"http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30349272.htm
RPT-US asks UN to help cut ship emissions near coasts 30 Mar 2009 21:19:52 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Fixes typo in first paragraph)
By Timothy Gardner
(Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Marguerita Choy)
NEWARK, N.J., March 30 (Reuters) - The United States has asked the United Nation's International Maritime Organization to create a buffer zone around America's coastline to cut pollution from ocean-going ships that harms human health, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Monday.
The EPA estimates the plan would save up to 8,300 lives annually in the United States and Canada by 2020. Urban neighborhoods that surround ports, like the hubs of Newark, New Jersey and Los Angeles, have typically suffered the worst health problems, such as asthma and cancer, from the pollutants, according to EPA studies. Some 40 U.S. ports currently fail to meet federal air pollution standards."
But there doesn’t have to be any pollution to control. For more information, see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Personal Carbon Footprint Worries Unnecessary
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/Carbon: How much is enough?
Richard Black 18:49 GMT, Thursday, 26 March 2009
On my last entry, TandF1 posted a comment about a subject I've been planning to write about for a while - so what better time than now to delve into it? The issue is this: how much carbon dioxide should each person on Earth be "allowed" to emit?
Put another way: if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are to be limited, at some target date, to a figure that science suggests can stave off "dangerous" climate change, then how does that figure break down at the personal level, when shared out among the world's citizens?""
With no-emissions energy, individuals would not have a carbon footprint to worry about. Yes, it's possible--just cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
Richard Black 18:49 GMT, Thursday, 26 March 2009
On my last entry, TandF1 posted a comment about a subject I've been planning to write about for a while - so what better time than now to delve into it? The issue is this: how much carbon dioxide should each person on Earth be "allowed" to emit?
Put another way: if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are to be limited, at some target date, to a figure that science suggests can stave off "dangerous" climate change, then how does that figure break down at the personal level, when shared out among the world's citizens?""
With no-emissions energy, individuals would not have a carbon footprint to worry about. Yes, it's possible--just cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Agriculture, Emissions, and Green Energy
According to an article on Reuters, future farmers will have to raise livestock and plants that put out less methane and nitrous oxide, respectively, and send in greenhouse gas emission reports to the government (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP410451.htmFarmers face growing climate change dilemma-scientist 26 Mar 2009 10:54:46 GMT By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia; Editing by Valerie Lee).
Efforts are being made in Australia to breed livestock that produce less methane and plants that produce less nitrous oxide, because methane "is about 20 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide" and nitrous oxide is "about 310 times more powerful than CO2" (ibid).
But what if the only emissions anyone had to contend with were those from agriculture because there were no emissions from vehicles, factories, or power plants? It's possible. Cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
Efforts are being made in Australia to breed livestock that produce less methane and plants that produce less nitrous oxide, because methane "is about 20 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide" and nitrous oxide is "about 310 times more powerful than CO2" (ibid).
But what if the only emissions anyone had to contend with were those from agriculture because there were no emissions from vehicles, factories, or power plants? It's possible. Cf. www.campaignforgreen.com.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Specific Solution
Apparently the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen did not yield any specific solutions. Here's a link to something specific: www.campaignforgreen.com.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Global Water Shortage and Alternative Energy
According to the World Water Development Report as discussed in the 12 March 2009 Globe and Mail, the global water shortage is worsening (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090311.wwater0312/BNStory/International/home). Causes include pollution, climate change, population growth, and changes in eating habits and resulting agricultural needs (ibid). Besides hurting food supplies, the water shortage also stunts economic growth, and could aggravate political instability in countries and regions already in conflict (ibid). There are some areas that do not have clean water or efficient sanitation (ibid).
One thing unmentioned in the article is the amount of water used by power plants. There is a way to produce clean, emissions-free energy without using water. If water wasn’t needed for energy production, there would be much more for agriculture and other needs. This clean, emission-free energy production will drastically cut pollution levels, improving the climate and the water. This production will also be used to clean water in still-polluted areas, and get clean water to areas that needed it for the basic necessities of living, agricultural production, and manufacturing. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
One thing unmentioned in the article is the amount of water used by power plants. There is a way to produce clean, emissions-free energy without using water. If water wasn’t needed for energy production, there would be much more for agriculture and other needs. This clean, emission-free energy production will drastically cut pollution levels, improving the climate and the water. This production will also be used to clean water in still-polluted areas, and get clean water to areas that needed it for the basic necessities of living, agricultural production, and manufacturing. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Global Warming Quickens Pace
According to scientists reporting at the meeting in Copenhagen, global warming is happening faster than they thought, and the changes could be irreversible (Earth warming faster than thought By Matt McGrath BBC environment reporter, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/science/nature/7940532.stm, Published: 2009/03/12 19:17:14 GMT, © BBC MMIX).
This could bring on a loss of 75% Amazonian tree cover within a century, and sea level rise that will make areas uninhabitable and cause mass migrations of millions of people (ibid). "Within a century" sounds far away, but if we continue to use fossil fuels at this rate, without changing to an alternative energy, the pace of global warming could quicken, increasing the risks. Don't we want to be the generation that helps halt global warming? We can do it. For more information about emissions-free energy, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
This could bring on a loss of 75% Amazonian tree cover within a century, and sea level rise that will make areas uninhabitable and cause mass migrations of millions of people (ibid). "Within a century" sounds far away, but if we continue to use fossil fuels at this rate, without changing to an alternative energy, the pace of global warming could quicken, increasing the risks. Don't we want to be the generation that helps halt global warming? We can do it. For more information about emissions-free energy, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
International Government Response to Climate Change and How We Can Help
BBC online news http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
"A whale of a week for climate
Richard Black 9 Mar 09, 15:12 GMT
Two of my five picks of environment stories to watch this year may have significant new chapters written this week - and the new US administration of Barack Obama is a key player in both.
In Copenhagen, climate scientists, economists and policy makers will be meeting for a three-day conference that will share some of the latest thinking on the likely impacts of climate change, how the natural world is already being influenced, the costs and benefits of various types of action to mitigate it and adapt to it, and so on.
****
The Copenhagen meeting is an important one. It will be the final major global attempt to weave the various strands of climate research together before the annual UN summit, in the same city, in December, which is supposed to formulate a new global climate treaty - bigger, longer-lasting and more profound than the Kyoto Protocol.
The proper global body for this, of course, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but that produces major assessments only every five years or so, and they are by definition somewhat out of date because of the organisation's lengthy collation and review processes.
So the Danish government thinks there's a need for something a bit sharper off the mark, yet still authoritative - hence this week's meeting.
Prominent on the agenda are some of the big unknowns. By how much are sea levels likely to rise (an issue on which the IPCC was, by its own admission, cautious in its 2007 assessment)? Are natural "sinks" such as forests and oceans absorbing less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as some recent studies suggest? Can practices in agriculture or forestry be modified so more CO2 is absorbed?
On the economics side, there will be discussion of what various plans for curbing emissions might cost the global economy, and which economic tools would be the best ones to deploy.
The scientific conclusions will all still be couched in the language of probabilities, but the political dignitaries, such as Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, are likely to use more concrete terms when they outline the implications.
Whatever the demands are for "action now", the conference is unlikely to change the underlying political realities.
Many Kyoto adherents are some way off meeting even their protocol targets [174Kb PDF] for reducing emissions and in difficult economic times, it will be hard for industrialised countries to make the financial contributions that the developing world is likely to demand as the price of a new global agreement.
So many eyes will again turn to Barack Obama and his pledge to lead the world anew on climate change.
But given that US emissions have risen by about one-sixth since 1990 - the baseline year for all these calculations - his administration will struggle to pledge carbon cuts by 2020 that look huge in the context of scientists' and activists' demands for immediate and drastic reductions.
There was talk a couple of months ago that one of Mr Obama's senior energy or environment people - or even the president himself - might pitch up in Copenhagen, though that now seems to be off the agenda, which will presumably save them being asked lots of questions about a US climate policy that has not yet been formulated. ""
People need to get organized. Things need to change. And the change can be made. And made sooner than the meeting next December. We can do this. To find out how, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
"A whale of a week for climate
Richard Black 9 Mar 09, 15:12 GMT
Two of my five picks of environment stories to watch this year may have significant new chapters written this week - and the new US administration of Barack Obama is a key player in both.
In Copenhagen, climate scientists, economists and policy makers will be meeting for a three-day conference that will share some of the latest thinking on the likely impacts of climate change, how the natural world is already being influenced, the costs and benefits of various types of action to mitigate it and adapt to it, and so on.
****
The Copenhagen meeting is an important one. It will be the final major global attempt to weave the various strands of climate research together before the annual UN summit, in the same city, in December, which is supposed to formulate a new global climate treaty - bigger, longer-lasting and more profound than the Kyoto Protocol.
The proper global body for this, of course, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but that produces major assessments only every five years or so, and they are by definition somewhat out of date because of the organisation's lengthy collation and review processes.
So the Danish government thinks there's a need for something a bit sharper off the mark, yet still authoritative - hence this week's meeting.
Prominent on the agenda are some of the big unknowns. By how much are sea levels likely to rise (an issue on which the IPCC was, by its own admission, cautious in its 2007 assessment)? Are natural "sinks" such as forests and oceans absorbing less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as some recent studies suggest? Can practices in agriculture or forestry be modified so more CO2 is absorbed?
On the economics side, there will be discussion of what various plans for curbing emissions might cost the global economy, and which economic tools would be the best ones to deploy.
The scientific conclusions will all still be couched in the language of probabilities, but the political dignitaries, such as Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, are likely to use more concrete terms when they outline the implications.
Whatever the demands are for "action now", the conference is unlikely to change the underlying political realities.
Many Kyoto adherents are some way off meeting even their protocol targets [174Kb PDF] for reducing emissions and in difficult economic times, it will be hard for industrialised countries to make the financial contributions that the developing world is likely to demand as the price of a new global agreement.
So many eyes will again turn to Barack Obama and his pledge to lead the world anew on climate change.
But given that US emissions have risen by about one-sixth since 1990 - the baseline year for all these calculations - his administration will struggle to pledge carbon cuts by 2020 that look huge in the context of scientists' and activists' demands for immediate and drastic reductions.
There was talk a couple of months ago that one of Mr Obama's senior energy or environment people - or even the president himself - might pitch up in Copenhagen, though that now seems to be off the agenda, which will presumably save them being asked lots of questions about a US climate policy that has not yet been formulated. ""
People need to get organized. Things need to change. And the change can be made. And made sooner than the meeting next December. We can do this. To find out how, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)