Climate Change News

Prepare for a torrent of forced migrations

2007-06-10T14:54:00.000-07:00

June 01, 2007
Climate Change Refugees (extended version)

As global warming tightens the availability of water, prepare for a torrent of forced migrations.

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

Human-induced climate and hydrologic change is likely to make many parts of the world uninhabitable, or at least uneconomic. 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.

To a significant extent, water will be the most important determinant of these population movements. 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.

Impacts will vary widely across the world. 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.

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. 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.

Hundreds of millions of people may be compelled to relocate.

Regions much further inland will wither. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Until now, the climate debate has focused on the basic science and the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 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.

Some hard-hit places will be salvaged by better infrastructure that protects against storm surges or economizes on water for agriculture. 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.

Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science

2007-03-18T17:03:00.000-07:00

Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science

Testimony of James E. Hansen 4273 Durham Road, Kintnersville, PA
to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House of Representatives 19 March 2007

---

Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science

Contents

1. Rationale of Presentation

2. My Experience

A. White House Approval and Editing of Congressional Testimony

B. Communication Constraints by NASA Office of Public Affairs

C. Executive Control of Purse Strings

3. Practical Impact of Political Interference with Climate Change Science

A. Communication of Climate Change Threat

B. Delay of Action: Potential Economic Benefits Become Costs

C. Moral and Legal Burdens

4. Issues and Questions Raised

A. Propriety of Filtering Congressional Testimony

B. Politicization of Public Affairs Office

C. Executive Control of the Purse Strings

5. Summary Implications of Climate Change Science

A. Status of Science

B. Impact of Political Interference on Quality of Decision Making

C. Recommendations to Policy-Makers

1. Rationale of Presentation

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.

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.

2. My Experience

A. White House Approval and Editing of Congressional Testimony

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.

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.

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.

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”.)

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.

B. Communication Constraints by NASA Office of Public Affairs

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.”

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

C. Executive Control of Purse Strings

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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).

3. Practical Impact of Political Interference with Climate Change Science

A. Communication of Climate Change Threat

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.

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.

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.

B. Delay of Action: Potential Economic Benefits Become Costs

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.

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.

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.

C. Moral and Legal Burdens

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.

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.

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.

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.

4. Issues and Questions Raised

A. Propriety of Filtering Congressional Testimony
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?

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.

B. Politicization of Public Affairs Office
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.

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.

C. Executive Control of the Purse Strings
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.

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.

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.

5. Summary Implications of Climate Change Science

A. Status of Science
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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

B. Impact of Political Interference on Quality of Decision Making
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.

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).

C. Recommendations to Policy-Makers
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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

References

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.

2. Kerr, R A., Hansen vs. the world on the greenhouse threat Science 244 1041-1043, 1989.

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

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

5. Hansen, J., Swift boating, stealth budgeting, & unitary executives, World Watch 19 (Nov/Dec), 25-31, 2006.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

12. Hansen, J. Special interests are the big obstacle, The Times (London), p. 53, March 12, 2007.

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.

MIT provides blueprint for future use of coal

2007-03-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

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."

Moniz added, "There are many opportunities for enhancing the performance of coal plants in a
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."

Key findings in this study include:

-- Coal is a low-cost, 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.

-- CCS is the critical enabling technology because it allows significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions while allowing coal to meet future energy needs.

-- A significant charge on carbon emissions is needed 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.

-- The U.S. government should provide assistance only to coal projects with carbon dioxide capture in order to demonstrate technical, economic and environmental performance.
Original story at www.physorg.com/news93106592.html

-- Today, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle appears to be the economic choice for new coal plants with CCS. 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.

-- Congress should remove any expectation that construction of new coal plants without carbon dioxide capture will be "grandfathered" and granted emission allowances in the event of future regulation. This is a perverse incentive to build coal plants without carbon dioxide capture today.

-- Emissions will be stabilized only through global adherence to carbon dioxide emission constraints. 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.

-- Key changes must be made to the current Department of Energy research development and demonstration program to successfully promote CCS technologies. 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.
The report is available online at http://web.mit.edu/coal

TXU faces a Texas coal rush

2007-02-10T11:19:00.000-08:00

Interesting article from Fortune Magazine bellow. Other articles about TXU can be found (baptists) here, (environmental groups) here, (TU Scientists) here and for another one of my posts with a video of activists on the streets check this out.

[UPDATE] Sheryl Crow and Laurie David are now planning to tour texas to help build opposition.
==================================================================

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.

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.

And then there is TXU (Charts).

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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."

That, say TXU's critics, is hokum.
A long list of opponents

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.)

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.

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.

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."

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.

"TXU is becoming the poster child for why we need mandatory federal legislation," says Jim Marston, who runs Environmental Defense's Texas operations.

IPCC 4AR Summary for Policy Makers: What the (UK) Papers Say

2007-02-03T10:05:00.000-08:00

The the 'Summary for Policy Makers' (SPM) of the WG1 Contribution to the Fourth Assesment Report (4AR).

---

The 4AR is comprised of 3 parts, dealing with the science (WG1), the mitigation of (WG3) and the adaptation to (WG 2) climate change. Each of these three working groups will release a summary and a full report.

The summary for policy makers 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.

---

What the UK national papers are saying:

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.

I last reviewed uk papers when the stern review was released, post here.

Broadsheets

Rightwing/Conservative/conservative

Times

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'.

Telegraph

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.

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.

Financial Times

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, 'Urgent need for action on climate change'.

Leftwing/Labour/liberal

Guardian
Independant

Both papers have done little esle for the last couple of days, this is great, if a little predictable!

Tabloids

Mail

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: '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.'

Sun

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!

Mirror

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.

Express (subscription)
Star (subscription)

Climate Change News: Roundup of Climate Blog Stories (#2)

2007-01-18T13:36:00.000-08:00

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'.

This week the blogosphere has been dealing with questions of transport, future energy solutions, negawatts as a source of energy, carbon offsets, weird weather, china's development and environmental devastation, and continued business innovation.

In the case of transport, the main developments this week have been increasing concern over the rapid expansion of corn based ethanol in the US and more broadly about the global blueprint for biofuels. Advancements in ultra-capacitors 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.

The electricity sector as always has shown some of the more positive trends. Solar power is expanding dramatically, Sharp's largest plant will soon have a production capacity of 800MW per year--a large fraction of global manufacturing capacity just a couple of years ago. The rapid rise of both solar and wind power is being supported by record, and rapidly increasing CleanTech investment. Wind power contracts have grown to 1400MW for Siemens 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 starting to undertake serious discussions of how to scale up wind power across the sub-continent. All of this development is starting to be integrated, visions of a 'Green Unifying Theory' 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 career-to-coal.

Meanwhile, in efficiency, negawatts have been in the news again, a report just release in Texas has found that they don't actually need new coal, or wind, they need efficiency and this option is remarkably affordable. Technological developments that may help with such improvements in the future include frequency regulation using flywheels that produce a tiny fraction of the GHG emissions associated with typical regulation facilities.

After 'Carbon Neutral' made it as word of the year by the Oxford English Dictionary it was perhaps predictable that there would be more scrutiny of this nascent market. This has proved to be the case. In the UK the Environmental Audit Comitte has started an investigation and the UK government is planning offset standards. I recently also made my views on the topic clear and supported my preferred company, MyClimate.

All of which has become even more relevant, and discussed due to the extremely weird 'winter' weather occurring throughout the northern hemisphere. Weather that is having many unforceen impacts.

In Asian news, ASEAN has come to an agreement on encouraging energy efficiency, cheap energy and biofules (ahem..). The tensions between economic development, energy security and climate change are really showing themselves. China's continuing rapid expansion to the detriment of its environment has been written about over at china dialogue in a two piece article. Meanwhile, more on Bejing's efforts to clean up prior to the 2012 Olympics can be found here.

Finishing off with some good news, Marks and Spencer's (M&S) has join the growing ranks of businesses prepared to take on (to some degree) the issues of climate change. This general willingness can also be seen the in the continued growth of the Climate Group which has just acquired three new members.

Climate Change News: Roundup of Climate Blog Stories (#1)

2007-01-08T05:59:00.000-08:00

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'.

1. Biofuel concerns increase. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute (and Plan B 2.0) has called for a halt to the construction of ethanol production facilities due to increasing competition between corn for fuel and cars.

2. Democrats may form global warming committe. This is quite speculative at the moment but could be a highly important development.

3. UK Electricity Sector shifts towards coal usage.

4. European Commission 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.

“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.”

5. Ayles Ice Shelf detaches from the Canadian coast, taking 3000 year old ice out into open water.

6. Jacques Chirac has announced plans 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.

Free Climate Change Public Lecture Series, Spring 2007: Birkbeck University of London

2007-01-03T15:23:00.000-08:00

Free Public Lecture Series, Spring 2007 "Conservation and Sustainability"

It's Title? Living within our Environmental Limits Birkbeck.

Why Go? Join the debate. All welcome. Free admission.

Location? Room B04 in 43, Gordon Square, Birkbeck, University of London, WC1H 0PD

Contact? e-mail: wright[at]britishlibrary.net tel: 020 7485 7903,

When? All lectures are from 6.30 to 8.30 pm on successive Fridays. Doors open at 6.00pm.

9 February ‘Solving Global Warming?’
Professor Mark Maslin is the Director of the UCL Environment Institute.

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.

His lecture will cover the following themes:

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?

16 February ‘Secure energy and a stable climate – how possible is it?’
Professor Jim Skea OBE 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.

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.
His lecture will cover the following themes:

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.

23 February ‘Balancing Water Resources and the Principles of Sustainable Development’
Trevor Bishop is Head of Water Resource Management for the Environment Agency.

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.

His lecture will cover the following themes:

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.

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.

2 March Soils, Land Use and Development Policy
Professor Mark Kibblewhite is Head of the Department of Natural Resources at Cranfield University.

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.

His lecture will cover the following themes:

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?”

9 March London's Waste Strategy: problems and solutions
Peter Daw and Wayne Hubbard are Principal Policy Officers - Waste, Greater London Authority

Pete has eight years experience in the waste sector. He has been with the Greater London Authority for the six years.

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.

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.

Their lecture will cover the following themes:

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.

16 March: ‘The Marine Bill: Cornucopia or Pandora’s Box?’
Dr Peter Jones is a lecturer in the Department of Geography at University College London, where he runs the MSc in Conservation.

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.

His lecture will cover the following themes:

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.

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.

2006-12-29T17:39:00.000-08:00

The Rich Must Face Their Personal Carbon Responsibility

2006-12-16T12:23:00.000-08:00

The Rich Must Face Their Personal Carbon Responsibility
Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to take this opportunity to follow Sunita Narain’s invitation in her latest Editorial
(“Climate: the market's Achilles heel”, CSE's Fortnightly News Bulletin, 30 November 30, 2006)to discuss how we can “make space for emissions.”

We wholeheartedly agree with Ms Narain’s assessment that the warming of the global
atmosphere is possibly the biggest and most difficult economic and political issue the world has
ever needed to confront. And we agree with emphasising – in line with Sir Nicolas Stern’s recent
review – that the cost of taking mitigation action now is a small fraction of what we would have
to pay as the cost of inaction: i.e. the cost of climate change impact damages which we will have
to face if we fail to act now. Costs, it has to be emphasised that will be – and, indeed, are already
– falling predominantly on the poorest and most vulnerable who are least responsible for the
problem. Climate inequity extends beyond mitigation!

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”.

But we feel the world has changed even further. While Ms Narain’s discourse is still couched in
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.

An Issue of Distributive Justice

To explain this, let us assume that we agree, for reasons of equity, to calculate emission
restrictions after the Kyoto targets expire in 2012 on a ‘per capita’ basis. More precisely, let us
assume that each country would be allocated an emission cap – an ‘assigned amount’ of emission
permits – totalling some target per capita amount (a fraction of today’s global average emissions
per person) multiplied by the country’s (present day) population.

In the case, for example, of India – whose current emissions per inhabitant are much lower than
the world average – this would entail a considerable surplus of emission permits. And as long as
there are surplus permits, India would hence not be forced to introduce emission mitigation
measures to stay within its assigned amount. Indeed, under an international trade in such permits,

India could legitimately earn significant export revenues from the sale of these surplus permits.
So much for the ‘big picture’. To illustrate our point let us now take a closer look at the domestic
situation. In other words, let us ask what would be an equitable distribution of, to stay with the
example, India’s domestic ‘ecological space’. Even though the national emission cap – i.e. the
over-all size of this space – would not require India to introduce any domestic mitigation
measures, we believe that considerations of domestic equity would do. Why? Because anyone
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
occupy more than their fair share of domestic ‘ecological space’ – i.e. who emit more than that
target average – should either make room for those of their compatriots who do not (i.e. reduce
their emissions), or at least compensate them for the use of their space.

The fact that a national target is ‘non-binding,’ in other words, does not mean that ‘business as
usual’ is morally justifiable, for the strictures of distributive justice would still demand that the
(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.

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
equitably sharing a limited domestic ecological space a rather moot one. And yet there are other,
equally pertinent reasons why (carbon) rich individuals have a moral duty to reduce their
emissions, where ever they may be domiciled.

An Issue of Compensatory Justice

The crucial fact, particularly from the point of view of the poor and vulnerable, is that emissions
are not just a matter of occupying one’s fair share of ecological space, it is also a matter of
causing harm, something which is in danger of being overlooked if one’s focus is solely on the
just allocation of emission rights.

Indeed, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability
demands that whoever is capable should not only reduce their responsibility but contribute to
compensate for the harm done. And this, we believe, applies not only to countries, but also to
individuals, regardless of creed, colour or, for that matter, nationality.

For example, if we assume that the global sustainable ecological space – i.e. the level of
emissions that can annually be emitted without causing harm – were given by the 1900 global
fossil fuel emissions level (approx 2GtCO2), the personal sustainable ecological space would
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.

This is why we support the idea put forward at the recent Nairobi UN climate conference by
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
and invite the Centre for Science and Environment to join us in promoting the idea that (carbon)
rich individuals, as well as countries, need to face up to the responsibility entailed by what its
founder Anil Agarwal so aptly referred to as ‘luxury emissions.’

Yours sincerely

Dr Benito Müller
Oxford Climate Policy (ocp)
Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES)

Dr Saleemul Huq
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS)
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

2006 likely to be another hot one.

2006-12-14T10:11:00.000-08:00

From the Friends of the earth mailing list:

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.

. SST South 0.19 North 0.58 Globe 0.38

Land South 0.52 North 0.92 Globe 0.72

Land and SST South 0.23 North 0.65 Globe 0.44

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.

NOTE WELL.

1 1998 was the warmest year on record. The eight warmest years on record have all been since 1997 and the 10 warmest since 1995.

2 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^rd and 7^th inclusive because they are so close in terms of temperature and hence there must be uncertainty about the exact ranking.

3 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^th 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.

4 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.

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

temperature figures.

5 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.

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.

Accountability: the other climate change

2006-12-11T16:14:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The terms of debate

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

Who will take the lead?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Trading in a carbon limited world

2006-12-11T16:11:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Learning from the EU

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.

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".

Global impacts

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.

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.

You, the new actor

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Decoupling emissions from growth

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.

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.

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.

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.org

Livestock impacts on the environment.

2006-12-11T07:55:00.000-08:00

Livestock impacts on the environment. The challenge is to reconcile two demands: for animal food products and environmental services.

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.

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.
===================================================================

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."

===================================================================

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.

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.

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.
New measurement for greenhouse gases

===================================================================

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.

===================================================================

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.

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.

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.

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."

=============================================================

Action on many fronts

The FAO report recommends a range of measures to mitigate livestock's threats to the environment:

Land degradation: Restore damaged land through soil conservation, silvopastoralism, better management of grazing systems and protection of sensitive areas.

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.

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.

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.
=============================================================

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

=============================================================
Back to the countryside?

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.

"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.
=============================================================

Miliband plans carbon trading 'credit cards' for everyone

2006-12-11T06:54:00.000-08:00

Miliband plans carbon trading 'credit cards' for everyone

Patrick Wintour
Monday December 11, 2006

Guardian
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.

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".

He acknowledged the proposal faced technical difficulties, but said ministers needed to seek ways of overcoming them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Key Tax Bill for Renewables Moves Closer in US

2006-12-09T07:14:00.000-08:00

08 December 2006

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.

by Stephen Lacey, Staff Writer Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

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.

"We were on fourth down and we just made a key conversion. Now we have another four downs to drive into the end zone."

-- Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association

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.

"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).

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.

"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."

Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA), said this tax bill ensures the continued growth of the geothermal industry.

"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."

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Producers strain to supply growing wind power market.

2006-12-05T04:56:00.000-08:00

Producers strain to supply growing wind power market.

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.

"We do whatever we can but it's impossible to increase our (production) capacity overnight," a spokesman for the Danish group Vestas told AFP.

"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.

Vestas is the world leader in wind turbine manufacturing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Almost all producers have been affected by the problem for some months, according to a spokeswoman at German energy group REpower.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Gleitz does however say that turbines ordered today would not be delivered until 2008 or possibly 2009.

"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.

"The message is: okay, we believe in this (wind energy), you can invest," Wenzel Kruze said.

EWEA added that the price of wind power has fallen steadily in the last 20 years.

"(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.

Climate change slowly heats America's CSR agenda

2006-12-05T04:49:00.000-08:00

Climate change slowly heats America's CSR agenda SDI,
28 November 2006

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, the raison d'être of federal governments is arguably being subsequently undermined at the sub-national level, both in Canadian provinces and US states, not to mention individual cities.

The need for urgent action on climate change is beginning to be reflected in the corporate world, albeit not in a uniform pattern.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists call on Congress to tackle global warming

2006-12-04T14:13:00.000-08:00

More Than Half of EPA Workforce Represented (via Watthead)

[From Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility:]

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.

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:
“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.”
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].

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:

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;”

EPA has abdicated its enforcement responsibilities by “failing to investigate coal-electric plants for technical options to control carbon;” and

“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.”

“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.”

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.

Advocate for Environment to Head Canada's Liberals

2006-12-03T10:46:00.000-08:00

Not a bad development...

Advocate for Environment to Head Canada's Liberals

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, December 3, 2006; A21

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.

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.

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.

In his acceptance speech, Dion repeatedly emphasized his main goal: dealing with what he called "the greatest challenge we have today, sustainable development."

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."

It was a message the delegates embraced.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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."

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.

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."

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.

"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.

Others disagreed.

"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.

"If they keep sending our boys back in body bags from Afghanistan, that is what will do Harper in," he added.

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.

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.

Old-growth forest store and continue to remove far more carbon than previously thought

2006-12-02T14:49:00.000-08:00

December 2, 2006
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Dr. Glen Barry, Ecological Internet

A new study finds old-growth forest store and continue to remove
far more carbon than previously thought making their
preservation (strict protection with no industrial management) a
higher priority in carbon trading, tackling global warming and
forest conservation. The conventional scientific wisdom has long
been that while old-growth forests (older than 100 years old)
and primary forests (never been logged or otherwise
significantly disturbed) store much carbon and are important
carbon sinks, that they no longer remove much new carbon, so
essentially their removal and release of carbon are in balance.

A new study questions this assumption with great importance for
forest conservation and climate change policy adequate to ensure
global ecological sustainability for the foreseeable future. The
new study found that a 400-year-old forest in southern China is
soaking up carbon from the atmosphere considerably faster than
expected, most of which is being stored for the long term in the
top levels of the soil. The results, which are still preliminary
in that they have not been repeated worldwide, nonetheless show
the dynamism of carbon in ancient forests, and our continued
lack of knowledge regarding basic planetary ecological processes
of great importance to our survival and well-being.

This finding, that ancient forests may continue to remove
substantial carbon, along with recent studies showing selective
logging of ancient forests releases extremely large amounts of
carbon and forever damages carbon removal mechanisms, sheds
grave doubts upon forest conservation strategies dependent upon
"certification" of the environmental sensitivity of logging
including ancient forests.

One of the great tasks of our, and all, time is protecting and
aiding the expansion of all remaining old-growth forests and
primary forests which for sake of simplicity I often refer to as
"ancient forests". These evolutionary shrines hold untold wisdom
deep in their genes, high above us in their vibrant canopies,
and deep within the darkness of their roots and soils. There
loss AND diminishment must stop if there is to be any chance to
sustain the planet and human society. Ecological Internet will
soon launch a long-term campaign targeting the Forest
Stewardship Council and their apologists that refuse to support
efforts to end ancient forest logging.

Continuing to diminish through industrial "selective" logging
the world’s 20% of ancient forests which have not already been
lost will be a death-knell for the Earth and humanity. Solving
climate change and water scarcity is intimately entwined with
establishing permanent protection (with compensation for those
affected) for all remaining ancient old-growth and primary
forests. Attacking the troika of ancient forest loss and
diminishment, climate change including dramatically reducing
emissions, and protecting water systems and provision of potable
water as a human right will decide whether humans have more time
as a species and how they spend it.

Royal Institute of British Architechts move on Contraction and Convergence

2006-12-02T12:57:00.000-08:00

The recent RIBA conference sounds like a fairly dramatic affair. My previous post on climate change news noted that consensus was reached in the US on using project 2030 as a basis for climate mitigation.

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!

"Aubrey Meyer, formerly a professional musician, started the talks with
a virtuoso performance that was simultaneously moving, terrifying and
informative.

He played the violin theme to Schindler’s List to images of the
environmental holocaust he went on to argue that we face.

It was a rallying cry for architects, having adopted “Contraction and
Convergence” (C&C) at RIBA Council . . . "

The outgoing RIBA chair then stated...

“Jack Pringle the outgoing Chairman of RIBA saw climate change as the
dominant agenda for the 21st Century.

He called for targets and endorsed “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C)
saying that market forces won’t work, calling instead for Government
action and for intervention in architecture, engineering and products.

He committed RIBA to becoming a more campaigning organisation.”

A full report on the day can be found here. To support sign this petition.

Building Sector Unites to Confront Global Climate Change

2006-12-02T12:48:00.000-08:00

The [US] Building Sector Unites to Confront Global Climate Change

Santa Fe (December 1, 2006)

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. 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,

"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."

During the meeting, the group reached a consensus 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.

"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,"

said R.K. Stewart, President-elect of AIA.

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

"ASHRAE is committed to developing the tools needed to accomplish the Architecture 2030 challenge."

Building Sector Unites to Confront Global Climate Change (p2)

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.

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.

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,

"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."

# # #

American Institute of Architects
1735 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
p 202-626-7300
f 202-626-7547
infocentral@aia.org
www.aia.org

U.S. Green Building Council
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
P 202-828-7422
info@usgbc.org
www.usgbc.org

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
1791 Tullie Circle, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30329
p 404.636.8400
f 404.321.5478
info@ashrae.org
www.ashrae.org

Architecture 2030
607 Cerrillos Road
Santa Fe, NM 87505
p 505-988-5309
f 505-983-9526
info@architecture2030.org
www.architecture2030.org

Time to Tighten up the Carbon Trading System

2006-11-27T10:58:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Stavros Dimas, environment commissioner, told the Financial Times: “If it appears there are over-allocations, we will adjust to the right numbers.”

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.

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.

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. 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. Mr Dimas believes this amounts to illegal state aid and is among the worst flaws in governments' national allocation plans.

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. 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”.

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.

Canadian Youth Demand more action at Climate Change Negotiation

2006-11-17T10:29:00.001-08:00

comprehensive and effective plan for the Canadian public to rally behind.

2. Immediate commitment to negotiate the post-2012 framework.

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.

3. Adoption of the IPCC “2 degrees Celsius” target in the post-2012 phase.

Climate change is beyond partisanship. Solving this crisis will mean making difficult decisions. Clearly this an issue of political will.

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.

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.

The Kyoto Protocol is the only international agreement we have that addresses the threat of climate change – we cannot afford to weaken it now.

Our future is at stake.

Sincerely,

The Canadian Youth Delegation to Nairobi
www.cydnairobi.ca

Canadian Youth Demand more action at Climate Change Negotiation

2006-11-17T10:29:00.000-08:00

As part of our long-term strategy to bulid civilian and political leadership at home, the Canadian Youth Delegation issued its “Declaration of Demands at COP 12″ today, in Nairobi Kenya. Recognizing that we are in this for the long haul, Canadian youth picked 3 things that would help move negotiations forward in a positive manner and also asked for a plan that will resonante with the public at home. This is the beginning - we know what we want, and now we will act on it - with your help.

Here is a copy of the text:

Youth Declaration of Demands at COP 12

The global community has acknowledged that the world is facing an unprecedented climate crisis. It is a fact that our generation will face the greatest consequences from climate change. By default, this crisis has become our issue because this is our future. Climate change extends beyond environmental issues – it cuts across all spheres of society thus we must be united in facing the challenge that it presents. This is our future that is at stake.

The Youth are ready to face this challenge, but we cannot do it alone. We are calling for greater action and leadership from our government on climate change. There is no time to waste.

On behalf of the youth of Canada, the Canadian Youth Delegation makes the following immediate demands of the Canadian Government:

1. A public re-commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, specifically meeting our targets from the original 2008 timeline.

The time for leadership is now. The technology and expertise are readily available to reduce emissions and meet our commitments. Government efficiency regulations are necessary in all sectors, in conjunction with mandatory caps that capitalize on market instruments.

The recent actions and statements by the Government of Canada have created confusion and uncertainty over Canada’s position on the Kyoto Protocol. Canada’s recent statements about our inability to meet our current target, and the introduction of the Clean Air Act (Bill C-30) are unacceptable responses to the climate crisis. The government has said that we are unable to meet our targets and has presented a plan that does not sufficiently address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Solutions start with working towards our targets, not abandoning them.

Currently, Canada emissions are 35% above our Kyoto target. There is no more time to blame former governments for a lack of action.

The Stern review presents a strong economic case for tackling climate change immediately. Delaying action simply enhances impacts and impedes Canada’s long-term economic viability. This is Canada’s opportunity to lead the world into a sustainable energy economy. The solutions are available to us now.

Canadian youth demand a clear and unambiguous commitment, reaffirming Canada’s support of the protocol, and a comprehensive and effective plan for the Canadian public to rally behind.

2. Immediate commitment to negotiate the post-2012 framework.

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.

3. Adoption of the IPCC “2 degrees Celsius” target in the post-2012 phase.

Climate change is beyond partisanship. Solving this crisis will mean making difficult decisions. Clearly this an issue of political will.

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.

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.

The Kyoto Protocol is the only international agreement we have that addresses the threat of climate change – we cannot afford to weaken it now.

Our future is at stake.

Sincerely,

The Canadian Youth Delegation to Nairobi
www.cydnairobi.ca

November 15th - High Level Segment begins

2006-11-17T10:22:00.000-08:00

November 15, 2006 saw the start of the high level segment. This important part of the meeting started with a speech from UN secretary general Kofi Annan. Proving that there still are still die hard climate change skeptics out there, Annan began by stressing that climate change was not science fiction.

Annan pointed out that that low emissions need not mean low growth. "So let there be no more denial. Let no one say we cannot afford to act. The Nairobi conference must send a clear, credible signal that the world’s political leaders take climate seriously. The question is not whether climate change is happening, but whether, in the face of this emergency we ourselves can change fast enough." Clearly, Anan in his speech was reprimanding countries like the US for not playing a pro-active role in the Kyoto Protocol.

And the US response...

Interestingly, soon after his speech the US delegation had organized a press conference, during which it proudly pronounced that it is trying its best to fight global warming. “The US policy is guided by a multi-dimensional approach. We believe in the power of partnerships. It is building partnerships with nations that have common goals. We firmly believe that public-private partnership is a means to fight climate change. We are happy that we are contributing to addressing climate change,” said Paula Dobriansky, under secretary for democracy and global affairs, the US government. “At COP 12 the US delegation is highlighting the efforts taken by the nation to flight climate change.

Adaptation is important here and the US has already financed such activities in many of the developing countries,” Dobriansky added.

When questioned about the lack of leadership from the US, Dobriansky responded by saying that the US is leading and climate change requires global efforts. All countries must be engaged in the effort. “Our recent election will continue to ensure that climate changer is an important issue. In terms of the congress, they are both people for and against the Kyoto protocol in the democrats and the republicans.

When Down To Earth questioned David Miliband, secretary of state, department for environment, food and rural affairs, UK about the UK’s stand on future commitment periods, he said that his country was willing to take up commitments depending on future circumstances.

Other highlights of the day were the presentation of the Stern report, which focuses on the impacts of climate change. Most delegates welcomed the report, which states that the world would incur huge financial losses if steps are not undertaken soon to contain global warming, and what economic opportunities did action on climate change present for different countries and sectors.

During another plenary session, ministers and heads of delegation from more than 35 nations reinstated their general position where action for fighting climate change was concerned.
Tomorrow’s plenaries would see the adoption of some draft decisions taken by SABTA, AWG, and SBI. Other important that would be discussed is the review of the protocol, which was to be done at this COP

High Level Sigment: Day 2

2006-11-17T10:19:00.000-08:00

On November 16, 2006, the joint COP and COP/MOP high-level segment continued; the second workshop of the “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention” also continued.

Informal consultations and contact groups took place on CDM, review of the Protocol (Article 9), the Russian proposal, and the Belarus proposal to join the Kyoto regime. An informal ministerial meeting was held late night to consider a number of these outstanding issues.

On the post-2012 issues, most delegates highlighted the urgency of agreeing on a post-2012 regime, with delegates from developed countries stressing on common but differentiated responsibilities. India said several key Annex I countries had failed in their Protocol commitments, and described calls for developing countries to take on emissions commitments post-2012 as “shrill,” “surreal,” and a threat to poverty alleviation efforts. Belarus urged resolution of its proposal in Nairobi.

Where the adaptation issue was concerned, most developing countries showed an aggressive stand. Many African countries also showed concerns about their poor share in the CDM regime. Several countries highlighted forests’ contribution to addressing climate change, and positive incentives on deforestation.
Regarding the financial mechanism, The developing countries said that GEF should be more responsive to developing country needs and opposed conditionalities in the operation of the climate funds.

India also emphasised sustainable consumption and production, technology transfer and capacity building. The US underscored placing climate change within a broader agenda than just development and poverty reduction, including energy and food security, and air pollution. Australia stressed enabling environments. Parties agreed to ask the COP to request the Secretariat to prepare an analysis on climate-related financial flows.

Contact group and informal discussions

The CDM contact group faced difficulties on three accounts: on relates to carbon capture and storage and the other was about afforestation and deforestation projects, and lastly on the regional distribution and capacity building. On the latter, the outstanding issues were referred to ministers, and the EU accepted an African Group proposal to encourage Annex I parties’ further initiatives, including financial support, for the development of projects, especially in LDCs.

Where the second issue was concerned, The EU dropped its reservation on a matter referring to CDM EB annexes on the eligibility of land for A/R projects, and the text was agreed by the group. Decisions related to carbon capture and storage were deferred to the next COP.

The review of the Protocol (Article 9) was taken up in consultations throughout the day, and in the evening as part of a ministerial meeting. Following Chair Tudela Abad’s introduction of draft text , progress was made on the text, but differences remained on issues including a “confidence” clause specifying that the review will not lead to non-Annex I commitments, and the dates for the next review, with proposals ranging from 2 to 5 years. The text reportedly remained bracketed as of midnight. According to NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of Earth, it is highly unlikely that a decision is going to be taken where Article 9 is concerned.

They expect the COP 12 to end with at least a mandate set for the revision for the next COP. They are quite disappointed that the most important item on this year’s COP met with no consequences. They are also disappointed that no timeline has been set where the implementation of the draft decision of Article 3.9 is concerned.

Throughout the day meetings were being held to resolve issues related to Article 9 and the Belarus and Russian proposals. But they were still no signs of any agreement on these matters, especially the Belarus proposal of joining the protocol The matter is as hot as the hot air that Belarus may contribute to the Kyoto regime if it joins.

Also our business

2006-11-17T10:14:00.000-08:00

“Adaptation is also our business,” was the title of a side even this afternoon put on by members of the EU. The room was packed, and as we sat in rows and sweated, the presenters made some interesting and important points.

According to IPCC predictions, the Mediterranean is going to be one of the areas of the world most affected by climate change. Christina Narbona, Minister of Environment for Spain, pointed out that Spain is already experiencing massive dispalcement of population, severe droughts, a predicted 5-14% decrease in water resources in the 2030 horizon, and is also a developed nation which will be one of the first to receive migrants from Africa if and when the effects of more drastic climate change displaces them. Spain is also one of the only nations to have developed a NAPA (a National Adaptation Plan of Action). This includes trying to optimize water resources (currently Spain has very low water price and very high water consumption) and increase water resources. The plan also includes a lot of investment in research into future scenarios, which leaves me wondering about urgency and priority, two concepts which are difficult to concretize in this context because, in terms of the future, absolute certainty can never exist. The question and answer period brought an intelligent question to the minister: what about when adaptation plans undermine mitigation plans, such as the increased energy it would require to run desalinization plants to increase water supply? To this, the minister responded that there exists a program to produce renewable energy at the same rate as engergy conumption increases. (This, however, includes such things as hydro-electric dams, which wreak their own kind of environmental havoc, and on top of that, Spain has the second largest number of dams in the world.) The question of justice and equality also arises: Spain has the infrastructure to develop a NAPA, and compared to developing countries is very well off. However, like all nations, and perhaps (because of its location) moreso than other developed nations, it will be suffering from the predicted environmental changes as well. What is its responsibility to its own people and to those of other nations? What is everyone’s role in this world of changes? Big questions, and, like most big questions, probably unanswerable until we see what roles we take.

Francois Gemenne of the University of Liege pointed out the current and future problems of environmental refugees. Under the Geneva Convention, environmental refugees are not recognized. However, as Gemenne stated, recognition under Geneva probably wouldn’t meet the needs of environmental refugees (it is intended to protect those fleeing political turmoil), and anyway only applies to parties to the convention, which consists mostly of Northern states. According to the now-infamous Stern report, 200 million people could be permanently displaced by 2050, mostly due to rising sea levels (the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), those in the Arctic, and those living in coastal cities and floodplains). Village relocation, I found out, is already happening. For example, the US government apparently pays for trucks to come in to Arctic villages with cranes and physically move them.

The demographic, cultural, psychological, and resource burden of mass migrations is an overwhelming prospect. This is truly a human side to climate change. Although environmental factors have always and will always displace people, cause people suffering, as well as cause people times of great joy and prosperity (depending on how conducive the environment is to livlihood at the time), displacement- detachment from a place you feel is your home, disconnect from family and friends, loss of culture and language, increased potential for conflict between people who are different and feel they do not understand each other, increased strain on resources, the role of human emotions- will never be easy.

Gemenne proposed to extend the mandate of the UNHCR (High Commissioner for Refugees)- which was absent at this conference- to cover environmental refugees temporarily displaced. For the permanently displaced, he said, a “copycat of Kyoto” which consists of regional burden-sharing schemes- based on the polluter pays principle and on where the resources are- could be part of a solution. It’s Europe’s business, he said, because the EU needs to acknowledge its share of responsibility and needs to make massive shifts in immigration policy. (This is also entirely true of the U.S.)

And so we come back to it: the complexities of the challenge, the responsibility we share.

Technology transfer

2006-11-17T10:13:00.000-08:00

Rob Bradley
Nov 14, 8:28 AM

Few negotiating groups are expecting big results in Nairobi, but some gather with a particular lack of sparkle. It's been well over a decade that we've been negotiating international climate agreements, and there are some issues that have remained essentially unchanged. Today we will take you inside one of these perpetually-deadlocked debates. You're welcome.

No-one would dispute that technology transfer is important in fighting climate change: indeed, developing and deploying clean technologies is really what climate policy is about. But there is little common understanding of what really drives technology deployment in different countries.

Take the group of 134 developing countries known as the G77 and China. We don't have the money to spend on your fancy technology, they say. Cancel the intellectual property rights on all the technology, and we'll make it ourselves. Or set up a large fund to buy the patents and send it over.

But, reply the rich countries, that's not how it works. The intellectual property doesn't belong to us, but to companies in the private sector. The best way to ensure that you get new and efficient technologies is to create what we call "enabling environments," meaning removing trade barriers, reducing corruption and perverse regulation, and creating a good investment climate. In the absence of these measures a fund would be simply wasted money, and we'd prefer not to do that.

Oh come on, say the G77 & China, governments call the shots and control the private sector, and if you really wanted to you could share the patents. And telling us that all will be well if we completely fix our economies and institutions is not massively helpful in the near term.

And so on. Year after year developing countries focus on the removal of intellectual property protections and the creation of a new fund. Rich countries decline, and frame broad intentions to help create enabling environments. In the meantime the issue is punted to a working group to consider the options.

At the moment that working group is known as the Expert Group on Technology Transfer. The developing countries are proposing a new group with greater scope to call panels of experts and make strong policy recommendations. Since progress on funds or intellectual property seem out of the question, the scope of a final deal might include the substitution of one arcane body by another. In the meantime, emissions trading, the clean development mechanism and national policies and measures will have to achieve what the negotiators can only talk about.

Belarus, a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in controversy

2006-11-17T10:08:00.000-08:00

Rob Bradley
Nov 16, 7:41 AM

Followers of the tectonic struggles of the great powers probably do not spend too much time worrying about Belarus. Wedged between Russia and the European Union, this former part of the Soviet Union is not deeply involved in world environmental affairs. It is, however, raising an interesting conundrum for climate politics.

Belarus did not ratify the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) until 2000, eight years after it was agreed. This meant that when the Kyoto Protocol, which is an offshoot of the UNFCCC, was negotiated in 1997, Belarus was not among the negotiators. It is therefore not in the Kyoto Protocol?s Annex B, and has no target for emission reductions. This leaves it in a kind of limbo?now that it has ratified the Convention, it is an Annex I country, which means that it cannot benefit from developing country mechanisms such as the various funds or the Clean Development Mechanism. But without a target neither can it participate in Annex I mechanisms such as emissions trading or Joint Implementation.

In the meantime, Belarus has now ratified both the Convention and, last year, the Kyoto Protocol. Its delegation is now asking to adopt an emissions target and to play a full role in the Protocol. Other countries are taking this offer cautiously. So why does Belarus now want to participate where it didn?t before? And since it does, why might other countries not welcome it?

There are two reasons why Belarus might want to play a fuller role in the Kyoto Protocol. First, its relations with other countries are not uniformly smooth. More active participation in an important international process offers an opportunity to put its international relations on more constructive footing. Second, Belarus has realized that it could potentially gain significant new financial flows if it could take part in international emissions trading. Assuming it is treated in a similar way to its fellow former-Soviet states, its target would very likely leave it with a tasty surplus of emission rights (known in the usual impenetrable jargon as Assigned Amount Units, or AAUs) which it could in principle sell to other countries that fall short of meeting their emission reduction commitments.

So far so good, you might think. Welcome a strayed lamb back into the fold and bring more AAUs into the Kyoto system - why not? But that surplus is precisely what is making some countries hesitate. To understand why we need to revisit a perennial bugbear of the Kyoto system "hot air".

When the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997, rich countries and the former communist states were given emission reduction targets from a baseline set in 1990. For most OECD countries this meant that some early emission cuts would thereby be rewarded but that the resulting target still meant making real efforts to keep emissions down. However, the picture was very different for the economies in transition (EITs), as the former communist world was known. They were mainly given targets of stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels. However, the collapse of communism in 1989-91 had led to the closure of vast swathes of inefficient, uneconomic, and heavily-polluting industry in the EITs. As a result, by 1997 their emissions had dropped dramatically from 1990 levels - in some cases by nearly 50% - and the allocation therefore left them with a huge tradable surplus of AAUs. This was understood when the negotiations took place and was essentially a financial inducement for the EITs to agree to the Protocol. Since the group included such giants as Russia and the Ukraine, rich countries considered this as a price worth paying. The availability of such cheaper AAUs also alleviated US concerns about the cost of meeting their targets.

The EITs had a good case for getting some financial support. First of all, the collapse of communism had left their economies in terrible shape - or, perhaps more accurately, revealed what terrible shape they were in already. At the same time, their energy infrastructure was in the main much less efficient than in their rich country counterparts, which meant that there was plenty of scope to cut emissions cheaply. Some referred to Russia as "the Saudi Arabia of energy efficiency."

However, so deep was the economic collapse of the EITs, and so large are they, that the over-allocation of AAUs left a huge supply of tradable credits that could, through the trading system, allow countries to meet their emission targets while making no real emission reductions. The withdrawal of the United States, which was expected to provide much of the demand for these AAUs, meant that there was a real prospect of this over-allocation swamping all efforts to reduce emissions in rich countries. The term "hot air" was coined to describe the surplus, reflecting the sense that, far from being a legitimate part of the trading system, it was a fraud to undermine climate policy.

Still, it was part of the deal, and the participation of Russia in particular was essential to bringing the Kyoto Protocol into force. For many countries however, hot air was a necessary evil. It was certainly not something they embraced gladly.

Which brings us back to Belarus. It has undergone the same economic collapse and restructuring as the rest of the Soviet Union, and its enthusiasm for taking a target is based on the expectation of hot air on similar terms. It is requesting a target of 5% below 1990 levels, while in 2000 its emissions were 45% lower than in 1990. Even allowing for growth between 2000 and 2012, this means a major allocation of hot air. Estimates bandied about at the moment range from 30 to 50 million tons of CO2 through the commitment period. Even at moderate prices this means financial transfers in the hundreds of millions of dollars if Belarus can find a buyer.

The problem for Belarus is that the Kyoto Protocol is already in force, and the major post-Soviet countries are already in. For many countries therefore the problems of Belarus' participation - even more hot air sloshing around in the system - is not outweighed by many obvious advantages. And with diplomatic relations strained at the best of times (the EU maintains visa bans on top-level Belarus officials) there is little sign of an early push to do Belarus a favor. For the time being, Belarus is on a charm offensive, but there is not much sign of a quick decision. Whatever the technical details of the climate negotiations, bigger realpolitik is never far away.

New Chairwoman for Senate Environmental Public Works Committee

2006-11-10T16:16:00.000-08:00

Boxer Pledges Shift on Global Warming

Friday November 10, 2006 9:46 AM

AP Photo FX911

By SAMANTHA YOUNG

Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday promised major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to lead the U.S. Senate's environmental committee.

``Time is running out, and we need to move forward on this,'' Boxer said of global warming during a conference call with reporters. ``The states are beginning to take steps, and we need to take steps as well.''

Boxer's elevation to chairwoman of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee comes as Democrats return to power in the Senate. It also marks a dramatic shift in ideology for the panel.

The California Democrat is one of the Senate's most liberal members and replaces one of its most conservative, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had blocked bills seeking to cut the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, calling the issue ``the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people.''

Environmentalists were overjoyed at the change.

``That's like a tsunami hit the committee,'' said Karen Steuer, who heads government affairs at the National Environmental Trust, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. ``You can't find two members or people more ideologically different.''

As chairman, Inhofe tried to overhaul the Endangered Species Act and supported the Bush administration's 2002 rules to roll back provisions in the Clean Air Act. He also promoted legislation that would have allowed the government to suspend air and water quality rules in response to Hurricane Katrina.

Boxer said she intends to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gases, strengthen environmental laws regarding public health and hold oversight hearings on federal plans to clean up Superfund hazardous waste sites across the country.

On global warming, Boxer said she would model federal legislation after a new California law that imposed the first statewide limit on greenhouse gases and seeks to cut California's emissions by 25 percent, dropping them to 1990 levels by 2020.

``Some of the practical solutions are in the California approach,'' Boxer said.

A top environmental aide at the White House signaled Thursday that the administration would work with her. George Banks, the associate director for international affairs at the Council for Environmental Quality, has requested a meeting to discuss global warming, Boxer said.

President Bush has opposed a federal mandate to limit greenhouse gas emissions from industry and automobiles, saying such steps should be voluntary.

``We look forward to working with Congress in bipartisanship on all issues,'' said Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality. She declined to discuss specifics related to the upcoming global warming discussion.

Some environmentalists said major changes in policy won't occur before 2008.

``On the issue of global warming in particular, we're going to need a new president before we see major progress,'' said Eric Antebi, spokesman for the San Francisco-based Sierra Club. ``But this Congress can really lay the groundwork for that and make incremental changes.''

Actions on the Climate Crisis To Be Held Nov. 4th in 21 States Around the USA

2006-10-31T18:29:00.000-08:00

For immediate release

October 31, 2006

For more information:

Raya Ariella, 413-243-5665

Ted Glick, 973-338-5398

Actions on the Climate Crisis To Be Held Nov. 4th in 21 States Around the USA

In Concert With 48 Other Countries for the International Day of Climate Action

Just three days before the November 7th election, thousands of Americans will be participating in local actions in 21 states calling for the federal government to take action now to address the global warming climate crisis.

November 4th is the second International Day of Climate Action. Last year, on December 3rd, 80,000 people internationally in 20 countries participated in the first international day. This year there are 48 countries where actions are being organized.

November 4th was chosen as the day of action this year because it falls just before a major United Nations Climate Conference taking place Nov. 6-17 in Nairobi, Kenya. Activists within this mushrooming, grassroots international movement are calling for delegates in Nairobi and the nations of the world to respond to the accelerated pace of climate change by dramatically strengthening the Kyoto Protocol.

In the USA, activists will be calling upon the U.S. government to join the 166 other countries of the world that have endorsed the Kyoto Protocol. They will be demanding that the federal government enact legislation next year to cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% as soon as possible.

They are also calling for an end to all federal subsidies for coal, oil, natural gas and carbon-intensive agriculture and for those monies to be used instead to jump-start a renewable energy economy based on wind, solar, tidal power, biomass, small-scale hydropower and other non-nuclear, sustainable energy technologies.

A wide range of actions will be taking place on November 4th.

In Boston, Massachusetts a coalition of groups is organizing the “Boston Coal Party,” channeling the spirit of the Boston Tea Party by featuring colonial-themed street theater in which participants dump boxes of coal, just as our ancestors dumped British tea over 200 years ago.

In Essex County, N.J. scores of bicyclists will ride for 7 ½ miles through the towns of Montclair and Bloomfield in a Bike Ride for a Healthy Planet.

In Virginia 250 or more young people will converge for a youth environmental summit at the College of William and Mary organized by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

In Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Michigan, Vermont and Washington, Greenpeace USA’s Hot Seat campaign is organizing “aerial art” actions involving large numbers of people arranged on the ground to make a statement about the need for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In St. Louis, Mo. the World Aquarium has set up a Global Warming Display, is providing information about their sustainable actions via lighting, insulation, food choices, etc., and encouraging visitors to take action.

The University of California at Berkeley will experience a Climate Change Fair on campus the evening of November 3rd.

And in Boothbay Harbor and Damariscotta, Maine, activists in both communities will be out with a clothesline filled with “dirty laundry” that exposes the environmental rollbacks and contributions to global warming.

Further information on these and the many other local actions in the USA can be found at http://www.climateusa.org .

Information on what is happening internationally can be found at http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org .

The Stern Review of Climate Change: Media Coverage Survey

2006-10-30T16:04:00.000-08:00

Today there has been a veritable hurricane of reporting about the just released Nicholas Stern review of the economics of climate change. Matters where complicated by speculation relating to UK govornment policies that have been rumoured to be announced along with the report.

UK National Press Coverage

Broadsheets (Left/Liberal)
Both the Guardian and the Indy devote substantial space to the stern report, prospects for green taxes and other climate change related stories. Good reviews are given of the main points from the stern report. Green taxes are supported and the general criticism is of to many fine words and not enough action.

Independant
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Guardian
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Broadsheets (Rights/Conservative)
The times and telegraph perform admiarably as Tory papers, they manage to give good accounts of the basic science of the report. They also publish entirely disconnected articles on green taxes. The times manages to write a slightly negative but not openly hostile article on green taxes (which both the libdems and tories broadly support). The Telegraph really impressed me by not speaking out against green taxes at all, after giving a very good review of the stern review and evena short video clip it merely states business concerns about international competativeness if the uk moves without other major economies. The FT was always going to be a special case. A good review of the report (perhaps the best from any paper!) is followed by little talk of uk green taxes and quite a bit of thought about the possible expansion of the EU ETS. I might start treading the FT more after this.

Times
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Telegraph
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Financial Times (perhaps free market but non partisan?)
Stern Review, Green Taxes

More serious tabloids (Entire political spectrum)
The daily express and mail played this in an entirely duplicitous manner. They both reported Sir Nicholas Stern's concluions as reasonable and then went on to trash govornment policy measure being proposed as a result of the report. The common line was, hard working families are going to be laboured with yet another stealth tax. The fact that what is largely being discussed by all three parties is tax restructuring was entirely absent.

Daily Express
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Daily Mail
Stern Review and Green Taxes

Less serious tabloids (Entire political spectrum)
The Sun leads with a front page article, we are going to save the planet and you are paying. The coverage of Sterns Review is present only in a letter penned by Tony Blair. Bearing in mind this interesting dichotomy, it seems quite obvious that blears concenrs about climate change are being presented as an elaborate ploy to raise taxes. The star mentions the stern review in brief but relatively objectively, it dosent mention green taxes. The People dosent make any mention of climate change. The Mirror gives a reasonable account of the importance of the review and a fairly supportive line on green taxes.

The Sun
Stern Review, Green Taxes

The Star
Stern Review, n/a

The People
n/a

The Mirror
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Sir Nicholas Stern Interviewed on The Economics of Climate Change

2006-10-30T02:49:00.000-08:00

Sir Nicholas Stern, a former World Banks chief economist has just produced a report for the UK govornment into the economics of climate change.

Speaking about this report to the Today Show stern made a strong argument in favour of a higer magnitude of action, including a restructuring of the tax system to punish polloution not wealth.

The interview is available here.

Stern Review Conclusions via Climate Ark

2006-10-29T12:15:00.000-08:00

Stern Review on Economics of Climate Change

Given overwhelming and robust evidence (Item #1 below), the scientific debate on global warming is now closed and it is time for action (#2) which will require going beyond science to
policy and advocacy formulation.

A major new report by chief British government (#3-6) and former World Bank chief economist
Nicholas Stern finds that the benefits of determined worldwide steps to tackle climate change far outweigh the costs, and that failure to make these investments will lead to "economic upheaval on the scale of the 1930s Depression",
costing

"more than both world wars"

while rendering

"swathes of the planet uninhabitable"

and turning

"200 million people into refugees".

This is not alarmist doomsdayism - it is the best policy predictions based upon the current science. There are many ways to know climate change, science being important but just one of
them. The report is the best policy document to date regarding likely apocalyptic social and economic outcomes of doing nothing to address the global ecological crises of which climate change is part and paramount.

"The chance to keep greenhouse gases at a level which scientists say should avoid the worst effects of climate change 'is already almost out of reach... the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs'."

The report estimates stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cost about one per cent of annual global output by 2050. But if the world does nothing, it could cut global consumption per person by between five and 20 per cent. He suggested rich nations take responsibility for emissions cuts of 60-80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. Further, a global carbon price was needed, affixing a clear cost to pollution, and this could be created through tax (#7) [EI's carbon tax plan at http://www.climateark.org/lincoln_plan/ ], trading or regulation. And with only perhaps a decade to act with force, it is imperative that a Kyoto successor agreement is negotiated as early as next year.

Prophets of Hope and Climate Change

2006-10-27T06:30:00.000-07:00

This is from the Prophets of Hope Myspace...Check it Out

Myself and a couple of friends formed the Prophets of Hope because we are very worried about the world we live in and because we wished to highlight the fact that the the real danger to our existence and world is Climate Change.

It is not terrorism or the distractions that our politicians and corporations promote.

We hope to inspire people into taking individual action and applying political pressure for the radical changes needed.

Climate change is a reality, our only hope is that we all work to overcome the problems and together build a sustainable future.

THE SLIDES BELLOW ARE ARTISTS IMPRESSIONS OF A SERIES OF PROJECTIONS THAT WE ARE PLANNING SOON...STAY TUNED

Of course, we are simply trying to find new ways to try to get the publicity required to get action on climate change to be taken. The best way to show a real movement in society is to move to the streets. Get to it on november the 4th. Join Stop Climate Chaos and Campaign against Climate Change, make your voice heard!

Create Your Own!

We can achieve green growth

2006-10-23T16:15:00.000-07:00

China Dialogue Editor Isabel Hilton with UK Climate Change Minister Ian Pearson

Isabel Hilton: This is the first ministerial meeting in the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue. What do you hope to get out of it?

Ian Pearson: We hope to get an agreement on joint work in sustainable consumption and production. When you look at the embedded carbon in the products that we buy and the fact that China manufactures most of them these days, it’s clear that we have a common agenda here. Some work has also been done on forestry policy and we hope to take that forward as well – global deforestation is a huge issue that we need to tackle. The Chinese have been particularly keen to talk about urban development and of course the biggest issue today is climate change – the science and some of the daily reports we are now seeing are very worrying.

IH: Your department has given some support to www.chinadialogue.net. Is the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue between governments and experts or do you envisage a wider dialogue?

IP: I would like it to be all of those. I think government to government dialogue is important. You can get some things done at a ministerial level that there can be some reticence about at official level. But official level cooperation is also extremely important – we’ve been pleased how much of this we’ve seen so far under the dialogue. China’s 11th Five Year Plan has sustainability written into it and I think it’s a remarkably impressive document.

IH: Although China’s last Five Year Plan missed several of its environmental targets. Is it your impression that the 11th Plan will hit them?

IP: I get the sense that they are taking it more seriously this time. There’s nothing like talking to people to really get an assessment of how important it is to them. I know the priority has been growth – and trying to ensure balanced growth, but sustainability has risen up the agenda in China.

IH: After twenty years of growth in China, there has certainly been a change of tone and a shift in official statements from the top. How much of a priority is it now for China to balance the economy and the environment?

IP: I think the environment is being given a higher priority under the 11th Five Year Plan and in the way that it will be implemented. I don’t think there’s any doubting that. The Chinese government has recognised the severe pollution problems that have been created as a result of its rapid industrial development and is taking practical measures to deal with that.

IH: How far do you think it goes?

IP: China is such vast country this can’t just be driven from the centre. It requires people in towns and cities to develop policies and to work on environmental issues. In such a vast country, performance is bound to be patchy. But I think a lot has happened in Shanghai. Shanghai wants to set higher standards environmentally and in terms of its economy and skills base. And if you talk to the mayors of Shenzhen or Guangzhou, they want to do something about it too. They still want to grow, but they are committed to doing something about the environment as well.

IH: What do you think Britain can learn from China in this process?

IP: I’d be interested to hear more about the green GDP report that China has produced. I also think we can learn from the Chinese commitment to building the world’s first carbon neutral city in Dongtan. I’m pleased that ARUP, a British-based international company, have provided a lot of expertise in this. In terms of the scale of their ambition to tackle the environment in creating a city like that, there’s something we can learn. We need to be looking at our proposals for developing new homes in the Thames Gateway with the same degree of ambition that the Chinese are adopting in Dongtan.

IH: You are minister for climate change and this dialogue is about sustainable development – can you explain the connection between climate change and sustainable development?

IP: Sustainable development, as I see it, is about one planet living. If everybody consumed resources at the same level as the UK, we would need three planets to live on – and we’ve only got one. It’s about living within our environmental means as well as our economic means. In the past we’ve just put the word “sustainable” in front of everything and devalued what sustainable development means. But one planet living can give us all a moral purpose.

IH: But this is not something the UK has achieved, so why should China listen to the UK on this question?

IP: We certainly haven’t achieved one planet living, but we believe that’s the direction we need to go in – and go in quickly. Our economy has grown by over 40% since 1990. At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions went down by 15%; it’s estimated that if we hadn’t taken action our greenhouse gas emissions would actually be 15% higher today, rather than 15% lower. We have put in place a range of different policy initiatives – we were the first country in the world to introduce a climate change levy and the first country to introduce an emissions trading scheme. We were the architects of the European Trading Scheme. We were the first country in the world to introduce an energy efficiency commitment on energy supplies, which has already produced around £3 billion of benefits in terms of energy efficiency measures, whether it be loft insulation or energy-efficient light bulbs in people’s houses.

The UK needs to do more, both domestically and internationally, but I don’t think people should forget some of the things we actually have done – and in a fairly painless way. I don’t think that our economy has suffered. So my message is that we can achieve green growth – and China can as well. It’s going to be vitally important that China does exactly that, because in the next 10 or 15 years it is set to be the world’s biggest economy. And the US has got to do it as well.

IH: At the launch of chinadialogue about ten days ago, a Chinese journalist came up to me and said: “What China needs is money and technology, not dialogue.” As you embark on this dialogue, what do you feel about that?

IP: I don’t think China needs money, but I do think it needs technology. I think we have a historical responsibility as a result of our past CO2 emissions. The message should be: the UK has discovered that there are better ways of industrialising, we think it’s worth your looking at them. There are opportunities for growth in ways that we weren’t aware of when we were growing strongly back in the 19th century.

IH: But the British government comes under a lot of criticism at home for the rather stately pace of all this. Missing your own emissions targets for a government which is quite keen on targets is rather embarrassing, isn’t it? You could have been more vigorous more early, surely?

IP: I do agree we should do more. We must do more, though I certainly wouldn’t use the phrase “stately pace”. We certainly haven’t given up hope of achieving a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2010. Measures in the energy white paper next year will also help set us on the path to a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. We will continue to look at what more we can do as a government. It’s an increasingly urgent task, and although we’re only 2% of the world’s problem, I believe we have a moral responsibility because we were the first nation to industrialise. You can only credibly give international leadership if you’ve got credible domestic policies. You’ve got to walk the walk.

IH: People are now thinking beyond 2012 to the regime that will follow Kyoto. What would you like to see China do for that regime?

IP: Firstly I’d like to see China fully participate in the debate. It’s good that China has been involved in the Gleaneagles dialogue process, which provides a unique space in which we can collectively discuss what needs to be done, rather than getting into negotiating mode where lines are drawn between different parties. China has got some of the best scientists, the most thorough analyses to be found anywhere in the world. China knows that as it grows it’s going to be a world-leading force. It knows that climate change and climate security is going to be an issue for China. I’m very optimistic that China will come to the conclusion it’s in their own interest to do something about tackling their CO2 emissions.

If you look at the figures for world population growth, we will grow to 9 billion by 2015. If you look at the carbon costs of feeding 9 billion people – you can’t avoid carbon when you’re producing food -- that amount of carbon equates to the amount you can safely emit into the atmosphere if you’re going to avoid dangerous climate change.

In other words, everything that’s non-food related will have to be zero carbon: we will need zero-carbon power generation and zero carbon transport by 2015.

It shows the scale of the challenge. Zero-carbon power generation is possible. I’m keen that in the UK and Europe we lead the way. We need to say that all power generation in Europe will be zero carbon by 2020.

(During his visit to China, Ian Pearson will be meeting Du Ying, his counterpart at the National Development and Reform Commission. He will also be taking part in a roundtable event on Sustainable Development Governance and will attend the Asia Carbon Expo.)

The authors:

Ian Pearson is the minister of state for climate change and the environment in the British government.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

2006-10-23T11:26:00.000-07:00

Published first in Science on Dec 3rd 2004.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities:

"Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric
constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the
observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

[p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618

Blair: We have 10-15 years to stop climate change.

2006-10-20T17:54:00.000-07:00

Blair calls for tough action on climate change but is exposed by an ever increasing credibility gap. The govornment is commited to 60% cuts by 2050 but even with broad cross-party support for setting yearly targets to ensure we are on a path the govornment seems resistant. All lib-dems, many tories and many labout mps have suported this (400 of the 630mps) so where is the resistance, and the urgency?

From the BBC News Website:

Tony Blair will later press for urgent action on global warming at a summit of EU leaders in southern Finland.

The meeting will focus on securing stable energy supplies - something Mr Blair will argue is closely linked to climate change.

In a letter published ahead of the summit, the prime minister said Europe must lead the world in changing to a low-carbon economy.

He said the world faced a "catastrophic tipping point" over climate change.

The letter, which was also signed by Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende, warned that failure to act would affect economic growth and long-term energy supply and would cause conflict and insecurity.

"We have a window of only 10 to 15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points"

Joint letter

Energy is top of the agenda for the summit, where the EU leaders will be joined for dinner by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

They hope to negotiate better deals for oil and gas companies operating in Russia and better access to the Russian pipeline network.

Mr Blair says it is right to focus on external energy policy but the pace of climate change means the two are linked.

"We have a window of only 10 to 15 years to take the steps we
need to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points,"
the letter warns.

"These would have serious consequences for our economic growth prospects, the safety of our people and the supply of resources, most notably energy."

Debate

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on Wednesday that climate change was the most pressing problem for political leaders.

And a plan to cut Europe's energy consumption by 20% before 2020 has been outlined by the European Commission.

No new decisions will come out of the Lahti meeting, but Mr Blair wants an "in-depth debate" at another summit next year.

He also wants progressively tighter limits to be put on total CO2 emissions from industry, and an agreement to invest more in renewable energy technology.

Greenpeace's John Sauven said Mr Blair's record on the climate issue was hypocritical.

"He finally grasps that we don't have long to stop catastrophic climate change but in his decade in power CO2 emissions have gone up in Britain,"

the campaigner said.

"He says he wants to strengthen the European emissions trading scheme, but last year he was suing Brussels to weaken it. He's done nothing to combat aviation or the trend for gas-guzzling cars."

Impact from the Deep

2006-10-10T09:27:00.000-07:00

This is a Copyrighted Scientific American article

Impact from the Deep

Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?

By Peter D. Ward

Philosopher and historian Thomas S. Kuhn has suggested that scientific disciplines act a lot like living organisms: instead of evolving slowly but continuously, they enjoy long stretches of stability punctuated by infrequent revolutions with the appearance of a new species--or in the case of science, a new theory. This description is particularly apt for my own area of study, the causes and consequences of mass extinctions--those periodic biological upheavals when a large proportion of the planet's living creatures died off and afterward nothing was ever the same again.

Since first recognizing these historical mass extinctions more than two centuries ago, paleontologists believed them to have been gradual events, caused by some combination of climate change and biological forces such as predation, competition and disease. But in 1980 the understanding of mass extinctions underwent a Kuhnian revolution when a team at the University of California, Berkeley, led by geologist Walter Alvarez proposed that the famous dinosaur-killing extinction 65 million years ago occurred swiftly, in the ecosystem catastrophe that followed an asteroid collision. Over the ensuing two decades, the idea that a bolide from space could smite a significant segment of life on the earth was widely embraced--and many researchers eventually came to believe that cosmic detritus probably caused at least three more of the five largest mass extinctions. Public acceptance of the notion crystallized with Hollywood blockbusters such as Deep Impact and Armageddon.

Now still another transformation in our thinking about life's punctuated past is brewing. New geochemical evidence is coming from the bands of stratified rock that delineate mass extinction events in the geologic record, including the exciting discovery of chemical residues, called organic biomarkers, produced by tiny life-forms that typically do not leave fossils. Together these data make it clear that cataclysmic impact as a cause of mass extinction was the exception, not the rule. In most cases, the earth itself appears to have become life's worst enemy in a previously unimagined way. And current human activities may be putting the biosphere at risk once again.

After Alvarez

To understand the general enthusiasm for the impact paradigm, it helps to review the evidence that fueled it. The scenario advanced by Alvarez, along with his father, physicist Luis W. Alvarez, and nuclear chemists Helen V. Michel and Frank Asaro, contained two separate hypotheses: first, that a fairly large asteroid--estimated to have been 10 kilometers in diameter--struck the earth 65 million years ago; second, that the environmental consequences of the impact snuffed out more than half of all species. They had found traces left by the blow in a thick layer of iridium--rare on the earth but common in extraterrestrial materials--that had dusted the globe.

Within a decade of this prodigious announcement the killer's thumbprint turned up, in the form of the Chicxulub crater hiding in plain sight on the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. Its discovery swept aside most lingering doubts about whether the reign of the dinosaurs had ended with a bang. At the same time, it raised new questions about other mass extinction events: If one was caused by impact, what about the rest? Five times in the past 500 million years most of the world's life-forms have simply ceased to exist. The first such event happened at the end of the Ordovician period, some 443 million years ago. The second, 374 million years ago, was near the close of the Devonian. The biggest of them all, the Great Dying, at the end of the Permian 251 million years ago, wiped out 90 percent of ocean dwellers and 70 percent of plants, animals, even insects, on land [see "The Mother of Mass Extinctions," by Douglas H. Erwin; Scientific American, July 1996]. Worldwide death happened again 201 million years ago, ending the Triassic period, and the last major extinction, 65 million years ago, concluded the Cretaceous with the aforementioned big bang.

In the early 1990s paleontologist David Raup's book Extinctions: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? predicted that impacts ultimately would be found to be the blame for all these major mass extinctions and other, less severe events as well. Evidence for impact from the geologic boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary (-K/T) periods certainly was and remains convincing: in addition to the Chicxulub crater and the clear iridium layer, impact debris, including pressure-shocked stone scattered across the globe, attests to the blow. Further chemical clues in ancient sediments document rapid changes in the world's atmospheric composition and climate that soon followed.

For several other extinction periods, the signs also seemed to point "up." Geologists had already associated a thin iridium layer with the end Devonian extinctions in the early 1970s. And by 2002 separate discoveries suggested impacts at the end Triassic and end Permian boundaries. Faint traces of iridium registered in the Triassic layer. And for the Permian, distinctive carbon "buckyball" molecules believed to contain trapped extraterrestrial gases added another intriguing clue [see "Repeated Blows," by Luann Becker; Scientific American, March 2002]. Thus, many scientists came to suspect that asteroids or comets were the source of four of the "big five" mass extinctions; the exception, the end Ordovician event, was judged the result of radiation from a star exploding in our cosmic neighborhood.

As researchers continued to probe the data in recent years, however, they found that some things did not add up. New fossil analyses indicated that the Permian and Triassic extinctions were drawn-out processes spanning hundreds of thousands of years. And newly obtained evidence of the rise and fall of atmospheric carbon, known as carbon cycling, also seemed to suggest that the biosphere suffered a long-running series of environmental insults rather than a single, catastrophic strike.

Not So Sudden Impact

The lesson of the K/T event was that a large-body impact is like a major earthquake leveling a city: the disaster is sudden, devastating, but short-lived--and after it is over, the city quickly begins rebuilding. This tempo of destruction and subsequent recovery is reflected in carbon-isotope data for the K/T extinctions as well as in the fossil record, although verifying the latter took the scientific community some time. The expected sudden die-off at the K/T boundary itself was indeed visible among the smallest and most numerous fossils, those of the calcareous and siliceous plankton, and in the spores of plants. But the larger the fossils in a group, the more gradual their extinction looked.

Slowly, paleontologists came to understand that this apparent pattern was influenced by the sparsity of large-fossil samples for most of the soil and rock strata being studied. To address this sampling problem and gain a clearer picture of the pace of extinction, Harvard University paleontologist Charles Marshall developed a new statistical protocol for analyzing ranges of fossils. By determining the probability that a particular species has gone extinct within a given time period, this analytical method teases out the maximum amount of information yielded by even rare fossils.

In 1996 Marshall and I joined forces to test his system on K/T stratigraphic sections and ultimately showed that what had appeared to be a gradual extinction of the most abundant of the larger marine animals, the ammonites (molluscan fossils related to the chambered nautilus) in Europe, was instead consistent with their sudden disappearance at the K/T boundary itself. But when several researchers, including myself, applied the new methodology to earlier extinctions, the results differed from the K/T sections. Studies by my group of strata representing both marine and nonmarine environments during the latest parts of the Permian and Triassic periods showed a more gradual succession of extinctions clustered around the boundaries.

That pattern was also mirrored in the carbon-isotope record, which is another powerful tool for understanding rates of extinction. Carbon atoms come in three sizes, or isotopes, with slightly varying numbers of neutrally charged particles in the nucleus. Many people are familiar with one of these isotopes, carbon 14 (14C), because its decay is often used to date specific fossil skeletons or samples of ancient sediments. But for -interpreting mass extinctions, a more useful type of information to extract from the geologic record is the ratio of 12C to 13C isotopes, which provides a broader snapshot of the vitality of plant life at the time.

That is because photosynthesis largely drives changes in the 12C-13C ratio. Plants use energy from the sun to split carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic carbon, which they exploit to build cells and provide energy; happily for us animals, free oxygen is their waste product. But plants are finicky, and they preferentially choose CO2 containing 12C. Thus, when plant life--whether in the form of photosynthesizing microbes, floating algae or tall trees--is abundant, a higher proportion of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere contains 13C, and atmospheric 12C is measurably lower.

By examining the isotope ratios in samples from before, during and after a mass extinction, investigators can obtain a reliable indicator of the amount of plant life both on land and in the sea. When researchers plot such measurements for the K/T event on a graph, a simple pattern emerges. Virtually simultaneously with the emplacement of the so-called impact layer containing mineralogical evidence of debris, the carbon isotopes shift--13C drops dramatically--for a short time, indicating a sudden die-off of plant life and a quick recovery. This finding is entirely consistent with the fossil record of both larger land plants and the sea's microscopic plankton, which underwent staggering losses in the K/T event but bounced back rapidly.

In contrast, the carbon records revealed by my group in early 2005 for the Permian, and more recently for the Triassic, document a very different fate for plants and plankton during those two mass extinctions. In both cases, multiple isotope shifts over intervals exceeding 50,000 to 100,000 years indicate that plant communities were struck down, then re-formed, only to be perturbed again by a series of extinction events. To produce such a pattern would take a succession of asteroid strikes, thousands of years apart. But no mineralogical evidence exists for a string of impacts during either time span.

Indeed, further investigation of the evidence has called into question the likelihood of any impacts at those two times. No other research groups have replicated the original finding of buckyballs containing extraterrestrial gas at the end Permian boundary. A discovery of shocked quartz from that period has also been recanted, and geologists cannot agree whether purported impact craters from the event in the deep ocean near Australia and under ice in Antarctica are actually craters or just natural rock formations. For the end Triassic, the iridium found is in such low concentrations that it might reflect a small asteroid impact, but nothing of the planet-killing scale seen at the K/T boundary. If impacts are not supported as the cause of these mass extinctions, however, then what did trigger the great die-offs? A new type of evidence reveals that the earth itself can, and probably did, exterminate its own inhabitants.

Ghastly Greenhouse

About half a decade ago small groups of geologists began to team up with organic chemists to study environmental conditions at critical times in the earth's history. Their work involved extracting organic residues from ancient strata in search of chemical "fossils" known as biomarkers. Some organisms leave behind tough organic molecules that survive the decay of their bodies and become entombed in sedimentary rocks. These biomarkers can serve as evidence of long-dead life-forms that usually do not leave any skeletal fossils. Various kinds of microbes, for example, leave behind traces of the distinctive lipids present in their cell membranes--traces that show up in new forms of mass spectrometry, a technique that sorts molecules by mass.

Their studies indicate that enough H2S was produced by such ocean upwellings at the end of the Permian to cause extinctions both on land and in the sea. And this strangling gas would not have been the only killer. Models by Alexander Pavlov of the University of Arizona show that the H2S would also have attacked the planet's ozone shield, an atmospheric layer that protects life from the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Evidence that such a disruption of the ozone layer did happen at the end of the Permian exists in fossil spores from Greenland, which display deformities known to result from extended exposure to high UV levels. Today we can also see that underneath "holes" in the ozone shield, especially in the Antarctic, the biomass of phytoplankton rapidly decreases. And if the base of the food chain is destroyed, it is not long until the organisms higher up are in desperate straits as well.

Kump and Arthur estimate that the amount of H2S gas entering the late Permian atmosphere from the oceans was more than 2,000 times the small amount given off by volcanoes today. Enough of the toxic gas would have permeated the atmosphere to have killed both plants and animals--particu-larly because the lethality of H2S increases with temperature. And several large and small mass extinctions seem to have occurred during short intervals of global warming. That is where the ancient volcanic activity may have come in.

This biomarker research was first conducted on rocks predating the history of animals and plants, in part to determine when and under what conditions life first emerged on the earth. But within the past few years scientists began sampling the mass extinction boundaries. And to the great surprise of those doing this work, data from the periods of mass extinction, other than the K/T event, suggested that the world's oceans have more than once reverted to the extremely low oxygen conditions, known as anoxia, that were common before plants and animals became abundant.

Among the biomarkers uncovered were the remains of large numbers of tiny photosynthetic green sulfur bacteria. Today these microbes are found, along with their cousins, photosynthetic purple sulfur bacteria, living in anoxic marine environments such as the depths of stagnant lakes and the Black Sea, and they are pretty noxious characters. For energy, they oxidize hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas, a poison to most other forms of life, and convert it into sulfur. Thus, their abundance at the extinction boundaries opened the way for a new interpretation of the cause of mass extinctions.

Scientists have long known that oxygen levels were lower than today around periods of mass extinction, although the reason was never adequately identified. Large-scale volcanic activity, also associated with most of the mass extinctions, could have raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere, reducing oxygen and leading to intense global warming--long an alternative theory to the impacts; however, the changes wrought by volcanism could not necessarily explain the massive marine extinctions of the end Permian. Nor could volcanoes account for plant deaths on land, because vegetation would thrive on increased CO2 and could probably survive the warming.

But the biomarkers in the oceanic sediments from the latest part of the Permian, and from the latest Triassic rocks as well, yielded chemical evidence of an ocean-wide bloom of the H2S-consuming bacteria. Because these microbes can live only in an oxygen-free environment but need sunlight for their photosynthesis, their presence in strata representing shallow marine settings is itself a marker indicating that even the surface of the oceans at the end of the Permian was without oxygen but was enriched in H2S.

In today's oceans, oxygen is present in essentially equal concentrations from top to bottom because it dissolves from the atmosphere into the water and is carried downward by ocean circulation. Only under unusual circumstances, such as those that exist in the Black Sea, do anoxic conditions below the surface permit a wide variety of oxygen-hating organisms to thrive in the water column. Those deep-dwelling anaerobic microbes churn out copious amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which also dissolves into the seawater. As its concentration builds, the H2S diffuses upward, where it encounters oxygen diffusing downward. So long as their balance remains undisturbed, the oxygenated and hydrogen sulfide-saturated waters stay separated, and their interface, known as the chemocline, is stable. Typically the green and purple sulfur bacteria live in that chemocline, enjoying the supply of H2S from below and sunlight from above.

Yet calculations by geoscientists Lee R. Kump and Michael A. Arthur of Pennsylvania State University have shown that if oxygen levels drop in the oceans, conditions begin to favor the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria, which proliferate and produce greater amounts of hydrogen sulfide. In their models, if the deepwater H2S concentrations were to increase beyond a critical threshold during such an interval of oceanic anoxia, then the chemocline separating the H2S-rich deepwater from oxygenated surface water could have floated up to the top abruptly. The horrific result would be great bubbles of toxic H2S gas erupting into the atmosphere.

Around the time of multiple mass extinctions, major volcanic events are known to have extruded thousands of square kilometers of lava onto the land or the seafloor. A by-product of this tremendous volcanic outpouring would have been enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and methane entering the atmosphere, which would have caused rapid global warming. During the latest Permian and Triassic as well as in the early Jurassic, middle Cretaceous and late Paleocene, among other periods, the carbon-isotope record confirms that CO2 concentrations skyrocketed immediately before the start of the extinctions and then stayed high for hundreds of thousands to a few million years.

But the most critical factor seems to have been the oceans. Heating makes it harder for water to absorb oxygen from the atmosphere; thus, if ancient volcanism raised CO2 and lowered the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and global warming made it more difficult for the remaining oxygen to penetrate the oceans, conditions would have become amenable for the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria to generate massive upwellings of H2S. Oxygen-breathing ocean life would have been hit first and hardest, whereas the photosynthetic green and purple H2S-consuming bacteria would have been able to thrive at the surface of the anoxic ocean. As the H2S gas choked creatures on land and eroded the planet's protective shield, virtually no form of life on the earth was safe.

Kump's hypothesis of planetary killing provides a link between marine and terrestrial extinctions at the end of the Permian and explains how volcanism and increased CO2 could have triggered both. It also resolves strange findings of sulfur at all end Permian sites. A poisoned ocean and atmosphere would account for the very slow recovery of life after that mass extinction as well.

Finally, this proposed sequence of events pertains not only to the end of the Permian. A minor extinction at the end of the Paleocene epoch 54 million years ago was already--presciently--attributed to an interval of oceanic anoxia somehow triggered by short-term global warming. Biomarkers and geologic evidence of anoxic oceans suggest that is also what may have occurred at the end Triassic, middle Cretaceous and late Devonian, making such extreme greenhouse-effect extinctions possibly a recurring phenomenon in the earth's history.

Most troubling, however, is the question of whether our species has anything to fear from this mechanism in the future: If it happened before, could it happen again? Although estimates of the rates at which carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during each of the ancient extinctions are still uncertain, the ultimate levels at which the mass deaths took place are known. The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find out.

PETER D. WARD is a professor in the University of Washington's biology department and its earth and space sciences division, where he investigates both realms. His terrestrial research centers on ancient mass extinction events as well as the evolution and ultimate extinction of the nautiluslike marine animals known as ammonites, which he described in his first article for Scientific American in October 1983. Ward also applies principles gleaned from studying the earth's earliest life-forms to research for the NASA Astrobiology Institute into potential habitats for life elsewhere. He discussed those environments in an October 2001 Scientific American article, "Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe," written with Guillermo Gonzalez and Donald Brownlee, as well as in a popular book co-authored with Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is So Uncommon in the Universe (Springer, 2000).

New Climate Change Forum

2006-10-08T16:29:00.000-07:00

Hello all,
I have just started a new forum for my three blogs and for anyone people who i know who wish to discuss climate change...the forum will be moderated as it is intended to be more than a place to rant it is hopefully going to lead to new ideas, collaborations and action. If you are interested then check sign up and have a look at the newly born site. The only material up at the moment is my collection of essays...these are freely editable by members so please add your knoledge to what i already have...rewrite if nessicary just keep the alterations in red so i know what has changed.

Subscribe to Climate Change Action

Email:

Visit this group

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

2006-09-20T07:26:00.000-07:00

David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday September 20, 2006
Guardian

Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have

"misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the
evidence".

The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".

In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

"There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective
conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate,"

it said.

In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes:

"At our meeting in July ... you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be
providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you
could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge."

The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds:

"I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and
other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out
which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading
information to the public."

This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.

The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.

The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.

Mr Ward said:

"It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly
informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that
misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report
should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't
have people trying to undermine it."

The Royal Society letter also takes issue with ExxonMobil's own presentation of climate science. It strongly criticises the company's "corporate citizenship reports", which claim that "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The letter says:

"These statements are not consistent with the scientific literature. It is very
difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these
documents with ExxonMobil's claim to be an industry leader."

Environmentalists regard ExxonMobil as one of the least progressive oil companies because, unlike competitors such as BP and Shell, it has not invested heavily in alternative energy sources.

ExxonMobil said:

"We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the
topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and
Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate
change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or
misleading."

A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year.

Recent research has made scientists more confident that recent warming is man-made, a finding endorsed by scientific academies across the world, including in the US, China and Brazil.

The Royal Society's move emerged as Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, warned that the polar ice caps were breaking up at a faster rate than glaciologists thought possible, with profound consequences for global sea levels. Professor Rapley said the change was almost certainly down to global warming.

"It's like opening a window and seeing what's going on and the message is that
it's worse than we thought,"

he said.

Climate Change and War in Darfur

2006-09-18T10:26:00.000-07:00

ESPOO, Finland, July 17 - There will be no peace in war-torn Darfur unless the region's water shortages are tackled, a top economist said on Monday.

International efforts to resolve wars like Darfur in western Sudan focus too heavily on peacekeeping and military strategy and not enough on climate and development, Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute, told Reuters AlertNet in an interview at a conference on climate change.

The origins of Darfur's three-year conflict can be traced to decreased rainfall and population growth in the 1980s that sparked a struggle between settled farmers and pastoralists, according to Sachs.

"In general, crises like these are viewed through the optic of geopolitics
and the military,"

he said.

"But when you are dealing with very hungry people and desperately poor
people, unless you also put forward a realistic and viable development option,
you can't make peace."

Sachs called for better international recognition of the role of climate in sparking violence and deeper understanding of the interaction between climate change and vulnerable communities.

Richer societies tend to be better equipped to cope with extreme weather events, he said at the conference in Finland.

For example, during last year's drought in the midwest of the United States crop yields actually increased thanks to irrigation, whereas in Africa, where 96 percent of agriculture depends on rainfall, the same event could cause widespread death as a result of crop failure and food shortages.

Sachs also criticised the slow global response to disasters.

"We need to buffer agencies so that (when a disaster happens) they don't have to
beg rich governments for money,"

he said.

Droughts that cause food shortages and hunger can often be predicted using climate modelling and seasonal forecasting, but the current international system for raising funds only kicks in once a crisis is under way - meaning that relief may not start arriving until months after its onset.

"By then, there may be violence, and then people say they can't respond because
the situation is too violent,"

Sachs said.

"Where rains fail in Africa, violence increases. We know that, but we
don't seem to be able to do anything about it."

Sachs said Africa's population would grow by 1 billion by the middle of the century.

He told reporters that the international community would need to come up with a global framework for dealing with growing migration caused by droughts, floods and other disasters linked to climate change.

Dry, landlocked places were likely to be a source of environmental refugees.

"The world needs a better response than locked gates, barbed wire and
shooting people. The political challenge is enormous and governments need to get
serious about addressing it,"

Sachs said.

The conference which continues until July 21, is oganised by the World Meteorological Organization.

Global Warming Debuts on Supreme Court Docket

2006-09-16T12:29:00.000-07:00

Global Warming Debuts on Supreme Court Docket
September 12, 2006
By Roddy Scheer

For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to
take up a case on global warming. This latest version of the lawsuit
(Massachusetts v. EPA) was filed by a coalition of states, cities and
environmental groups in an effort to force the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to set mandatory limits for greenhouse gases
emitted from automobiles. The first iteration of the lawsuit originated
in U.S. District Court back in the summer of 2003, but subsequent
conflicting judgments mean that its trip to the Supreme Court later
this year or in early 2007 will represent the case's third and final
opportunity to mandate car emissions limits.
At issue is whether the EPA is shirking its responsibility under the
Clean Air Act to protect Americans from dangerous amounts of emissions
that could “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.” The crux of the issue, then, is whether EPA officials--and
now Supreme Court justices--consider carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases to be serious threats to the health and well-being of
Americans. Massachusetts and its long list of co-petitioners (see
below) cite hundreds of studies linking greenhouse gas emissions to
droughts and flooding throughout the U.S., as well as myriad other
impacts.

EPA lawyers counter that the health impacts of climate change are
uncertain and that there’s no way to differentiate between the effects
of human activity and natural climatic cycles. Meanwhile, the Bush
administration has refused to mandate any greenhouse gas emission curbs
due to the impact it would have on the U.S. economy.

Given the right-leaning nature of the Supreme Court these days,
environmentalists aren’t optimistic.

Climate Camp and Contracton and Covergence

2006-09-03T11:37:00.000-07:00

As Climate Camp Activists wield their logic at Drax in response to
rising risks of runaway climate change:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1222823.ece

“Tony Blair's target on curbing emissions is based on the science of
1990 not that of 2006. This year we've seen the evidence that the Earth
is becoming effectively ill. We've already reached the tipping point on
the permafrost. It will come in the Amazon in the next three to five
years. We need a 90 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by
2030. That means less air and car travel, electric cars, banning night
flights, congestion charging, changes to domestic heating and
electricity from renewable sources.” [Stephen Stretton Cambridge physics
graduate]

. . . . Zac’s [as in Goldsmith] message is that “Climate change brings
us an uncomplicated choice”.

If only he and his Conservative colleagues would actually organise
logically in the light of that.
[Thursday August 31, 2006 - Guardian]
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,1861670,00.html

Zac quotes the Archbishop of Canterbury "The economy is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the environment". In fact it was Tim Wirth US
Under-Secretary of State who made this remark famous nearly ten years
ago.

With the help of Sir Crispin Tickell, it has been recycled since then,
but sadly more and more as a ‘planet-as-market’ where ‘choice’ becomes
‘chance’ while our chances of survival actually diminish.

The remark has been to negligible effect on organising the rapid global
retreat from climate-changing greenhouse emissions needed to defuse the
threat - “worse than terrorism” that Sir David King routinely chants -
of the dangerous rates of climate change to which we are now almost
irreversibly committed.

As Teddy Goldsmith’s nephew, Zac knows this as well as anyone alive.

However, the claim by him that the Conservatives and their quality of
life policy group have understood this ‘choice’ would be more credible
if Zac quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury on “Contraction and
Convergence” (C&C).

The purpose-specific comment on this which the Archbishop made famous
two year ago was, “C&C is Utopian only if we refuse to honestly
contemplate the alternatives” . . . www.gic.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf

. . . while the UN itself says, “Achieving the objective of the
[climate] convention inevitably requires “Contraction and Convergence”
(C&C)”.

Speechless as it left me last year, both the UK Prime Minister and 25
Corporations from the World Economic Forum led by BP, effectively took
the same view. They specified that climate policy and the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is meaningless without a
specified ceiling to atmospheric greenhouse gas (ghg) concentration
target with everyone involved on common metrics, subsequently praising
the C&C model for precisely this reason. Blair called for “a rational
science-based unity.”

[All quotes above are sourced in this UN lobbying material: –
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/SBSTA_0506_Booklet.pdf ].

C&C shows a way to put ghg emission shares on the same global account.
As the eminent MP Colin Challen, Chair of the House of Commons All Party
Group on Climate Change says, we can demonstrate up front what is
needed, namely “solving the problem faster than we cause it” - it takes
us from guesswork to framework.

Using this way of summing both problem and solution, Colin has already
achieved a high degree of consensus with his parliamentary colleagues in
this cause – see reference above and the report – and is destined for
further success: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/Consensus_Report.pdf

In earlier times and to his great credit as Conservative Environment
Secretary in the 90’s, Mr John Gummer was a champion of this logic and
he now, albeit from the backbenches, is one of Zac’s colleagues in this
Conservative Party group.

The unpredicted oddity with John now is that, at a recent
‘climate-policy-conference’ in Whitehall, it became clear that he has
done a complete turnaround on C&C. He vehemently denounced the very idea
of their being a ghg concentration target, let-alone a C&C framework
because that’s where the logic leads. When asked if he would suggest a
concentration target he snapped, “I know where you are trying to lead
me.” This conference organised by the Peter Luff’s Action Committee for
a Global Climate Community, was attended by many NGOs and the great and
the good, Sir Crispin Tickell, Elliott Morley etc.

This time it was at least nearly everyone who was speechless with
surprise at Mr Gummer’s stance. In fact some of the things muttered by
some of the great and the good were unflattering and wholly unprintable.

Though the choice for C&C is uncomplicated and recognised clearly by so
many, it remains a complete mystery as to why this man and this party,
in league with the world’s premiere environmental organisations
Greenpeace and WWF [now re-branded as the “I Count” [sic]] campaign,
continually choose to oppose the C&C framework and try to frustrate and
dissipate the C&C consensus as it grows here and abroad.

However much it is longed for, more policy guesswork will not do it. Not
choosing C&C forecloses on choice itself as we fail to avoid climate
change and these organisations surely know this. Indeed, it is based on
the very fear of this, that they now very largely raise their
subscriptions.

These ['I-Count'] actions are also tinged with a little bathos.

Over many many years now, the one thing that personnel in “I Count’s”
present and prior incarnations would do is actually to ‘count’ . .
. . and so to put up a numerate global framework.

It was this and this alone that the US described - and continues to
describe - as “Kyoto’s fatal flaw’. The US conceded C&C with the Byrd
Hagel Resolution: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/RSA_Occasional_Paper.pdf

and at COP-3"
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/BRUNEL_LECTURE_A3.pdf
http://www.gci.org.uk/temp/COP3_Transcript.pdf

But as they graft with Zac’s group they are trying not to count all over
again; - so ‘I Count’s’ structure-less proposals for Kyoto-2 draw the
Tories deeper onto the axis of error in their future without a plan.

To get as sense of the diminishing timeframe left to us all, the rising
risks are counted out here: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/rising_risk.pdf

Aubrey Meyer
GCI

'Compost effect' may cause global warming to reach crisis point in 2050

2006-09-03T08:15:00.000-07:00

'Compost effect' may cause global warming to reach crisis point in 2050
By Sarah Cassidy Published: 01 September 2006

The world faces a catastrophic rise in global warming in 2050 unless urgent action is taken to cut human-induced carbon emissions, a leading academic warned yesterday.

Professor Peter Cox, of Exeter University, told the Royal Geographical Society annual conference that temperatures could rise 8C by 2100 because of a "compost effect" which could see carbon dioxide levels increase 50 per cent faster than previously estimated.

Currently, around one quarter of carbon emissions are absorbed by the soil and one quarter by the oceans. It had previously been assumed that these proportions would remain the same. But Professor Cox said that global warming is damaging the soil's ability to absorb carbon emissions.

He said this vicious circle would reach crisis point in 2050 when a key threshold would be passed. After this point the land would begin to release carbon into the atmosphere. He predicted that this "compost effect" would lead to carbon dioxide levels rising from the current 380 parts per million to more than 1,000 parts per million by 2100.

Professor Cox warned that the Amazonian rainforest would be lost unless urgent action was taken to keep carbon dioxide levels below 500 parts per million. Higher levels of CO2 would see rainfall move away from the Amazon basin causing its lush vegetation to die.

In a separate report, the growing threat of climate change to Britain was highlighted yesterday with an urgent call for the reintroduction of salt marshes along the country's coasts and estuaries.

A leading academic said that action was needed to stop flooding of coastal areas as global warming produced higher sea levels.

Blair and Schwarzenegger enter climate change pact.

2006-08-01T15:29:00.000-07:00

Tony Blair has made a pact with Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that commits Britain to work with the US state to reduce greenhouse gases and develop energy efficient technologies.

The agreement between the prime minister and the governor follows a climate change meeting between the two men and leading businessmen in Long Beach yesterday as part of Mr Blair's tour of the US. Much more...The statement endorsed by both Mr Blair and Mr Schwarzenegger binds the UK and California to "urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote low carbon technologies".

"California and the UK recognise the links between climate change, energy security, human health and robust economic growth," the statement said.

"Working together, California and the UK commit to build upon current efforts, share experiences, find new solutions and work to educate the public on the need for aggressive action to address climate change and promote energy diversity."

A spokesman for Mr Blair said that both parties would consider whether they could co-operate on an emissions trading scheme, such as that recently adopted by the EU. He added that officials would even look at whether California could be included in the EU's own programme, under which companies trade the right to emit carbon dioxide using a permit system.

Commenting on the need to tackle global climate change, Mr Blair told business leaders, including BP chief Lord Browne and Virgin boss Richard Branson, that "the answers to this will come in the end by the development of the right science and technology".

"This is something that can't be done just by governments doing it," the prime minister added.

"We need a joint framework, we need it to incorporate all the main countries in the world and we need not just your commitment but also your expertise," he said

Mr Schwarzenegger, whose strong environmental agenda as Californian governor contrasts with that of US president George Bush, who refuses to sign the international Kyoto protocol on global warming, criticised the lack of leadership shown by the White House in tackling climate change.

"We see that there is not great leadership from the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment, so this is why we as a state move forward with it, because we want to show leadership," said Mr Schwarzenegger.

California has a population of 37 million, with a GDP comparable to leading world economies such as Italy and China.
-----------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- Britain and California are preparing to sidestep the Bush administration and fight global warming together by creating a joint market for greenhouse gases.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plan to lay the groundwork for a new trans-Atlantic market in carbon dioxide emissions, The Associated Press has learned. Such a move could help California cut carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists blame for warming the planet. President Bush has rejected the idea of ordering such cuts.

Blair and Schwarzenegger were expected to announce their collaboration Monday afternoon in Los Angeles, according to documents provided by British government officials on condition of anonymity because the announcement was forthcoming.

The aim is to fix a price on carbon pollution, an unwanted byproduct of burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gasoline. The idea is to set overall caps for carbon and reward businesses that find a profitable way to minimize their carbon emissions, thereby encouraging new, greener technologies.

Monday's meeting was being hosted by Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group, and Lord John Browne, chairman of British Petroleum. British and American business leaders planned to use it to also discuss other ways of accelerating use of low-carbon technologies.

In California, government officials disputed that the agreement was an attempt to sidestep the White House. In a conference call with reporters, state Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Linda Adams said the agency is in "constant contact" with federal regulators, but added that there was no discussion with Washington about Monday's agreement, which involves only voluntary actions.

"This is an agreement to share ideas and information. It is not a treaty," said Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger's communications director. "Right now, all we are doing is talking about sharing ideas."

The world's only mandatory carbon trading program is in Europe. Created in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that took effect last year, it caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in more than two dozen countries.

Companies can trade rights to pollute directly with each other or through exchanges located around Europe as long as the cap is met. Canada, one of more than 160 nations that signed Kyoto, plans a similar program.

Although the United States is one of the few industrialized nations that haven't signed the treaty, some Eastern states are developing a regional cap-and-trade program. And some U.S. companies have voluntarily agreed to cap their carbon pollution as part of a new Chicago-based market.

A main target of the agreement between Britain and California is the carbon from cars, trucks and other modes of transportation. Transportation accounts for an estimated 41 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions and 28 percent of Britain's.

Schwarzenegger has called on California to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. California was the 12th largest source of greenhouse gases in the world last year, bigger than most nations.

Blair has called on Britain to reduce carbon emissions to 60 percent of its 1990 levels by 2050. Britain also has been looking at imposing individual limits on carbon pollution. People who accumulate unused carbon allowances - for example, by driving less, or switching to less-polluting vehicles - could sell them to people who exceed their allowances - for example by driving more.

Bush has resisted Blair's efforts to make carbon reduction a top international priority. After taking office, Bush reversed a 2000 campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, then withdrew U.S. support from the Kyoto treaty requiring industrialized nations to cut their greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels.

The United States is responsible for a quarter of the world's global warming pollution. Bush administration officials argue that requiring cuts in greenhouse gases would cost the U.S. economy 5 million jobs. Instead, the administration has poured billions of dollars into research aimed at slowing the growth of most greenhouse gases while advocating a global cut on one of them, methane.

Craig Noble of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the pact had symbolic value but "the time for talk is over." He urged passage of a proposal, pending in the state legislature, that would make California the first state in the nation to cap greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources.

"The bottom line is, voluntary is not enough," Noble said
-------------------------------------------

Messrs. Blair and Schwarzenegger are scheduled to exchange views with the CEOs in a round-table discussion today in Long Beach, Calif., on how to work together to accelerate the deployment of clean-energy technologies. The CEOs include Lord John Browne of BP PLC, London, whose facilities in Long Beach are being used to host the event, as well as Charles Holliday of DuPont Co., Jim Rogers of Duke Energy Corp. and Richard Branson of Virgin Group Ltd. CEOs from Edison International, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Swiss Reinsurance Co. and Timberland Co. also are scheduled to attend.

The event was organized by Climate Group, a nonprofit organization based in London. Most of the companies being represented, including BP and DuPont, have announced climate-change initiatives that include a commitment to reduce carbon emissions believed to cause global warming.

"This meeting just shows that climate change has moved to the top of the corporate agenda and the political agenda," said Steve Howard, CEO of Climate Group.

But President Bush's top environmental adviser, James Connaughton, won't attend, because of a scheduling conflict, said White House spokeswoman Kristen Hellmer.

Critics say Mr. Connaughton's absence follows an "obstructionist stance" by the White House on efforts to rein in emissions that many scientists say lead to global warming. The Bush administration pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement signed by Britain and most other developed countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.

Administration officials and their supporters have argued that the Kyoto accord would have hurt the U.S. economically, in part because developing countries weren't part of the agreement, so would have enjoyed a cost advantage. Some policy analysts also question how dire global warming is, as well as the role of humans in causing it. President Bush has instead pushed a strategy of seeking voluntary cutbacks, more research on climate and a push for new energy sources, such as hydrogen.

For Mr. Blair, climate change has been a top priority. When Mr. Blair was chairman of the Group of Eight summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, last year, for example, he put the issue at the top of the agenda.

But Mr. Blair also is finding that cutting emissions isn't always easy. While he said the United Kingdom is on track to meet its Kyoto targets, he indicated earlier this year "we have work to do" to meet Britain's own goal of a 20% cut in emissions by 2010.

In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger is likely to face resistance from auto makers and other business interests to his goal to reduce the state's emissions 25% by 2020. The Republican governor has run into political hurdles. The Democrat-controlled legislature killed a measure in 2004 to put solar panels on a million homes, though the California Public Utilities Commission went on to approve the program on its own.

Up In Smoke: Climate Change Burns the Planet

2006-07-30T13:32:00.000-07:00

Warming Climate Plays Large Role in Western U.S. Wildfires, Scripps-led Study Shows

Research published in Science shows rising temperatures expected in the years ahead will exacerbate the number of large and costly fires A new study led by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, implicates rising seasonal temperatures and the earlier arrival of spring conditions in connection with a dramatic increase of large wildfires in the western United States.

In the most systematic analysis to date of recent changes in forest fire activity, Anthony Westerling, Hugo Hidalgo and Dan Cayan of Scripps Oceanography, along with Tom Swetnam of the University of Arizona, compiled a database of recent large western wildfires since 1970 and compared it with climate and land-surface data from the region. The results show that large wildfire activity increased "suddenly and dramatically" in the 1980s with longer wildfire seasons and an increased number and more potent wildfires.

The scientists compiled a comprehensive time series of 1,166 forest wildfires of at least 1,000 acres that had occurred between 1970 and 2003 from wildfire data covering western U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service lands. To investigate what role climate might play, the researchers compared the time series, the timing of snowmelt and spring and summer temperatures for the same 34 years.

For the timing of peak snowmelt in the mountains for each year, they used the streamflow gauge records from 240 stations throughout western North America. The team also used other climatic data such as moisture deficit, an indicator of dryness.

The results point to a marked increase in large wildfires in western U.S. forests beginning around 1987, when the region shifted from predominantly infrequent large wildfires of short duration (average of one week) to more frequent and longer-burning wildfires (five weeks). The authors found a jump of four times the average number of wildfires beginning in the mid-1980s compared with the 1970s and early 1980s. The comparison showed that the total area burned was six and a half times greater. Also in the mid-1980s, the length of the yearly wildfire season (March through August) extended by 78 days, a 64 percent rise when comparing 1970-1986 with 1987-2003.

The aftermath of the Aspen Fire, a large and severe forest fire that occurred in the summer of 2003 in the Santa Catalina Mountains near Tucson, Ariz.

The researchers determined that year-to-year changes in wildfire frequency appear "to be strongly linked to annual spring and summer" temperatures with "many more wildfires burning in hotter years than in cooler years."

They established a strong association between early arrivals of the spring snowmelt in the mountainous regions and the incidence of large forest fires. An earlier snowmelt, they said, can lead to an earlier and longer dry season, which provides greater opportunities for large fires. Overall, 56 percent of the wildfires and 72 percent of the total area burned occurred in early snowmelt years. By contrast, years when snowmelt happened much later than average had only 11 percent of the wildfires and 4 percent of the total area burned.

"At higher elevations what really drives the fire season is the temperature. When you have a warm spring and early summer, you get earlier snowmelt," said Westerling. "With the snowmelt coming out a month earlier, areas then get drier earlier overall and there is a longer season in which a fire can be started—there's more opportunity for ignition."

The greatest wildfire increases occurred in the Northern Rockies, where forest ecosystems in middle elevations were found to be highly susceptible to temperature increases. Other significant wildfire increases were found in the Sierra Nevada, the southern Cascades and the Coast Ranges of northern California and southern Oregon.

"I see this as one of the first big indicators of climate change impacts in the continental United States," said research team member Thomas Swetnam, director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at The University of Arizona in Tucson. "We're showing warming and earlier springs tying in with large forest fire frequencies. Lots of people think climate change and the ecological responses are 50 to 100 years away. But it's not 50 to 100 years away—it's happening now in forest ecosystems through fire."

The authors state that climate model projections, driven by potential increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, indicate that warmer springs and summers will likely continue and intensify in the coming decades, accentuating conditions favorable to large wildfires.
Westerling says that the paper's results indicate that measures to limit future climate change could help to curtail catastrophic increases in future summer wildfires. If climate warms markedly over today's levels, intensified fuels management and fire suppression are not likely to be effective in much of the western U.S., he said.

"The overall importance of climate in wildfire activity underscores the urgency of ecological restoration and fuels management to reduce wildfire hazards to human communities and to mitigate ecological impacts of climate change, especially in forests that have undergone substantial alterations due to past land uses," the authors note in the paper.

The authors conclude that the increased frequency of large and devastating wildfires may significantly change forest composition and reduce tree densities, transforming the western U.S. forests' role as a storage "sink" for sequestering some 20 to 40 percent of all U.S. carbon to a source for increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The research was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Global Programs, the National Fire Plan via the United States Forest Service's Southern Research Station and the California Energy Commission.

Note: Anthony Westerling was recently appointed to the faculty of the University of California, Merced, and conducted the research while at Scripps.

Windpower continues along its exponential growth curve.

2006-07-05T15:22:00.000-07:00

Wind is the world’s fastest-growing energy source with an average annual growth rate of 29 per cent over the last ten years. In contrast, over the same time period, coal use has grown by 2.5 per cent per year, nuclear power by 1.8 per cent, natural gas by 2.5 per cent, and oil by 1.7 per cent (See Table).

Europe continues to lead the world in total installed capacity with over 40,500 megawatts, or two-thirds of the global total (See Figure and Table). These wind installations supply nearly 3 per cent of Europe’s electricity and produce enough power to meet the needs of over 40 million people. The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) has set a target to satisfy 23 per cent of European electricity needs with wind by 2030. EWEA also notes that Europe has enough wind resources to meet the electricity demands of all of its countries.

Germany, the country with the most installed wind-generating capacity, now gets 6 per cent of its electricity from its 18,400 megawatts of wind power. Spain, in second place with over 10,000 megawatts of capacity, gets 8 per cent of its electricity from wind.

Wind Park, Jutland, Denmark
© Jorgen Schytte/Still Pictures
Denmark’s 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20 per cent of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country. It ranks fifth in the world in installed capacity. Denmark is also the global leader in offshore wind power installations, with 400 megawatts of existing capacity. Globally, over 900 megawatts of offshore wind capacity will be installed by the end of 2006, all in Europe.

The United States has installed 9,100 megawatts of wind power capacity. The US wind industry installed a record-breaking 2,400 megawatts of wind power in 2005, up from installing just 370 megawatts in 2004 and 1,700 megawatts in 2003 (See Figure and Table). This inconsistent growth is mostly due to the intermittent availability of the federal wind production tax credit (PTC) that currently stands at 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour. In mid-2005, Congress extended the PTC by two years, marking the first time lawmakers extended the tax credit without first allowing it to lapse. With the PTC guaranteed for the year, the US wind industry projects that it will install 25 per cent more capacity in 2006 than it did in 2005.

Canada’s installed wind capacity of 680 megawatts at the end of 2005 is expected to increase to 1,200 megawatts by the end of 2006. While Canada’s federal government targets the installation of 4,000 megawatts of wind energy by 2010, its more ambitious provincial governments plan to install a combined 9,200 megawatts by 2015.

Asian countries have installed nearly 7,000 megawatts of wind-generated electricity capacity. India has 4,400 megawatts of capacity, ranking fourth after Germany, the United States, and Spain. Wind power in China, currently at 1,260 megawatts, is beginning to flourish due to the country’s new Renewable Energy Law. This law provides tax incentives and subsidies for wind power and targets the development of 30,000 megawatts of wind capacity by 2010. Ambitious as these goals are, experts within the Chinese wind industry report that China could produce 400,000 megawatts of wind capacity by 2050. For comparison, China’s total electric power generation capacity at the end of 2003 was 356,100 megawatts.

While three-quarters of all wind power has been installed in only five countries, the wind power installed in the rest of the world has grown by an average of 35 per cent per year over the past ten years. Australia’s wind capacity almost doubled in 2005 to 710 megawatts. It leads the countries of the Pacific region, which, as a whole, have developed 890 megawatts. Latin America and the Caribbean have installed 210 megawatts of capacity. North African countries are also beginning to develop wind power and have installed 310 megawatts. Egypt and Morocco have installed 150 and 60 megawatts of wind capacity, respectively.

Overall, the cost of wind power has decreased by nearly 90 per cent since the 1980s to 4 US cents or less per kilowatt-hour in prime wind sites (See Figure). In some markets wind-generated electricity is cheaper than electricity from conventional energy sources. The cost of wind power has fallen due to advances in technology, declines in the costs of financing wind projects, and the economies of scale of turbine and component manufacturing and construction.

Blyth, the UK's first offshore windfarm.
© AMEC Border Wind
The explosive growth of world wind power is due in large part to its increasing technological sophistication. Modern turbines are taller and have longer rotor blades than the turbines of 20 years ago, allowing them to produce up to 200 times more power. Since the “fuel” for wind power is free and unlimited, 75 to 90 per cent of the costs of generating electricity with wind lie in manufacturing and constructing wind turbines and connecting them to the grid. Once turbines are installed, the remaining costs are primarily turbine operation and maintenance, land-use royalties, and property taxes.

In the United States and around the world, energy markets are heavily regulated. Some 48 countries have regulations or laws in place that favour the growth of renewable energies. Examples of these include renewable portfolio standards that set a minimum for renewable energy purchases and tax incentives such as the United States’ PTC. However, decades of political and financial support to fossil fuel industries often undermine the competitiveness of wind energy.

If environmental, social, and human-health costs were reflected in the economics of electricity generation, wind energy would become even less costly compared to energy derived from fossil fuels. Unlike conventional power plants, wind electrical generation does not release greenhouse gases that warm the climate or other polluting emissions.

Wind power provides more benefits than just affordable clean energy. The prices of wind-generated electricity are stable and not subject to the price volatility of fossil fuels. Wind power supports local economic development since the jobs, royalties, and tax revenues from wind-generated electricity production tend to stay in the community. And since wind is inexhaustible it offers long-term energy security that electricity derived from nonrenewable fossil fuels cannot.

This is why the environment needs to be on the political agenda...what a mess.

2006-04-24T11:42:00.000-07:00

The ODPM's plans for building 200,000 homes in the Thames Gateway have been widely derided. In this article, Ed Howker investigates the proposals and sheds light on some of the serious concerns that loom over another of Prescott and Cooper's seemingly doomed policies :

There are no tall trees on Tilbury Marshes to the east of London. The sea salt in the soil prevents them from growing. But here, on the edge of the capital more than anywhere else, you get a real feel for the peculiar beauty of the Thames's great flood plain.

Tilbury Marshes, where Queen Elizabeth I declared she "had the body of a weak and feeble woman but the heart and stomach of a king", is now earmarked by developers as part of the Thames Gateway project - the massive development of land on both sides of the Thames, roughly 43 miles long and 20 miles wide, stretching from London's Docklands to Southend in Essex in the north and to Sheerness in Kent to the south.

It is across this enormous area, which includes parts of three administrative "regions" and 15 local authorities, that John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, is making perhaps the boldest physical statement of the Labour government. If all goes to plan, then perhaps 200,000 homes will be built in this area over the next 20 years.

The plan was conceived in the early 1990s by the Tories' Michael Heseltine. It was developed by New Labour as a way to address the national housing shortfall of at least 40,000 homes a year and cater for the pressure from people who want homes in the south-east. It is fraught with environmental contradictions.

The area is prone to flooding, yet desperately short of drinking water; it is close to London, yet a million miles away in culture from the metropolis; it contains great swaths of brownfield sites, yet has some of the finest wetlands in Britain. Now a "national priority for urban regeneration", and the "greatest piece of town planning Britain has ever seen", about 1.6 million people live there today, but perhaps twice that many will in just 15 years' time.

Travel across it, however, and there is little evidence on the ground that anything much is happening at all, let alone that the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds is being planned. There are plenty of brochures listing developers' and quangos' intentions, but building work is isolated. And as the project develops, it appears to be becoming ever more complex, ambitious and, some would say, incoherent.

Even the few facts released are complex. Under current, official, government plans, 120,000 homes are to be built in the area by 2016. But that figure does not account for other ad hoc developments sanctioned by local authorities or ones suggested by the three regional assemblies. The South East of England regional assembly, for instance, says it is planning 28,900 new homes every year until 2026 - nearly 600,000 in total - but it is impossible to say how many will be in the Gateway area. One study, by the London School of Economics, suggests 200,000 homes could be built in the area. Wrong profile

Few people, moreover, have any idea about what is going on. A study last year by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that "very few participants had heard of the Thames Gateway". In the past six months, the project's profile has grown for all the wrong reasons. In October, the London assembly declared the capital was at "serious risk" of flooding, and that this would increase as a result of the Gateway homes being built on the flood plain.

Then the pressure group Transport 2000 found that £432m-worth of roads were to be built in the area. If the proposed £450m Thames Gateway bridge, now the subject of a long public inquiry, is included, then perhaps £1bn is planned to build roads in the areas - despite the government's commitment to reducing traffic and climate change emissions.

To add to Prescott's woes, the Commons environmental audit committee last week lambasted the plans for sustainable housing. Talking about plans for the south-east as a whole, but clearly including the Gateway, the MPs accused Prescott's Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) of "a complete lack of urgency in considering the environmental impact" and predicted that people would be moving into the area without schools, hospitals or transport. "The need to build homes is seen as an absolute imperative and is used by government to sweep aside . . . concerns about the environmental impact," said the report.

The confusion over sustainable homes was identified by Robert Napier, head of the WWF. Last year, he walked out of an ODPM housing steering group "in despair" at what he thought was the government's failure to encourage more energy-efficient homes in the Gateway.

Now the attacks are getting personal. Consultants Hornagold and Hills found this year that only 13% of all the stakeholders in the project believed Prescott to be an effective leader for the Gateway. And a report by Lord (Richard) Rogers' Urban Taskforce has suggested the plans suffered from a "lack of vision".

It is highly confusing for people living there, many of whom feel excluded from the decision-making process and are suspicious about any benefits it may bring.

Anne Power, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics, and one of the authors of the report A Framework for Housing in the London Thames Gateway, says the low-density developments planned for the Gateway could make conditions worse in east London. While no one can guarantee that 180,000 jobs will be created, she says, the wrong sort of development might lead to people leaving London.

"The East End will just get poorer if low-density housing is built throughout the Gateway," she says. "Low-density housing has huge costs for future generations. It is an inefficient use of land, and you encourage middle-class migration, with greater commuting times and more car use."

Environment groups say the Gateway has the potential for huge harm, because it is situated on the flood plain, has little access to fresh water, and because the ODPM has missed the chance to demand sustainable housing. The Environment Agency has stated £80bn of property could be damaged by floods in the Gateway and that massive investment is needed. However, Chris Burnham, a policy adviser at the agency, says: "Flood risk is being addressed. Local authorities must ensure that vulnerable developments are not placed in higher risk areas."

Meanwhile, fresh water supplies are a problem, too. Plans for a desalination facility in Beckton were rejected by London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, last year. Thames Water has already exploded plans to build 30,000 homes in Harlow, further north, by explaining that there simply wasn't sufficient capacity to support them.

"The government came up with figures for jobs and housing without any strategic environmental overview," says Jennifer Bates, London campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "Rather than testing if the growth would deliver on social goals or could be accommodated within environmental constraints, it has been a case of 'make it up as we go along'." Piecemeal development

Bates' view is echoed by politicians such as Andrew MacKinlay, Labour MP for Thurrock in the heart of the development zone. "Three years have passed since the Gateway plans were first suggested, but development in my area remains piecemeal," he says. "We need transport, environment, health and education infrastructure. There doesn't seem to have been much joined-up government."

Yvette Cooper, the housing and planning minister, is adamant that all these concerns will be addressed. "We are maximising the environmental opportunities the Gateway provides," she says. "Already 89% of the development is being built on previously used land. We are investing in infrastructure and have already invested £6bn in transport, health and education projects - for example, on local train services on the Channel Tunnel rail link line, and on the joint campus facilities for the universities at Medway. We are also increasing the energy efficiency in new homes by 40%."

Last month, there was belated recognition that the whole plan was in danger of coming off the rails. Fifteen million pounds of public transport funding was made available for Dartford, and plans were announced to improve the energy efficiency of new housing. Last week, a further £15m was rustled up for transport to support new homes.

The formation of a new panel of ministers and quango chiefs to oversee the London part of the regeneration was also announced. They will meet quarterly to discuss progress to assign priorities and "to chart progress" on delivery.

But as critics point out, while getting the individuals who manage the Gateway around the table will help, it may take more than one meeting every 12 weeks to bring the project under control.

Now the green vote matters: Climate Change on the Political Agenda

2006-04-24T11:39:00.000-07:00

As a party political issue, the environment has been a slow grower. The fact that two prime ministers-in-waiting are currently raising the political heat over global warming shows how far the topic has travelled up the agenda.

Indeed, the battle for the green vote between the new adversaries intensifies today, with David Cameron revealing he would replace the controversial climate-change levy, the government's prized pollution tax on business, with a new "carbon levy".

In a speech in Oslo following a trip to see Arctic glaciers off Norway, the Tory leader will urge people to embrace change in the way they lead their lives as well as technological innovation to create a greener world.

His words follow a keynote address from Gordon Brown at the UN in New York, in which he defended the climate-change levy, saying it was "central" to the government's approach to cutting CO2 emissions. Over the next five years, it would lower such pollution by six million tonnes, one third of Britain's total carbon reductions by 2010.

"What the levy shows is that by targeting the marginal use of energy, we can provide real market incentives to energy efficiency," he said.

The chancellor also argued that developed countries' economic and environmental objectives increasingly reinforced each other, saying: "We must match growth and justice with environmental care."

Whether the respective words of Mr Cameron and Mr Brown are political hot air or genuine attempts to tackle one of the greatest challenges will ultimately be decided at the ballot box.
But the green agenda has certainly come a long way from relative obscurity.

Back in 1986, the Green party won its first council seat in Stroud. Now it has 70 across England and is hoping to top 100 on May 4. It has seven MSPs, two MEPs and two London assembly members. In Scotland, the Greens are hoping the heavy emphasis on matters environmental will boost their chances at next year's Holyrood elections and see them win their first local-government seats north of the border.

Not surprisingly, George Baxter, their spokesman, views the Tories' new green creed as a cynical attempt to grab votes. Lumping Labour, the LibDems and Tories together as "the grey parties" for their lack of genuine commitment to the environment, he dismissed Mr Cameron's newly acquired emerald sheen as mere glossy packaging. "It's just rhetoric."
Rhetoric or not, the green agenda falls conveniently into the middle of Mr Cameron's brand of modern Conservatism – compassion and quality of life, the elements that will dominate Tory policy in the years ahead.

The Tory leader's declaration of wanting to lead a "new green revolution in Britain" has raised questions about whether he is sincere or is adopting a green veneer to bag votes; his party's slogan for the May 4 elections is "vote blue, go green".

A poll earlier this year confirmed voters were increasingly prepared to make sacrifices to sustain the environment. Around 63% of respondents approved of a green tax to discourage behaviour harmful to the environment.

For the most part, Mr Cameron has avoided detailed policies, saying they are still under review. But he has argued that without economic "green growth", the measures to tackle climate change cannot be afforded.

Guy Thompson, director of the Green Alliance, a leading environmental think tank, described the Tory leader's new-found focus as "useful" in raising the political stakes but insisted the jury was out on new green Conservatism: "We will be looking for solid policy commitments and hope Cameron is not using his party's policy review to buy 18 months of policy-free space."
He said the "acid test" of the Tories' new commitment to the environment would be their position on the government's energy review – and specifically on nuclear power.

Mr Thompson said it would certainly put "green water" between the Conservatives and Labour if Mr Cameron decided his party would be opposed to a new generation of nuclear power stations.

As for Labour, he added Mr Brown had had a "blind spot" on the environment, which was "something he is having to turn around".

Yesterday, as Mr Cameron gazed at melting icebergs off Norway, the chancellor was in New York telling world leaders climate change needed a global solution. Over the next 48 hours, he will explain how Britain will invest in a new institute for research into alternative sources of energy and will call for an £11bn facility to diversify developing countries' energy supply.
Just to underline the party-political dash for the green vote, a source close to Mr Brown highlighted that while the Tory would-be PM was seeking photo opportunities next to icebergs, the chancellor was telling it like it is to a tough American audience. "Which is the more statesmanlike action?" he asked.

Since it came to power, New Labour has increasingly raised green issues but its actions have failed to satisfy campaigners. While Tony Blair's government will meet the 12.5% Kyoto target on reducing emissions by 2010, it is set to miss its own of 20%, achieving a cut of 15-18%.
In 2004, Professor Sir David King, the government's chief scientist, said the threat to the planet of global warming was worse than from terrorism. Last week, he warned the Earth's temperature was likely to rise by at least 3C, putting 400 million people at risk of hunger and leaving up to three billion without adequate water supplies.

But while the environment will be the stuff of domestic politics in elections to come, expert and non-expert alike realise only by concerted worldwide action can the planet's climate be saved.
America, the world's largest polluter, is relying heavily on new technology to produce the solution; neither George W Bush nor the US Congress is willing to jeopardise Americans' standard of living.

As it develops at breakneck speed, the new kid on the economic block, China, is setting tough targets on limiting energy consumption and reducing pollution. But it has missed them year on year.

Every day, 1000 new cars are estimated to hit the streets of Beijing. There are currently three million private cars in the capital. By 2020, estimates suggest China will have 140 million – more than the US.

David Cameron announces green transport plans.

2006-04-24T11:37:00.000-07:00

Guardian Unlimited
David Cameron visited a Surrey airfield to test-drive low-emission vehicles this afternoon as he announced a "radical agenda for greener cars" and said Conservative councils would make it easier for people to walk or cycle on short journeys.

The Conservative leader wants to cut the carbon emitted by the average car from 170g a kilometre now to 100g for new cars by 2022 and for all cars by 2030.

"As I saw for myself in the Arctic, the problem is truly global in scale," Mr Cameron said today. "But the solutions are often local. In Oslo, I saw one part of the solution. In fact I not only saw it, I drove it - a Greenpeace car made from recycled plastic, with an electric engine."

Mr Cameron has already announced his intention to switch his government car from a Vauxhall Omega (276g) to a hybrid Lexus (186g). The much cheaper Toyota Prius (104g) also on offer was deemed too small for Mr Cameron's official entourage, though critics pointed out yesterday that the Prince of Wales drives one.

"He talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk," the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, said yesterday, accusing Mr Cameron of preferring "legroom over the environment".

"It still produces too much carbon, but it's a move in the right direction," the Conservative leader said today. "To help tackle climate change, we must be for greener cars, not anti-car. Today, many families want to become greener, and they're looking for more options to go green. We should help them."

The Tory leader said he would launch a new initiative to improve urban public transport later this week. He added that Conservative councils were "determined to make streets and public spaces safer and greener" and make it easier for people to walk and cycle. "We walk less than almost any other Western country bar Greece," he said. "And our cycling rate is 40% below the EU average."

Transport accounts for just over one-quarter of the UK's carbon emissions, a figure that is forecast to rise by one-third over the next generation unless cars become less polluting. Hybrid cars reduce carbon emissions by switching from petrol to electric power when it is more efficient. Only a few small cars currently emit less than 100g a kilometre, but Tory strategists said technological innovation made the party's goal "challenging but efficient".

Mr Cameron said a Conservative government would offer "significant incentives" to buyers of low-emission cars and manufacturers researching hybrids, biofuels and new generation diesel. "I want Britain to be at the forefront of international efforts to build a new generation of motor vehicles that are much less environmentally damaging," he said.

Hybrid cars are already exempt from the London congestion charge. Discounted road tax and parking or exemptions from tolls and other road charges could be used to persuade motorists to switch. But Mr Cameron did not say whether he would increase excise duty for polluting vehicles and added that a road-building programme was still necessary because "some extra road capacity" was needed.

A spokesman for Greenpeace welcomed Mr Cameron's announcement. "It's quite clear that he's seizing the agenda from the government," said Simon Reddy. "It's excellent that he's speaking out."

However, Mr Reddy said Greenpeace wanted to see mandatory targets for manufacturers rather than merely incentives to produce greener cars. The Conservatives should also tax airline fuel and passengers to reduce emissions from aviation, he said. Mr Cameron has refused to say whether he supports a "green" tax on aviation.

Last week, the Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, who promised to give up his 20-year-old Jaguar during the leadership campaign, said he had put it up for sale and would be travelling by Underground to some of his local election appointments.

More on the tories and climate change here.

David Cameron Goes for Green Vote

2006-04-24T11:36:00.000-07:00

LONDON - In a bid to boost his "green" credentials, Conservative leader David Cameron pledged on Friday to scrap the tax on British industry's use of energy and replace it with a more efficient system.

Cameron, who has made the environment a priority since he took over last December, said he would drop the Climate Change Levy in favour of a tariff which focuses on carbon emissions rather than energy use.

The 39-year-old was speaking in Norway, where he has travelled to witness first-hand the effects of global warming. Critics have called the trip a stunt and nothing more than an expensive photo opportunity.

"Tackling climate change is a key part of my ambition for the Conservative Party to lead a new green revolution," Cameron said.

"I want to recapture climate change from the pessimists. Of course it presents huge challenges. Of course the issues are complex. Of course it will require us to change.

"But when I think about climate change and our response to it, I don't think of doom and gloom, costs and sacrifice. I think of a cleaner, greener world for our children to enjoy and inherit."

Cameron added that his party must not be afraid of using the tax system and market mechanisms to encourage clean new technologies.

The Conservative party has always objected to the Climate Change Levy since it was introduced in 2001, prompting the Labour party to say their opponents were not ready to make the difficult decisions about how to safeguard the environment.

"It is not enough to draft a speech on the back of a fag packet on a dog-sleigh to Norway," the Guardian newspaper quoted a source from Chancellor Gordon Brown's circle as saying.

Cameron, who became the Conservatives' fifth leader in eight years following three election defeats to the Labour party, has focused on issues such as the environment rather than traditional Tory issues like crime and immigration in a bid to change the party's image.

But critics argue that after four months in the job, his announcements are still thin on detail.

There is a review of recent tory posturing on climate change here.

David Cameron outlines carbon tax plan

2006-04-21T09:35:00.000-07:00

This is quite interesting for us in the UK. Our govornment have performed fairly miserably in terms of serious climate policies at the domestic level, despite strong words internationally. The conservatives, traditionally the right wing, free market foes of environmentalists have picked up on climate change in a big way, progress looks like the only way now. Lets hope something comes of this bipartisan agreement on the necessity of action.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tax system could be used to encourage environmentally friendly behaviour, David Cameron has said.

In a key note speech on global warming, made during a visit to Norway, the Conservative leader also spelled out his plans for an alternative to the climate change levy.

He called for both local initiatives and action on a global scale in order to prevent climate change having a major impact on the planet.

And he said that the time has come for "a new green revolution".
"Tackling climate change will require genuinely fresh thinking," Cameron argued.
"We must not be afraid of using the tax system and market mechanisms to encourage investment in, and take up of, clean new technologies which will transform the way we do business, create new markets, and reduce our impact on the planet.

"We must make sure that the various methods we use amount to a coherent whole, ensuring the carbon is priced effectively.

"It isn't the job of government to pick technologies. It isn't the job of government to tell people how to live their lives.

"It is the job of government to set a rational framework within which producers and consumers recognise the environmental cost of carbon because it comes home to them as an actual money-cost."

He said that a system of 'carbon pricing' covering the entire British economy is one policy option to be looked at by Conservative policy task forces.
The Tory chief pledged that "the overall effect of the framework" will be fiscally neutral.

"Activities which produce more carbon emission will cost more, those that produce fewer emissions will cost less. And the net effect will be neutral,"
he said.

He renewed calls for the government's climate change levy to be scrapped.

"The climate change levy is a tax on energy consumed by business,"

he said.
"It fails to make sufficient distinction between energy produced from low carbon sources and energy produced from high carbon sources.

"The climate change levy should therefore be replaced by a carbon levy which better distinguishes between high and low carbon production of energy, and which retains fiscal neutrality.

"I have asked our quality of life policy group and those involved in our energy review to recommend what form the new carbon levy should take, as part of a package of measures to price carbon and to deliver lower carbon emissions across the economy.

"In particular, I have asked the group to consider whether the carbon levy should operate as a business tax (like the climate change levy) or as a market mechanism, in which low carbon energy production and business use is encouraged through tradeable credits."
Cameron added:

"Tackling climate change is a key part of my ambition for the Conservative Party to lead a new green revolution.

"I want to recapture climate change from the pessimists. Of course it presents huge challenges. Of course the issues are complex. Of course it will require us to change.

"But when I think about climate change and our response to it, I don’t think of doom and gloom, costs and sacrifice.

"I think of a cleaner, greener world for our children to enjoy and inherit.
"I think of the almost unlimited power of innovation, the new technologies, the new products and services, and the progress they can bring for our planet and all mankind.
"And I think of the exciting possibilities that may seem a distant dream today - changing the way we live to improve our quality of life.
"We've all got to get positive about climate change."

China yet again embareses the federal govornmenent of the US

2006-04-12T15:43:00.001-07:00

BEIJING, March 29 -- China proposes to reduce emissions by millions of tons over the next 20 years in an effort to help reduce global warming through energy-saving technologies.

Minister of Construction Wang Guangtao said yesterday China will lessen its greenhouse emissions by 846 million tons annually if all new buildings were installed with energy-saving technologies. The construction sector takes up nearly 40 per cent of China's total energy consumption.

By 2020, China's per capita living space will be double what it is now, as 30 billion square metres of housing will have been constructed.

"If all of the national energy-saving standards have been fully implemented by 2020, China will be greatly contributing towards curbing global warming," said Wang.

At yesterday's opening ceremony of an international exhibition and forum on green and smart buildings in Beijing, Wang did not link the proposed emission cuts to the international cleaner development mechanism (CDM) projects currently under the framework of the UN's Kyoto Protocol.

Vice-Minister of Construction Qiu Baoxing said the potential emission reduction could bring "many business opportunities" for domestic real estate developers, who are allowed to trade the reduced emission quota to developed countries.

Under CDM, developed countries can carry out emission-reduction projects in developing countries through financial and technical co-operation, and this would count towards their emission targets.

Wang said China has already set "year-to-year targets" in its national energy-saving campaign in real estate development.

By 2010, all new buildings should be 50 per cent more energy efficient than 2005 and 65 per cent more efficient by 2020.

The government plans to save 20 per cent of energy by 2010 on the basis of 2005 consumption.

Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan yesterday said the campaign was crucial because the country continued to face shortages of resources. "If we don't take action now the situation will become worse," said Zeng.

To make the buildings more energy efficient, Qiu said environmental impact evaluations would be carried out during construction and when choosing what materials and machinery to install.

The exhibition included innovative ideas such as using solar cookers in kitchens, setting-up smart wind power generators above buildings and letting intelligent systems control heating or cooling.

Statistics show only 15 per cent of China's new buildings since 2000 can be called environmentally friendly, and this may be due to the extra cost associated with more environmentally friendly buildings.

"The extra cost is the major reason why the market is slow to react to the campaign," said Zhang Jun, a Beijing-based real estate developer.

To encourage the promotion of energy-saving buildings, Zhang said the government should put in place an economic incentive mechanism, for example, preferential tax reductions on such buildings.

Japanese Solar Market to Grow 30-40% a Year until FY2008

2006-04-12T15:31:00.002-07:00

Driven by a strong demand in Germany and other European countries, the Japanese solar industry is expected to grow 30 to 40 percent a year, with a focus on exports. Annual market demand for Japan's photovoltaic equipment industry in fiscal 2008 will be 2,350,050 kilowatts (367 percent of the 2004 level) based on the shipment in terms of power generation capacity, according to a report by Yano Research Institute Ltd. As part of the firm's extensive study on new energy system markets, this 2005 report on solar photovoltaics was compiled based on interviews with manufacturers in the relevant fields, statistics, questionnaires and other data collected between April and June 2005.

The total capacity of the photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules shipped in fiscal 2004 including exports was estimated at 640,136 kilowatts. The market for residential solar power systems, the primary applications of photovoltaics, reached 359.5 billion yen (about U.S.$3.07 billion) in fiscal 2004, with 58,600 units installed, the report said. Of all the residential systems installed in fiscal 2004, 80.6 percent were for existing homes.

The report predicts that PV systems for existing homes will continue to lead the market. In fiscal 2008, the number of units installed is projected to reach 147,600 (252 percent of the 2004 level), which will be worth 698.9 billion yen (about U.S.$5.97 billion), or 194 percent of the 2004 level. Specifically, 457.5 billion yen (about U.S.$3.91 billion) is for new homes and 241.3 billion yen (about U.S.$2.06 billion) for existing homes, both of which will represent 185 percent and 215 percent of the 2004 levels, respectively.

The use of PV systems in the public sector was also surveyed through questionnaires sent to municipal governments. Of 242 respondents, 55.6 percent answered that they had "already installed one or more PV systems," while 23.2 percent replied that they "are considering the introduction of new or additional PV systems." When asked about the purpose of new/additional installation (multiple choices allowed), by far the largest number of respondents (91.4 percent) cited "environmental education and awareness promotion," followed by "reduction in carbon dioxide emissions" (74.1 percent) and "energy savings" (63.8 percent). The intended installation sites were "school buildings" (51.7 percent), "municipal office buildings" (22.4 percent), "street lights" (10.3 percent) and others. These results show that the installation of PV systems on educational facilities is most likely to increase in the public sector.

BP and DuPont Receive Top Scores in First-Ever Ranking of 100 Global Companies on Climate Change Strategies

2006-04-12T15:31:00.001-07:00

BOSTON - After years of inaction, a growing number of leading U.S. companies are confronting the business challenges from global warming, recognizing that greenhouse gas limits are inevitable and that they cannot risk falling behind their international competitors in developing climate-friendly technologies. Some U.S. companies, such as General Electric, are catching up and joining DuPont and Alcoa in leading their industries. But many others are still largely ignoring the climate issue with 'business as usual' strategies that may be putting their companies and shareholders at risk.

These are among the key findings of a first-ever report issued today by the Ceres investor coalition that analyzes how 100 leading companies are addressing the growing financial risks and opportunities from climate change-whether from expanding greenhouse gas regulations, direct physical impacts or surging demand for climate-friendly technologies. Altogether, 76 U.S. companies and 24 non-U.S. companies in 10 business sectors are profiled in the report.

"More U.S. companies realize that climate change is an enormous business issue that they need to manage immediately," said Mindy S. Lubber, president at Ceres, which published the report Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection. "Investor pressure, expanding greenhouse gas limits and surging global demand for clean-energy products are compelling U.S. businesses to act, although many others still fail to recognize the enormity of this issue. Ultimately, management and board members at all 100 of these companies need to make climate a top governance priority."

The report uses a "Climate Governance Checklist" to evaluate how major industrial corporations are addressing climate change in five broad areas: board oversight, management performance, public disclosure, greenhouse gas emissions accounting and strategic planning. The report took nine months to complete and uses data from securities filings, company reports, company websites, third-party questionnaires and direct company communications.

Using a 100-point scoring system, the report ranked the largest companies in the oil/gas, electric power, auto, chemical, industrial equipment, mining/metals, coal, food products, forest products and air transportation sectors, with operations in the United States. The scoring system gave most credit to companies with a sustained commitment to controlling greenhouse gas emissions, disclosing data and strategies, supporting regulatory actions, and taking practical, near-term steps to find lasting solutions to climate change.

Among the industry sector leaders and laggards:
Sector Leaders Laggards
Oil/Gas BP (90 points*) ExxonMobil (35)
Chemical DuPont (85**) PPG (21)
Metals/Mining Alcan (77) & Alcoa (74) Newmont (24)
Electric Power AEP & Cinergy (both 73) Sempra Energy (24)
Auto Toyota (65) Nissan (33)

* Top score among the 100 companies
**Top score among 76 U.S. companies

Over two-dozen institutional investors requested the Ceres report, prepared by the Investor Responsibility Research Center, as part of an action plan announced at the Institutional Investor Summit on Climate Risk last May at the United Nations. The investors are part of the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), an alliance of U.S. institutional investors coordinated by Ceres that collectively manage about $3 trillion in assets.

"This report is extremely valuable because it provides investors with an unprecedented window into how companies most affected by climate risk are responding at the board level, through CEO leadership, and in strategic planning," said Connecticut State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier, whose $22 billion investment fund is among 50 institutional investors in INCR. "While strong climate governance practices are not yet the norm at U.S. companies, this report plainly illustrates that there are industry leaders showing the way."

Foreign companies such as BP, Toyota, Alcan, Unilever and Rio Tinto had the highest scores in five of the nine sectors that included both U.S. and non-U.S. firms. American companies - DuPont, General Electric, International Paper and United Parcel Service - led in the other four sectors. (In the electric power sector, only American companies were analyzed.)

The report's overall results are encouraging. In 2003, Ceres released a report on 20 companies showing that major U.S. businesses were doing little to address climate challenge. By contrast, this report shows that leading companies in many key industries are now tackling the issue at the highest level, with boards conducting strategic assessments and management setting performance goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing new climate-friendly products.

DuPont, the leading scorer among U.S. firms has reduced its GHG emissions 72 percent since 1990 and developed forward-thinking commercial products such as energy-efficient building materials, components for solar, wind and fuel cell systems and next-generation refrigerants with low global warming potential.

The report also shows, however, that dozens of U.S. businesses in various climate vulnerable sectors - including leading electric power and oil companies - are still largely dismissing the issue or failing to articulate clear strategies to meet the challenge. Low climate governance scores also were prevalent among entire sectors, including: coal companies, which are especially vulnerable to greenhouse gas regulations; food and forest product companies, which are vulnerable to natural resource impacts from climate change; and airlines, one of the fastest growing sources of CO2 emissions.

"I commend the companies that have willingly accepted the risks and opportunities that climate change presents. America must be a leader in climate friendly technologies," said California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, a co-founder of INCR and board member at two of the nation's largest public pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS, which collectively manage more than $300 billion in assets. "These findings - that a growing number of leading U.S. businesses are focusing on global warming - should be a wake up call to investors: we need to continue to press poor-performing companies to clean up their act."

Douglas Cogan, principal author of today's report and the 2003 report, says he sees important progress by U.S. companies that are beginning to build climate change into their governance practices and strategic planning. In the past two years, Cogan cited such as examples as:
General Electric's launch of 'ecoimagination', a plan to double investments in climate-friendly technologies and reach $20 billion in annual sales by 2010.
Ford Motor's announcement that it will boost production of hybrid vehicles tenfold by 2010.
Chevron's decision to add renewable technologies into its energy portfolio and set targets to cut its greenhouse gas emissions.
American Electric Power's decision to build the nation's first commercial-scale coal gasification power plant, a "clean coal" technology that is says is the "right investment" given foreseeable greenhouse gas regulations in the U.S.
These companies join others, like DuPont and Alcoa that have had climate change governance strategies in place for more than a decade.

Lubber, of Ceres, also cited BP, the top-scoring company overall, which has set long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets and is planning to invest $8 billion in solar, wind, hydrogen and other clean-energy technologies in the next decade. "BP understands and is promoting the fact that all companies must work to reduce their carbon footprint, starting with fossil fuels," she said.

Still, Cogan acknowledges that the challenge ahead for all companies, including BP and other leaders, is enormous, given that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced substantially below current levels to stop rising global temperatures. Businesses that are most successful in implementing climate change strategies, Cogan said, will be those that look beyond short-term thinking and the gridlock that currently grips Washington on this issue.

"Typically, CEOs and boards look out only three to five years when making investment decisions - about as long as they serve in their leadership roles," Cogan said. "But the assets they put into place last much longer. Building a new conventional coal plant or a new engine factory for SUVs might make sense under 'business as usual' thinking, but what will happen to these facilities in five or 10 years, when they're still not fully depreciated but facing carbon emission constraints?"

Investors offered specific recommendations for how board members, company executives, investors and Wall Street analysts should use the report:

Board members should raise the report's findings with management and set guidance to improve company practices.

Company executives should benchmark their performance against their industry peers, and take steps outlined in the report to manage climate risks and opportunities and improve their governance scores.

Investors should go through a similar benchmarking exercise-especially in high-risk sectors such as electric power, oil/gas, coal and the auto industry-and urge companies to raise their performance level.

Wall Street analysts should use the information as a basis for rewarding companies that are responding to these challenges, and assigning greater risk to those that are not.

European Plant Diversity is Threatened by Climate Change

2006-04-12T15:31:00.000-07:00

Human-induced climate and atmospheric changes are affecting a wide variety of forms of life. Being able to build models predicting the effects of climate change is of crucial importance to enable environment policy makers to engage adapted actions to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions.

European Commission 16.03.2006.

An international team involving researchers from France, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom has recently developed predictions on the potential effects of climate change on a sample of 1,350 plants, representative of the European plant species, for the period 2051-2080. To build their predictions, the authors used four of the scenarios proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), namely scenarios A1, A2, B1, and B2. These scenarios differ on their assumptions on the evolution of technology and economic and population growths. The authors also assessed three climate models relating species distributions to bioclimatic variables. However, only the most consensual model was considered for each scenario.

The authors used two hypotheses concerning the potential migration of plant species across Europe to find a more suitable climatic area for their survival: no migration and universal migration. The “no migration” hypothesis was used to estimate the potential number of species losses after the disappearance of their climatic niche. In contrast, the “universal migration” hypothesis was used to estimate the potential gains and turnovers of plant species following climate changes.

The results of this study led to great variations in predictions of plant species losses across scenarios. However, the authors estimate that more than half of the European plant species could be vulnerable or threatened by 2080. The authors also suggest that plant species losses and turnovers correlate two climatic key factors: temperature and moisture conditions.

Within a single scenario, authors report great variations across regions. The obtained results suggest that plants in mountainous regions are the most vulnerable. In contrast, plants in the Mediterranean and the Pannonian regions seem to be the most resistant to the effects of climate change. The authors also identified a transition zone including the Boreal and Pannonian regions where great species mixing is expected to occur between 2051 and 2080.

This study has considered the potential consequences of different climate change scenarios on the survival of European plant species. Its conclusions indicate that plant species are unevenly but substantially threatened by climate change. Continuing the ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gases emissions could mitigate the climate change detrimental effects on the conservation of biodiversity.

Source: Thuiller W. et al. (2005) « Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe », Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(23):8245-8250.
Contact: thuiller@sanbi.org

Prince Albert of Monaco Takes Pole Position Against Global Warming

2006-04-12T15:26:00.002-07:00

(Newswire Today) — Guildford United Kingdom, 2006-03-11 - Less than a year after succeeding to the throne, Prince Albert of Monaco is swapping the luxury of his palace for the wilds of the North Pole to highlight global warming.

More used to Grand Prix cars than dog sleighs, Monaco’s Prince Albert’s forthcoming trek to the North Pole has been greeted with surprise by many.

But the Prince is fairly accustomed to the cold, in contrast to the Mediterranean warmth of Monaco where he became ruler last July following the passing of his father Prince Rainier, who had ruled the tax haven for over 50 years.

Albert represented Monaco at the last five Winter Olympic Games in their Bobsleigh team. And he is going to face some cold and hostile conditions on his seven day trip to bring to the attention of fellow world leaders the environmental damage to the arctic regions that global warming is having.

Speaking at a recent news conference in Monaco, Albert explained his thinking behind the trip to assembled journalists.

‘If in our modest way, by this action we are able to bring environmental problems to the forefront and force some leaders to take stronger actions, this expedition will have achieved its objectives’.

Environmentalists have welcomed Albert’s expedition, and his image in the world’s media is changing from that of a playboy millionaire to a responsible leader.

In 2002 47 year old Prince Albert agreed to a DNA test to show whether he was the father to a boy born to a former air hostess he had had a relationship with, and more recently has been linked by the press with 28 year old South African swimming champion Charlene Wittstock.

But one of the first actions he took after succeeding to the throne was to sign the Kyoto Protocol, taking Monaco outside of the small group of countries that had failed to ratify the treaty, designed to reduce the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases.

Monaco Grand Prix

The Monaco Prince Albert inherited from his father is now the world’s best known tax haven, and the ultimate European destination for luxury hotels, including the Hotel de Paris, frequently quoted in guides as among the top ten in the world.

One local on-line travel guide comment that Prince Albert’s interest in the world’s environment sets a different agenda than that of his father, who transformed the principality in his reign into an economically safe country for the world’s wealthy to live and invest.

Residents of the principality enjoy a zero rated income tax.

As well as being a tax haven, Monaco hosts the best known Formula 1 Grand Prix of the year around the streets of Monte Carlo and Fontvieille in May. Over recent years Monaco has also become a destination of choice for the super-rich in September, when it hosts the Monaco Yacht Show.

And while the Grand Prix and Yacht Show fill the hotels in Monte Carlo and Monaco each year, and on an everyday basis every second car seems to be an Aston Martin or Ferrari, locals hope that Prince Albert doesn’t look too close to home when it comes to his concern for the environment. Cancelling the Monaco Grand Prix in 2007 to show his concern for the environment would certainly grab world headlines, but might not be a popular decision among his subjects.

Locals feel that there is little danger of this though – Albert is after all the son of Hollywood star Grace Kelly, and future media appearances could just as well be in celebrity magazines as environmental campaign ones.

NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact on Polar Ice Sheets

2006-04-12T15:26:00.001-07:00

In the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of the massive ice sheets covering both Greenland and Antarctica, NASA scientists confirm climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth's largest storehouses of ice and snow.

"If the trends we're seeing continue and climate warming continues as predicted, the polar ice sheets could change dramatically," said survey lead author Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "The Greenland ice sheet could be facing an irreversible decline by the end of the century."

Other recent studies have shown increasing losses of ice in parts of these sheets. This new survey is the first to inventory the losses of ice and the addition of new snow on both in a consistent and comprehensive way throughout an entire decade.

The survey shows there was a net loss of ice from the combined polar ice sheets between 1992 and 2002 and a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documented for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves, an increase in snowfall in the interior of Greenland and thinning at the edges. All are signs of a warming climate predicted by computer models.

The survey combines new satellite mapping of the height of the ice sheets from two European Space Agency satellites. It also used previous NASA airborne mapping of the edges of the Greenland ice sheets to determine how fast the thickness is changing. Researchers used nine years of elevation mapping over much of Antarctica and 10.5 years of data over Greenland from the European Remote-sensing Satellites 1 and 2. The survey pinpointed where the ice sheets were thinning and where they were growing.

In Greenland, the survey saw large ice losses along the southeastern coast and a large increase in ice thickness at higher elevations in the interior due to relatively high rates of snowfall. This study suggests there was a slight gain in the total mass of frozen water in the ice sheet over the decade studied, contrary to previous assessments.

According to Zwally, this situation may have changed in just the past few years. Last month NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., reported a speed up of ice flow into the sea from several Greenland glaciers. That study included observations through 2005; Zwally's survey concluded with 2002 data.

"The melting of ice at the edges of the ice sheet is also increasing, which causes the ice to flow faster," Zwally said. "A race is going on in Greenland between these competing forces of snow build-up in the interior and ice loss on the edges. But we don't know how long they will be approximately in balance with each other or if that balance has already tipped in favor of the recently accelerating outflow from glaciers."

The situation was very different in Antarctica. The ice sheets had a major net loss of ice due to outflow from West Antarctica. These losses, which may have been going on for decades, outweighed the gains in snow and ice seen in the East Antarctic ice sheet and parts of West Antarctica. Also thinning were the ice shelves around West Antarctica, where temperatures have been increasing. The floating ice shelves are vulnerable to climate change. Some ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula have totally disintegrated in recent years, allowing the ice from the land to move into the ocean faster.

When the scientists added up the gains and losses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The Greenland ice sheet annually gained approximately 11 billion tons of water, while Antarctica lost about 31 billion tons per year. The 20 billion net tons added to the oceans is equivalent to the amount of fresh water annually used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia.

"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters (0.12 inches) a year," Zwally said. "Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from. Continuing research using NASA satellites and other data will narrow the uncertainties in this important issue and help solve the mystery."

The survey was published this week in the Journal of Glaciology (www.igsoc.org). For more information about the research and images on the Web, visit:

Forecast shows Africa to face river crisis

2006-04-12T15:26:00.000-07:00

Africa's rivers face dramatic disruption that will leave a quarter of the continent severely short of water by the end of the century, according to a global warming study published on Friday.

In the first detailed assessment of climate change on the continent's waterways researchers found that watercourses on the continent are highly sensitive to shifts in rainfall patterns. Even modest decreases in rain in western Africa will see rivers lose as much as 80% of their water, triggering a surge of what the scientists call "water refugees".

Maarten de Wit, a climate expert at the University of Cape Town who led the study, said the redrawing of Africa's waterways will pose serious political problems as people displaced by droughts are forced into other countries to be near water.

"In those areas where people have little water as it is, it's going to have a devastating effect," he said. "If you're already walking 5km to the nearest stream to get water it's going to mean walking 30km or moving your whole household.

The study, which appears in the journal Science on Friday, is the first to identify how Africa's rivers will respond to climate change over the century. The extent to which slight changes in rainfall could impact on rivers had never been realised.

The researchers used a computer to divide the continent into 1 000km wide squares and worked out the total length of streams and rivers in each block. They used climate change models to calculate the expected changes in rainfall across the continent and the effect they would have on river levels. The scientists found that in 75% of the countries, those that received between 400mm and 1 000mm of rain a year, shifts in rainfall caused larger than expected rises or falls in river levels. In Harare a 10% drop in rainfall is expected to lead to an 81% drop in fresh water from rivers, a situation the scientists believe will be mirrored in Madagascar, eastern Zambia and Angola.

South Africa, which is experiencing a prolonged drought, can expect far less water from the Orange river. A 10% fall in rain over Johannesburg and Bloemfontein will lead to a 70% drop in river levels.

The study predicts rain will increase over East Africa. Climate change is expected to bring 10% more rain to Tanzania before the end of the century, boosting water course levels by 136%, while Somalia faces a 20% rise in rainfall, leading to more than a 1 000% increase in the water it receives from waterways. However, increased rainfall could lead to more standing water, more mosquitoes, and widespread malaria. - Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

AL GORE MAKES DRAMATIC PRESENTATION TO LONDON BUSINESS COMMUNITY

2006-04-12T15:24:00.001-07:00

Former US Vice President Al Gore has expressed his belief that tackling climate change presents the global community with an opportunity to unite around a shared moral purpose. Mr Gore was addressing an audience of business leaders and opinion formers brought together by The Climate Group on the climate change crisis facing the planet.

At the start of his presentation, Mr Gore explained that in Chinese, the word crisis is represented by 2 characters, one meaning danger, one meaning opportunity. His dramatic multi-media presentation addressed both these in the context of global warming.

Images and animation of the earth from space, of glacial retreat and shattering ice, of projected sea level rise and the shut down of the gulf stream were beamed onto the vast screen of London’s Imax cinema as the former Vice President explained the indisputable correlation between C02 and rising temperatures.

But Mr Gore did not dwell simply on the impacts. He was clear that, as well as the economic opportunities associated with moving to a low carbon economy, action on this issue would present a much greater opportunity still – the chance to find a shared moral purpose. According to Mr Gore, “this is a rare opportunity that few generations experience. As we rise to the challenge of climate change the moral clarity and vision we develop will enable us to identify other problems masquerading as political problems that are in fact moral imperatives. The opportunity is there for us to transform the way we go about our lives.”

Mr Gore’s presentation was given to a select audience of opinion formers, business leaders and company representatives gathered together by The Climate Group. However, his message, and his mesmerising presentation, will soon be accessible on a much broader scale with the forthcoming release of the movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

This film, a surprise hit at the Sundance Film Festival, intercuts the multimedia lecture with searching interview footage with the former Vice President. For more information on the movie and release dates click here.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA TO LEGISLATE FOR DEEP CUTS

2006-04-12T15:24:00.000-07:00

There is an amazing amount of bullshit with regards climate change comming out of Australia, it beats event the USA at times, this therefore is a great piece of news from my point of view.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann will introduce legislation after parliament opens on April 27 to mandate long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

“This will be the first Government in Australia to ensure that it will be a requirement of law that we reduce greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050,” Premier Rann said.

“The best way to make sure we reduce the flow of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is to legislate to make it happen.

“Anyone who believes that climate change is not a very real and present danger is kidding themselves and this Government will not walk away from its responsibilities to do all we can to combat it.”

The new greenhouse gas legislation will:
> Set a target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
> Set up a voluntary carbon offset program for business and government.
> Trigger annual reporting by the Minister for Environment on progress with combating climate change.

The Premier, who recently assumed the role of Minister for Climate Change said he wanted the State to be second only to Denmark in the amount of wind generation it has in place.

“We now have 51 per cent of the nation's wind power capacity, with a $1 billion investment in wind power, and more than 45 per cent of Australia’s grid-connected solar power.

“Given that we will likely reach our target of sourcing 15 per cent of electricity from renewable energy by the end of this year, we have increased our goal to 20 per cent - within a decade.

“We intend to make 50 per cent of State Government cars more environmentally friendly fuels by 2010 – stopping more than 2000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, and saving $3.7 million in fuel every year.

“Our schools and public buildings are being fitted with solar power.”

Eminent climate change expert Californian-based Professor Stephen Schneider has just arrived in Adelaide as the State’s latest Thinker in Residence.

Premier Rann said Prof Schneider will provide advice on the development of the Government’s Climate Change legislation and will help finalise and implement the Government’s draft Greenhouse Strategy.

“We want Prof Schneider to help position South Australia as a leader in climate change prevention.”

The Premier also announced the Government will establish a Climate Change and Sustainability Research Centre at Adelaide University, with annual funding of $250,000.

“The unit’s work will link in with the CSIRO’s research, and will focus on how South Australia can adapt to the changes in weather patterns and go even further with renewable energy and sustainable technologies,” Mr Rann said.

California Bill Calls for Cuts in Emissions

2006-04-08T15:56:00.000-07:00

California may become the first state to impose limits on the emissions of all greenhouse gases, under legislation introduced yesterday in the State Assembly.

The bill requires that emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming be reduced by 145 million tons, or 25 percent less than the current forecast, by 2020. That would bring the emissions back to the 1990 level.

The gases in question are produced when fossil fuels are burned, whether in motor vehicles, power plants or other industrial facilities. Many scientists have linked the growing concentration of these gases in the atmosphere to an observed increase in surface temperatures.
The bill, which was introduced by the Assembly speaker, Fabian Núñez, Democrat of Los Angeles, also requires the California Air Resources Board to set up a mandatory emissions reporting and tracking system to ensure compliance with the limits, which many of the state's business leaders have opposed.

The legislation could have more than a statewide impact, because California has traditionally led the nation in pollution-control efforts. Standards and rules established by the air control board have often been emulated by other states.

"As California goes, so goes the rest of the world," said Fran Pavley, a Democratic Assembly member and a co-sponsor of the bill. "As California leads and innovates, we believe that Congress and other states will also implement economywide clean energy standards."
The sponsors of the bill said its emissions limits were in line with goals established last summer by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, in an executive order.

"The speaker said this bill was his top legislative priority this year," said Craig Noble, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group that is supporting the bill. "The governor has said he wants to reduce emissions. That means we have a very good chance of getting a first law in the nation to set statewide limits on emissions."
That could mean a greater reliance on solar and wind-generated energy. Mr. Schwarzenegger also has been promoting the use of hydrogen as an automotive fuel.

ExxonMobil says it recognises the risks of climate change

2006-04-08T15:51:00.000-07:00

Oil and gas giant ExxonMobil says it recognises the risks of climate change
but gas fired power and technological advances hold the answer, not renewable resources or carbon trading schemes.

ExxonMobil Australia chairman Mark Nolan says the company does not believe climate change has been conclusively scientifically proven, but it is still taking the risk seriously.

"Our position is that the science is uncertain but given that it is uncertain
there is a risk,"

he says

"We treat the climate change issue very seriously and I
would say that we certainly do a lot to address it."

Mr Nolan told an American Chamber of Commerce lunch in Melbourne that carbon trading schemes did not address the problem in the long term and the company had put this view to the Australian government.

"In talking to the government here, frankly, we are
trying to dissuade them away from that - our focus as a company has always been on the role of technology,"

he said.

Mr Nolan applauded the creation this year of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, made up of the US, Australia, China, India, Japan and Korea, which he said was focussed on finding technological solutions to climate change.

ExxonMobil has forecast that by 2030 global energy demand will increase 50 per cent to 334 million barrels per day of oil equivalent (mbdoe) from current levels of 205 mbdoe.

It says renewable energy will not play a big role and by 2030 will account for only one per cent of Australian demand.

But ExxonMobil forecasts the contribution of gas in Australia will double by 2030 when it will account for 40 per cent of energy needs.

Mr Nolan said tax imbalances were discouraging gas fired power generation, with offshore gas in Victoria taxed by the Commonwealth at more than 15 times the rate of the state tax for coal.

"The biggest near term opportunity for greenhouse gas
reductions in Australia can be achieved without high cost carbon taxes emission trading schemes but simply by levelling the playing field from a tax point of view and encouraging more gas in base load power generation,"
he said