Tuesday, December 8, 2009


I'd like to go to Copenhagen. Yep, go to Copenhagen and tell them in person about the information that's on www.terrahumanafoundation.org, that there's something better,
something with zero-carbon emissions, something that won't add to global warming
or climate change, something that'll bring energy independence, something that'll help everybody everywhere. But I don't think I'll be going to Copenhagen, so all I can do is
to encourage readers to see www.terrahumanafoundation.org and tell everyone else.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Something has GOT to be done!

Something has GOT to be done!
And it CAN be done!
Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Climate Damage and Health

David A. Fahrenthold's October 27, 2009 Washington Post article "Ailing Planet Seen As Bad For Human Health" discusses a study of how climate change hurts human health and that the "warming planet is likely to leave more people sick, short of breath or underfed" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102602402.html. Even if emissions are capped, the damage is already done (ibid).

But even if the damage is already done, we can do something to prevent more damage: use totally green, emissions-free energy. With no emissions, there's no more pollution to add to the problems. It can happen. It will help. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Biofuels and Carbon Emissions

Studies have been done that show how biofuels will actually increase carbon emissions because of deforestation for growing land and fertilizers (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2225048.htm).

We don't need any kind of biofuels. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Monday, October 12, 2009

350 PPM

"350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide--measured in "Parts Per Million" in our atmosphere. 350 PPM--it's the number humanity needs to get back to as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change" (http://www.350.org/understanding-350#2).

We can change even more with totally clean energy. Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org for more information.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Five Years

According to Dave Chameides' October 6, 2009, article "The Road To Copenhagen: Now Is The Time To Speak Up About Climate Change," if we do not do anything now, in five years it will be too late and we "will not be able to do much of anything about climate change."

We can do something now. For more info, please see

Monday, September 28, 2009

Good Climate Change

Is there such a thing as good climate change?
Well, there would be if there were no emissions to pollute the air and make global warming worse.
For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Get It Done!

What we need to get done that will help everything else is switch to totally green, totally clean energy. Without emissions from fossil fuels, the air will be cleaner and there will be less respiratory problems. With new technology comes an expansion to the green economy.
And that's a lot but that's not all--we won't have to depend on anyone else, anywhere, ever.
It's past time.
We can do this.
And so can everyone else.
Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Thank you.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Exciting News!

Exciting news about progress in alternative energy!!!

Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org today!!!

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Algae as Biofuel

Researchers seek to turn algae into biofuel ("Entrepreneurs Wade Into the 'Dead Zone,' Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 2009). There is, however, something easier, something free of emissions. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Monday, August 10, 2009

According to the BBC News article "UK food research 'needs a boost,'" by Pallab Ghosh,
global food production needs to double by 2050 (Ghosh, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8192628.htm). Some barriers to progress include climate change, change in the land, and less access to water (Ghosh). Scientists are working on how to produce plants without upping greenhouse emissions (Ghosh). They are also concerned about genetically modified foods which are not accepted in some places, including Europe (Ghosh).

More can be done by everyone when we have emissions-free energy technology that will also help get clean water to people all over the world. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Alternatives To Hydroelectricity

"Boom in hydropower pits fish against climate
The renewable energy could ease global warming, but the dams and turbines could result in mass killings..
By Kim Murphy
July 27, 2009 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hydro-power27-2009jul27,0,2321552.story
Reporting from Wenatchee, Wash. -- The Rocky Reach Dam has straddled the wide, slow Columbia River since the 1950s. It generates enough electricity to supply homes and industries across Washington and Oregon.
But the dam in recent years hasn't produced as much power as it might: Its massive turbines act as deadly blender blades to young salmon, and engineers often have had to let the river flow over the spillway to halt the slaughter, wasting the water's energy potential.
The ability of the nation's aging hydroelectric dams to produce energy free of the curse of greenhouse gas emissions and Middle Eastern politics has suddenly made them financially attractive -- thanks to the new economics of climate change. Armed with the possibility of powerful new cap-and-trade financial bonuses, the National Hydropower Assn. has set a goal of doubling the nation's hydropower capacity by 2025. . . ."

We can have all the electricity we need without emissions and without hurting wildlife. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Congress Approved Research For Natural Gas Vehicles

Research approval for natural gas vehicles is all very well, but there is a better way: totally clean, emissions-free energy. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Friday, July 10, 2009

“G8 pledges to boost food supplies
Leaders of the G8 developed nations have pledged $20bn (£12bn) for efforts to boost food supplies to the hungry, on the final day of a summit in Italy.
The investment, which is $5bn more than had been expected, will fund a three-year initiative to help poor nations develop their own agriculture.
US President Barack Obama said the issue of food security was of huge importance to all nations in the world.
Richer nations had a moral obligation to help poorer nations, he said.
Mr Obama added that the G8 nations had agreed to commit $15bn for the new initiative going into Friday's meeting, but had then promised an additional $5bn in "hard commitments" during the talks.
"We do not view this assistance as an end in itself," he said.
"We believe that the purpose of aid must be to create the conditions where it's no longer needed, to help people become self-sufficient, provide for their families and lift their standards of living."
Kanaya Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, told the BBC that he welcomed the announcement of more investment in agriculture in the developing world.
"It is time for us to switch because food security is not just food aid," he said.
"It is the ability of people to produce food locally and for them to be able to have access to local markets.""

With new technology it will be possible to help people get access to clean water and other things to help them farm successfully, feed themselves, and sell their product locally. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

New Thinking

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

For an example of new thinking on alternative energy, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Climate Policy Change

"'Time to ditch climate policies'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
An international group of academics is urging world leaders to abandon their current policies on climate change.
The authors of How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course say the strategy based on overall emissions cuts has failed and will continue to fail.
They want G8 nations and emerging economies to focus on an approach based on improving energy efficiency and decarbonising energy supply.
Critics of the report's recommendations say they are a dangerous diversion.
The report is published by the London School of Economics' (LSE) Mackinder Programme and the University of Oxford's Institute for Science, Innovation & Society.
LSE Mackinder programme director Gwyn Prins said the current system of attempting to cap carbon emissions then allow trading in emissions permits had led to emissions continuing to rise.
He said world proposals to expand carbon trading schemes and channel billions of dollars into clean energy technologies would not work.
"The world has been recarbonising, not decarbonising," Professor Prins said.
"The evidence is that the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying approach have had and are having no meaningful effect whatsoever.
"Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment."
The report has drawn an angry response from some environmentalists, who acknowledge the problems it highlights but fear that the solutions it proposes will not work.
Tom Burke, from Imperial College London and a former government adviser, said: "The authors are right to be concerned about the lack of urgency in the political response to climate change.
"They are also right to identify significant weaknesses in the major policy instrument currently being negotiated.
"But nothing could be more harmful than to propose that the world stop what it is doing on climate change and start again working in a different way," Professor Burke contested.
"This is neither practical nor analytically defensible - and it seems to have been born more out of frustration than understanding of the nature of the political processes involved.
"This is a far more complex, and urgent, diplomatic task than the strategic arms control negotiations and will require an even more sophisticated and multi-channel approach to its solution. Stop-go is not sophisticated."
G8 leaders will discuss climate change on Wednesday before joining leaders of emerging economies on Thursday for a meeting chaired by President Obama.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/07/07 13:46:39 GMT

I've never liked the cap 'n trade rationale or practice. I agree with the people in the article who said that cap ' trade just makes things worse. There is another way, though, and for information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Global Emissions Goals

"G8 leaders to set emissions goals
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
The G8 leaders are set this week to deliver their strongest statement so far on global warming.
They are likely to agree that the world ought to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 - with rich nations reducing them by 80%.
The group will probably also say that any human-induced temperature rise should be held to 2C - a level considered to be a danger threshold.
The US has previously objected to such a clause.
But it looks as though the G8 will fall short of agreeing the short-term targets scientists say are essential to ensure that the 2C threshold is not breached.
Environmental campaigners accuse the G8 of willing the ends on climate change but not willing the means.
On Thursday, US President Barack Obama chairs a meeting of the G8 members with the leaders of the emerging economies, including India and China, under a process known as the Major Economies Forum (MEF).
That meeting will produce a declaration separate from the G8. Opinions among the emerging economies vary widely. India opposes commitments on cutting emissions. It has millions living in poverty and considers that the problem should be solved by rich nations. India is suspicious of signing up to the 2C warming threshold because it implicitly puts a cap on Indian growth.
China is committed to achieving a low-carbon economy, but slowly so as to cause minimum social and economic upheaval.
"We have to persuade China that it is in China's interests to move quickly to a low-carbon economy - that will be be key," a western diplomatic source said.
Brazil is the most significant of the emerging nations to sign up to the 2C threshold. "This is extremely significant," said the source. "It is an acknowledgement from political leaders to their peoples that there are scientific limits to how far we can push the planet."
A group of 22 leading climate scientists has written to G8 and MEF leaders calling for policies that would see global emissions peak by 2020, and shrink by at least 50% by 2050.
"Unless the burden of poverty in developing nations is alleviated by significant financial support for mitigation, adaptation, and the reduction of deforestation, the ability of developing countries to pursue sustainable development is likely to diminish, to the economic and environmental detriment of all," the scientists said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/07/06 01:18:02 GMT

We've got the technology, a technology that will create jobs, not emissions. We want everyone everywhere to benefit. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Global Warming and the Global Economy

Global Warming and the Global Economy Global Warming and the Global Economy
"Will The Global Warming Bill Cool The Global Economy?
Nouriel Roubini, 07.02.09, 12:01 AM ET
How the Bill Works
At the heart of the bill is a cap-and-trade system, a market-based system that caps emissions at a certain level and allows large emitters to buy permits for additional emissions from other companies that emit less than the upper limit. The legislation calls for the number of permits to be reduced over time to encourage lower emissions. In practice, establishing a market for these permits will increase the cost of using carbon-based energy (especially electricity from coal), which will in turn reduce demand.
The revenue earned through auctioning would be distributed among households to offset the negative effect on their purchasing power from the higher cost of energy. Initial plans called for all, or at least a majority, of the permits to be auctioned, but the vote-getting process increased the number allocated. The bill passed by the House calls for 85% to be allocated and 15% to be auctioned. Some of the allocated permits will go to utility companies, the idea being that they will either invest the proceeds in renewable fuels or temper price increases for consumers. This change reduces the potential revenue generation of the policy and runs the risk that low electricity costs could actually encourage greater usage.
Cost Estimates
Estimates of the total economic costs of the U.S. cap-and-trade program have varied widely. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the net annual economic cost of the program in 2020 would be $22 billion--or about $175 per household. Analysis of the CBO results suggests that the implicit tax is relatively progressive. While this estimate has been accused of being understated (and it is worth noting that the Environmental Protection Agency came to an even lower estimate), it presented a baseline for analysis.
Other estimates put the ultimate cost much higher. An analysis from the Heritage Foundation concludes that the cap-and-trade system described in the bill would cost the economy $161 billion by 2020--or about $1,870 per household. Such estimates do not necessarily account for changes in the price of energy that would occur naturally as a lack of investment limits production of fossil-fuel-based energy.
Furthermore, they may not fully include the technological and efficiency gains that the current legislation hopes to encourage. For example, some of the allocations to utilities are granted with the expectation that they will be auctioned off and the proceeds will be used to fund renewable energy development. It's worth noting, however, that there's no guarantee the utilities will do this in practice. ****Nouriel Roubini, a professor at the Stern Business School at New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, is a weekly columnist for Forbes.
(Analysts at RGE Monitor assisted in the research and writing of this piece.)"

It's progress that the government is more interested and more willing to do something about global warming and climate change. But there's something that can render worries about cap 'n trade null: an emissions-free energy that's renewable and less expensive to run. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Crops and Climate Change

"Crops face toxic timebomb in warmer world: study
Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:45am EDT
By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Staples such as cassava on which millions of people depend become more toxic and produce much smaller yields in a world with higher carbon dioxide levels and more drought, Australian scientists say.
The findings, presented on Monday at a conference in Glasgow, Scotland, underscored the need to develop climate-change-resistant cultivars to feed rapidly growing human populations, said Ros Gleadow of the Monash University in Melbourne.
Gleadow's team tested cassava and sorghum under a series of climate change scenarios, with particular focus on different CO2 levels, to study the effect on plant nutritional quality and yield.
Both species belong to a group of plants that produce chemicals called cyanogenic glycosides, which break down to release poisonous cyanide gas if the leaves are crushed or chewed.
Around 10 percent of all plants and 60 percent of crop species produce cyanogenic glycosides.*****
At double current CO2 levels, the level of toxin was much higher while protein levels fell.
The ability of people and herbivores, such as cattle, to break down the cyanide depends largely on eating sufficient protein.
Anyone largely reliant on cassava for food, particularly during drought, would be especially at risk of cyanide poisoning.*****"There's been this common assumption that plants will always grow better in a high CO2 world. And we've now found that these plants grew much worse and had smaller tubers."
At the 550 ppm level, the problem was not as serious and this meant scientists had a bit of breathing space.
"We've got 20 to 30 years to develop cultivars, which is going to be absolutely essential because by then about 1 billion people will probably be reliant on cassava."
Gleadow's group looked at a type of sorghum commonly fed to cattle in Australia and Africa and found it became less toxic at the highest CO2 level. But under drought conditions, leaf toxin levels rose.
She said her team was looking at creating mutations to get rid of the toxin response to drought.
"If we're going to adapt in the future to a world with twice today's CO2 we need to understand how plants are working, how they are responding and what cultivars we need to develop."
Her team plans to carry out additional research in Mozambique and study other tropical crops such as taro.
(Editing by Alex Richardson)"

It's good that people are doing research to combat existing climate change. But there's a way we can change the climate for good by using emissions-free energy. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Progress Has Been Made

Progress has been made, but more is needed.
For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Friday, June 19, 2009

1 Billion Hungry People

“World hunger reaches the 1 billion people mark
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Associated Press Writer Alessandra Rizzo, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 16 mins ago
ROME – One in six people in the world — or more than 1 billion — is now hungry, a historic high due largely to the global economic crisis and stubbornly high food prices, a U.N. agency said Friday.
Compared with last year, there are 100 million more people who are hungry, meaning they receive fewer than 1,800 calories a day, the Food and Agriculture Organization said in a report.
Almost all the world's undernourished live in developing countries, where food prices have fallen more slowly than in the richer nations, the report said. Poor countries need more aid and agricultural investment to cope, it said.
"The silent hunger crisis, affecting one-sixth of all of humanity, poses a serious risk for world peace and security," said the agency's Director-General Jacques Diouf.
Soaring prices for staples, such as rice, triggered riots in the developing world last year.
Hunger increased despite strong 2009 cereal production, and a mild retreat in food prices from the highs of mid-2008. However, average prices at the end of last year were still 24 percent higher in real terms than in 2006, FAO said.
The global economic crisis has compounded the problem for people dealing with pay cuts or job losses. Individual countries have also some lost flexibility in handling price fluctuations, as the crisis has made tools such as currency devaluation less effective.
The report predicted the urban poor would likely be hit hardest as foreign investment declines and demand for exports drops, and that millions would return to the countryside, which in turn could put pressure on rural communities and resources.
Globally there are now about 1.02 billion people hungry, up 11 percent from last year's 915 million, the agency said. It based its estimate on analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Asia and the Pacific, the world's most populous region, has the largest number of hungry people at 642 million.
Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest hunger rate, with 265 million undernourished representing 32 percent of the region's population.
In the developed world, undernourishment is a growing concern, with 15 million now hungry, the report said.
The crisis also affects the quality of nutrition, as families tend to buy cheaper foods, such as grains, which are rich in calories but contain fewer proteins than meat or dairy products.
Diouf urged governments to immediately set up social protection programs to improve food access for those in need. He said small farmers should be helped with seeds, tools and fertilizers.
He urged structural, long-term changes, such as increasing production in low-income countries, noting that world hunger had been increasing before the financial downturn.”

Lower-priced sustainable energy will help people everywhere so that they can use the money they don't have to spend on energy for irrigation, clean water, manufacturing, etc. We can help with this: please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Economy, Environment, and Energy

"Conservation groups feel the strain
Richard Black 15:17 UK time, Monday, 15 June 2009
About nine months ago, I spent a fascinating (and very agreeable) week on a research boat in the Canary Islands, attempting to study the elusive family of beaked whales.
Lucky for me it happened last year; because the boat in question, Song of the Whale, is now being taken off such operations, for at least a couple of years, for financial reasons.
The group that runs Song of the Whale, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw), appears to have been hit particularly hard by the world's financial troubles. Mothballing the boat's research is one of several cuts it's had to make, including staff cutbacks.
Ifaw is certainly not alone. According to the head of one major UK conservation charity, most organisations in the field are feeling the pinch.
Over the past year, I'm told, UK green groups have seen their income fall by an average of 10-20% - some by more.
You might assume this was down to people withdrawing their membership or being less generous with their gift donations.
These trends are real; but they are regarded as minor compared with declining legacy income and adverse foreign currency movements.
The main component of a legacy donation is often the sale of a house; and often the legacy is worded along the lines of "person X gets so much and person Y so much, with the remainder going to charity Z" - in which case a fairly small dip in house prices can have a large proportional impact on the amount going to the charity.
It shouldn't come as any surprise to find the global financial situation impacting conservation groups - why should they be exempt from the general mayhem? - but it's worth having a quick think about what it might mean.
True, there's a strong propaganda element to much that environmental groups do, and you might either bemoan or applaud a decline in its intensity, depending on your political stance.
But projects such as Song of the Whale generate data that could prove important in understanding - and thus protecting - little-known species.
In developing countries, wildlife protection regimes often struggle for money and resources, certainly when compared to the poachers of valuable species and the industrialists who would expand the human footprint without restraint.
I came across a particularly stark example this week from India - wardens in tiger reserves working without simple equipment such as torches, without proper shoes, with meagre salaries often paid in arrears.
It's a common tale. And sometimes, Western-based groups fill this kind of funding gap, paying the human costs without which there can be no effective conservation.
The links between the world's ecological crisis and its economic woes are manifold and complex; and you can certainly argue that any slowing in the breakneck pace of human economic development is good news if it retards the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the expansion of human habitat into areas occupied by other species, and the depletion of shared resources such as water.
But conservation projects such as Song of the Whale will be casualties; and in a world where we are often struggling to understand what is already on the verge of being destroyed, they are losses we can ill afford."

We can have economic development without the rise in carbon and greenhouse emissions, without hurting wildlife and plantlife, and without using up resources. There is an alternative, totally green energy source. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Another Reason To Choose Emissions-Free Energy

June 9, 2009

Washington, DC -- A bill introduced today by Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) would protect drinking water from toxic chemicals often used during oil and gas drilling. A companion bill also was introduced today in the Senate by Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act would close a loophole that has exempted oil and gas companies from complying with critical requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2005, after the oil and gas industry successfully lobbied for the exemption. It remains the only industry unregulated by a provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act which monitors underground injections near drinking water sources.

While drilling for oil and gas, companies often times inject millions of gallons of chemically-treated water into underground rock deposits to force the oil and gas to the surface. The technique, known as hydraulic fracturing (or hydrofracking) is used in nine out of 10 oil and gas wells in the United States and is suspected of endangering drinking water supplies throughout the country. ....."

This is another reason to choose emissions-free energy. With emissions-free energy, there would be no pollution in our water from the energy source. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com. Thank you.

But We Don't Need Carbon At All!

"Stalled carbon capture coal plant in Ill. gets OK
Energy Department says stalled futuristic coal-burning plant to move forward in Illinois
Henry C. Jackson, Associated Press Writer
On Friday June 12, 2009, 1:08 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department is moving forward on a futuristic coal-burning power plant in Illinois that the Bush administration had declared dead.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Friday that reviving the FutureGen plant is an important step that shows the Obama administration's commitment to carbon-capture technology.

"Developing this technology is critically important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and around the world," Chu said in a statement.*****

Coal burning power plants are the leading source of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas linked to global warming, and finding economical ways to capture carbon from such plants is viewed as key for the future of coal if a price is put on carbon to combat climate change.

The FutureGen plant would use Illinois coal, which is high in sulfur and has been used less frequently after changes to the Clean Air Act in 1990. As originally planned, the plant would have experimented with coal from Texas and Wyoming, too.

The commitment to the state's coal could help the Illinois mining industry rebound from a decline from around 10,000 jobs in 1990 to about 4,000 now, said Phil Gonet, a spokesman for the Illinois Coal Association.

"Eighty percent of our coal now goes out of state because almost every power plant in this state decided to switch to (cleaner) western coal," he said. "When you have a market in your own state that may open up for the first time in 20 years, that is significant."....."

Yes, but there is something better, something that has no emissions whatsoever and that will jumpstart the green economy in every state. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com. Thank you.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Truce Alternative Because of Emissions Alternative

"China and U.S. Seek a Truce on Greenhouse Gases
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/world/08treaty.html?ref=world By JOHN M. BRODER and JONATHAN ANSFIELD Published: June 7, 2009
WASHINGTON — For months the United States and China, by far the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, have been warily circling each other in hopes of breaking a long impasse on global warming policy.
Both sides are demanding mutually assured reductions of emissions that are, in the current jargon, “measurable, verifiable and reportable.” In the background hover threats of great retaliation in the form of tariffs or other trade barriers if one nation does not agree to ceilings on emissions.
But there is cause for profound skepticism as well. The Chinese continue to resist mandatory ceilings on their emissions and are making financial and environmental demands on the United States that are political roadblocks.
The United States, despite optimistic words from the White House and Congress, has yet to enact any binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. The energy bill now before Congress proposes emissions targets that are far short of what China and other nations say they expect of the United States.
Compounding the difficulty is the fact that both countries are struggling economically and the Chinese and American publics appear far more interested in jobs than in tackling environmental problems, a task that would necessarily be costly. ****"

But there's an alternative, an alternative which would eleminate the need for worry about emissions because there would be no emissions. The alternative is also less expensive, and would create jobs. For more in formation, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Mass Transport Really Green?

"Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090608/sc_afp/climatewarmingtransportcarbonlifestyle Reuters Sun Jun 7, 8:02 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.
So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.
Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.
Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.
These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.
Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.
In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.
"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.
"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."
The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.
Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.
By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.
The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.
These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.
In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.
And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.
A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.
"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.

So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.
For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.
The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.
The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.
It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft."

But what if all types of transportation had no emissions? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Progress, But We Can Do More

"Green energy overtakes fossil fuel investment, says UN
Clean technologies attract $140bn compared with $110bn for gas, coal and electrical power Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 June 2009
Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations"(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/renewables-energy).

Good. Very good. But more can be done. For information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Hunger in South Asia

S Asia hunger 'at 40-year high'
A UN report says hunger in South Asia has reached its highest level in 40 years because of food and fuel price rises and the global economic downturn.
The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.
It names the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The report says South Asia's governments need to urgently increase social spending to meet the challenge.
It says that climate change and urbanisation also need tackling.
Governments of the region can also use fiscal stimulus programmes and aid from abroad to expand the provision of basic social services in fields like health and education, it says, while funding training programmes - especially for young people."

There is technology that can help us help them, help ourselves and everyone everywhere. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com today.

Cap 'n Trade??!!??

"Climate chief's pledge on energy
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
America's chief climate negotiator has pledged billions of dollars a year to help developing countries acquire clean energy and adapt to climate change.
Todd Stern said it was morally right for rich nations to help the poor on climate change.
The give-away of pollution permits has been condemned not just by environmentalists but also by many economists and commentators in the US.
But, as the Energy Secretary Steven Chu told BBC News, the compromises are seen by the Obama team as the price for making an early start on reversing America's growth in emissions.
From the perspective of many in the Obama administration, it is not possible to move fast with major cuts at home without hitting a political wall in a nation that takes cheap and plentiful energy as a right" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8078007.stm).
Ok. First, we can help countries who need help to get less expensive, more efficient energy--that is one goal of the Terra Humana Foundation. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Second, how is letting people pollute going to help when we're not doing enough to get emissions-free energy technology??? Again, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Third, we can have "cheap and plentiful energy" in this country, and so can everyone else, without sacrificing jobs--people may have different jobs, but they'll still have jobs. For the solution, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Species Index and Climate Change

Scientists are creating a species index to which everyone can contribute information:"Help wanted to write book of life
A virtual book of all life on Earth is being created by UK and US scientists.

The online reference work will create a detailed world map of flora and fauna and track changes in biodiversity.

The database, dubbed a "macroscopic observatory', will be populated with data about local species gathered by members of the public. *****
The ongoing project will constantly gather data so it can plot information about the range and abundance of plants and animals as worldwide temperature and rainfall patterns shift in response to climate change" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8077262.stm).And they discuss other uses for the site, such as migration pattern information and a field guide for learning about animals and plants (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8077262.stm).That site needs tobe a record of preservation rather than loss, preservation that indicates good changes in climate, rather than bad. And for how you can help halt bad climate change and make the planet better for everyone, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Yes We Can Do More

I'm copying and pasting all of this article (within quote marks for proper documentation and also including the link for proper documentation) because it's important. I'll comment after.

“Climate pressure 'building on US'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Climate negotiations are to begin in Bonn with pressure building for the US to deliver deeper emissions cuts.
Delegates are dealing with the reality that although they are wrangling with the Obama administration, US Congress will help determine the final outcome.
President Obama has left Congress to make the running, and the Waxman-Markey Bill is reportedly being watered down as it goes through early stages.
It would deliver a cut of 4% on 1990 levels - the Kyoto Protocol benchmark.
This is a fraction of the 25-40% cut demanded of developed nations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The negotiations in Bonn, Germany, are set to begin on Monday.
And it's even less than the 60% cut urged by some developing nations who say the science has become more alarming since the IPCC report was published.
The Obama administration maintains that it represents a good start considering that US emissions have risen steadily since the Kyoto Protocol was signed. President Bush wouldn't promise to stabilise emissions before 2025.
But even the proposed cut in Waxman-Markey may be diluted further as it gets buffeted through Congress.
Brice Lalonde, the French climate adviser - and cousin of US Senator John Kerry - told BBC News: "We are in a dilemma over the United States.
"On the one hand we wish Obama well because he is a welcome change from the obstruction of the previous administration - but on the other hand he simply has to do more.
"The problem is that the United States doesn't yet have the imagination to see they can do much more. Of course they can do much more because they have so much margin, because they waste so much."
Mr Lalonde will not be impressed that Congressmen have already stripped out some clauses on improving energy efficiency.
Su Wei, the Chinese climate negotiator, told BBC News: "There's a substantial change in the US policies. The position has changed from refusing to cut emissions to some kinds of cap being set on emissions of greenhouse gases.
In that sense, we think the US policy is in the right direction but much more effort is needed."
He was supported by the Indian negotiator Surya Sethi, who told BBC News: "In simple terms they need to do more. If they believe the science - and that's what they are telling us - they need to do more."
When asked what would happen if, due to political constraints, the US could not offer deeper cuts, he said: "Then we will have to suffer the consequences."
Developing nations are also demanding huge amounts of cash from the US to buy them clean technology. The Waxman-Markey Bill will raise cash through carbon trading but it's unlikely to be enough to satisfy demands.
One ray of hope for the climate process is the strong diplomatic link forged between the US and China on the issue.
The Obama Administration needs a tangible sign of a concession from the Chinese in order to help make emissions cuts more palatable to the American public and Congress.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/05/29 13:19:21 GMT

We can do something more about climate change and without wrangling: please see www.campaignforgreen.com. And the plans discussed on that site includes helping everyone everywhere get clean water, etc., which speaks to the needs mentioned in the article: "Developing nations are also demanding huge amounts of cash from the US to buy them clean technology." So, again, please see www.campaignforgreen.com. We can do this.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

If Things Don't Change

If things don't change:

"Report: CO2 Levels to Rise 40% by 2030
By AP / H. JOSEF HEBERT Wednesday, May. 27, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1901222,00.html
(WASHINGTON) — The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide seeping into the atmosphere will increase by nearly 40 percent worldwide by 2030 if ways are not found to require mandatory emission reductions, a government report said Wednesday."

But things can change. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Permafrost and Carbon Emissions

Permafrost melt poses long-term threat, says study
AP Wed May 27, 2:57 pm ET

PARIS (AFP) – Melting permafrost could eventually disgorge a billion tonnes a year of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, accelerating the threat from climate change, scientists said Wednesday.
Their probe sought to shed light on a fiercely-debated but poorly-understood concern: the future of organic matter that today is locked up in the frozen soil of Alaska, Canada, northern Europe and Siberia.
The fear is that, as the land thaws, this material will be converted by microbes into carbon dioxide, which will seep into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect.
This in turn will stoke warming and cause more permafrost to thaw, which in turn pushes up temperatures, and so on.****
Burning fossil fuels adds about 8.5 gigatonnes of emissions each year, but it is a process that can theoretically be controlled.
Permafrost thaw, though, would be self-reinforcing and could be almost impossible to brake.
"It's not an option to be putting insulation on top of the tundra," Schuur said.
"If we address our own emissions either by reducing deforestation or controlling emissions from fossil fuels, that's the key to minimising the changes in the permafrost carbon pool.""

Permafrost melt is another problem caused by global warming, and fossil fuel burn cannot be that easily or inexpensively controlled. So what's to be done? For what we can do, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Climate Deals--Please Act Soon

"Ban Ki-moon calls for "green deal", says time short 21 May 2009 22:14:47 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Megan Davies (Edited by Philip Barbara)
UNITED NATIONS, May 21 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a "green new deal" on climate change on Thursday and urged for a final push in negotiations ahead of a key summit to be held in Copenhagen in December.
"We absolutely must reach an agreement to reduce greenhouse gases and help millions of families adapt to climate change -- before our time runs out," Ban told an audience at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, according to a transcript made available at the United Nations."

But we really can't wait 'til December. Something needs to be done now. And something can be done now. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

We Can Do More

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-hails-efforts-on-clean-apf-15270418.html: Weeks of negotiations have led to the introduction in the House of an energy proposal that, for the first time, would mandate reductions in the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming and shift the country toward cleaner sources of energy.”

We can do more. See www.campaignforgreen.com.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

More on Climate and Health

"Climate 'biggest health threat'
Climate change is "the biggest global health threat of the 21st Century", according to a leading medical journal.
The Lancet, together with University College London researchers, has published a report outlining how public health services will need to adapt.
It also highlights the consequences of climate-related mass migrations.
The authors aim to add their voice to the call for carbon mitigation and will focus on making clear the ways in which climate change will affect health.
University College London (UCL) climatologist Mark Maslin called it "the Stern report for medics", referring to the 2006 review that outlined the future impacts of the climate change situation in economic terms and advocated comprehensive, early-stage action to address it.
"The medical profession has to wake up if we're going to save billions of lives. This is why it's in the Lancet - it is the only way to do this is working with medics and other professionals to get that message across," Professor Maslin said. *****Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/05/14 10:14:10 GMT
Yes. The medical profession needs to pay attention. But we all need to pay attention. And we can wake up now, do something now, to save lives. Wecan call for across-the-board alternative energy use, and to find out how, please see www.campaignforgreen.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Pollution and Health


Search: guardian.co.uk Environment Web
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 May 2009 12.33 BST
Cleaner air from reduced emissions could save millions of lives, says reportResearchers predict that 100 million early deaths could be prevented by cutting global emissions by 50% by 2050.

Tackling climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions could save millions of lives because of the cleaner air that would result, according to a recent study.

Researchers predict that, by 2050, about 100 million premature deaths caused by respiratory health problems linked to air pollution could be avoided through measures such as low emission cars. *****
The key air pollutants that can harm human health include nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and particulate matter and are produced by burning fossil fuels in power plants and vehicles. Children and the elderly, plus people with respiratory conditions such as asthma, are particularly at risk."

We've got to do something. We can take care of each other. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Not Just There But Other Places

"Huge Bolivian glacier disappears
The Chacaltaya glacier in 1996 (left) and today
By James Painter
Latin America analyst
Scientists in Bolivia say that one of the country's most famous glaciers has almost disappeared as a result of climate change.
The Chacaltaya glacier, 5,300m (17,400 ft) up in the Andes, used to be the world's highest ski run.
But it has been reduced to just a few small pieces of ice.
Many Bolivians on the highland plains, and in two cities, depend on the melting of the glaciers for their water supply during the dry season.
The team of Bolivian scientists started measuring the Chacaltaya glacier in the 1990s. Not long ago they were predicting that it would survive until 2015.
But now it seems, the glacier has melted at a much faster rate than they expected.
Photos taken in the last two weeks show that all that is left of the majestic glacier, which is thought to be 18,000 years old, are a few lumps of ice near the top. *****
But Edson Ramirez, a scientist who has studied the region for years, says the significance of the melting glaciers goes way beyond tourism.
As well as those living on the highland plains, two of Bolivia's main cities, La Paz and El Alto, rely on the Andean glaciers for an important part of their drinking water.
The World Bank warned earlier this year that many of the Andes' tropical glaciers will disappear within 20 years.
This, the bank said, would both threaten the water supplies of nearly 80 million people living in the region, and jeopardise the future generation of hydropower.
Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru depend on that power for about half their electricity."

There's another way to get electricity: cf. www.campaignforgreen.
But water sources do not need to disappear, so there needs to be a halt to global warming, a halt to climate change, by using the other way to get electricity discussed at www.campaignforgreen.com. Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador are not the only places that depend on water. Please see the Terra Humana Foundation site today.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Let Them Know!

See www.campaignforgreen.com and find out how you can let your friends know about the new emissions-free, all-the-electricity-you-need energy alternative!

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Climate Change and the Economy

"UN climate deal to fail without aid money -adviser 06 May 2009 22:08:13 GMT Source: Reuters By Timothy GardnerNEW YORK, May 6 (Reuters) - The world will fail to agree to control emissions of global warming pollution this year in Copenhagen unless rich countries fund billions of dollars in annual climate aid to poor nations, a U.N. adviser said" (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06281901.htm;Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by David Gregorio).
There's something we can do to make manufacturing less expensive and help all of us everywhere have jobs . . . all sorts of jobs, actually . . . manufacturing and other work. And we'd still be able to trade with each other. And there'd be no pollution. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Dontcha Wanna?

You'll be helping take care of the environment.
You'll be helping take care of everyone on the planet.
You'll be helping all of us get energy independence.
You'll be helping all of us get clean water.
You'll be helping all of us get cheaper, more reliable energy.
You can tell future generations you helped make their world better.
Dontcha wanna?

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

New Thinking

"If I can echo Einstein: it is unlikely that Amazonian nations will be able to solve this problem with the same thinking that caused it" (Andrew Mitchell, In search of forestry’s El Dorado, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8020573.stm).

There has been new thinking on the energy problem. For more information on that new thinking, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Whatdya Think?

Check out the site www.campaignforgreen.com, and lemme know what you think.

Friday, April 24, 2009

The Time Is Now

With the administration and lots of other people wanting energy independence, an economic jumpstart, and solutions to high gas prices and global warming, the time is now to look to totally green, totally clean, totally independent alternative energy. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com. We can take care of this, together.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Climate Change and Climate Disasters

"Oxfam warns of climate disasters http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8009412.stm
The number of people hit by climate-related disasters is expected to rise by about 50%, to reach 375m a year by 2015, the UK-based charity Oxfam says.
Current humanitarian systems are barely able to cope, an Oxfam study contends.
It warns agencies are in danger of being overwhelmed by events such as flooding, storms and drought.
*****Oxfam is also calling for a greater focus on helping countries and communities to prevent, and prepare for the suffering that climate change will cause.
Published: 2009/04/21 00:44:32 GMT
Something can be done now to stave off any more climate change caused by global warming. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Earth, Breath, Trees

"A major Science study published in January found widespread increase in tree mortality rates in the western U.S., thanks in part to regional warming trends and growing water scarcity. Another study published last month, also in Science, found that even the seemingly limitless Amazon rainforest could be highly vulnerable to drought. And since living trees suck up CO2 from the atmosphere, massive tree mortality due to warming could produce a feedback effect, further intensifying climate change. In the end, we might need a bigger Biosphere 2, because we're on track to screw up Biosphere 1 — otherwise known as the Earth" (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1891121,00.html
Tuesday, Apr. 14, 2009,The Dire Fate of Forests in a Warmer World
By Bryan Walsh).

Trees help the earth breathe. We need to do something. And we can. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Black Carbon, Health, and Global Warming

Black carbon, produced by soot from cooking fires, hurts people’s health and is another source of global warming and climate change (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.html?_r=1&ref=world). A lot of people cook by fires because they can’t afford anything else (ibid). There are new stoves, some of which use less fuel and produce less smoke and others that are solar power (ibid). But it’s possible to generate electricity without using carbon-producing sources or solar power. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Friday, April 17, 2009


Let's not get distracted by expense or discoveries of reserves of business-as-usual fuels. Brazil, which has had the reputation of a green economy, is in danger of doing this, as they are opting for the less-difficult-to-approve thermoelectric energy instead of staying with hydroelectricity, using sugar cane for ethanol which makes up only 1% of world ethanol use, and still looking for--and finding--oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7976495.stm, Dirty energy threat to green Brazil). People there are encouraging the government to invest in alternative energy, expecially if other countries do so, so they won't fall behind in technological advances (ibid). But it's more than just keeping up with other countries, other people--we need to invest in alternative energy for its inherent benefits, and there's a greener alternative with far-reaching benefits--please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Non-Carbon Sources For Electricity

The British government wants to do something about climate change and their advisors are promoting electricity from non-carbon sources (Black, Richard, "Climate Advisors Take Electric Road,"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7758752.stm). The Committee on Climate Change advises in a 500-page report that the UK should first wean the power providers off fossil fuels, then invest in electricity from emission-free sources in order to reach greenhouse gas emission targets: "by 80% by 2050" (ibid). Eventually they want to provide emission-free electricity for "'road transport and the heating of buildings'" (ibid).

It can be done--in the UK, the US, and everywhere--and much sooner than 2050. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Biomass Limitations and the Alternative

Biomass, which includes buring wood for fuel, has its limits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7997398.stm). If not done sustainably, we could end up with more greenhouse gas than we have had with fossil fuels: "At its best, biomass could produce as little as 27kg of CO2 (equivalent) per megawatt hour - 98% less than coal, saving around two million tonnes of CO2 every year . . . However, the study also found that in some cases overall emissions could be higher than those of fossil fuels" (ibid). But it could be used in combination with other things (ibid).
Why bother, though, with something so difficult when there's a totally green, totally emissions-free alternative? For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Pollution and Life Expectancy

Pollution influences life expectancy. The BBC reports on a study done in the U.S. finds, unsurprisingly, that the more pollution, the shorter the life expectancy, and that when the air gets cleaner, life expectancy goes up: "It has taken a quarter of a century, but US researchers say their work has finally enabled them to determine to what extent city air pollution impacts on average life" (Hawkley, Humphrey, "City air pollution 'shortens life'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7946838.stm). The researchers' study, begun in the 1980s, concluded that life expectancy rose two-and-a-half years, and 15% of the improvement is caused by air quality improvement (ibid). But there is much to still be done to improve air quality, especially for people who are in high-pollution areas every day such as around commuter trains and highways that have high diesel truck traffic and who are thus more susceptible to allergies, asthma, cancer, and cardio-vascular trouble (ibid.)
It's good to lower pollution levels, but what if there were not any pollution at all because the energy for power and even transportation came from something other than fossil fuels? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.org.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Australia -- Just One Example

What will global warming look like? Scientists point to Australia
April 9 2009
By Julie Cart
April 9, 2009
Reporting from The Murray-Darling Basin, Australia -- Frank Eddy pulled off his dusty boots and slid into a chair, taking his place at the dining room table where most of the critical family issues are hashed out. Spreading hands as dry and cracked as the orchards he tends, the stout man his mates call Tank explained what damage a decade of drought has done .
"Suicide is high. Depression is huge. Families are breaking up. It's devastation," he said, shaking his head. "I've got a neighbor in terrible trouble. Found him in the paddock, sitting in his [truck], crying his eyes out. Grown men -- big, strong grown men. We're holding on by the skin of our teeth. It's desperate times."
"You'd have to have your head in the bloody sand to think otherwise," Eddy said.
They call Australia the Lucky Country, with good reason. Generations of hardy castoffs tamed the world's driest inhabited continent, created a robust economy and cultivated an image of irresistibly resilient people who can't be held down. Australia exports itself as a place of captivating landscapes, brilliant sunshine, glittering beaches and an enviable lifestyle.
Look again. Climate scientists say Australia -- beset by prolonged drought and deadly bush fires in the south, monsoon flooding and mosquito-borne fevers in the north, widespread wildlife decline, economic collapse in agriculture and killer heat waves -- epitomizes the "accelerated climate crisis" that global warming models have forecast.
With few skeptics among them, Australians appear to be coming to an awakening: Adapt to a rapidly shifting climate, and soon. Scientists here warn that the experience of this island continent is an early cautionary tale for the rest of the world.
"Australia is the harbinger of change," said paleontologist Tim Flannery, Australia's most vocal climate change prophet. "The problems for us are going to be greater. The cost to Australia from climate change is going to be greater than for any developed country. We are already starting to see it. It's tearing apart the life-support system that gives us this world.""

And that's just one example. We've got to do something to end global warming, end the destruction, end the suffering. And we can do something: please see www.campaignforgreen.org.

Progress Doesn't Have To Be That Difficult

U.S. plays down hopes at climate talks 08 Apr 2009 21:13:45 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Gerard Wynn
BONN, Germany, April 8 (Reuters) - U.S. negotiators tried to dampen expectations on Wednesday of rapid progress on climate change after President Barack Obama vowed new U.S. leadership, on the closing day of U.N. talks in Bonn.
The 11-day meeting was the latest in a series meant to help prepare a deal to be sealed in Copenhagen in December to replace or extend the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.
Obama vowed U.S. leadership on climate change on a trip to Europe last week, raising hopes. [ID:nL5180795].
But in Bonn, Germany, the reality was complex negotiations with fewer than nine months left to sign a global deal to curb man-made climate change, and U.S. officials stressed how hard the job was.
"The negotiations are just starting, this is a complicated subject," said the new U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change, Jonathan Pershing.
"The simple headline that temperatures are rising captures the public imagination as it ought, but the difficulties, complexities, the nuance of what you do about it requires a great deal of time, energy and sophistication."
"Finding common ground will take some time.""

Oh, c'mon . . . let's be positive! It doesn't have to be that difficult. There's something that everyone should be on board with, something that won't cause pollution and will jumpstart the green economy for everyone everywhere. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Cap 'n Trade???

Cap 'n trade? Reduce emissions some places then let other places be polluted and have the pollutants pay and the money be used to fund clean technology? What about all the damage that pollution is doing? Why not right now focus on totally clean energy for every place? It can be done. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Pollution and Birth Weight

Pollution link with birth weight
Exposure to traffic pollution could affect the development of babies in the womb, US researchers have warned.
They found the higher a mother's level of exposure in early and late pregnancy, the more likely it was that the baby would not grow properly.
The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, looked at 336,000 babies born in New Jersey between 1999 and 2003
UK experts said much more detailed research into a link was needed.
The researchers, from the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey, used information from birth certificates and hospital discharge records.
They recorded details including each mother's ethnicity, marital status, education, whether or not she was a smoker - as well as where she lived when her baby was born.
Daily readings of air pollution from monitoring points around the state of New Jersey were taken from the US Environmental Protection Agency
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/04/08 23:42:57 GMT"

We need to take care of each other at whatever age--a few weeks along or over 100, and one way to do that is to switch to emissions-free energy. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Rising Sea Levels and Climate Change

Sea levels are rising in the Americas, and other places, and it's down to climate change (Painter, James, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7977263.stm). Ecuador, Mexico, and parts of the Caribbean are in the most danger, as well as New York City and southern Florida (ibid). There's a danger of the rise being between seven inches and a meter even if carbon emissions were lowered (ibid). That might not seem like much, but just think of the damage done when even one inch of water gets in your house during a flood, and think of that inch, plus many more, being flung over seawalls, as when Hurricane Ike hit last September. Yes, buildings are being rebuilt, but a permanent rise in the sea level will change the economy of these places permanently:
"'A rise of one metre will irreversibly change the geography of coastal areas in Latin America," Walter Vergara, the World Bank's lead engineer on climate change in the region, told the BBC. 'For example, a one-metre rise would flood an area in coastal Guyana where 70% of the population and 40% of agricultural land is located. That would imply a major reorganisation of the country's economy'" (ibid).
What's even scarier is that any change that happens is permanent:
"Mr Vergara is not alone in stressing that sea level rises are "climate committed", in the sense that because of existing and projected greenhouse gas emissions, they will continue long into the future.
'The level and direction of change will destabilise extensive coastal areas in Latin America. Once flooded, there is no way back,' he says" (ibid).
But what if there were no emissions to make the sea levels rise? What if economies could be helped instead of hurt? This is possible. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Water vs. Oil

In Peru there's a "water versus oil dilemma" (Collyns, Dan, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7951182.stm). The oil companies want to drill in places that provide a lot of water for the country, particularly the poorer regions . . . poorer economically. The San Martin region lies in the oil area:
"The oil concession in question, Block 103, is held by a consortium.
Canadian oil company Talisman Energy is the largest partner with a 40%. Spain's Repsol and the Brazilian state company Petrobras have a 30% share each.
More than 70% of the Peruvian Amazon is divided into oil and gas concessions for exploration or exploitation The Peruvian government says it plans to be self-sufficient in oil and gas by 2011 In 2008 Peru produces nearly 50m barrel of crude oil Official figures says there are around 100 mining companies running more than 600 operations in Peru, in an area which covers 0.56% of national territory" (ibid).
But the area also includes a region that provides much water for the country:
"One-sixth of it belongs to the conservation area of the Cordillera Escalera, the only area the court ruling states cannot be touched.
Environmentalists say apart from the mountain range being home to rare wildlife, such as the spectacled bear, it is also a major source for the rivers in northern San Martin.
Situated on the eastern side of the much larger Andes mountains range, it is the first high ground to be hit by clouds that drift westward across the Amazon basin from the Atlantic Ocean on the other side of the continent.
That means a lot of rain, so the hills soak up the water like a sponge and literally seep water.
Drilling for oil in any part of the Cordillera Escalera could contaminate the entire watershed, say environmentalists.
"It's literally a water bank for the entire population here," says San Martin's regional governor, Cesar Villanueva. "We cannot allow it to be touched" (ibid).

But a conflict like that doesn't have to happen. There is an alternative that does not use oil or any fossil fuels and that will help preserve water and the entire environment. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Climate Change and Environmental Damage

We all know the climate is changing, the globe is warming, seasons are overlapping. Carbon emissions have made the oceans more acidic, threatening ocean life, both animals and plants since oceans have absorbed "up to 50%" of carbons from fossil fuels for the past two hundred years and lessened "the pH value of seawater--the measure of acidity and alkalinity--by O.1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7936137.stm; Acidic seas fuel extinction fears By Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst, BBC News, Published: 2009/03/11 03:00:28 GMT). A bridge of ice between two islands in Antarctica has snapped, making an ice shelf vulnerable, and several more have broken over the past several years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm, Published: 2009/04/05 07:13:59 GMT). Pikas, a hamster-like animal that lives in the mountains, are losing their habitat as the climate warms in the American West; they move upslope but are running out of room (Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved, As West warms, some fear for tiny mountain dweller By MIKE STARK, Associated Press Writer Mike Stark, Associated Press Writer Sat Apr 4, 6:47 am ET). Frogs are disappearing as ecosystems decline, and since they "sit right in the middle of the food chain," and "without them, other creatures are disappearing too" (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/frogs-the-thin-green-line/introduction/4763/). And those are just a few examples of what's happening to plants and animals and the environment, aside from all the harm to people's lungs and hearts. Something that's got to be done.
And there's something that can be done: please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

US Pragmatic on Climate Change

US to be 'pragmatic on climate' By Roger Harrabin BBC environment analyst, Bonn
The US must balance science with what is politically and technologically achievable on climate change, America's lead negotiator has said.
Speaking at UN talks in Bonn, Jonathan Pershing said the US must not offer more than it could deliver by 2020.
Poor countries said the latest science showed rich states should cut emissions by 40% on 1990 levels by 2020.
President Barack Obama's plan merely to stabilise greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by 2020 is much less ambitious.
Mr Pershing, the US delegation head, previously spent many years promoting clean energy for the International Energy Agency and at the Washington think-tank WRI - World Resources Institute.
'Pragmatic' approach
He told the BBC he was very worried the Earth might already be committed to dangerous climate change.
But he said the US should not make promises for 2020 that it could not keep: "It is not the point in time in 2020 that matters - it is a long-term trajectory against which the science measures cumulative emissions.
"The president has also announced his intent to pursue an 80% reduction by 2050.
"It is clear that the less we do in the near-term, the more we have to do in the long-term. But if we set a target that is un-meetable technically, or we can't pass it politically, then we're in the same position we are in now… where the world looks to us and we are out of the regime.
"We want to be in (the regime), we want to be pragmatic, we want to look at the science. There is a small window of where they overlap. We hope to find it." (Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7980441.stmPublished: 2009/04/03 00:22:29 GMT)

This can happen before 2020. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

More Pain At The Pump

Where I'm at, gasoline prices have gone up to $2.01. That's not as bad as it's been in a while, but still . . . .
Something needs to be done. And something can be done! Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Air Pollution, Health, and Emissions-Free Energy


National Parks Conservation Association

NPCA Press Releases
Court Rejects Air Pollution Rules as Inadequate -- 02/24/09

Protect the Air We Breathe: An Agenda for Clean Air
It’s Time to Act on Air Pollution
Air pollution is among the most serious and wide-ranging problems facing the parks today. Of the 391 parks within the National Park System, 150 are located in parts of the country that fail to meet one or more national healthy air standards. Fine particulate pollution has cut summertime visibility at Blue Ridge Parkway by 80 percent. And Acadia National Park’s estimated natural visibility is 110 miles, but particulate pollution reduces the visibility to about 33 miles.
Air pollution also causes widespread harm to the environment. It threatens the health of plants, animals and visitors, and damages buildings and cultural resources. Outside the parks, millions live in areas where air pollution increases their risk of serious, even life-threatening health effects, including asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes."

Think about how difficult it is when people have respiratory and cardiac problems--it's difficult for them personally and for their families, they lose work time and money, people without insurance have problems, etc. And then think about how things would be if there were no emissions, if we still had the same access to energy but simply with a no-emissions energy source that didn't have unreliability and storage problems like solar and wind energy. It is possible. For more information, please see www. campaignforgreen.com.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Oceans and Pollution

RPT-US asks UN to help cut ship emissions near coasts 30 Mar 2009 21:19:52 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Fixes typo in first paragraph)

By Timothy Gardner
(Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Marguerita Choy)

NEWARK, N.J., March 30 (Reuters) - The United States has asked the United Nation's International Maritime Organization to create a buffer zone around America's coastline to cut pollution from ocean-going ships that harms human health, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Monday.
The EPA estimates the plan would save up to 8,300 lives annually in the United States and Canada by 2020. Urban neighborhoods that surround ports, like the hubs of Newark, New Jersey and Los Angeles, have typically suffered the worst health problems, such as asthma and cancer, from the pollutants, according to EPA studies. Some 40 U.S. ports currently fail to meet federal air pollution standards."

But there doesn’t have to be any pollution to control. For more information, see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Personal Carbon Footprint Worries Unnecessary

"http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/Carbon: How much is enough?
Richard Black 18:49 GMT, Thursday, 26 March 2009

On my last entry, TandF1 posted a comment about a subject I've been planning to write about for a while - so what better time than now to delve into it? The issue is this: how much carbon dioxide should each person on Earth be "allowed" to emit?
Put another way: if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are to be limited, at some target date, to a figure that science suggests can stave off "dangerous" climate change, then how does that figure break down at the personal level, when shared out among the world's citizens?""

With no-emissions energy, individuals would not have a carbon footprint to worry about. Yes, it's possible--just cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Agriculture, Emissions, and Green Energy

According to an article on Reuters, future farmers will have to raise livestock and plants that put out less methane and nitrous oxide, respectively, and send in greenhouse gas emission reports to the government (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP410451.htmFarmers face growing climate change dilemma-scientist 26 Mar 2009 10:54:46 GMT By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia; Editing by Valerie Lee).
Efforts are being made in Australia to breed livestock that produce less methane and plants that produce less nitrous oxide, because methane "is about 20 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide" and nitrous oxide is "about 310 times more powerful than CO2" (ibid).
But what if the only emissions anyone had to contend with were those from agriculture because there were no emissions from vehicles, factories, or power plants? It's possible. Cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Specific Solution

Apparently the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen did not yield any specific solutions. Here's a link to something specific: www.campaignforgreen.com.

Friday, March 13, 2009

The Global Water Shortage and Alternative Energy

According to the World Water Development Report as discussed in the 12 March 2009 Globe and Mail, the global water shortage is worsening (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090311.wwater0312/BNStory/International/home). Causes include pollution, climate change, population growth, and changes in eating habits and resulting agricultural needs (ibid). Besides hurting food supplies, the water shortage also stunts economic growth, and could aggravate political instability in countries and regions already in conflict (ibid). There are some areas that do not have clean water or efficient sanitation (ibid).

One thing unmentioned in the article is the amount of water used by power plants. There is a way to produce clean, emissions-free energy without using water. If water wasn’t needed for energy production, there would be much more for agriculture and other needs. This clean, emission-free energy production will drastically cut pollution levels, improving the climate and the water. This production will also be used to clean water in still-polluted areas, and get clean water to areas that needed it for the basic necessities of living, agricultural production, and manufacturing. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Global Warming Quickens Pace

According to scientists reporting at the meeting in Copenhagen, global warming is happening faster than they thought, and the changes could be irreversible (Earth warming faster than thought By Matt McGrath BBC environment reporter, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/science/nature/7940532.stm, Published: 2009/03/12 19:17:14 GMT, © BBC MMIX).
This could bring on a loss of 75% Amazonian tree cover within a century, and sea level rise that will make areas uninhabitable and cause mass migrations of millions of people (ibid). "Within a century" sounds far away, but if we continue to use fossil fuels at this rate, without changing to an alternative energy, the pace of global warming could quicken, increasing the risks. Don't we want to be the generation that helps halt global warming? We can do it. For more information about emissions-free energy, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

International Government Response to Climate Change and How We Can Help

BBC online news http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
"A whale of a week for climate
Richard Black 9 Mar 09, 15:12 GMT
Two of my five picks of environment stories to watch this year may have significant new chapters written this week - and the new US administration of Barack Obama is a key player in both.

In Copenhagen, climate scientists, economists and policy makers will be meeting for a three-day conference that will share some of the latest thinking on the likely impacts of climate change, how the natural world is already being influenced, the costs and benefits of various types of action to mitigate it and adapt to it, and so on.
The Copenhagen meeting is an important one. It will be the final major global attempt to weave the various strands of climate research together before the annual UN summit, in the same city, in December, which is supposed to formulate a new global climate treaty - bigger, longer-lasting and more profound than the Kyoto Protocol.

The proper global body for this, of course, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but that produces major assessments only every five years or so, and they are by definition somewhat out of date because of the organisation's lengthy collation and review processes.

So the Danish government thinks there's a need for something a bit sharper off the mark, yet still authoritative - hence this week's meeting.

Prominent on the agenda are some of the big unknowns. By how much are sea levels likely to rise (an issue on which the IPCC was, by its own admission, cautious in its 2007 assessment)? Are natural "sinks" such as forests and oceans absorbing less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as some recent studies suggest? Can practices in agriculture or forestry be modified so more CO2 is absorbed?

On the economics side, there will be discussion of what various plans for curbing emissions might cost the global economy, and which economic tools would be the best ones to deploy.

The scientific conclusions will all still be couched in the language of probabilities, but the political dignitaries, such as Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, are likely to use more concrete terms when they outline the implications.

Whatever the demands are for "action now", the conference is unlikely to change the underlying political realities.

Many Kyoto adherents are some way off meeting even their protocol targets [174Kb PDF] for reducing emissions and in difficult economic times, it will be hard for industrialised countries to make the financial contributions that the developing world is likely to demand as the price of a new global agreement.

So many eyes will again turn to Barack Obama and his pledge to lead the world anew on climate change.

But given that US emissions have risen by about one-sixth since 1990 - the baseline year for all these calculations - his administration will struggle to pledge carbon cuts by 2020 that look huge in the context of scientists' and activists' demands for immediate and drastic reductions.

There was talk a couple of months ago that one of Mr Obama's senior energy or environment people - or even the president himself - might pitch up in Copenhagen, though that now seems to be off the agenda, which will presumably save them being asked lots of questions about a US climate policy that has not yet been formulated. ""

People need to get organized. Things need to change. And the change can be made. And made sooner than the meeting next December. We can do this. To find out how, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Just Now?

The EPA is just now requiring companies to report the amount of their greenhouse gas emissions. Just now? Strange.
(EPA looks to require reporting of greenhouse gases, Tuesday March 10, 12:15 pm ET, By Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090310/epa_greenhouse_gases.html)

Monday, March 9, 2009

The Amazon Rainforest and Carbon Emissions

The Independent
Revenge of the rainforest
The Amazon has long been the lungs of the world. But now comes dramatic evidence that we cannot rely on it in the fight against climate change
By Steve Connor
Friday, 6 March 2009
It covers an area 25 times bigger than Britain, is home to a bewildering concentration of flora and fauna and is often described as the "lungs of the world" for its ability to absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide through its immense photosynthetic network of trees and leaves.

The Amazon rainforest is one of the biggest and most important living stores of carbon on the planet through its ability to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into solid carbon, kept locked in the trunks of rainforest trees for centuries.

But this massive natural "sink" for carbon cannot be relied on to continue absorbing carbon dioxide in perpetuity, a study shows. Researchers have found that, for a period in 2005, the Amazon rainforest actually slipped into reverse gear and started to emit more carbon than it absorbed.

Four years ago, a sudden and intense drought in the Amazonian dry season created the sort of conditions that give climate scientists nightmares. Instead of being a net absorber of about two billion tons of carbon dioxide, the forest became a net producer of the greenhouse gas, to the tune of about three billion tons.

The additional quantity of carbon dioxide left in the atmosphere after the drought – some five billion tons – exceeded the annual man-made emissions of Europe and Japan combined. What happened in the dry season of 2005 was a stark reminder of how quickly the factors affecting global warming can change.

"For years, the Amazon forest has been helping to slow down climate change," said Professor Oliver Phillips, from the University of Leeds and the lead author of the study in the journal Science. "But relying on this subsidy from nature is extremely dangerous. The emission of five billion tons of carbon dioxide was huge. It meant that a major part of the biosphere had switched from one function to another, from a carbon sink to a carbon source.

"It shows what could happen if droughts become more frequent, and climate models suggest that Amazonia will get warmer and so put more water stress on vegetation. If the Earth's carbon sinks slow or go into reverse, as our results show is possible, carbon dioxide levels will rise even faster. Deeper cuts in emissions will be required to stabilise our climate."
Humans worldwide are estimated emit about 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year but just less than half of this, about 15 billion tons, remains in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by natural carbon sinks in the ocean and on land.

Scientists have calculated that the world's tropical forests collectively absorb about 4.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year, with the Amazon being the single biggest rainforest sink. Amazonia alone is estimated to store about 100 billion tons of carbon locked up in its trees.

This is why the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen later this year will focus heavily on what can be done to save rainforests to ameliorate the effects of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.
The Amazon: Facts and figures

* The Amazon rainforest covers an area of some 600 million hectares (2.3 million sq miles), an area of land 25 times bigger than Britain. It is the biggest rainforest on Earth, responsible for about 40 per cent of the world's rainforest absorption of carbon dioxide.

* Scientists estimate that there are at least 100 billion tons of carbon stored in the trees of the Amazon rainforest and each year the Amazon absorbs about 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

* During the extreme drought of 2005, the Amazon became a net producer of carbon dioxide, releasing an estimated 3 billion tons of the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere – a net increase of 5 billion tons."

When what works essentially as a sponge starts producing what it usually soaks up, we're overdoing it. But we can do something about it: change to emission-free energy. We'll save the rainforest, and the planet. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.