Climate Damage and Health

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

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

Biofuels and Carbon Emissions

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

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

Get It Done!

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

Exciting News!

Exciting news about progress in alternative energy!!!

Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org today!!!

Yes We Can Do More

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

“Climate pressure 'building on US'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Carbon? Why?

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

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.

Why Green Energy? . . . first in a series

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.