Campaign For Green

We Can Do More Now!

2010-04-13T14:44:00.000-07:00

Things haven't been going well, so leaders have been refocusing their priorities, and are now concentrating on preserving rain forests and helping developing countries deal with climate change (Eilperin, Juliet. "Climate Treaty Realities Push Leaders To Trim Priority Lists." Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/0210/04/12/AR2010041203822.html).

But there's so much more we can do now! Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Climate Action Day?

2010-01-27T07:54:00.000-08:00

Something I read on the 'net--today's been designated, by at least some people, as Climate Action Day. And we can do something about it. For more information, please see

www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

We don't want to lose places like these above.

Copenhagen

2009-12-08T14:29:00.000-08:00

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.

Something has GOT to be done!

2009-11-18T12:03:00.000-08:00

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

Energy Independence

2009-11-02T13:57:00.000-08:00

Subject line says it all.
See www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Climate Damage and Health

2009-10-28T08:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Biofuels and Carbon Emissions

2009-10-26T14:42:00.000-07:00

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.

350 PPM

2009-10-12T14:35:00.000-07:00

"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.

Five Years

2009-10-07T11:45:00.000-07:00

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."
(http://www.care2.com/greenliving/the-road-to-copenhagen-now-is-the-time-to-speak-up-about-climate-change.html).

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

Good Climate Change

2009-09-28T14:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Get It Done!

2009-09-24T13:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Exciting News!

2009-09-11T13:45:00.000-07:00

Exciting news about progress in alternative energy!!!

Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org today!!!

Algae as Biofuel

2009-08-19T14:11:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-10T13:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Alternatives To Hydroelectricity

2009-07-28T14:50:00.000-07:00

"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.

Congress Approved Research For Natural Gas Vehicles

2009-07-22T14:22:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-10T08:27:00.000-07:00

“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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8143566.stm
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.

New Thinking

2009-07-08T13:37:00.000-07:00

"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.

Climate Policy Change

2009-07-07T10:05:00.000-07:00

"'Time to ditch climate policies'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8138429.stm
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:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8138429.stm
Published: 2009/07/07 13:46:39 GMT
© BBC MMIX"

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.

Global Emissions Goals

2009-07-06T20:28:00.000-07:00

"G8 leaders to set emissions goals
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8135261.stm
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:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8135261.stm
Published: 2009/07/06 01:18:02 GMT
© BBC MMIX"

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.

Global Warming and the Global Economy

2009-07-02T13:19:00.000-07:00

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
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/01/waxman-markey-cap-and-trade-global-emissions-bill-opinions-columnists-roubini.html
*****
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.

Crops and Climate Change

2009-06-30T21:26:00.000-07:00

"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.

Progress Has Been Made

2009-06-23T12:44:00.001-07:00

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

1 Billion Hungry People

2009-06-19T10:29:00.000-07:00

“World hunger reaches the 1 billion people mark
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_re_eu/eu_un_world_hunger
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.

Economy, Environment, and Energy

2009-06-15T13:20:00.000-07:00

"Conservation groups feel the strain
Richard Black 15:17 UK time, Monday, 15 June 2009
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
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.

Another Reason To Choose Emissions-Free Energy

2009-06-12T11:52:00.000-07:00

"http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/bill-would-protect-drinking-water-from-toxic-chemicals.html
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!

2009-06-12T11:49:00.000-07:00

"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
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stalled-carbon-capture-coal-apf-15512898.html/print
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.

Truce Alternative Because of Emissions Alternative

2009-06-09T13:35:00.000-07:00

"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.

Mass Transport Really Green?

2009-06-08T11:40:00.000-07:00

"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.

Progress, But We Can Do More

2009-06-04T13:05:00.000-07:00

"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.

Hunger in South Asia

2009-06-02T12:39:00.001-07:00

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8079698.stm
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??!!??

2009-06-02T09:47:00.000-07:00

"Climate chief's pledge on energy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8078007.stm
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.

Species Index and Climate Change

2009-06-01T10:11:00.000-07:00

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.

Yes We Can Do More

2009-05-29T08:21:00.000-07:00

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
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8073434.stm
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:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8073434.stm
Published: 2009/05/29 13:19:21 GMT
© BBC MMIX”

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.

If Things Don't Change

2009-05-28T13:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Permafrost and Carbon Emissions

2009-05-27T20:37:00.000-07:00

Permafrost melt poses long-term threat, says study
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090527/sc_afp/climatewarmingpermafrost
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.

Climate Deals--Please Act Soon

2009-05-26T10:07:00.000-07:00

"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)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21352527.htm
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.

We Can Do More

2009-05-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

“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.

More on Climate and Health

2009-05-14T20:55:00.000-07:00

"Climate 'biggest health threat'
Climate change is "the biggest global health threat of the 21st Century", according to a leading medical journal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8049061.stm
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:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8049061.stm
Published: 2009/05/14 10:14:10 GMT
© BBC MMIX"
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.

Pollution and Health

2009-05-13T13:58:00.000-07:00

"http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/emissions-pollution-premature-deaths

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.

Not Just There But Other Places

2009-05-12T14:47:00.000-07:00

"Huge Bolivian glacier disappears
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8046540.stm
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.

Let Them Know!

2009-05-08T10:01:00.000-07:00

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!

Climate Change and the Economy

2009-05-07T12:22:00.001-07:00

"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.

Dontcha Wanna?

2009-05-05T08:40:00.000-07:00

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?

New Thinking

2009-04-28T08:15:00.000-07:00

"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.

Whatdya Think?

2009-04-27T09:21:00.000-07:00

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

The Time Is Now

2009-04-24T18:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Climate Change and Climate Disasters

2009-04-23T08:23:00.000-07:00

"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
© BBC MMIX"
Something can be done now to stave off any more climate change caused by global warming. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Earth, Breath, Trees

2009-04-21T08:50:00.000-07:00

"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.

Black Carbon, Health, and Global Warming

2009-04-20T09:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Distractions

2009-04-17T10:35:00.000-07:00

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.

Non-Carbon Sources For Electricity

2009-04-15T09:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Biomass Limitations and the Alternative

2009-04-14T15:16:00.000-07:00

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.

Pollution and Life Expectancy

2009-04-13T08:45:00.000-07:00

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.

Australia -- Just One Example

2009-04-10T08:57:00.000-07:00

"http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-change-australia9-2009apr09,0,65585.story?page=3
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

2009-04-10T08:14:00.000-07:00

"http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L881464.htm
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.

Cap 'n Trade???

2009-04-09T13:44:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-09T09:31:00.000-07:00

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7988619.stm
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.
Exposure
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:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7988619.stm
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.

Rising Sea Levels and Climate Change

2009-04-08T12:24:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-08T08:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Climate Change and Environmental Damage

2009-04-06T13:40:00.000-07:00

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.

US Pragmatic on Climate Change

2009-04-04T14:28:00.000-07:00

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.

More Pain At The Pump

2009-04-02T15:23:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-02T08:28:00.000-07:00

"http://www.npca.org/cleanair/agenda/

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.

Oceans and Pollution

2009-03-31T15:56:00.001-07:00

"http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30349272.htm
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.

Personal Carbon Footprint Worries Unnecessary

2009-03-27T08:55:00.000-07:00

"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.

Agriculture, Emissions, and Green Energy

2009-03-26T14:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Specific Solution

2009-03-25T08:39:00.000-07:00

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

The Global Water Shortage and Alternative Energy

2009-03-13T10:35:00.000-07:00

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.

Global Warming Quickens Pace

2009-03-12T13:34:00.000-07:00

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.

International Government Response to Climate Change and How We Can Help

2009-03-10T11:05:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-03-10T09:56:00.000-07:00

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)

The Amazon Rainforest and Carbon Emissions

2009-03-09T20:09:00.000-07:00

"http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/revenge-of-the-rainforest-1638524.html
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.

Global Warming

2009-03-05T15:28:00.000-08:00

"Next decade 'may see no warming'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.
A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.
However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.
Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future.
***
"We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature.
"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."
Dr Wood cautions that this kind of modelling is in its infancy; and once data can be brought directly from the Atlantic depths, that may change the view of how the AMO works and what it means for the global climate.
As with the unusually cold weather seen recently in much of the northern hemisphere - linked to La Nina conditions - he emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.
Michael Schlesinger, the US scientist who characterised the AMO in 1994, described the new model as "very exciting".
"No doubt we need to have more data from the deep ocean, and we don't have that at present," the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign researcher told BBC News.
"But imagine the payoff of knowing with some certainty what the next 10 years hold in terms of temperature and precipitation - the economic impacts of that would be significant." "
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
Published: 2008/05/01 03:11:00 GMT
© BBC MMIX

But what if there was an emission-free alternative energy? There would be no emisssions to contribute to global warming, and any slowdown in global warming would be accelerated. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Climate Treaties and Emissions-Free Energy

2009-03-02T14:44:00.000-08:00

"Obama’s Backing Raises Hopes for Climate Pact
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 28, 2009
Until recently, the idea that the world’s most powerful nations might come together to tackle global warming seemed an environmentalist’s pipe dream.

The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, was widely viewed as badly flawed. Many countries that signed the accord lagged far behind their targets in curbing carbon dioxide emissions. The United States refused even to ratify it. And the treaty gave a pass to major emitters in the developing world like China and India.

But within weeks of taking office, President Obama has radically shifted the global equation, placing the United States at the forefront of the international climate effort and raising hopes that an effective international accord might be possible. Mr. Obama’s chief climate negotiator, Todd Stern, said last week that the United States would be involved in the negotiation of a new treaty — to be signed in Copenhagen in December — “in a robust way.”

That treaty, officials and climate experts involved in the negotiations say, will significantly differ from the agreement of a decade ago, reaching beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions and including financial mechanisms and making good on longstanding promises to provide money and technical assistance to help developing countries cope with climate change.

The perception that the United States is now serious has set off a flurry of diplomacy around the globe. “The lesson of Kyoto is that if the U.S. isn’t taking it seriously there is no reason for anyone else to,” said Bill McKibben, who runs the environmental organization http://www.350.org/.
****
But a global treaty still faces serious challenges in Washington and abroad, and the negotiations will be a test of how far the United States and other nations are prepared to go to address climate change at a moment when economies around the world are unspooling. The global recession itself is expected to result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as manufacturing and other polluting industries shrink, lessening the pressure on countries to take action.
****
The Obama administration has said that it will push through federal legislation this year to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the United States — a promise that Mr. Obama reiterated Tuesday in his speech to Congress.
****
Negotiating the treaty when countries are under extreme economic stress presents challenges, Mr. de Boer acknowledged. Politicians in Italy and Canada have complained that it will be difficult to clean up industries to meet their Kyoto goals because of the economic downturn. But others say a global industrial recession, in which emissions tend to drop anyway and countries are poised to spend billions to stimulate economies, is the time to craft a global effort to combat global warming.
****
Mr. Obama has said the United States will lead the effort, but over the next months, he will have to show what exactly that means. A good first step, environmentalists say, would be to commit to trying to limit warming to two degrees centigrade above pre-industrial temperatures, an ambitious goal that the European Union has adopted but that the Bush administration steadfastly avoided. It could also pledge to reduce emissions by 50 or 80 percent by 2050.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that humans could largely adapt to two degrees of warming, but that a greater temperature increase could cause far more serious consequences, from a dangerous rise in sea levels to mass extinctions.

Climate experts added that the United States did not need to have in place national legislation to limit greenhouse gasses, a process that could take months, to negotiate in Copenhagen. “It’s not just about analyzing a piece of legislation,” Mr. Ashton said. “It’s about the feeling you get if you’re a leader sitting in Beijing. It’s like love; you know it when you feel it.”

A more complex issue is whether negotiators will retain the system of trading carbon credits that is central to the Kyoto Protocol, a kind of global commodities market for carbon.
****
“This is not just about emissions but about creating a massive investment in a new global energy economy” that includes forests, oceans and the transfer of technology, said Angela Anderson, director of the Pew Environment Group’s Global Warming Campaign.
****
Contributing reporting were Mark Landler from Beijing and Andrew C. Revkin."

There's a solution, and we can all take it seriously, because it will benefit all of us.
The solution will create green jobs and, when implemented, will be less expensive monetarily and environmentally.
With this solution, there won’t be a need to worry about controlling emissions because there won’t be any emissions to control. Or carbons to trade.
And with no emissions to control, the kind of climate change that we’ve been having to deal with will be . . . changed--for the better.
For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Global Conferences on the Environment and Climate Change

2009-02-26T11:11:00.000-08:00

"http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
Slow road to green reformRichard Black 26 Feb 09, 10:20 GMT
It's been nine years since a gathering of environment ministers in the Swedish city of Malmo declared that the world urgently needed to reform the way it governed itself environmentally.

Change was needed, they said, including a "greatly strengthened institutional structure for international environmental governance... that has the capacity to effectively address wide-ranging environmental threats in a globalising world".
*****
The ensuing years have seen various initiatives that would either reform the system or tear it up and start again. But even though many governments cite global environmental decline as a present and future disaster, there's been little progress on reforming the international bodies intended to lead the global response.

So you might think that as the issue raised its head again last week at UNEP's governing council meeting in Nairobi, the overwhelming emotion would be frustration.

And clearly there was frustration that despite nine years of talks and some constructive ideas, virtually nothing has changed.

But there was optimism too. And having spoken to some of the people at last week's meeting, much of it appears to have stemmed from just one word: Obama.

The single biggest event of the meeting was the agreement to regulate global emissions of mercury, a heavy metal pollutant with toxicities that include damaging people's nervous systems.
*****
So what happens now? Well, the UNEP meeting set up a consultation process intended to produce some kind of reform package by 2012.
*****
If the UN climate talks do produce a treaty as complex as many envisage, encompassing emission targets, clean technology transfer, funds for forest preservation with the rights of indigenous peoples assured, money to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts, and so on, it could make decisions on issues that logically ought to feature heavily in the overall environmental governance discussions.
*****
Can it work? If it can, will the outcome be tinkering, or wholesale reform? If it is reform, will a new body include rules and sanctions, as does the World Trade Organization? How will it link environmental issues to human development?

These are all key questions, and much wrangling lies ahead before any answers emerge; but the mercury deal is being seen in some quarters as an indication that the glacial progress in many environmental issues is about to accelerate."

It's good that governments are working cooperatively on this problem. There is a solution: totally clean energy, with no emissions, and less expense than existing energies, and no need for biofuels that take up land that could be used for food. Everyone would benefit and governments could concentrate on other issues. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Response to the National Clean Energy Project: Building the New Economy

2009-02-24T09:46:00.000-08:00

Response to the National Clean Energy Project: Building the New Economy
The members of the panel at the National Clean Energy Project: Building the New Economy, discussed energy and environmentalism, economics, geopolitics, and engineering. Something has to be done about global warming, climate change, pollution, and health. In the process of doing something, the economy will create jobs and that will help everyone. We also need to be freed from the problems inherent in depending on other countries for fuel. There also has to be a way to get the electricity produced by alternative fuel to everyone, no matter where they live.

There is a solution. This solution is emissions free—our environment and our health won’t be plagued by pollution. This solution is also economically efficient: jobs will be created and energy will be less expensive. This solution is also domestic: we will not be dependent on any country for our energy source. Everyone will benefit, no matter where they live.
For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Water Conservation and Energy

2009-02-23T15:11:00.000-08:00

We use up water in clothes, food, and energy production, and have a water footprint just like a carbon footprint (Alter, Alexandra, Yet Another 'Footprint' to Worry About: Water Taking a Cue From Carbon Tracking, Companies and Conservationists Tally Hidden Sources of Consumption” FEBRUARY 17, 2009 The Wall Street Journal, page A11). This is just as important as carbon consumption concerns because of the danger of water shortages from depletion and pollution of groundwater reserves, shrinking of glaciers that provide fresh water, and growing energy and food demand all over the world (Alter, page A11). There are also droughts; Argentina has been suffering under a drought that has dried up rivers and hurt agriculture, particularly the cattle industry so much that for the past two years, ranchers are being forced to sell cattle that are too thin to reproduce and thus replenish the herds (Piette, Candace, “Drought sucks life from Argentina's farms, BBC News, Buenos Aires http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7905357.stm, Published: 2009/02/23 12:47:33 GMT, © BBC MMIX).

If water wasn't necessary for manufacturing or energy production in general, there would be more water to help people who live in drought-plagued areas. And that's just one way to help when people need water--we could use clean energy to pipe water to people who need it all the time, not just when there's a drought. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Global Warming: The Stats

2009-02-19T17:51:00.000-08:00

"http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=35792
Environmental Defense Fund
Global Warming by the Numbers

Friday the 13th just got a little scarier. Here are 13 facts about the realities of global warming. Even Jason would be scared.

The numbers speak for themselves -- we must make 2009 the showdown year for global warming action. There is no time to lose.

You can help by spreading the word any way you can -- through email, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, whatever works for you.

Take ActionTell a Friend35%
Increase in the global carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1992.

388.57 ppm
Average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in May 2008, a record high.

541 – 970 ppm
The projected concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2100 under a business as usual scenario where we don't dramatically reduce global warming emissions.

260 – 280 ppm
Average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before industrial emissions.

50 – 200 years
Length of time carbon dioxide stays in the earth's atmosphere before it is absorbed into carbon sinks.

1000 years
Length of time changes in the earth's surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level will remain even after carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped.

34%
Percentage that 2008's Arctic seasonal sea ice melt outpaced normal levels.

70%
Increase in the rate of Greenland's ice melt over the last five years.

1.7 days
Number of days earlier seasons are coming than 50 years ago.

1.5 million
Number of acres of forests in Colorado destroyed by the pine beetle, which is better able to survive warmer winters and is wrecking havoc in America's western forests.

$427 million
Amount spent by the oil and coal industries in the first six months of 2008 in political contributions, lobbying expenditures and advertising to oppose climate action.

0
Number of global warming bills passed by the Senate.

0
Number of global warming bills passed by the House.

Sources:

NOAA CO2 Trends
IPCC Third Assessment Report
Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere
Atmosphere, Climate & Environment Information Programme
ESRL News: New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
An Accurate Picture Of Ice Loss In Greenland
Pine Beetles: Worse Than You Thought
Early seasons : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
Hill Heat : Oil and Coal Industries Spending Two Million Dollars a Day to Shape Political Debate"

I know it's five days since Friday, but still . . . we need to do something about all that, do something to reduce the numbers. And we can. For more information, see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Water and Energy

2009-02-16T21:10:00.000-08:00

According to Thomas J. Feeley's 2004 report "Responding to Emerging Power Plant-Water Issues," about 25 gallons of water are needed for each kilowatt-hour of electricity (http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/1719). Nuclear power plants use about 9% less than coal-fired power plants (ibid), but still . . . all that water just to turn on lights, the computer, the heater/ac . . . !
As per other types of energy production . . . wind turbine generation "uses less than 1/600 as much water per unit of electricity produced as does nuclear, and approximately 1/500 as much as coal" (http://www.awea.org/faq/water.html).
Still . . . still there is an alternative that does not depend on water or fossil fuels, thus freeing up water for other uses and keeping the air free of carbon emissions. For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Alternative Energies: A Response to Information

2009-02-12T12:28:00.000-08:00

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/
Nova: The Big Energy Gamble

12 February 2009 Blog: More on Global Warming and Alternative Energies

This blog is a response to information in Nova’s episode “The Big Energy Gamble” which discusses California’s efforts to halt global warming by investing in alternative energies. For convenience’s sake, I am going to use complete internal documentation once, then stick to using ibid).
Extreme weather—including drought, fires, and mudslides—can be linked to the global warming that happens from producing greenhouse gases, themselves produced from the use of fossil fuels (Nova: The Big Energy Gamble, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/).
But what if there was an alternative energy that produced no carbon emissions?
The Governor’s goal for California as per carbon reduction is 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050; this includes 15% from homes, 15% from power generation, 33% from cars, and the rest from carbon emissions caps (ibid.).
A totally clean energy could reach those goals much sooner—as soon as 2011 or even 2010.
There are things that can be done now at home: seal leaks in ducts, windows, and doors, and use energy-efficient light bulbs (ibid). But some people can’t afford any of that (ibid).
What if there was an energy alternative that was so efficient that those measures would not necessarily have to be taken . . . and everyone could afford it?
So . . . what sort of fuels are used and what are the advantages and disadvantages?
Coal . . . advantages . . . well, it is there in the ground, and there are coal-fired plants already in use . . . But the disadvantages . . .Coal is a hydrocarbon; when it’s burned it combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, and, of all the fossil fuels, coal produces the most (ibid).
There are energy alternatives which produce no or less carbon emissions (ibid). And those include solar and wind power (ibid).
Solar power . . . The sun is certainly a renewable; that’s an advantage. And you can harness its power yourself (ibid). You can buy solar panels for your home, but those are expensive: one person interviewed on Nova: The Big Energy Gamble paid $32,000 for solar panels for his house, even with a tax credit (ibid). And his house isn’t all that big . . . it’s not one of those McMansions.
Solar thermal energy is also used: huge panels use oil to move energy and it is converted to steam (ibid).
That’s all very well, but there is the expense for the individual, and as per solar thermal energy . . . oil is still needed, and steam can be produced other ways. And what if it’s not sunny??? (ibid). What do you do on cloudy days? (ibid).
There’s also wind energy, another renewable. Wind turbines, each with their own generator, produce electricity, and the bigger the turbines the more energy produced (ibid).
But there are disadvantages: what do you do when the wind doesn’t blow? And if the wind turbines are out in the desert, how do you get the power to the city through the grid that is miles away (ibid)? And what do you do about the environmental concerns about building transmission lines to the grid (ibid)?
It is possible to not depend on the sun and wind . . . and to not have to worry about being miles away from power generation.
Natural gas is another alternative, and California gets 45% of its energy from it (ibid). Carbon emissions from natural gas are 50% less than from coal (ibid). That’s the advantage. But natural gas is still a fossil fuel and there are still emissions to deal with, even if more plants were built instead of coal-fired plants (ibid).
There is an alternative to natural gas.
Nuclear power fuels many buildings (ibid). But there are disadvantages: the expense, the dangers of radioactivity, and the waste that can’t be put just anywhere (ibid).
There is an alternative to nuclear energy.
Some people are afraid that energy from alternative sources will cost more in money and job loss (ibid). Wind turbines are built here, though, because it’s cheaper (ibid).
There is something that is cheaper, without using huge wind turbines, and without costing jobs.
For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Climate Change, Health, Technology

2009-02-10T08:55:00.000-08:00

From the 10 February 2009 BBC Online News Site--

"UN chief in India climate warning

Mr Ban said that all countries are threatened by climate change
UN chief Ban Ki-moon has warned a climate change conference in India that failure to tackle the issue will lead to global economic upheaval.
He appealed to nations to reach agreement on carbon emission cuts.
Mr Ban is attending the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit which, organisers say will press for cuts in carbon emissions.
He is also expected to discuss with India the attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) last year which killed 170 people.
'Destabilise economies'
"Deserts are spreading. Water scarcity is increasing. Tropical forests are shrinking. Our once prolific fisheries are in danger of collapse," said Mr Ban at the start of the conference in Delhi.
Mr Ban is attending a climate change conference in Delhi
"Failure to combat climate change will increase poverty and hardship. It will destabilise economies, breed insecurity in many countries and undermine our goals for sustainable development."
He said that all countries must work towards a "conclusive carbon emissions reduction" deal at an international climate change conference in Copenhagen in December which will debate initiatives when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
"Copenhagen must clarify commitments of developed countries to reduce their emissions," said Mr Ban.
"We must also achieve clarity on what mitigation actions developing countries will be prepared to make. In Copenhagen we must now bring all this all together in an ambitious, comprehensive and ratifiable agreement."
India faces the "challenges of poverty eradication, sustaining the rapid economic growth and dealing with the global threat of climate change", Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's 2008 Nobel prize-winning climate panel and one of summit organisers, told the AFP news agency. "

The rest of the article goes on to discuss political and social unrest on one country. What I want to emphasize from this article is the need for technological changes that will restrict climate change and how that can help us economically. The fuels we use hurt the climate. Climate damage affects food production and costs lives. Making technological changes that result in zero carbon emissions will improve food production and health. These changes can be made. These changes must be made. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

2009-02-06T09:19:00.000-08:00

From the BBC News online site
"Acid oceans 'need urgent action'
The world's marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.
More than 150 top marine researchers have voiced their concerns through the "Monaco Declaration", which warns that changes in acidity are accelerating.
The declaration, supported by Prince Albert II of Monaco, builds on findings from an earlier international summit.
It says pH levels are changing 100 times faster than natural variability.
Based on the research priorities identified at The Ocean in a High CO2 World symposium, held in October 2008, the declaration states:
"We scientists who met in Monaco to review what is known about ocean acidification declare that we are deeply concerned by recent, rapid changes in ocean chemistry and their potential, within decades, to severely affect marine organisms, food webs, biodiversity and fisheries."
'The other CO2 problem'
It calls on policymakers to stabilise CO2 emissions "at a safe level to avoid not only dangerous climate change but also dangerous ocean acidification".
The researchers warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as "the other CO2 problem", could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.
They also say that it could lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening food security for millions of people.
"The chemistry is so fundamental and changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable," said Dr James Orr, chairman of the symposium.
"The questions are now how bad will it be and how soon will it happen."
Another signatory, Patricio Bernal, executive secretary of the UN Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, outlined how the marine research community intended to respond to the challenge.
"We need to bring together the best scientists to share their latest research results and to set priorities for research to improve our knowledge of the processes and of the impacts of acidification on marine ecosystems."
Prince Albert II used the declaration to voice his concerns, adding that he hoped the world's leaders would take the "necessary action" at a key UN climate summit later this year.
"I strongly support this declaration. I hope that it will be heard by all the political leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm
Published: 2009/01/30 15:42:37 GMT
© BBC MMIX"

Land ecosystems aren't the only ones that need preservation. And we can do that by cutting carbon emissions completely. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Global Recession and Carbon Emissions

2009-01-30T13:36:00.000-08:00

The global recession is making it difficult for countries and companies to participate in the cap and trade program for carbon emissions (Recession threatens carbon trading By James Melik Business reporter, BBC World Service Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7857771.stm
Published: 2009/01/29 23:34:56 GMT © BBC MMIX).
Why stick with something that puts forth carbon when there's an alternative? Please see http://www.campaignforgreen.com/.

Why The Complications? Why Carbon Emissions At All?

2009-01-29T12:25:00.000-08:00

"EU urges US climate commitment
By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News
The EU is calling on President Barack Obama to cap US carbon emissions and sign up to a global system of carbon trading between rich nations.
The European Commission said the US needed to join a carbon market if it was going to raise the huge sums needed for combating climate change.
Rich nations had to raise 175bn euros (£162bn; $321bn) by 2020 for clean technologies, the commission added.
More than half of that cash would go to developing countries, it stated.
A further 23-54bn euros would be need to help poor nations to adapt to climate change that was likely to happen.
Without that inducement to poor countries there would be no new global climate agreement at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December. " *****
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7856120.stmPublished: 2009/01/28 17:11:58 GMT

We need to help each other help the earth. But why carbon permits??? Even regulated carbon emissions are still making things worse. There's another way, an alternative that does not require carbon trading and which would benefit everyone in every country. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Pollution, Biodiversity, Health, and Clean Energy

2009-01-27T09:28:00.000-08:00

Diverse roots of human disease
Richard Black 23 Jan 09, 17:17 GMT Does loss of biodiversity affect human health?

"The United Nations Environment Programme believes it does - the notion was one of the top lines in the last edition of its massive five-yearly Global Environmental Outlook, which came out in 2007.

The nuts and bolts of the link, though, can come across as a bit tenuous - loss of species may affect the discovery of new drugs; biodiversity can impact water quality; and so on. They're not necessarily the most convincing arguments to those who pride themselves on having hard heads.

This week, I came across something a bit more concrete - and what makes it more interesting is that it relates to one of the really poor cousins of the medical research field, schistosomiasis.

Also known as bilharzia, this is a disease which receives so little attention and money that malaria is a rich prince by comparison. Yet it affects about 200m people and is said to be the second most devastating parasitic disease in the world - malaria being the first.

The parasites - flatworms of the genus Schistosoma - spend part of their lives in water-borne snails, and people - usually children - contract the infection from the water when the parasites swim free.

There's no vaccine, and there are really only two modes of attack - either giving regular doses of drugs such as praziquantel, or trying to eradicate the snails that carry the parasite, with chemicals such as copper sulphate.

Some people have looked at introducing crayfish to eat the snails - I hope something of an alarm bell rang there given the problems that invasive species have caused in some places around the world - or by introducing certain plants.

So Pieter Johnson, a researcher at the University of Colorado, asked a simple question; could the diversity of the snail population affect the number of parasites?

His team rigged up a series of experimental chambers in their lab. All had the same number of Planorbidae snails that carry the parasites, but he put in different numbers of other snail families that can't carry it.

As he reported in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings B this week, there was a definite impact. The number of Planorbidae infected fell by between a quarter and half when other types of snail were around.

The reason is probably what parasitologists call the "decoy effect". Some parasites will attempt to enter the wrong kinds of host - they can't, they die, and so there are fewer parasites around to infect the real hosts.

Now, this is a laboratory experiment - but if the results do hold true in the wild, here would be both a striking demonstration of the principle that biodiversity can beat disease, and something practical that the millions of people affected by schistosomiasis could use to protect themselves to some extent.

Simply keeping their ponds and streams in a state that preserves the range of native snails might reduce the number of people infected.

Implementing that remedy, however, might not be so straightforward given other environmental trends.

Agriculture is changing in many of the countries affected by schistosomiasis, even in its African heartlands.

Excess fertiliser running off farmland into water stimulates the growth of algae; and this appears to be an advantage to the disease-bearing snails, who can thrive on the green stuff, whereas other types die off.

(It's the same thing in microcosm that's happening to coral reefs; too much nutrition for algae brings the death of important native species - in this case, the coral polyps.)

You could argue, of course, that simply wiping out the wrong kind of snail would be more effective. But it's been tried, it has side effects, and it's a procedure that needs doing time and time again.

And wiping out the hosts wouldn't be an option for another condition where the link from biodiversity to human health has been demonstrated - Lyme disease.

Richard Ostfeld and his collaborators have shown that a diverse ecology reduces the number of white-footed mice, an important carrier of the ticks that transmit the disease.

Lyme disease is frequently in the news in North America, and I'm not surprised, having met a conservationist in Canada a few years ago who was still suffering the effects more than a decade after infection.

Schistosomiasis is rarely in the news anywhere. But it should be; it is one of the factors holding back the health and education of children in the poorest countries, and if simply keeping the right mix of snails alive would indeed help keep the parasite down, why not?

In the meantime, it's not my job to do the UN's publicity; but if they're looking for concrete evidence to show why biodiversity matters to the human race, perhaps the snail-ridden waters of Africa and Asia are places worth looking."

Pollution affects biodiversity. Biodiversity affects health. If there were no carbon emissions, there would be no pollution. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Money, Eminent Domain, Climate Change . . . And the Solution

2009-01-26T15:18:00.000-08:00

China dams reveal flaws in climate-change weapon
By JOE McDONALD and CHARLES J. HANLEY, Associated Press Writers Joe Mcdonald And Charles J. Hanley, Associated Press Writers
38 mins ago
XIAOXI, China – The hydroelectric dam, a low wall of concrete slicing across an old farming valley, is supposed to help a power company in distant Germany contribute to saving the climate — while putting lucrative "carbon credits" into the pockets of Chinese developers.
But in the end the new Xiaoxi dam may do nothing to lower global-warming emissions as advertised. And many of the 7,500 people displaced by the project still seethe over losing their homes and farmland.
"Nobody asked if we wanted to move," said a 38-year-old man whose family lost a small brick house. "The government just posted a notice that said, 'Your home will be demolished.'"
The dam will shortchange German consumers, Chinese villagers and the climate itself, if critics are right. And Xiaoxi is not alone.
Similar stories are repeated across China and elsewhere around the world, as hundreds of hydro projects line up for carbon credits, at a potential cost of billions to Europeans, Japanese and soon perhaps Americans, in a trading system a new U.S. government review concludes has "uncertain effects" on greenhouse-gas emissions.
One American expert is more blunt.
"The CDM" — the 4-year-old, U.N.-managed Clean Development Mechanism — "is an excessive subsidy that represents a massive waste of developed world resources," says Stanford University's Michael Wara.
Forced relocations have become common in China as people in hundreds of communities are moved to clear land for factories and other projects, provoking anger and occasionally violent protests. But what happened here is unusual in highlighting not just the human costs, but also the awkward fit between China's authoritarian system, in which complaints of official abuse abound, and Western environmental ideals.
Those ideals produced the Clean Development Mechanism as a market-based tool under the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement to combat climate change. The CDM allows industrial nations, required by Kyoto to reduce emissions of gases blamed for global warming, to comply by paying developing nations to cut their emissions instead.
Companies thousands of miles away, such as Germany's coal-burning, carbon dioxide-spewing RWE electric utility, accomplish this by buying carbon credits the U.N. issues to clean-energy projects like Xiaoxi's. The proceeds are meant to make such projects more financially feasible.
As critics point out, however, if those projects were going to be built anyway, the climate doesn't gain, but loses.
Such projects "may allow covered entities" — such as RWE — "to increase their emissions without a corresponding reduction in a developing country," the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in its December review.
The system's defenders call it essential for hard-pressed industrialized nations to meet their Kyoto quotas, and say the CDM's standards are being tightened.
"It's not as if we're printing money in a garage," Yvo de Boer, U.N. climate chief, said of the credits. "Lots of legitimate questions are being asked," he acknowledged to The Associated Press, but "that's why I'm happy we have a transparent process."
That transparency — online project documents and a U.N. database — allowed the AP to analyze in detail this exploding market, which attracts projects ranging from small solar-power efforts in Africa, to emissions controls on giant chemical plants in India and China.
The AP has found that hydroelectric projects, whose climate impact is most widely questioned, have quickly become the No. 1 technology in the CDM, and China in particular is rushing in to capitalize.
The Chinese now have at least 763 hydro projects in the CDM approval pipeline and are adding an average of 25 a month. By 2012, those projects alone are expected to generate more than 300 million "certified emission reductions," each supposedly representing reduction of one ton of carbon dioxide. Even at recent depressed market prices, those credits would be worth $4 billion.
If the United States enters the Kyoto system, as proposed by President-elect Barack Obama, it would be the biggest player in a market expected to be worth hundreds of billions a year by 2030.
Here in central China's mist-shrouded Zishui River valley, evicted farmers worry not about carbon-market billions, but about the thousands of Chinese yuan doled out to compensate them for lost homes and farmland.
Xiaoxi residents said that when they were evicted in 2005 to make way for the dam and its 4-square-mile reservoir, officials paid too little for condemned homes and forcibly removed owners who held out for more.
They said payments for losing their rights to state-owned land, where they grew beans and squash, were far below China's legally required minimum, which they said requires payment of the value of at least five years' harvests.
Residents spoke with the AP on condition their names not be used, to avoid trouble with authorities.
The dam's state-owned builder, Hunan Xinshao Xiaoxi Hydropower Development Co., defended its dealings with the people of Xiaoxi.
"The compensation standard we adopted was relatively high compared with similar projects and was in accord with government regulations," said Wang Yi, assistant to the company's general manager.
For their homes, people said they were paid government-set prices of $4.60 to $5.70 per square foot. But such payments didn't go far, even in this remote town surrounded by small tin mines and steep, wooded hills.
"What I got certainly was not enough to buy a new place. We had to borrow more," said a man who stood holding his 1-year-old grandson in a street lined with new apartment buildings where some relocated families have moved.
He said officials refused to discuss compensation for thousands of yuan he had spent to fix up his family's house. "I refused their offer, but they forced us out and demolished it," he said.
The dam company says local surveys found overwhelming support for the project, with 97 percent of 212 respondents saying they were satisfied with their compensation. But people interviewed in Xiaoxi said they were not contacted for such surveys.
The CDM money has spawned an industry of consultants who help Chinese companies assemble bids for emissions credits, and of U.N.-certified "validators," firms that then attest that projects meet U.N. standards.
For Xiaoxi, the developer hired Germany's TUEV-SUED as validator, and then commissioned it again later to confirm that the project complied with European Union and German government requirements on "stakeholder consultation" — that local people approve of the project beforehand.
The TUEV-SUED report acknowledged that "the concerned villagers and their leaders were not involved in the decision process." But it contended the guidelines' "essence" was fulfilled because those affected "have improved their living environment."
The German Emissions Trading Authority approved Xiaoxi credits early last year, but that government agency's Wolfgang Seidel now tells the AP it is investigating questions newly raised about Xiaoxi. Julia Scharlemann, spokeswoman for beneficiary utility RWE, said it also was "making our own inquiries" regarding Xiaoxi.
A key question from environmentalists, led by the U.S.-based group International Rivers, is whether projects meet the CDM test of "additionality" — that they contribute to making real reductions of greenhouses gases rather than be business-as-usual projects capitalizing belatedly on the CDM bonanza.
At Xiaoxi, where the dam should be operating by 2010, construction began in 2004, two years before the developers applied for CDM credits, suggesting it would have been built without CDM money.
Company official Wang counters that CDM money will help pay retroactively for expensive Italian technology needed to cope with the site's complex geology. "Without the money from trading emissions credits, the project would be unprofitable," he said.
Environmentalists also point out that hydro power has long been a national priority in China. Since the 1990s — long before the CDM — the Chinese have added an average 7.7 gigawatts a year of hydro power, equivalent to six Hoover Dams annually, International Rivers reports.
In other words, Chinese planners aren't suddenly replacing emissions-heavy coal-fired power plants with emissions-free dams.
The Xiaoxi project design document, in fact, says Chinese regulations would block the building of such a relatively low-output coal plant here. But that's how planners determined the "emissions reductions" from the $183-million, 135-megawatt dam — by calculating how much carbon dioxide a 135-megawatt conventional power plant would produce instead.
That bottom line — some 450,000 tons of global-warming gases each year — would be added to RWE's permitted emissions if it buys the Xiaoxi credits, at a current annual cost of $8 million. And such calculations will be repeated at 37 other Chinese hydro projects where RWE will buy credits.
All told, the 38 are expected to produce more than 16 million CDM credits by 2012, legitimizing 16 million tons of emissions in Germany, equivalent to more than 1 percent of annual German emissions.
At today's low market prices, those credits would be worth some $300 million, paid to Chinese developers and presumably billed to German electricity customers, who by 2007 were already paying more than double the U.S. average rate per kilowatt-hour.
Utilities from Italy's Edison to Tokyo Electric are making similar deals for hydro-project credits in a dozen other countries, from Peru to India to Vietnam.
Rather than reduce their own emissions, "firms in developed countries are buying offsets that don't represent real behavioral change, real reductions in emissions," said Wara, the environmental law professor.
The U.S. GAO investigators said they learned that middlemen sometimes manipulate project paperwork to show a need for CDM financing, and they believe "a substantial number" of projects have undeservedly received credits.
The CDM system "can be 'gamed' fairly easily," said German expert Axel Michaelowa, both a critic and a CDM insider, as a member of the U.N. team that registers CDM projects.
But Michaelowa said the CDM remains "a crucial bridge between industrialized and developing countries." It has problems but they can be solved, he said.
Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican ex-member of the board overseeing the CDM, echoed Michaelowa's view. She said it's crucial to encourage China in particular, whose coal power plants make it the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, to build clean-energy facilities. And she counters critics who oppose dams in general because of their environmental impact.
"We cannot continue to demonize hydro," Figueres told the AP.
She and R.K. Sethi, the CDM Executive Board's Indian chairman, both pointed to reforms since 2007: A reinforced U.N. oversight staff, a validators' manual with stringent standards, and a growing number of board reappraisals of validator findings.
In two recent dramatic steps, the board suspended the CDM's most active validator, the Norwegian firm DNV, questioning its project assessments, and it rejected its first Chinese hydro project — after registering 139 others for credits. The project wasn't "additional," the board said, rejecting DNV's validation that it was.
But environmentalists say a total overhaul is needed, shifting from project-by-project assessments that invite "gaming," to a negotiated regime whereby the developed world, through aid funds, subsidizes emissions cuts in the developing world more broadly, industrial sector by sector.
As atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to reach record levels, threatening disruptive warming this century, the CDM pipeline continues to swell, with 4,364 projects worldwide approved or awaiting approval, one-quarter of them hydroelectric.
Here in Xiaoxi, meanwhile, where project credits await U.N. approval, dam construction jobs have produced an economic boomlet, but it's only temporary and people's grievances are not.
One group, hopeful still for a hearing, has written to authorities with their plea for more yuan for farmers' lost way of life.
"We strongly request that they give us an explanation and a satisfactory resolution," they wrote.
___
Joe McDonald reported from China, and Charles J. Hanley from New York. Associated Press Writer Patrick McGroarty in Berlin contributed.
___
There is another way to get the energy we need, without spending so much money or turning people out of their homes. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Ice and Global Warming . . . But There's A Solution

2009-01-22T09:57:00.000-08:00

New evidence on Antarctic warming
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The continent of Antarctica is warming up in step with the rest of the world, according to a new analysis.
Scientists say data from satellites and weather stations indicate a warming of about 0.6C over the last 50 years.
Writing in the journal Nature, they say the trend is "difficult to explain" without the effect of rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, scientists in Antarctica say a major ice shelf is about to break away from the continent.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is said to be "hanging by a thread" from the Antarctic Peninsula, the strip of land pointing from the white continent towards the southern tip of South America.

In isolation
Most of Antarctica's scientific stations are located along the peninsula, and scientists have known for many years that this portion of the continent is getting warmer.
But trends across the bulk of the continent have been much harder to discern, mainly because data from land stations is scarce.
It is somewhat insulated from the rest of the world's weather systems by winds and ocean currents that circulate around the perimeter.
In the new analysis, a team of US scientists combined data from land stations with satellite readings
"We have at least 25 years of data from satellites, and satellites have the huge advantage that they can see the whole continent," said Eric Steig from the University of Washington in Seattle.
"But the [land] stations have the advantage that they go back much further in time.
"So we combined the two; and what we found, in a nutshell, is that there is warming across the whole continent, it's stronger in winter and spring but it is there in all seasons."
They conclude that the eastern region of the continent, which is larger and colder than the western portion, is warming at 0.1C per decade, and the west at 0.17C per decade - faster than the global average.
The 2007 assessment of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded: "It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic (human-induced) warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica", with the word "likely" in this context meaning "at least 66% probability".
The scientists said this study did not change that picture, with natural climatic cycles probably involved as well as elevated greenhouse gas concentrations.
"It's hard to think of any situation where increased greenhouse gases would not lead to warming in Antarctica," said Drew Shindell from Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) in New York.
"We're almost certain that greenhouse gas increases are contributing to this warming, but what's difficult is to attribute this warming and so say how much is down to natural warming and how much down to anthropogenic causes."
Last year, scientists from the UK Met Office used climate models to attribute trends at the poles, and concluded that human emissions of greenhouse gases were largely responsible for the observed warming.
Gareth Marshall from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), who was not involved in the analysis, commented: "This study shows that, similar to the other six continents, Antarctica has undergone a significant warming over the past 50 years.
"The magnitude of this warming is similar to the rest of the southern hemisphere, where we believe it is likely that human activity has played some role in the temperature increase, and therefore it is also likely that this is the case regarding an Antarctic warming."

Cool analysis
Over the last 30 years, satellites have also shown that sea ice is slowly growing in extent around Antarctica, which some observers say indicates a cooling across the continent or at least in the surrounding seas.
But Walt Meier from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, which follows ice trends at the poles, said wind patterns were probably the main reason.
"Around Antarctica, the winds play a much bigger role than they do in the Arctic," he said.
"If they're blowing northwards you can grow ice quite quickly and in contrast if they blow southwards the ice can contract quickly, whereas in the Arctic it's much more constrained (by land masses).
"So this positive trend in the Antarctic is certainly not an indication of any cooling trend."
One region that has seen spectacular losses of ice in recent years is the peninsula.
A BAS team currently on site is reporting that the Wilkins shelf, about 15,000 sq km in area, is probably about to break free.
"It really could go at any minute, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the final cracks started to appear very soon," said BAS's David Vaughan.
If it does, it will follow the course of other shelves that have made breakaways in recent years, such as the Larsen B in 2002.
Although spectacular, such events are not necessarily due to man-made climate change.
A much bigger question is whether the new analysis of Antarctic warming heralds any major melting in the West Antarctic ice sheet, which could led to big changes in sea level and global impacts.
"The vulnerability is higher than we thought, but still we face uncertainties in understanding these processes that make it very difficult to forecast when these changes would occur," said Drew Shindell.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

The Antartic is one of many ecosystems on earth. When one is hurt or destroyed, all are affected. But this doesn't have to happen. There's an answer: no-emissions energy.
No-emissions energy means no global warming, no ecosystems change.
For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

2009-01-19T13:19:00.000-08:00

"Setting out Obama's green agenda
VIEWPOINT
Peter Seligmann
Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the US as the world is engulfed in a global economic crisis, says Peter Seligmann. He calls on the new president not to ignore the environment, which is "rapidly reaching a tipping point".

What an odd juxtaposition of almost giddy anticipation and deep anxiety as we prepare for a US presidential inauguration that will be celebrated worldwide.
Hopes for a new year and a new global leader of vision and courage collide with a tremendous angst as people everywhere are engulfed by the global economic crisis.

Alongside the urgent action needed to keep the economy afloat, there is a course that President-elect Barack Obama can chart that will help our global society move into a new era of sustained security.

This security is not only for our economies, but also for our health and for present and future generations to thrive.

Another young US president, Theodore Roosevelt, summed up that course about 100 years ago when he said: "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem.

"Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."

'Tipping point'

As Mr Obama becomes the 44th president, one of his toughest challenges is also his greatest opportunity.

The global environment is rapidly reaching a tipping point, much like our global economy.

Once it passes that point, it will be all the more difficult to pull it back to stability.

Our Earth is being altered to the point where it cannot sustain much of the life that has thrived for millennia; species extinctions today are occurring at an estimated 1,000 times the normal rate.

When our landscapes, rivers and coral reefs can no longer sustain robust species populations, humans are also in trouble.

People depend on healthy ecosystems for the very fundamentals of survival: clean air, fresh water, soil regeneration, crop pollination and other resources that we often take for granted until they are scarce or gone.

Just as the current financial crisis reveals how the world's economies are interconnected, we also must recognise the fundamental links between human well-being and Earth's ecosystems.

When we abuse and degrade the natural world, it affects our health, our social stability and our wallets.

Natural capital

How great is the challenge?

Well, today, 25% of wild marine fisheries are over-exploited, while another 50% are highly degraded.

West African fisheries have declined by 80% since the 1990s, resulting in thousands of fishermen searching for jobs in Europe.

When the Newfoundland cod fisheries collapsed in the early 1990s as a result of overfishing, it meant the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost $2bn (£1.4bn) in income support and retraining.

Tropical deforestation and land degradation contributes more global greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's cars, trucks, planes and trains combined.

What is lost in Indonesia or the Amazon affects the climate in New York, Paris and Sydney.

More than a billion people lack access to safe drinking water. In the poorest countries, one in five children dies from a preventable water-related disease.

This is a crisis that is worsening as ecosystems are damaged, increasing droughts and floods.

Mismanagement and corruption tied to natural resource exploitation have fuelled violent conflict in many countries including Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Violence linked to natural resource loss and degradation has led to unimaginable human suffering in such places as Darfur.

Tensions in the Middle East are fed by conflict over water and oil, as well as religion and politics.

Under pressure

Now, climate change exacerbates the threats posed by over-consumption, pollution and habitat destruction.

We are already witnessing rising oceans, spreading disease, reduced freshwater sources and myriad other serious threats.

Recent studies show half of the world's population could face a climate-induced food crisis by the end of this century.

Yet as overwhelming as the global environmental crisis has become, it offers some of today's greatest opportunities.

First, we must make conservation of nature a core principle of development; they cannot be separated.

Often an unintended consequence of development projects is the depletion or degradation of natural systems. We must recognise the value of nature and invest to protect it.

Ecosystem destruction costs our global economy at least $2 trillion (£1.4 trillion) every year.

That is the value forests provide by storing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, cleansing fresh water supplies, and preventing soil erosion.

It includes the value oceans and coral reefs provide in food security for millions who rely on fisheries as their primary source of protein.

Overall, global ecosystems services have been assessed to be worth as much as $33 trillion (£22.6 trillion) a year.

Every home owner understands that restoring and replacing a plumbing system, or a heating unit, is far more expensive than taking care of the system properly.

Well, the same is true for nature's ecosystems.

Restoring a forest costs 10 times as much as maintaining what we have. Building a reservoir and filtration system is far more expensive than preserving the intact forest systems that naturally filter and cleanse our drinking water.

Traditional measures of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) do not reflect changes in the quality and quantity of a nation's natural assets.

Imagine measuring your personal financial condition without factoring in a dramatic and ongoing decline in your assets.

The world needs US leadership to begin honestly accounting for the state our natural assets.

The Obama administration can bring these issues into the mainstream during this critical time of reorienting the US's national priorities.

Initiatives to advance natural resource conservation in other countries have typically lacked strong political support and received only a small fraction of the total resources dedicated to international engagement.

Mr Obama and his team should fully integrate and fund ecosystem conservation priorities within US national security considerations, as well as foreign policy and development assistance.

By helping restore and protect developing nations' natural heritage throughout the world, the US will strengthen the bonds of friendship and trust through sustainable collaborations.

The stakes are high, and the benefits of bringing ecosystem conservation to the forefront of our foreign policy will be enormous.

As 2009 begins, we face a new era of unprecedented global economic, health and security challenges.

Confronting these challenges requires a bold new commitment to protect our most valuable joint asset - planet Earth.

Peter A Seligmann is chairman and chief executive of US NGO Conservancy International

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

Do you agree with Peter Seligmann? Do you think Barack Obama's administration will take the environment seriously? Do you think the US will be a serious player in the global green agenda? Or are the problems facing the world too big for one nation to make a difference?"

Hunger. Water pollution. Air pollution. Global warming. Climate change. Geopolitical unrest. We can work together. There is an answer: please see http://www.campaignforgreen.com/.

Endangered Species, Pollution, Alternative Energy

2009-01-16T14:46:00.000-08:00

Endangered Species, plant and animal species that are in danger of extinction (dying out). Over 8,300 plant species and 7,200 animal species around the globe are threatened with extinction, and many thousands more become extinct each year before biologists can identify them. The primary causes of species extinction or endangerment are habitat destruction, commercial exploitation (such as plant collecting, hunting, and trade in animal parts), damage caused by nonnative plants and animals introduced into an area, and pollution. Of these causes, direct habitat destruction threatens the greatest number of species. *****

Species become extinct or endangered for a number of reasons, but the primary cause is the destruction of habitat by human activities (see Environment). As species evolve, most adapt to a specific habitat or environment that best meets their survival needs. Without this habitat the species may not survive. Pollution, drainage of wetlands, conversion of shrub lands to grazing lands, cutting and clearing of forests, urbanization and suburbanization, climate change due to global warming, and road and dam construction have destroyed or seriously damaged and fragmented available habitats. *****

Pollution is another important cause of extinction. Toxic chemicals—especially chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)—have become concentrated in food webs, the interconnected food chains that circulate energy through an ecosystem. These toxic chemicals strongly affect species near the top of the food chain. Both DDT and PCBs interfere with the calcium metabolism of birds, causing soft-shelled eggs and malformed young. PCBs also impair reproduction in some carnivorous animals. Water pollution and increased water temperatures have wiped out endemic species of fish in many habitats. Oil spills destroy birds, fish, and mammals, and may contaminate the ocean floor for many years after the event. Acid rain, the toxic result of extreme air pollution, has been known to kill organisms in freshwater lakes and destroy large tracts of forested land. *****
Reviewed By:
Reed F. Noss, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
Research Associate, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University. Courtesy Associate Professor, Fisheries and Wildlife Department, Oregon State University. Editor of Conservation Biology.
- - - - -
Pollution, climate change, global warming, deforestation . . . something can be done, using totally green, totally sustainable alternative energy. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Carbon? Why?

2009-01-15T10:28:00.000-08:00

World 'needs radical cuts' on CO2
By Tanya Syed
BBC News

Renewable technologies could help arrest climate change
More carbon dioxide needs to be absorbed than emitted by 2050 in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

That is the conclusion of a report by the Worldwatch Institute which urges bigger cuts in greenhouse emissions.

The authors say that even a rise in temperatures of 2 degrees C poses unacceptable risks to natural systems.
*****
Global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak before 2020 and decrease drastically until 2050, the report says.

More CO2 will have to be absorbed than emitted in the second half of this century.

The report outlines 10 key challenges that must be adopted to avoid catastrophic climate change.

These include long-term planning, global co-operation and innovative solutions such as improved building design incorporating a variety of efficiency measures.
*****

But they add that it is still possible to arrest and manage climate change with renewable technologies and more efficient ways of living.
_____

But does there have to be emissions? What if there were no emissions to cut?
For the answers to those questions, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Geopolitics-free Research Into Energy Alternatives

2009-01-14T08:24:00.000-08:00

In a recent article----
Gulf Oil States Seeking a Lead in Clean Energy
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: January 12, 2009

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — With one of the highest per capita carbon footprints in the world, these oil-rich emirates would seem an unlikely place for a green revolution.

Gasoline sells for 45 cents a gallon. There is little public transportation and no recycling. Residents drive between air-conditioned apartments and air-conditioned malls, which are lighted 24/7.

Still, the region’s leaders know energy and money, having built their wealth on oil. They understand that oil is a finite resource, vulnerable to competition from new energy sources.

So even as President-elect Barack Obama talks about promoting green jobs as America’s route out of recession, gulf states, including the emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are making a concerted push to become the Silicon Valley of alternative energy.

They are aggressively pouring billions of dollars made in the oil fields into new green technologies. They are establishing billion-dollar clean-technology investment funds. And they are putting millions of dollars behind research projects at universities from California to Boston to London, and setting up green research parks at home.

“Abu Dhabi is an oil-exporting country, and we want to become an energy-exporting country, and to do that we need to excel at the newer forms of energy,” said Khaled Awad, a director of Masdar, a futuristic zero-carbon city and a research park that has an affiliation with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that is rising from the desert on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi. *****

The world is now consuming 80 million barrels of oil a day, and that could continue to rise steeply over the coming decades if population and consumption trends continue. That could mean having to add six Saudi Arabias worth of oil output just to keep up, according to Mr. Barker-Homek, at a time when scientists are warning that carbon levels need to be cut significantly to avoid potentially disastrous global warming.
****
For the rest of the world, the enormous cash infusion may provide the important boost experts say is needed to get dozens of emerging technologies — like carbon capture, microsolar and low-carbon aluminum — over the development hump to make them cost-effective.
“The impact has been enormous,” said Michael McGehee, the associate professor at Stanford who received the $25 million Saudi grant. “It has greatly accelerated the development process.”

Director of the largest solar cell research group in the world, Professor McGehee had tried and failed to get money from the United States government or American industries to commercialize cheaper solar cells. Research money is tight, he noted.

With the Saudi money he has hired 16 new researchers and expects the new energy cells to dominate the market by 2015. “People are astonished to see how big this grant is and where it came from,” he said, noting that his past grants from the United States government were one-fiftieth that amount.

Experts say the vast investments from the gulf states have already restarted stalled environmental technologies.

Hooray for them!!!! They are trying to solve problems. Why can't we do that here????? But we can, and for how we can, please see www.campaignforgreen.com for a totally sustainable, totally green energy free of emissions and more cost effective than even the alternatives already available.

Geopolitics and . . . Nukes

2009-01-13T12:40:00.000-08:00

It's so duh that something so inefficient from an energy-producing point of view (takes years to finish and there are so many considerations of climate, ecology, health, safety, etc.) should also be used as a weapon (but do those take as long? yet I don't really want to find out) and cause so much tension regional and global tension. Perhaps if people would just realize how inefficient nukes are, they'd stop using them for weapons too. And anyway, there's another answer, a more-efficient-with-time-and-money answer, that can't be fashioned into a weapon. For more info, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Geopolitics and . . . Natural Gas

2009-01-06T18:50:00.000-08:00

In Europe, business problems between a country supplying natural gas and a country buying it have affected more than just the supplier country and client country--other countries are having problems too. But there is a way to avoid business problems connected with natural gas . . . and any other fuel, for that matter. Please see http://www.campaignforgreen.com/ for information about an energy alternative that people do not have to look to others to supply. And this self-sufficient energy is green, as opposed to natural gas or any other type of fossil fuel.

Geopolitics and . . . Oil

2009-01-05T12:27:00.000-08:00

Geopolitics: how land and particularly fuel derived from land influences, even determines, politics. And the influence can be bad when people use geopolitics as an excuse for trying to get their own way about something else. On an individual basis we've all done it: started an argument or done something because we're unhappy or downright angry about something, but used something else as an excuse, for whatever reason. That is understandable, but it's not helpful to us as individuals or to us on a national and global level, even though it might make us feel better at the time, better in the sense of anger vented. However, when it comes to, well, anything, but perhaps as per politics and land, especially fuel, globally, we need to use domestic resources first, without destroying the land itself (but that's a whole 'nother blog), and then, if we need to, buy from other countries.

According to the Department of Energy, “fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas -- currently provide more than 85% of all the energy consumed in the United States, nearly two-thirds of our electricity, and virtually all of our transportation fuels” (http://www.energy.gov/energysources/fossilfuels.htm).

According to the Energy Information Administration,
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm,
the United States bought oil from eighty-five countries from May 2008 to October 2008, for a total of 2,364,640 barrels.

From the Persian Gulf countries: 434, 714

Iraq: 115,201

Saudi Arabia: 284,238

Venezuala: 222, 175

Russia: 94,327

Why depend on foreign oil? What happens when all the oil other places is used up? And don't they need some of their own fuel?

But why depend on oil at all? We don't need it.

For what we do need, see http://www.campaignforgreen.com/

Why Green Energy? . . . first in a series

2008-12-30T20:16:00.000-08:00

Last summer, world leaders chose to focus on reducing carbon emissions to more than 80% for the G8 countries and encouraged developing countries to work toward 25-40% emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2020 (BBC News 2008/07/08 12:35 GMT).

On 12 December, European Union leaders discussed a 20% carbon emissions reduction by 2020, rather than the 25-40% scientists deem necessary (BBC News 1008/12/12).
The goals themselves reduced between July and December.

But carbon emissions don't. And neither do greenhouse gases.

In 2007, global carbon dioxide emissions increased by 3.1% (www.mnp.nl). Between 1970 and 2007, global greenhouse gases rose 75% (www.mnp.nl). In the United States alone, power plant greenhouse gas emissions had their "biggest single year increase" in 2007 (www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-18-04.asp).

Why not raise the bar for higher reduction goals? And set the deadline sooner? But there's something much better: total elimination of carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse gases.
It can be done. See www.campaignforgreen.com.

In the New Year . . . or Before

2008-12-29T11:32:00.001-08:00

In the New Year . . . or before, visit www.campaignforgreen.com.

Green Energy and Economics

2008-12-15T21:22:00.000-08:00

Things have changed economically. What we need is less expensive energy. Noticeably less expensive energy. Noticeably less expensive energy would free up money for all sorts of things on a national level: there would be more money for medical research and treatment, infrastructure maintenance, etc.--all those things we need as a society. For more info, see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Random Green

2008-12-11T21:41:00.000-08:00

Random green thoughts for today . . .

If you don't take enough canvas bags to the grocery store, ask for paper for the rest of the groceries . . . at least you can use the paper bags to put newspapers in for recycling, or to
make bookcovers (I did that in highschool).

Another use for junk mail envelopes is grocery coupon storage.

Buying local is green, because of less fossil fuel used to get the product to the store, and of course the first thing I think of is fruit and vegetables at farmers' markets, but sometimes it is possible to buy local products at the grocery store . . . where I live I can buy relish and pickles and canned beans produced in the area.

Canning local produce from the farmers' market is green and so is canning stuff from your garden. But probably not a lot of people know how to can (I've just canned twice--grape jelly and pear preserves) and how much are you going to buy to can enough stuff to last a while? But we could learn how to can, and figure out how much buying enough to can would save us on veg and fruit bought at the store. Though how many of us keep a garden? Not everybody has space. Of course, there are community gardens in some cities, and much of the food is donated to food shelters and that is really good.

Paper Or . . . Less Paper

2008-12-10T19:50:00.000-08:00

Paper or . . . less paper?

We're used to the "paper or plastic?" question at the grocery store--and should answer "Canvas: I brought bags"--but there is another alternative: less paper. One way to do this is to use paper you already have for multiple purposes--to-do lists, grocery lists, and the like. I don't mean using up your good printer paper or notebook paper, but other things, like the blank inside of envelopes from junk mail, or mail that doesn't require you to keep the envelope. It doesn't take long to cut apart an envelope for such uses. And all those catalogs, some of which you never asked for or don't want anymore . . . well, there's a way to stop those: just see www.catalogchoice.org. On this site you can have catalogs stopped, free of charge. You'll save money, paper . . . and clutter.
Another way to not use up so much paper so quickly is save those crumby paper towels or paper napkins from meals to clean up spots on the floor . . . as hard as we try to not be sloppy, spots will appear on the linoleum! I have read about people who use cloth napkins at meals, cloth napkins that are inexpensive and nice--I haven't tried that yet, but that would certainly save on paper too.