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.
Showing posts with label carbon emissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon emissions. Show all posts
Monday, October 26, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Good Climate Change
Is there such a thing as good climate change?
Well, there would be if there were no emissions to pollute the air and make global warming worse.
For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
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.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Economy, Environment, and Energy
"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.
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.
Friday, June 12, 2009
But We Don't Need Carbon At All!
"Stalled carbon capture coal plant in Ill. gets OK
Energy Department says stalled futuristic coal-burning plant to move forward in Illinois
Henry C. Jackson, Associated Press Writer
On Friday June 12, 2009, 1:08 pm EDT
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.
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.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Mass Transport Really Green?
"Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090608/sc_afp/climatewarmingtransportcarbonlifestyle Reuters Sun Jun 7, 8:02 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.
So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.
Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.
Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.
These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.
Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.
In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.
"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.
"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."
The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.
Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.
By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.
The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.
These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.
In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.
And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.
A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.
"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.
So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.
For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.
The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.
The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.
It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft."
But what if all types of transportation had no emissions? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Permafrost and Carbon Emissions
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Pollution and Health
"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.
Search: guardian.co.uk Environment Web
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 May 2009 12.33 BST
Cleaner air from reduced emissions could save millions of lives, says reportResearchers predict that 100 million early deaths could be prevented by cutting global emissions by 50% by 2050.
Tackling climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions could save millions of lives because of the cleaner air that would result, according to a recent study.
Researchers predict that, by 2050, about 100 million premature deaths caused by respiratory health problems linked to air pollution could be avoided through measures such as low emission cars. *****
The key air pollutants that can harm human health include nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and particulate matter and are produced by burning fossil fuels in power plants and vehicles. Children and the elderly, plus people with respiratory conditions such as asthma, are particularly at risk."
We've got to do something. We can take care of each other. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Earth, Breath, Trees
"A major Science study published in January found widespread increase in tree mortality rates in the western U.S., thanks in part to regional warming trends and growing water scarcity. Another study published last month, also in Science, found that even the seemingly limitless Amazon rainforest could be highly vulnerable to drought. And since living trees suck up CO2 from the atmosphere, massive tree mortality due to warming could produce a feedback effect, further intensifying climate change. In the end, we might need a bigger Biosphere 2, because we're on track to screw up Biosphere 1 — otherwise known as the Earth" (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1891121,00.html
Tuesday, Apr. 14, 2009,The Dire Fate of Forests in a Warmer World
By Bryan Walsh).
Trees help the earth breathe. We need to do something. And we can. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Biomass Limitations and the Alternative
Biomass, which includes buring wood for fuel, has its limits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7997398.stm). If not done sustainably, we could end up with more greenhouse gas than we have had with fossil fuels: "At its best, biomass could produce as little as 27kg of CO2 (equivalent) per megawatt hour - 98% less than coal, saving around two million tonnes of CO2 every year . . . However, the study also found that in some cases overall emissions could be higher than those of fossil fuels" (ibid). But it could be used in combination with other things (ibid).
Why bother, though, with something so difficult when there's a totally green, totally emissions-free alternative? For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
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.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Cap 'n Trade???
Cap 'n trade? Reduce emissions some places then let other places be polluted and have the pollutants pay and the money be used to fund clean technology? What about all the damage that pollution is doing? Why not right now focus on totally clean energy for every place? It can be done. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Climate Change and Environmental Damage
We all know the climate is changing, the globe is warming, seasons are overlapping. Carbon emissions have made the oceans more acidic, threatening ocean life, both animals and plants since oceans have absorbed "up to 50%" of carbons from fossil fuels for the past two hundred years and lessened "the pH value of seawater--the measure of acidity and alkalinity--by O.1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7936137.stm; Acidic seas fuel extinction fears By Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst, BBC News, Published: 2009/03/11 03:00:28 GMT). A bridge of ice between two islands in Antarctica has snapped, making an ice shelf vulnerable, and several more have broken over the past several years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm, Published: 2009/04/05 07:13:59 GMT). Pikas, a hamster-like animal that lives in the mountains, are losing their habitat as the climate warms in the American West; they move upslope but are running out of room (Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved, As West warms, some fear for tiny mountain dweller By MIKE STARK, Associated Press Writer Mike Stark, Associated Press Writer Sat Apr 4, 6:47 am ET). Frogs are disappearing as ecosystems decline, and since they "sit right in the middle of the food chain," and "without them, other creatures are disappearing too" (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/frogs-the-thin-green-line/introduction/4763/). And those are just a few examples of what's happening to plants and animals and the environment, aside from all the harm to people's lungs and hearts. Something that's got to be done.
And there's something that can be done: please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
And there's something that can be done: please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Agriculture, Emissions, and Green Energy
According to an article on Reuters, future farmers will have to raise livestock and plants that put out less methane and nitrous oxide, respectively, and send in greenhouse gas emission reports to the government (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP410451.htmFarmers face growing climate change dilemma-scientist 26 Mar 2009 10:54:46 GMT By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia; Editing by Valerie Lee).
Efforts are being made in Australia to breed livestock that produce less methane and plants that produce less nitrous oxide, because methane "is about 20 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide" and nitrous oxide is "about 310 times more powerful than CO2" (ibid).
But what if the only emissions anyone had to contend with were those from agriculture because there were no emissions from vehicles, factories, or power plants? It's possible. Cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
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.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Just Now?
The EPA is just now requiring companies to report the amount of their greenhouse gas emissions. Just now? Strange.
(EPA looks to require reporting of greenhouse gases, Tuesday March 10, 12:15 pm ET, By Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090310/epa_greenhouse_gases.html)
(EPA looks to require reporting of greenhouse gases, Tuesday March 10, 12:15 pm ET, By Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090310/epa_greenhouse_gases.html)
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Amazon Rainforest and Carbon Emissions
"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.
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.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Global Warming
"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.
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.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Climate Treaties and Emissions-Free Energy
"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.
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.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Response to the National Clean Energy Project: Building the New Economy
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.
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.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Global Warming: The Stats
"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.
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.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Alternative Energies: A Response to Information
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Climate Change, Health, Technology
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)