />Extensions of these credits will help eliminate the boom and bust cycle seen in many of the industries. If developers are unsure about the economic feasibility of a project, it may cause the project to be stalled for long periods of time, which has a negative impact on job growth and technological advancements.<br /><br />"The wind industry is thrilled that Congress has taken this step to extend the tax credits," said Jaime Steve, Legislative Director of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). "This is all about keeping the wind industry at work and job stability for American workers."<br /><br />Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA), said this tax bill ensures the continued growth of the geothermal industry.<br /><br />"The uncertainty that these tax credits would not be extended was already causing projects to be postponed or downsized. Now this means that a good number of those projects will clearly go forward," said Gawell. "For the next year or 18 months we are going to see a very active market. But after that it will start tailing off. That's why we need longer term extensions."<br /><br />AWEA, SEIA, GEA and all the other renewable energy interest groups will be pushing the 110th Congress for long-term extensions in January when lawmakers return to Washington.<br /><br />"We were on fourth down and we just made a key conversion. Now we have another four downs to drive into the end zone," said Resch.<br /><br />The bill may not be passed until later tonight or this weekend, said Resch. The House leadership will take up the measure today and could vote on it by this evening. Then it goes on to the Senate where cloture procedures may be used to accelerate the process so the bill can be voted on.<br /><br />Because there is so much in the bill, there has been intense debate in the House and Senate over certain provisions. But the pressure on lawmakers to pass tax legislation before the end of the 109th Congressional term makes it likely that the bill will make it to the President's desk by Sunday. Meanwhile, industry representatives and advocates look on, eager for the Tax Relief and Health Care Act to move forward.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1165323443846620582006-12-05T04:56:00.000-08:002006-12-05T04:58:32.820-08:00Producers strain to supply growing wind power market.<strong><a href="http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjE5ODE">Producers strain to supply growing wind power market.</a></strong> <br/><br/>AFP, 3 December 2006 - There is an inexhaustible supply of wind to drive their blades, but materials needed to make wind turbines are limited and the industry fears it will fail to keep pace with growing demand for the clean energy source.<br/><br/>"We do whatever we can but it's impossible to increase our (production) capacity overnight," a spokesman for the Danish group Vestas told AFP.<br/><br/>"There is a gap between industrial capacity and demand, and it will take several years before we can fill the gap. Don't expect miracles," Peter Wenzel Kruze added.<br/><br/>Vestas is the world leader in wind turbine manufacturing.<br/><br/>Benefiting from spiralling oil prices and the popularity of green energy sources, wind farms -- mostly on land but also offshore -- have in recent years become an increasingly common sight throughout Europe.<br/><br/>Wind-generated power now accounts for three percent of Europe's electricity requirements, according to the European Wind Energy Agency (EWEA). In Denmark the figure is 20 percent, eight percent in Germany and seven percent in Spain. EWEA hopes 22 percent of European electricity requirements will be filled by wind power by 2030.<br/><br/>Between 1995 and 2005 the amount of electricity produced using wind power grew on average by 32 percent per year in Europe while the number of wind turbines rose by around 22 percent.<br/><br/>Similar growth in the sector has been recorded in the United States where wind power production expanded by 36 percent in 2005 with the help of federal funding.<br/><br/>A number of countries have announced plans for major wind farm programmes both on land and at sea. The rush to wind power has proved a boon for the industry in the shape of lucrative contracts but it has also caused problems for companies as they struggle to meet multiplying deadlines.<br/><br/>Almost all producers have been affected by the problem for some months, according to a spokeswoman at German energy group REpower.<br/><br/>While there was no immediate impact on the group's results, she conceeded that future production capacity could be reduced if delays in deliveries of wind turbine parts continued.<br/><br/>EWEA, representing 80 percent of the wind power industry, acknowledges that delays in wind turbine deliveries, especially turbine motors, are on the increase, but does not wish to overstate the situation.<br/><br/>"I can not say it's a problem to have very strong demand ... it's quite a normal phenomenom in industry. It takes time for both manufacturers and suppliers to adjust production," EWEA president Christian Kjaer said.<br/><br/>Robert Gleitz, wind product chief at General Electric, explains that current supply problems have not affected major component parts of wind turbines such as blades, plinths or turbine pods.<br/><br/>Gleitz does however say that turbines ordered today would not be delivered until 2008 or possibly 2009.<br/><br/>"The industry is adapting and companies are in the process of reorganising their entire supply chain," EWEA spokeswoman Isabelle Valentiny said. Firms are encouraging suppliers to greatly increase investment and are seeking more long term strategic framework agreements with suppliers and customers.<br/><br/>"The message is: okay, we believe in this (wind energy), you can invest," Wenzel Kruze said.<br/><br/>EWEA added that the price of wind power has fallen steadily in the last 20 years.<br/><br/>"(Wind energy) technology produces 180 times the amount of electricity that it produced in the 80's. It has matured and can compete with other forms of energy," Valentiny said.<style>i{content: normal !important}</style>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1165323238164144672006-12-05T04:49:00.000-08:002006-12-05T04:54:37.166-08:00Climate change slowly heats America's CSR agenda<strong><a href="http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjE5MDY">Climate change slowly heats America's CSR agenda SDI</a>,<br/></strong> 28 November 2006 <br/><br/>While North America's neo-conservative federal governments in Ottawa and Washington cannot grasp that providing environmental security is a fundamental responsibility of federal government, <strong>the raison d'être of federal governments is arguably being subsequently undermined at the sub-national level</strong>, both in Canadian provinces and US states, not to mention individual cities.<br/><br/>The need for urgent action on climate change is beginning to be reflected in the corporate world, albeit not in a uniform pattern. <br/><br/>In presenting material from his work, "Winning the Oil Endgame," Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute argued that the US can end its oil use by the 2040's. Logically, saving energy is cheaper than buying it and, as the 1970's illustrated, has no downward effect on GDP, quite the opposite in fact. According to Lovins, oil causes 42 per cent of all emissions and companies like Dupont are aiming to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 65 per cent of 1990 levels by as early as 2010. The business case is demonstrated by BP who made a $1 billion profit by 2002 through cutting emissions by 10 per cent of 1990 levels while the Swedish power company, Vattenfall, saw profits rise 54 per cent by making electricity 78 per cent more cost efficient. <br/><br/>In presenting a break-out session on climate change, Sue Hall posed the question of whether climate change can make markets restructure, particularly in light of the Stern Review Report which highlighted the fact that there may well be inadequate private capital to meet the costs of climate related catastrophes. In the aftermath of Katrina, the US government need to appropriate $28 billion for flood risks. Gary Guzy of Marsh, the insurance firm, remarked that insurers are withdrawing from property insurance in coastal areas. Consequently, Florida's largest insurer is the State Fund. <br/><br/>Responsibility for mitigating climate change has been well received by companies such as Sun Micro and UTC. John Mandyck of Carrier Corporation, a UTC company, cited that energy produces 85 per cent of all emissions and, in the US, the average home has increased in size by 60 per cent over the past fifteen years. This is an important consideration as 30 per cent of energy usage in the US is due to air-conditioning. Therefore, they are aiming to launch new goals to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in energy usage. <br/><br/>Dave Douglas at Sun estimated that IT "can wipe out all the climate gains made through having platinum star green buildings" as powering all the IT systems produces a billion tonnes of CO2 worldwide. This has prompted Sun to develop Ecoservers which, if certain "market issues" were addressed, would provide a benefit to consumers in terms of offsetting the reduction of their footprint. <br/><br/>Moreover at Sun they have moved toward having 46 per cent of their workforce as a virtual workforce, resulting in needing less actual office space saving, as a result, 30,000 tonnes of emissions reductions through not having to commute. This represents an emissions reduction of between 5 and 8 per cent. Also, they are seeking ways to offset the carbon problem which has been consequently externalised to the individual virtual worker. <br/><br/>Truman Semans of the Pew Centre stated that in assessing corporate activity on climate change, many companies were not transparent on the returns their emissions reductions programmes have brought. However, in asking companies to list the most effective strategies, energy conservation always comes out on top. In terms of the highest impact on a company's NPV (net present value), these are usually perceived as regulatory. Integrating climate into a broader sweep of business strategy therefore seems to make a valuable business case, especially if extended to value-chain partnerships and biofuels. <br/><br/>Yet, as Sun's Douglas stated, they are "being affected by regulatory uncertainty," especially when it comes to assessing environmental and climate regulations in deciding where is best to build as new factory. <br/><br/>On a global scale, as Semans concluded, the US needs to move from voluntary action as other big emitters such as India and China will do nothing unless the US adopts a binding position. <br/><br/>While much of the Western world considers its options, including nuclear energy, Amory Lovins pointed out that low-no carbon micropower added four times the level of nuclear power in 2005. Therefore, Dr Lovins was content to conclude that by a public policy that seems determined to distort information rather than support positive action, US Federal Energy Policy is the biggest threat to energy security. If companies like Wal-Mart can set the target for their entire truck fleet to be a quarter more efficient by 2007, and twice as efficient by 2010, then "what are we waiting for?" he asked. <br/><br/>The answer may well be "about 800 days" unless Barbara Boxer's appointment on the US Senate's Environment Committee yields a turn in fortunes.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1165270559147099642006-12-04T14:13:00.000-08:002006-12-04T14:17:37.976-08:0010,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists call on Congress to tackle global warming<strong>More Than Half of EPA Workforce Represented</strong> (via <a href="http://watthead.blogspot.com/2006/11/epa-employees-file-mass-petition.html">Watthead)</a><br/><br/>[From Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility:] <br/><br/>In an unprecedented action, representatives for more than 10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are calling on Congress to take immediate action against global warming, according to a petition released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The petition also calls for an end to censorship of agency scientists and other specialists on topics of climate change and the effects of air pollution.<br/><br/>The petition stresses that time is running out to prevent cataclysmic environmental changes induced by human-caused pollution and urges Congress to undertake prompt actions:<br/>“If we wait, we will be committing the next generation of Americans to approximately double the current global warming concentrations, with the associated adverse impacts on human health and the environment.”<br/>The filing of this petition coincides with today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on a case (Massachusetts v. EPA, Case No. 05-1120) brought by states seeking to force the Bush administration to regulate greenhouse gases that fuel global warming under the Clean Air Act [see previous post].<br/><br/>The petition signatories represent more than half of the total agency workforce. Addressed to the members of the Senate and House committees overseeing EPA, the petition argues that:<br/><br/>The Bush administration strategy of “using primarily voluntary and incentive-based programs” to reduce greenhouse gases is not working nor “has [this approach] been effectively carried out;”<br/><br/>EPA has abdicated its enforcement responsibilities by “failing to investigate coal-electric plants for technical options to control carbon;” and<br/><br/>“EPA’s scientists and engineers [must be able] to speak frankly and directly with Congress and the public regarding climate change, without fear of reprisal.”<br/><br/>“Professionals working for the Environmental Protection Agency are protesting being ordered to sit on the sidelines while we face the greatest environmental challenge of our generation,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the petition began among agency staff. “Under a new Congress, perhaps the scientists at EPA can begin to directly communicate with their true employers – the American public.”<br/><br/>The letter is signed by presidents of 22 locals of five unions: the American Federation of Government Employees, the Engineers and Scientists of California, the National Association of Government Employees, the National Association of Independent Labor, and the National Treasury Employees Union. These unions represent more than 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers and other technical specialists.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1165171628868431532006-12-03T10:46:00.000-08:002006-12-03T10:47:08.890-08:00Advocate for Environment to Head Canada's Liberals<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Not a bad development...</span></strong><br /><br /><br />Advocate for Environment to Head Canada's Liberals<br /><br />By Doug Struck<br />Washington Post Foreign Service<br />Sunday, December 3, 2006; A21<br /><br /><br /><br />MONTREAL, Dec. 2 -- In a convention that underscored the rising political weight of climate change issues, Canada's Liberal Party on Saturday chose St?phane Dion, a former environment minister, to lead the party and try to wrest power from the ruling Conservatives in the next national election.<br /><br />Dion, 51, was elected head of the party over seven other candidates, including Michael Ignatieff, a renowned Harvard professor who returned to Canada last year and had quickly become a front-runner in the race to head the opposition against Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.<br /><br />Ignatieff's drive for the post stumbled in the fourth and last ballot over his opinions on Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. The fragmented delegations at the convention turned to Dion, whose environmental credentials overcame his thickly accented English and lackluster convention speech.<br /><br />In his acceptance speech, Dion repeatedly emphasized his main goal: dealing with what he called "the greatest challenge we have today, sustainable development."<br /><br />He was elected, he said, because "Canadians have a deep concern about the main issue of our time -- building a sustainable environment for our children."<br /><br />It was a message the delegates embraced.<br /><br />"We've recognized that global warming and Kyoto are agenda items we have to deal with. Canada has gotten the message," said a delegate on the convention floor, Paul Mulligan, 60, a retired cartographer.<br /><br />Dion must regroup the Liberals, long the dominant party in Canada, to try to reverse the loss in January to Harper's Conservatives. The party hopes that disillusionment with Harper for cutting social programs, rising despair over Canadian military losses in Afghanistan and opposition to Harper's retreat from the Kyoto environmental accord will topple the Conservative minority government.<br /><br />As visual evidence of the importance of environmental issues, the sea of green T-shirts worn by Dion's supporters grew as the balloting continued in Montreal's cavernous Palace of Congress. Each of the candidates had pledged to make aggressive strides on the environment, but Dion's long work to strengthen the Kyoto accord carried those who put the issue at the top of the agenda.<br /><br />An academic and native of Quebec City, Dion entered Parliament a decade ago and has held a variety of cabinet posts under Liberal governments. But in his last post, as environment minister, he won credit for devoting enormous effort to extending the provisions of the Kyoto accord. He owns a husky named Kyoto.<br /><br />But he is less well-liked in his home province of Quebec because of his opposition to the popular movement to make the French-speaking province an independent country. In the late 1990s, Dion carried on a long-running debate with supporters of separatism and eventually assisted in drafting a law that many Quebecers feel helps block their movement.<br /><br />"Quebec people don't like St?phane Dion," said Jean Pierre Laine, 54, an alternate delegate from Montreal. "He is a federalist." Quebec newspaper cartoons at the time portrayed him as a rat; he was pilloried as a traitor to his province.<br /><br />"It will be an uphill struggle for Dion in Quebec," agreed Charles Hubbard, a member of Parliament from New Brunswick, in the convention hall. "The people who question federalism see Dion as the arch devil."<br /><br />That is a burden for the Liberal Party, which had hoped to strengthen its position in the province. Dion's speaking style, often wooden and stilted, also is seen as a detriment in any matchup with Harper, who is smooth and fluent in both English and French.<br /><br />Dion "is a bit rigid," said David Carter, 58, a delegate from Medicine Hat, Alberta. But he is "highly principled. He's strong, intelligent and very committed to the country."<br /><br />In Canada's Parliament and other public appearances, top officials are expected to switch between both official languages with ease. Dion's syntax is sometimes difficult to sort out in English.<br /><br />"It's important to be bilingual. I think it's horrible to say, but his language skills are not good enough," said Lana Stermac, a party observer from Toronto.<br /><br />Others disagreed.<br /><br />"It didn't hurt Chr?tien," said delegate Garry Johnson, noting that former prime minister Jean Chr?tien, also a Quebec native, served for 10 years and spoke heavily accented English.<br /><br />"If they keep sending our boys back in body bags from Afghanistan, that is what will do Harper in," he added.<br /><br />The Afghanistan issue is a tricky one for Liberals, however. A Liberal Paul Martin government committed Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Harper expanded the mission and engineered a Parliament vote in May to keep the troops there until at least 2009. Many Liberal Parliament members voted for the extension.<br /><br />Harper, described at the convention as a Canadian version of President Bush, has focused on a narrow agenda of conservative social and fiscal goals, and has cut programs that fall outside of that list. As head of a minority government, he has said he will call an election to try to win a majority. Political experts predict that an election called by Harper or forced by the opposition will come next year, possibly early in the year.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1165099870969260852006-12-02T14:49:00.000-08:002006-12-02T14:51:10.983-08:00Old-growth forest store and continue to remove far more carbon than previously thoughtDecember 2, 2006<br/>OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Dr. Glen Barry, <a href="http://www.ecologicalinternet.org/">Ecological Internet</a><br/><br/>A new study finds old-growth forest store and continue to remove<br/>far more carbon than previously thought making their<br/>preservation (strict protection with no industrial management) a<br/>higher priority in carbon trading, tackling global warming and<br/>forest conservation. The conventional scientific wisdom has long<br/>been that while old-growth forests (older than 100 years old)<br/>and primary forests (never been logged or otherwise<br/>significantly disturbed) store much carbon and are important<br/>carbon sinks, that they no longer remove much new carbon, so<br/>essentially their removal and release of carbon are in balance.<br/><br/>A new study questions this assumption with great importance for<br/>forest conservation and climate change policy adequate to ensure<br/>global ecological sustainability for the foreseeable future. The<br/>new study found that a 400-year-old forest in southern China is<br/>soaking up carbon from the atmosphere considerably faster than<br/>expected, most of which is being stored for the long term in the<br/>top levels of the soil. The results, which are still preliminary<br/>in that they have not been repeated worldwide, nonetheless show<br/>the dynamism of carbon in ancient forests, and our continued<br/>lack of knowledge regarding basic planetary ecological processes<br/>of great importance to our survival and well-being.<br/><br/>This finding, that ancient forests may continue to remove<br/>substantial carbon, along with recent studies showing selective<br/>logging of ancient forests releases extremely large amounts of<br/>carbon and forever damages carbon removal mechanisms, sheds<br/>grave doubts upon forest conservation strategies dependent upon<br/>"certification" of the environmental sensitivity of logging<br/>including ancient forests.<br/><br/>One of the great tasks of our, and all, time is protecting and<br/>aiding the expansion of all remaining old-growth forests and<br/>primary forests which for sake of simplicity I often refer to as<br/>"ancient forests". These evolutionary shrines hold untold wisdom<br/>deep in their genes, high above us in their vibrant canopies,<br/>and deep within the darkness of their roots and soils. There<br/>loss AND diminishment must stop if there is to be any chance to<br/>sustain the planet and human society. Ecological Internet will<br/>soon launch a long-term campaign targeting the Forest<br/>Stewardship Council and their apologists that refuse to support<br/>efforts to end ancient forest logging.<br/><br/>Continuing to diminish through industrial "selective" logging<br/>the world’s 20% of ancient forests which have not already been<br/>lost will be a death-knell for the Earth and humanity. Solving<br/>climate change and water scarcity is intimately entwined with<br/>establishing permanent protection (with compensation for those<br/>affected) for all remaining ancient old-growth and primary<br/>forests. Attacking the troika of ancient forest loss and<br/>diminishment, climate change including dramatically reducing<br/>emissions, and protecting water systems and provision of potable<br/>water as a human right will decide whether humans have more time<br/>as a species and how they spend it.<br/>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1165093664048380042006-12-02T12:57:00.000-08:002006-12-02T13:15:30.496-08:00Royal Institute of British Architechts move on Contraction and Convergence<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.caldwell.co.uk/images/authority/RIBA_CPD_Logo.png"><img src="http://www.caldwell.co.uk/images/authority/RIBA_CPD_Logo.png" border="0" alt="" /><br/></a><br/>The recent RIBA conference sounds like a fairly dramatic affair. My <a href="http://climatechangenews.blogspot.com/2006/12/building-sector-unites-to-confront.html">previous post</a> on climate change news noted that consensus was reached in the US on using project 2030 as a basis for climate mitigation.<br/><br/>Now we have Aubrey Meyer of GCI making the case for action, and the outgoing chari of the RIBA calling for the organisation to become a campaigning body!<br/><br/><br/>"Aubrey Meyer, formerly a professional musician, started the talks with<br/>a virtuoso performance that was simultaneously moving, terrifying and<br/>informative.<br/><br/>He played the violin theme to Schindler’s List to images of the<br/>environmental holocaust he went on to argue that we face.<br/><br/>It was a rallying cry for architects, having adopted “Contraction and<br/>Convergence” (C&C) at RIBA Council . . . "<br/><br/>The outgoing RIBA chair then stated...<br/><br/>“Jack Pringle the outgoing Chairman of RIBA saw climate change as the<br/>dominant agenda for the 21st Century.<br/><br/>He called for targets and endorsed “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C)<br/>saying that market forces won’t work, calling instead for Government<br/>action and for intervention in architecture, engineering and products.<br/><br/>He committed RIBA to becoming a more campaigning organisation.”<br/><br/>A full report on the day can be found <a href="http://www.architecture.com/fileLibrary/pdf/RIBA_Conference_Summary001.pdf">here</a>. To support <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Carbon-Rationing/?showall=1">sign this petition.</a><style>i{content: normal !important}</style>Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1165092872452172632006-12-02T12:48:00.000-08:002006-12-02T12:54:32.566-08:00Building Sector Unites to Confront Global Climate Change<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.azsolarcenter.com/news/images/2030.jpg"><img src="http://www.azsolarcenter.com/news/images/2030.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br/><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The [US] Building Sector Unites to Confront Global Climate Change</span></strong><br/><br/>Santa Fe (December 1, 2006) <br/><br/><strong>Recognizing that the Building Sector is responsible for almost half of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually, key leaders in this Sector have banded together to confront the global-warming crisis.</strong> Last week, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Architecture 2030 and about 20 other leaders attended a special meeting at the 2006 Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, a conference presented annually by the USGBC. According to Rick Fedrizzi, President, CEO & Founding Chairman of USGBC,<blockquote> "Eliminating the built environment negative contribution to climate change is not just a strategic priority, it's our collective responsibility to generations to come. Science tells us we have 3650 days to meet that goal, and urgent action is required."</blockquote><br/><strong>During the meeting, the group reached a consensus</strong> on three critical issues facing the Building Sector as it works to bring energy consumption and GHG emissions in this sector under control: the need for a common goal, the definition of this goal and a baseline to measure progress against. <blockquote><strong>"The building industry is coming together around the common goal of Architecture 2030's targets for reductions in energy use. The organizations and individuals in this meeting need to reach out to the entire industry, encouraging them all to work together in achieving these targets,"</strong></blockquote> said R.K. Stewart, President-elect of AIA.<br/><br/>In a show of solidarity and commitment, these leaders have adopted 'The 2030 Challenge' targets. The 2030 Challenge, a global initiative officially launched by Architecture 2030 in January 2006, calls for all new buildings and major renovations to reduce their fossil-fuel GHG-emitting energy consumption by 50 percent immediately, increasing this reduction to 60% in 2010, 70% in 2015, 80% in 2020, 90% in 2025, and finally, that all new buildings would be carbon neutral by the <blockquote>"ASHRAE is committed to developing the tools needed to accomplish the Architecture 2030 challenge."</blockquote>Building Sector Unites to Confront Global Climate Change (p2)<br/><br/>The 2030 Challenge targets had previously been adopted by the 78,000 member AIA, the US Conference of Mayors (for all buildings in all cities; Resolution #50) and individual cities and counties; endorsed by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and incorporated into their "Statement of Action"; integrated into the EPA's Target Finder; and promoted by the National Wildlife Federation and others. However, last week's collaborative adoption creates a powerful consensus, allowing for the sharing of information and support. <br/><br/>A critical component to the success of this effort is the definition of a baseline by which all reductions will be measured. A complete regional database of actual energy use for all building types is not currently available. To provide an immediate and interim solution, the group adopted the data supplied by the Energy Information Agency's (US Department of Energy), which is currently used by the EPA in their Target Finder program.<br/><br/>All participants agreed that collaboration is necessary to reach the goal and each will develop the tools necessary for their membership to accomplish this. The participants are openly inviting other industry leaders to join forces with them. Edward Mazria, founder and Executive Director of Architecture 2030, said, <blockquote>"The task we face is daunting. Working separately, we could accomplish something significant in each of our respective spheres. But by working together, we actually have a chance to influence the course of history."</blockquote><br/><br/># # #<br/><br/>American Institute of Architects<br/>1735 New York Avenue, NW<br/>Washington, DC 20006<br/>p 202-626-7300<br/>f 202-626-7547<br/>infocentral@aia.org<br/>www.aia.org<br/><br/>U.S. Green Building Council<br/>1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW<br/>Suite 300<br/>Washington, DC 20036<br/>P 202-828-7422<br/>info@usgbc.org<br/>www.usgbc.org<br/><br/>American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.<br/>1791 Tullie Circle, N.E.<br/>Atlanta, GA 30329<br/>p 404.636.8400<br/>f 404.321.5478<br/>info@ashrae.org<br/>www.ashrae.org<br/><br/>Architecture 2030<br/>607 Cerrillos Road<br/>Santa Fe, NM 87505<br/>p 505-988-5309<br/>f 505-983-9526<br/>info@architecture2030.org <br/>www.architecture2030.orgCalvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1164654102234162192006-11-27T10:58:00.000-08:002006-11-27T11:01:42.250-08:00Time to Tighten up the Carbon Trading System<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Financial Times, 24 November 2006 - European industry will have to slash its greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 under plans by the European Union to tighten up the carbon trading system seen as a pioneering weapon in the world's battle against climate change.<br /></span></strong><br />Next Wednesday, the European Commission will require some member states to cut the number of carbon permits they give companies for the second phase of trading from 2008 to 2012.<br /><br /><strong>Most member states have proposed awarding themselves a generous allocation of permits to lighten their companies' obligations to cut emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.</strong> Under the scheme, launched in January 2005, companies are issued with permits to emit carbon dioxide. Cleaner companies with spare capacity can sell permits to dirtier businesses needing to emit more.<br /><br />The scheme is increasingly the focus of international interest as other developed countries take climate change more seriously. However, Brussels must rescue the credibility of the system, which suffered a serious blow this spring when it emerged that member states had given their industries many more permits to emit carbon than they needed for the first phase, which ends on December 31 next year.<br /><br />This ran counter to the purpose of the scheme – to force companies to reduce emissions by ensuring they have fewer permits than they need, in effect, putting a price on pollution.<br /><br /><strong>Stavros Dimas, environment commissioner, told the Financial Times: “If it appears there are over-allocations, we will adjust to the right numbers.”<br /></strong><br />He said governments would not be allowed to allocate more permits in the second phase than in the first. Some assessments had suggested the plans submitted by member states were about 15 per cent above the limits required to meet the EU's commitments under the Kyoto protocol, which required a 6 per cent cut in emissions compared with the first phase. Mr Dimas would not say how many would be rejected. “All of the plans have some small things wrong with them,” a senior Commission official told the FT yesterday.<br /><br />Research by the UK's government-funded Carbon Trust found all member states, except the UK, Spain and Italy, would have to cut emissions by more than they had planned. The report said the countries requiring the biggest revisions were Austria and Finland, while Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France would have to make significant cuts.<br /><br />The biggest losers are expected to include Germany, which is heading for a showdown with Brussels over a loophole in its carbon trading scheme, which generated windfall profits for its big power producers. <strong>The Commission will ask Berlin to remove an exemption for new coal-fired power stations under which stateowned banks will be able to buy extra permits on their behalf for the next 14 years.</strong> Mr Dimas believes this amounts to illegal state aid and is among the worst flaws in governments' national allocation plans.<br /><br />The stakes are high for both sides. Germany argues companies need legal certainty to embark on a new generation of more efficient generators. It also needs to prop up the mining industry of the former East Germany, where jobs are scarce. <strong>RWE yesterday announced a €2bn ($2.6bn, £1.35bn) investment in a new coal-fired plant in Saarland, but said any change to emissions trading “would put question marks on these investments”.</strong><br /><br />Electricity generators, making decisions on power stations that will last for three or four decades, want as much clarity on the future system as possible. Carbon traders want tough curbs to bolster the market.Calvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14899988.post-1163788375570474292006-11-17T10:29:00.001-08:002006-11-17T10:32:55.613-08:00Canadian Youth Demand more action at Climate Change Negotiationcomprehensive and effective plan for the Canadian public to rally behind. <br /><br />2. Immediate commitment to negotiate the post-2012 framework.<br /><br />Canada must agree to and push for a work plan on post-Kyoto targets for developing nations, to be completed no later than 2008. This is to assure that a mandate for the second commitment period can be adopted at COP/MOP 5. Delay beyond this deadline will postpone action by signatories to achieve future targets, thus creating the gap between commitment periods. <br /><br />3. Adoption of the IPCC “2 degrees Celsius” target in the post-2012 phase.<br /><br />Climate change is beyond partisanship. Solving this crisis will mean making difficult decisions. Clearly this an issue of political will.<br /><br />Canada must demonstrate strong leadership in the fight against climate change. A firm goal must be agreed upon by all parties to remain below a 2oC global average rise in temperature above pre-industrial levels. Surpassing this point will bring with it significant and irreversible damage. <br /><br />It is in the interest of the citizens of Canada to commit to short-term deep reduction targets. We live in a time of unprecedented technology options, and innovative policies. There is no excuse not to push for this stronger and more effective target. Canada must be innovative in its approach to climate change and reemerge as a leader. <br /><br />The Kyoto Protocol is the only international agreement we have that addresses the threat of climate change – we cannot afford to weaken it now.<br /><br />Our future is at stake.<br /><br />Sincerely, <br /><br />The Canadian Youth Delegation to Nairobi<br />www.cydnairobi.caCalvin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.com0