The Truth About Global Warming: Sid Harth
Sid Harth
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate Change and Family Planning
Monday, July 20, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets Indian Minister for
Environment Jairam Ramesh at an eco-friendly building on the outskirts
of New Delhi on Sunday, July 19, 2009. (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) –
Urging India not to emulate America’s “mistakes,” Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton at the weekend accepted responsibility on behalf of
the U.S. and other developed nations for contributing towards climate
change.
“We acknowledge – now with President Obama – that we have made
mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed
countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we
face with climate change,” Clinton said in Mumbai, India.
“We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same
mistakes,” she added.
While stopping short of an apology for a U.S. role in “global
warming,” Clinton’s remarks came closer than previous ones.
Last April, she told a gathering of major economies in Washington that
the U.S. “is responsible for past emissions” of carbon dioxide (CO2)
and other “greenhouse gases” blamed for climate change; Obama said at
the G8 summit in Italy this month that the U.S. had “sometimes fallen
short of meeting our responsibilities,” adding, “Those days are over.”
On her first visit to India as secretary of state, Clinton was
confronted by New Delhi’s determination not to accept mandatory
restrictions on its greenhouse gas emissions.
“India’s position is that we are simply not in a position to take on
legally-binding emission reduction targets,” Indian environment
minister Jairam Ramesh said Sunday, after he and Clinton toured an eco-
friendly building near the capital and had a roundtable discussion on
environmental issues.
Although the two governments both said they want to see a global
agreement reached at a key climate conference in Copenhagen in
December, the differences between them on the issue of what developing
nations will bring to the table was evident.
Ramesh handed out copies of remarks made during his talks with
Clinton, underlying Delhi’s position.
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we – who have among the
lowest emissions per capita – face to actually reduce emissions,”
Ramesh said he told Clinton.
“And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of
carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours,” he said.
The reference was to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed by
the U.S. House of Representatives late last month, which contains a
clause that would impose tariffs on imports from countries that do not
reduce emissions by 2020. (Obama has praised the bill, but says he
opposes the “protectionist” tariff measure.)
The Copenhagen meeting is meant to produce a successor agreement to
the Kyoto Protocol, which requires leading economies to cut the amount
of greenhouse gases they produce by specified amounts by 2012.
India, China and others have long argued that climate agreements
should not hinder developing countries’ economic growth – and they got
their way with Kyoto.
One of the main reasons President Bush gave for rejecting the protocol
was the fact it did not set emission reduction targets for developing
countries, despite some of them – including India and especially China
– being leading CO2 producers. Bush and anti-Kyoto ally John Howard of
Australia argued that unless China and India curbed their fast-growing
emissions, efforts to do so by leading developed nations would have
little effect.
Clinton made a similar argument in India on Sunday.
“There is no question that developed countries like mine must lead on
this issue,” she said in a joint media appearance with Ramesh and the
U.S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern.
“And for our part, under President Obama, we are not only
acknowledging our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change, we are taking steps to reverse its ill effects.”
Clinton said Obama was committed to the cap-and-trade bill before
Congress.
“But it is essential for major developing countries like India to also
lead,” she continued. “Because over 80 percent of the growth in future
emissions will be from developing countries.
“Now, China is, by far, the largest emitter in the world right now,
and certainly the largest among developing countries,” Clinton said.
“But India’s own greenhouse gas pollution is projected to grow by
about 50 percent between now and 2030. So, climate change would not be
solved even if developed countries stopped emitting greenhouse gas
emissions today, unless action is taken across the world.”
Climate, population and family planning
In other comments, Clinton described Sunday’s roundtable discussion as
“very enlightening, especially for me.”
As an example of this, she noted that “one of the participants pointed
out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must
do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about
population and family planning.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton examines the ITC hotel chain’s
‘Green Building’ on the outskirts of New Delhi on Sunday, July 19,
2009. (AP Photo)“That was an incredibly important point,” Clinton
said. “And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often
unconnected ways.”
Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population
control in the climate change campaign.
In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November
2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of
population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how
population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support
for the program – family planning, health care, and education and
opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller
families.”
Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to
stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club
“welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help
lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller
population a realistic possibility.”
In 2007, an Australian academic argued that a government campaign to
encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against
climate change.
Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more
children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more
than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’
principle.”
The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often
coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control
efforts among its contributions to combating climate change.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not
necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author.
To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of
Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-10 of 13 Comments
Granny in Georgia (10 hours ago)
This administration seems to get a real pleasure out of going to other
countries apologizing for the United States of America. I'm not going
to apologize to any foreign country for anything! We need another
Reagan now. It's time to regain our pride in America and pride in
being Americans!
Tallyho (13 hours ago)
What a complete dolt! Clinton is clueless along with all the other
cool-aid drinkers of this global warming hoax being perpetrated on
hard working Americans. 31,00 scientists have also made their
positions known that this is a fraud. Politicians don't care, they
simply want the US economy to get further bogged down with punitive
regulations so more jobs will leave the country. The only mistake the
American people made was putting these enviro-control freaks into
positions of authority. The biggest waste in government is all these
non-productive, useless agencies; Dept. of Non-Energy, Dept of
Environmental Obstruction, Dept of Non-Commerce, etc. and then we will
have freedom to make our own decisions and not have government
bureaucrats decide.
moriarity (1 day ago)
Clinton is another apostle of Saul Olinsky, the same Marxist who B.O.
embraces wholeheartedly. If you read Olinsky's book "Rules for
Radicals", you can follow the script verbatim with this regime. It's
irrefutable!
gtfs (1 day ago)
So let's start with ALL democrats turning in their autos and never
burning any more gasoline. Democrats should also limit their
electricity usage to, I don't know, say 3 hours per day. We'll try
this for five years and see how world temperatures react. Let's start
with AlGore!
Turophile (1 day ago)
I wish this stupid Obama bin Lyin' regime would quit apologizing for
America's arrogance and start apologizing for their own!
Spartan (1 day ago)
Another "apologist" in the" Cabinet of Barak Obsama"(COBO) India has
the lowest "per capita" gas emissions because there are over a billion
people there. DUH? Basic math? Too many COBO - HYDRATES for this Sec.
of State and her "President". Cap and Trade ....... to much Kool-Aide
liberty76 (1 day ago)
Stand by for massive international lawsuits to add to record deficits
and socialized managed healthcare. They will make us long for the days
of Jimmah Cater!
marjer (1 day ago)
I do wish these blasted politicians would stop going over seas and
apologizing for the citizens of this country. Hitlery I am not
responsible for global warming, so stop apologizing. I am sick of this
country being blamed for the ills of the world.
djsteil (1 day ago)
Billary, since you're in such a apologetic frame of mind, why don't
you apologise for your husband being a major player in the downfall of
the global economy?
ontime (1 day ago)
There are a billion people in India and apparently their leadership
like the PRC is just a lot brighter and more informed than the idiots
we send abroad to convince them of nonsensical ignorance that our
leadership is trying desperately to spread for the sake of
globalization and mass control. I applaud them for their brand of
comonsense, something our voting public has lost thru propaganda and
lack of education. We in America seem to think that reading the Happy
Hippie Handbook is a religious experience.
bademiyansubhanallah
July 21st, 2009 at 04:01pm Pat Cunningham
Hardly a day goes by anymore that I don’t read something to the
effect that the cool weather in various locales this summer puts the
lie to all this stuff about global warming.
For a random example, check THIS.
The only problem with these anecdotal observations is that they don’t
jibe with the science on the matter.
As we see HERE, a study published earlier this year in a reputable
publication “shows, both in recent records and projections using
computer simulations, how utterly normal it is to have decade-long
vagaries in temperature, up and down, on the way to a warmer world.”
David R. Easterling of the National Climatic Data Center, a co-author
of the study, says the purpose was:
To show, in a peer-reviewed scientifically defensible way that there
is no reason to expect the climate to warm in a monotonic type
fashion, that there is natural variability along with anthropogenic
forced warming and we shouldn’t expect each year to be warmer than the
next or even a run of 10 years always to show warming. That we can get
a 10- or even 15-year period with no real change in globally averaged
temperature even though in the end we have strong global warming.
1. Neftali | July 21st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
That article actually made me burst out laughing. Or as Orlando loves
to put it, ROFLMAO!
“in the end we have strong global warming” Really? What is this “end”
they are referring to? 100 years from now? 500? 1000?
In a couple of billion years the sun will become so hot that earth’s
temperature will be like that of Venus…perhaps that is what the author
is referring to.
I love how the author says the earth will decrease in temperature a
little bit next year, but we will see a huge spike in the next 90
years, all caused from the increase of the world’s population from 6
to 9 billion people. As if no other factors can possibly be taken into
account. This guy isn’t much of a scientist.
Oh…for you global alarmists/chicken littles like Pat, here is another
reason (one of many) why the earth’s temperature changes on it own
without interference from mankind:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
2. Pat Cunningham | July 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Yeah, where do these scientists get off with all that global warming
crap? Rush Limbaugh and Neftali say it’s all nonsense. That’s good
enough for me.
3. David | July 21st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The article you reference to argue that cool spells are normal in an
overall warming trend has a temperature chart that starts in 2001 and
goes to 2090. The only time period in the chart that has actually
occurred (2001 to now) shows no warming. So basically, you’re saying
that current conditions should be ignored because they don’t match up
with stuff that hasn’t happened yet?
4. Craig Knauss | July 21st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
It’s not going to take 90 years to reach 9 billion people. At present
growth rates, I think it will be closer to 25 years. And for the
record, it was 103 here a couple days ago and over 100 today. And I’m
only about 250 miles from the Canadian border. Glad I wasn’t in
Phoenix.
5. Harley Lowrider | July 21st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Why do you care anyway Pat, you`ll be dead a long time before the
world ends.
6. DingDong | July 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
What Pat doesn’t get is that researchers are human and have been know
to explain away the facts or change the data to meet the hypothesis.
Scientist do it for drug companies all the time.
In the article they talk about cherry picking a time period. How
laughable, they are cherry picking a time by coming up with the
conclusion using data from 100 years compared to the 4 billions years
the earth has been around. Sure it is peer reviewed by other global
warming proponents. Great science.
Not to get totally off the subject, a long but interesting article on
financial bubbles in Rolling Stone. The last page, 7, talks about cap
and trade.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble
bademiyansubhanallah
the same side?
Published on July 22nd, 2009 by Dustin
Most environmental business blogs seem to have glossed right over
coverage of Greenpeace’s rather untraditional message to President
Obama on Mount Rushmore two weeks ago, though a quarter-page photo in
the front section of the New York Times certainly did not. Citing
discontent with Obama’s acquiescence to compromises on environmental
policy, a group of eleven activists draped a massive banner next to
Abraham Lincoln’s face bearing the message “America honors leaders,
not politicians: Stop Global Warming.” The action came as the
President met with world leaders to discuss climate change at the G8
summit, and brings to light divides among the environmental community
that are becoming even more apparent thanks to the debate over the
Waxman-Markey bill.
In light of the climbers’ controversial message, it seems important to
ask: are such actions actually contributing to progress toward
sustainable change, or just giving those who do care about our energy
future a bad rap? Most Americans are more than skeptical of bearded
activists dangling from national monuments, and while Silicon Valley
venture capitalists may agree with Greenpeace on the importance of
changing the course of our energy and environmental policy, many have
quite different opinions on how to go about bringing that change. Even
with such a visible statement, what exactly Greenpeace has
accomplished in the grand scheme of things is a question up for
debate.
“Looking at the broader global warming debate, it’s going to be
important to frame it in a way that’s more visceral and understandable
to the general population,” contests Simran McKenna, an Activist
Program Associate at Greenpeace and one of the eleven climbers
arrested earlier this month. “We need policy based on sound science,
but to achieve that we also need passionate and informed citizens
putting pressure on policy makers. We need to do more than talk about
two degrees centigrade and 350 parts per million, we need to demand
action from those who have the power to get us there.”
But when “visceral” means a group of twenty five year olds climbing on
Lincoln’s nose, is this really leading to a citizenry that is more
informed about the issue? Many would claim that such actions have the
potential to backfire, churning up resentment among those less than
pleased about radical environmentalists encroaching on their profits
and their SUVs. Having been in the business of turning people’s heads
for decades, Greenpeace is not blind to such criticism. While Simran
says he recognizes that there will always be those who are unhappy
with Greenpeace’s actions, “this doesn’t excuse us from the
responsibility of taking a bold stance in response to the climate
crisis.” Bold statements have, after all, played an important part in
our nation’s history… think Boston Tea Party, Harper’s Ferry and the
March on Washington.
The truth is that activism is a very different part of American life
today than it was just a generation ago. As much as people may care,
most are not the first to jump in line for a protest about some
abstract environmental or social justice issue. Yet this is not to say
that the new generation of leaders is failing to tackle the most
crucial issues. Take a look at folks like Steve Newcomb, Bill Gates
and Van Jones and that much is clear. But there is a difference in the
way that these leaders are approaching problems, and it’s
characterized more often by the entrepreneur and the community
organizer than by the street demonstrator. In 1985 Bob Geldolf started
Live Aid; twenty years later Matt and Jessica Flannery found Kiva. In
the 1960s, militant protestors sought to bring down capitalism. Today,
we’re proposing to use capitalism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
There is a growing community recognizing the complementary value of
market-based approaches and activism.
“There’s still some distrust among the activist community of people
that are trying to make a profit out of global warming, but there’s an
increasing understanding of the importance of a multifaceted approach.
Without people approaching these issues from the policy and business
sphere, we won’t be able to tackle it,” expressed Simran.
But now with entrepreneurs creating and big money investing to save
our planet, does this mean that we’ve grown out of the old fashioned
activist model? With the stars aligned and business, policy and public
opinion all leaning toward a greener future, is it not more effective
to let the private sector take it from here?
These questions miss the point. If we wish to sustain the progress we
are making on climate issues, it is as important as ever to keep those
in power honest in their expectations and their promises. If we do
some day find a way to live truly sustainably, the breakthrough is
likely to be brought about not by protests and banners but by
passionate entrepreneurs and saavy investors. However, without a
strong policy environment and consumer demand in place, the electric
cars will have nowhere to charge and the carbon traders will have
nothing to trade.
While few would argue that Obama ignores the importance of climate
change, to date legislation has been inadequate to stimulate long-term
cleantech solutions and bring greenhouse gas emissions down to a
sustainable level. It is clear that right now the President is focused
on the very important task of reforming health care and knows he must
spend his political capital wisely. We must recognize that political
realities are what they are, but we also must not allow politics to
become an excuse for poor policies. The pragmatic Mr. Obama often
declares that “we don’t want to make the best the enemy of the good,”
a message that some would reiterate to the eleven activists on Mount
Rushmore. Yet sometimes the choice is not between good and best but
between progress and regress. I, for one, am glad that we have
individuals here to remind us – and our President – that this is one
of those times. But I am not the one that needs convincing.
bademiyansubhanallah
By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: July 10, 2009
For environmental activists like Jessica Miller, 31, the passage of a
major climate bill by the House last month should have been cause for
euphoria. Instead she felt cheated.
The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news
from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
Ms. Miller, an activist with Greenpeace, had worked hard on her own
time to elect Barack Obama because he directly and urgently addressed
the issue nearest her heart: climate change.
But over the last few months, as the ambitious climate legislation was
watered down in the House without criticism from the president, Ms.
Miller became disillusioned. She worried that the bill had been
rendered meaningless — or had even undermined some goals Greenpeace
had fought for. And she felt that the man she had thought of as her
champion seemed oddly prone to compromise.
“I voted for the president, I canvassed for him, but we just haven’t
seen leadership from him,” said Ms. Miller, who rappelled down Mount
Rushmore on Wednesday with colleagues to unfurl a banner protesting
what they called President Obama’s acquiescence to the compromises.
(They were arrested and charged with trespassing.)
While most environmental groups formally supported the House bill, the
road to passage proved unsettling for the movement. Friends of the
Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen opposed the bill; members of some
other groups privately berated their leaders for going along with it.
And some, like Ms. Miller, have shifted to open protest.
Few politicians make the transition from campaign trail to White House
without sacrificing a few starry-eyed supporters along the way, of
course.
And Mr. Obama’s early record on environmental issues suggests that he
is more aggressive than any of his predecessors in supporting causes
like combating global warming and shifting to renewable energy
sources.
In an interview last month, Mr. Obama defended the House bill as “a
good start.”
Referring to European leaders and others who said the bill was not
strong enough, Mr. Obama said, “We don’t want to make the best the
enemy of the good.”
He went on: “By putting a framework in place that is realistic, that
is commonsensical, that protects consumers from huge spikes in
electricity costs while setting real, meaningful targets — what we are
doing is changing the political conversation and the incentive
structures for businesses in this country.”
Still, the compromises that were made to win House approval by a 219-
to-212 vote have left the president’s “green” base in some disarray.
For some environmental groups and individuals, the bill’s perceived
shortcomings — like generous pollution allowances to coal utilities
and the usurping of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s
regulatory authority over carbon emissions — were more than mere
setbacks.
“This bill was worse than what we were expecting, even knowing we
wouldn’t get the best bill,” said Nick Berning, a spokesman for the
group Friends of the Earth.
The overriding of the E.P.A.’s regulatory authority over carbon
emissions was particularly startling, Mr. Berning said.
The president clearly shares the blame, he said, adding, “He is not
engaged enough.”
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama used forceful and direct language on
climate change, calling carbon emissions from human activity an
“immediate threat” to the climate. His environmental critics say they
miss that urgent tone.
“He was far too quiet during the House debate,” said Jessy Tolkan, the
executive director of the Energy Action Coalition, a youth group in
Washington that campaigns for clean energy. “He needs to live up to
the promises he made to us when we poured our heart and soul into
electing him.”
Ms. Tolkan said that her organization was hoping to take that point
home to the Democratic Party before the midterm elections. “Those who
played a leadership role in weakening this bill will feel the wrath of
youth political power across the country,” she said. “2010 is not that
far away.”
Democratic lawmakers have also drawn fire. Jill Stein, co-founder of
the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities, which usually
lobbies on local environmental issues, said she felt “betrayed” by the
Democratic-controlled House. “If this is a political reality, we have
to change our political leaders,” Ms. Stein said.
In a statement, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California
and an architect of the bill, defended the legislation. “We worked
hard to craft legislation that would achieve our environmental goals
while addressing the regional concerns of members of Congress,” he
said. Politicians are not the only targets of dejected
environmentalists.
The Clean, a collaborative grass-roots groups that encourages the use
of renewable fuels, posted a critique of the climate bill on its Web
site that asked at one point: “Why has this energy legislation become
so bad?”
It blames “corporate polluters” for spending tens of millions of
dollars on lobbying, but environmental groups, too.
“Several of the national ‘green’ groups decided to cooperate with
industry and members of Congress in getting a bill through,” the Web
site reads. “N.R.D.C., the Environmental Defense Fund and Pew all sat
at the table and, whether or not it was their intent to do so,
provided ‘cover’ for these bad policies.”
Daniel A. Lashof, director of the climate center for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group in Washington, said that
if his group had not come to the table, there might not have been any
climate-change legislation at all. And he pointed out that
Congressional support for environmental action was at a record high.
“We are not saying this is perfect,” Mr. Lashof said, “but we cannot
hope for stronger environmental champions in Congress. If not now,
when?”
bademiyansubhanallah
The Planet Is Heating Up—and Fast
Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying,
and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It's becoming clear that
humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing
heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse
gases, their levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years.
We call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes
to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies
from place to place. As the Earth spins each day, the new heat swirls
with it, picking up moisture over the oceans, rising here, settling
there. It's changing the rhythms of climate that all living things
have come to rely upon.
What will we do to slow this warming? How will we cope with the
changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it
all out, the face of the Earth as we know it—coasts, forests, farms
and snow-capped mountains—hangs in the balance.
Greenhouse effect
The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases
in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep
heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse.
First, sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed
and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere,
“greenhouse” gases trap some of this heat, and the rest escapes into
space. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the more heat
gets trapped.
Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when
Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it
had no atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's
climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average
of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In 1895, the Swedish chemist
Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse
effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100
years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated
understanding of global warming.
Levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have gone up and down over the
Earth's history, but they have been fairly constant for the past few
thousand years. Global average temperatures have stayed fairly
constant over that time as well, until recently. Through the burning
of fossil fuels and other GHG emissions, humans are enhancing the
greenhouse effect and warming Earth.
Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global
warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs,
winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can
cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow
falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different
areas.
Aren't temperature changes natural?
The average global temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide
(one of the major greenhouse gases) have fluctuated on a cycle of
hundreds of thousands of years as the Earth's position relative to the
sun has varied. As a result, ice ages have come and gone.
However, for thousands of years now, emissions of GHGs to the
atmosphere have been balanced out by GHGs that are naturally
absorbed. As a result, GHG concentrations and temperature have been
fairly stable. This stability has allowed human civilization to
develop within a consistent climate.
Occasionally, other factors briefly influence global temperatures.
Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool
the Earth's surface. But these have no lasting effect beyond a few
years. Other cycles, such as El Niño, also work on fairly short and
predictable cycles.
Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution.
Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are
now happening over the course of decades.
Why is this a concern?
The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing
the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt. Also,
a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all
life.
Historically, Earth's climate has regularly shifted back and forth
between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold
enough that large sheets of ice covered much of North America and
Europe. The difference between average global temperatures today and
during those ice ages is only about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees
Fahrenheit), and these swings happen slowly, over hundreds of
thousands of years.
Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining
ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt
too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly.
As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In
addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This
means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and
drier droughts (a challenge for growing crops), changes in the ranges
in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that
have historically come from glaciers.
Scientists are already seeing some of these changes occurring more
quickly than they had expected. According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since
thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006.
bademiyansubhanallah
The warming of Earth's surface and oceans over the past century is
very well documented, and climate research shows that most of the
warming in the past half century results from manmade greenhouse
gases.
In recent years, global warming has been the subject of a great deal
of political controversy. As scientific knowledge has grown, this
debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and
toward questions of how best to respond.
Signs that the earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The
easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer
records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the
earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit
(0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in
parts of the Arctic.
This doesn’t mean that temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions
of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average
out the temperature all over the world over the course of a year, you
see that temperatures have been creeping upward.
Although we can't look at thermometers going back thousands of years,
we do have some records that help us figure out what temperatures and
concentrations were like in the distant past. For example, trees store
information about the climate in the place where they live. Each year,
trees grow thicker and form new rings. In warmer and wetter years, the
rings are thicker. Old trees and wood can tell us about conditions
hundreds or even several thousands of years ago.
Keys to the past are also buried under lakes and oceans. Pollen,
creatures and particles fall to the bottom of oceans and lakes each
year, forming sediments. Sediments preserve all these bits and pieces,
which contain a wealth of information about what was in the air and
water when they fell. Scientists reveal this record by inserting
hollow tubes into the mud to collect sediment layers going back
millions of years.
For a direct look at the atmosphere of the past, scientists drill
cores through the earth's polar ice sheets. Tiny bubbles trapped in
the gas are actually pieces of the earth's past atmosphere, frozen in
time. That's how we know that the concentrations of greenhouse gases
since the industrial revolution are higher than they've been for
hundreds of thousands of years.
Computer models help scientists to understand the Earth's climate, or
long-term weather patterns. Models also allow scientists to make
predictions about the future climate. Basically, models simulate how
the atmosphere and oceans absorb energy from the sun and transport it
around the globe. Factors that affect the amount of the sun's energy
reaching Earth's surface are what drive the climate in these models,
as in real life. These include things like greenhouse gases, particles
in the atmosphere (such as from volcanoes), and changes in energy
coming from the sun itself
bademiyansubhanallah
Millions spent to lobby climate bill
By Jim Snyder
Posted: 07/21/09 07:55 PM [ET]
Energy companies and industry groups with a major stake in climate
change legislation are spending millions of dollars more on lobbying
this year.
The two biggest consumers of coal, for example, each reported
increases in lobbying expenditures as lawmakers considered a climate
bill, which could reshape the nation’s energy fuel mix by capping
carbon dioxide.
American Electric Power (AEP) and Southern Co. have spent $4.6 million
and $6.3 million, respectively, to lobby Congress this year. AEP had
spent around $3.3 million to lobby Congress at this point last year.
Southern, meanwhile, had spent $5.6 million to lobby during the first
six months of 2008.
Burning coal to produce electricity is the single largest greenhouse
gas emitter of any human activity. A climate bill would likely curb
coal use, although coal lobbyists did convince Congress to also direct
hundreds of millions of dollars to research efforts to capture and
store carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants.
Major oil companies like Conoco Phillips and Exxon Mobil also reported
big increases in lobbying expenditures this year.
Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for AEP, said the company increased its
public advocacy budget because a climate bill had the potential to
raise the costs for its consumers, particularly in states that now
rely on coal to produce electricity. She said some of the increase,
however, was also due to new reporting requirements that captured more
types of advocacy activities.
AEP in particular wanted Congress to include a “flexible” offset
program that allows companies to invest in projects to remove carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere when they couldn’t meet their required
emissions reductions at the smokestack.
AEP is a member of a coalition of companies and environmental groups
that developed a series of proposals that became the framework for the
House bill. The company supports the House climate bill, though it is
now lobbying the Senate in hopes of easing initial emissions reduction
targets and adding more generous offset provisions.
Valerie Hendrickson, a spokeswoman for Southern Co., said the company
supports “significant” portions of the House bill, but was lobbying
for alterations to “mitigate” the costs to the utility’s consumers.
The electric utility industry’s main trade group also increased its
lobbying budget. The Edison Electric Institute, which represents
investor-owned utilities, spent $5.2 million on lobbying so far in
2009 versus $4.2 million at this point in 2008.
The group helped devise a controversial strategy to divvy up emission
allowances among utility groups. Thirty-five percent of the allowances
would be given to local distribution utilities to help consumers
offset higher electric bills.
Some environmental groups say energy companies and other interests had
too much influence in crafting the climate measure, limiting its
effectiveness at controlling climate change.
Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth said lobbying by coal, oil and gas
and agriculture interests “watered down” the House climate bill. His
group contends the bill would not cut greenhouse gas emissions quickly
enough to prevent climate conditions from worsening.
Other energy industries increased lobbying expenditures as well.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents major oil
companies, has spent $3.7 million lobbying Congress and the
administration so far this year, versus the $2.3 million it spent
during the first six months of 2008.
Robert Dodge, a spokesman for API, said the increased spending
reflects the fact that the “political world has changed quite a bit”
with a new Democratic administration and strengthened Democratic
majorities in Congress.
In addition to the climate bill, the oil industry is concerned about
proposed tax increases and bills it says would limit domestic oil and
gas production.
Individual oil companies have also spent more. Conoco Phillips spent
$9.3 million on lobbying so far this year, compared to $4.5 million
during the first six months of 2008.
Red Cavaney, the new head of the oil giant’s government relations
department, said the increase is partly due to new reporting
requirements that capture more grassroots advocacy efforts than were
previously disclosed.
But climate change legislation and other bills that could hurt the
industry have required the company to be more engaged on Capitol Hill.
“Our activity level is up, no question,” Cavaney said.
Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP have all also spent significantly more on
lobbying during the first six months of 2009 compared to the first
half of 2008.
Other groups with a stake in climate legislation are spending less on
lobbying activity. The National Mining Association, which represents
coal producers, spent much less to lobby this year. The mining group
reported spending around $1.2 million sod far this year, versus the
$2.5 million it had spent this time a year ago.
A spokesman declined to comment about why the group had reduced its
lobbying budget.
bademiyansubhanallah
Sid Harth
By George F. Will
Thursday, July 23, 2009 - Added 5h ago
WASHINGTON - Unfortunately, China’s president had to dash home to
suppress ethnic riots. Had he stayed in Italy at the recent G-8
summit, he could have continued the Herculean task of disabusing
Barack Obama of his amazingly durable belief, shared by the U.S.
Congress, that China - and India, Brazil, Mexico and other developing
nations - will sacrifice their modernization on the altar of climate
change. China has a more pressing agenda, and not even suppressing
riots tops the list.
China made this clear in June, when its vice premier said, opaquely,
that China will “actively” participate in climate change talks on a
basis of “common but differentiated responsibility.” The meaning of
that was made clear three days later, at a climate change conference
in Bonn, where a Chinese spokesman reiterated that his country’s
priority is economic growth: “Given that, it is natural for China to
have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China
in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target.” That was
redundant: In January, China announced that its continuing reliance on
coal will require increasing coal production 30 percent in the next
six years.
In Bonn, even thoroughly developed Japan promised only a 2 percent
increase of its emission-reduction obligations under the 1997 Kyoto
agreement. Japan’s decision left Yvo de Boer, the slow learner who is
the U.N.’s climate change czar, nonplussed: “For the first time in my
two and a half years in this job, I don’t know what to say.”
Others did. They said: On to Italy! The Financial Times reported,
“Officials are now pinning their hopes” on the G-8 summit.
Which has come and gone, the eight having vowed to cut emissions of
greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050, which is 41 years distant. As is
1968, which seems as remote as the Punic Wars. If you do not want to
do anything today, promise to do everything tomorrow, which is always
a day away.
Still, sternly declaring that they will brook no nonsense from nature,
the eight made a commitment - but a nonbinding one - that Earth’s
temperature shall not rise by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over
“preindustrial levels.” That is the goal. Details to follow. Tomorrow.
Explaining such lethargy in the face of a supposed emergency, the
G-8’s host, Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, said the eight
should not burden themselves as long as “5 billion people continue to
behave as they have always behaved.” Actually, the problem, for people
who think it is a problem, is that the 5 billion in the developing
world are behaving in a new way. After centuries of exclusion from
economic growth, they are enjoying it, which is tiresome to would-be
climate fixers in already prosperous nations.
The fixers say: On to Copenhagen! There, in December, the moveable
feast of climate confabulations will continue. By which time China
alone probably will have brought on line 14 more coal-fired generating
plants.
The costs of weaning the U.S. economy off carbon are uncertain, but
certainly large. The climatic benefits of doing so are uncertain but,
given the behavior of those pesky 5 billion, almost certainly small.
Fortunately, skepticism about climate change is growing, as is
evidence that, whatever the truth about the problem turns out to be,
U.S. actions cannot be significantly ameliorative.
Sid Harth
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Ellen Bueno: Global warming latest hot button
While trying to make up my mind about this controversial "cap-and-
trade" bill currently under inspection in the Senate, I realized I
needed to understand global warming better. So I got out the aspirin,
lined up a row of espressos every day for a week and went hunting for
global warming truth.
I learned three things: Most scientists agree that the global average
temperature has increased by about 1 degree over the past century.
Most also agree that carbon dioxide emissions have increased notably
during the Industrial Age. Most disagree on nearly everything else.
Do you want to know what the main cause of global warming is, or how
bad it will get, or what we should do about it? Sorry. Those answers
are numerous and contradictory, even coming from the scientific
community. There is a majority opinion, however, presented by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This prestigious group of
scientists presented its "Summary for Policymakers" in 2007, which
politicians regard as climate change canon.
So all you have to do is find that and start reading, right? (Don’t
try this without caffeine.)
Eh … you’ll have to decide if you’re going to ignore the Summary’s
growing number of detractors. I’d ignore them if they weren’t
scientists, but they are – real ones with PhDs and research grants and
papers published in peer-reviewed journals. A recent U.S. Senate
Minority Report lists more than 700 prominent international
scientists, including many current and former IPCC scientists, who now
disagree with the organization.
This isn’t surprising. Scientists rarely achieve consensus on complex
subjects, and ideally they should be curious, not angry about
challenges to their work. Peer review roots out error and bias.
Unfortunately, the scientific debate can’t be heard over the
screeching of partisan politics. The Al Gore-ites who want the debate
to be over are trying to dismiss skeptical scientists as a bunch of
quack, global warming deniers, whom they equate with Holocaust
deniers. This stifling of debate isn’t good for us.
Let’s give the scientific community more time to hash things out
before we legislate expensive climate change policies. This rush to
get cap-and-trade passed gives me a bad feeling of déjà vu …
In 1968 the Sierra Club published The Population Bomb, a book written
by Stanford biology professor, Paul R. Ehrlich. He famously announced,
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s
hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any
crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also said poor people
living in nations that didn’t control population growth should be
allowed to starve.
The book is a study in bad math, alarmism and misanthropy, and yet
people bought 1 million copies in less than two years, and quoted it
all day.
Ehrlich wanted to "place the population issue at the center of
environmental policy." So did liberal philanthropic groups like the
Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. They donated millions of dollars
toward population control programs and strongly influenced White House
policies. On cue, President Nixon announced in 1969 that there was an
"urgent need to address world population growth rates [and] their
adverse impact on economic growth …"
When the United Nations and World Bank jumped aboard the population
control freight train, it barreled down on poor women everywhere.
Economic aid to poor nations was tied to population reduction
programs, and overzealous governments in India, Bangladesh and other
countries proceeded to sterilize millions of citizens against their
will (killing thousands in the process) or use women as unknowing
guinea pigs in the testing of new contraceptives, or only gave food
subsidies to women who got sterilized. Ehrlich must have jumped for
joy.
Except none of his predictions came true. The Green Revolution boosted
food production in the 1960s. Population growth slowed in developed
nations to the point where 20 countries now have negative or zero
growth. 25 million people, sadly, have died of AIDS. We now know that
children aren’t the enemy. Poverty is the enemy. And poverty in
developing nations is caused mainly by corrupt governments, civil wars
and lack of health care.
Everyone believed the world’s biggest problem was families with more
than 2 children. And everyone was wrong.
Let’s learn from history instead of repeating it. A big chorus of
impressive people is predicting catastrophe if governments don’t get a
climate change freight train rolling. Are they right?
Ellen Bueno has lived in Baraboo for 21 years and is the reader member
of the News Republic’s editorial board.
Sid Harth
Posted by Ian Ross on July 22, 2009 at 20:52
Adaptation, India, Mitigation, USA
Manmohan Singh recently argued that annex 1 countries should provide
0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and that
India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless
this rose to 0.8%. It seems that conditional bargaining chips are all
the rage these days in climate negotiations, after the EU’s offer of
“a 20% reduction, or 30% if everyone plays nicely”.
Dr Singh’s plan is quite ambitious - Obama’s climate change envoy Todd
Stern has already dismissed it out of hand. India’s climate change
gurus have been taking an ear-bashing from Hillary Clinton this week,
marking another rise in tensions between the US and India over
emissions reductions.
Stern argues that India should fix a year for peak emissions and make
sure that its emissions reductions as “MRV-able”, but as mentioned
above, India demands increased amounts of cash if that is to happen.
This does seem a little bit unreasonable. 0.5% of GDP seems like a
fair deal given the various estimates of the costs of mitigation and
adaptation for developing countries that have been flying around.
Something has to give somewhere, and you can bet that the horse
trading will carry on right until the COP. It will be interesting to
see how this pans out over the next few weeks, with only a few months
until Copenhagen, and countries leaving themselves ever less wiggle
room
dc
be cautious is wisdom. Why be careless?. U r right. But prevention is
better than cure. Just in case!!. And either way.. there is employment
in the environmentalist cause too. SO, it is alright. U and them,
both.
....and this is Ravi
(eh? I like this finishoing line-style of yours... I don't have to pay
royalty on it eh?... so thanks..
Sid Harth
Climate Bill Success = Treaty Failure?
By Andrew C. Revkin
A predictable impasse is growing over the climate bill that
Democratic leaders are trying to push through the Senate. To build
sufficient support, it appears that the bill would have to include
mechanisms punishing other countries — implicitly large emerging
economic powers led by China and India — if they don’t pursue
emissions cuts, too. As John Broder reports, 10 Senate Democrats sent
a letter to President Obama on Thursday saying they would not support
a bill without the confidence that all countries emitting large
amounts of greenhouse gases were acting to limit their impact on the
shared atmosphere. From John’s story:
“Climate change is a reality and the world cannot afford inaction,”
the senators wrote. “However, we must not engage in a self-defeating
effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing
them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them.”
The impasse reflects a daunting pincers-like situation for Mr. Obama,
who has pledged internationally to lead the world toward a new treaty
limiting greenhouse gases and pledged to pass aggressive climate
legislation at home. The problem is, to get the legislation passed
will require compromises aimed at protecting the economies of
manufacturing and coal states, and to get a climate treaty negotiated
will require measures guaranteeing that rich countries move first to
cut emissions.
On the treaty front, the Senate will surely be seeking measurable,
verifiable and substantial steps by the big developing countries. At
the same time, China, India and other economic competitors are not
likely to be in an agreeable mood at treaty talks in Copenhagen in
December if faced with protectionist steps in the United States.
The pincers on the president are tightened by another reality
devolving from the nature of American democracy. No treaty can take
effect here without the president’s gaining the advice and consent of
the Senate — a two-thirds vote of approval. It was that situation that
essentially guaranteed that the last climate pact signed by the United
States, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, would never be sent to the Senate
for ratification by either President Bill Clinton or President George
W. Bush.
Is there a way to for Mr. Obama to move forward on both the domestic
and international climate and energy fronts without one effort
scuttling the other?
[UPDATE 10:30am:] Benjamin LaBolt at the State Department sent this
statement, which was distributed on Thursday to reporters:
During negotiations over the House bill, the President made clear that
assistance should be provided to vulnerable families, communities, and
businesses to help in the transition to a clean energy economy. He
will take that same approach as he works with the Senate to pass
comprehensive energy legislation that invests in clean energy
incentives that will create millions of jobs. The President also
believes that the most effective approach to maintaining a level
playing field is to negotiate a new international climate change
agreement that ensures that all the major polluters take significant
actions to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Sid Harth
Written by Mark S. Langevin
Sunday, 09 August 2009 18:20
Brazilians take global warming seriously, much more than the rest of
the world. The recently published 2009 Pew Global Attitudes Project
survey of twenty five prominent nation-states, including the United
States, China, India, France, Kenya, and Poland among many others, now
confirms that Brazil is now the world leader in concern over global
warming.
The Pew survey reveals Brazil's highest affirmative response rate to
the question: Is global warming a serious problem? 90 percent of
Brazilians think so, by far the highest proportion of any country in
the study. Argentina ranks second with 69 percent, the U.S. response
is well behind at 44%, and China is last in this survey with only 30
percent of the respondents troubled by greenhouse gas emissions.
Since the election of President Lula in 2002, Brazilians have become
increasingly aware of national and global environmental problems, from
the impact of land use practices in the Cerrado to deforestation in
the Amazon.
President Lula told Reuters that Brazil was open to adopting targets
for greenhouse gas reductions, "the issue is not a taboo for us.",
thus reflecting the national preoccupation with global warming and all
but reversing the country's adamant opposition to adopting emission
reduction targets.
Brazilians did not always share such a unique perspective on the
global warming challenge. Before Lula's election, only 20 percent of
the population expressed concern for the environment according to the
Pew Center. By 2007 this number had jumped to 49%, the largest
increase of the survey. According to Larry Rohter of the New York
Times,
"The factors behind the re-evaluation range from a drought here in the
Amazon rain forest, the world's largest, and the impact that it could
have on agriculture if it recurs, to new phenomena like a hurricane in
the south of Brazil. As a result, environmental advocates, scientists
and some politicians say, Brazilian policy makers and the public they
serve are increasingly seeing climate change not as a distant problem,
but as one that could affect them too."
Climate change is now front and center in Brazil. Members of Congress
from all political parties race to affiliate with the environmental
caucus and co-sponsor "green" legislation. The former Minister of the
Environment under Lula, Workers Party Senator and former Amazon rubber
tapper, Marina Silva, is now considering an invitation from the Green
Party to run as their presidential nominee in 2010.
Even S.O.S. Mata Atlântica, a prominent environmental advocacy
organization, is running humorous television ads asking Brazilians to
"piss in the shower" to save millions of liters of fresh water in a
campaign to preserve the Atlantic coast's dwindling rainforest.
Dare to compare Brazil with the U.S.?
During the same period from 2002 to 2007, the U.S. level of
environmental concern rose from 23 to 37 percent, but alarm over
global warming decreased from 47 percent in 2007 to 44 in 2009 as the
economy crumbled. Although President Obama and the Democratic Party
passed the controversial American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009 (known as Waxman-Markey) in the House of Representatives by a
very close vote; efforts to pass a climate change bill in the Senate
face stiff opposition.
In fact, the ranking Republican member of the key Environment and
Public Works committee responsible for developing climate change
legislation, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, doubts the scientific
findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which
jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice-President Al
Gore in 2007. In 2003 Sen. Inhofe remarked that global warming was
the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Of course, there are other countries in the Pew Center survey that
also play down the threat of global warming, including the very large
greenhouse gas emitters China and Canada, yes Canada! However, the
public opinion gap between Brazil and the U.S. may prove to be a major
obstacle in galvanizing international cooperation to reduce
emissions.
48 percent of Brazilians are willing to pay higher prices (for energy,
food, etc.) to address global warming, compared to only 41 percent for
the U.S. Even more interesting, 79 percent of Brazilians are willing
to tolerate slower economic growth and job creation to protect the
environment compared to 64 percent for the U.S.
With respect to who is most trusted to deal with global warming, 57
percent of U.S. citizens believe the U.S. is the most trustworthy
while only 17 percent of Brazilians place their faith in U.S.
leadership. Of the countries studied, only Israel, Kenya, and Nigeria
place more than 40 percent confidence in the U.S. on climate
matters.
Even more telling, Brazil ranks high in the list of countries who
blame the U.S. for global warming. 49 percent of the Brazilians
single out the U.S. Only Turkey and Bangladesh (61%), Spain (56%),
Venezuela and Slovakia (55%), France (53%), and Indonesia (52%)
surpass Brazil suspicions. Evidently, these numbers partially reflect
the animosity unleashed by President George W. Bush's withdrawal from
the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.
Brazil's recent and very rapid increase in public awareness stands in
sharp contrast with the partisan rancor and controversy surrounding
U.S. efforts to confront global warming. Moreover, Brazilians about-
face is now bearing down on domestic policy making. The government's
Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAM) got off
to a slow start, but is now showing measurable results.
No doubt this effort has its critics, but Brazil's National Institute
for Space Research confirms that the rate of Amazon deforestation is
slowing. Also, the current Minister of the Environment, Carlos Minc,
announced in June that President Lula himself would directly
participate in efforts to stop deforestation by visiting Amazon
communities involved in sustainable production. Even Brazil's Army is
joining the campaign to stop deforestation!
These efforts highlight Brazil's broader commitment to protect the
Amazon and play a leading role in climate change negotiations at
Copenhagen. They are now coupled with international campaigns to
diminish the external threats to the rainforest. Greenpeace's recent
campaign, "Slaughtering the Amazon," has already pressured such
companies as Nike to "certify" that leather used in the company's
products does not come from cattle herding in the Amazon.
Taken together, Brazilians' concern with global warming, the Lula
administration's increasing commitment to stop deforestation,
international efforts, such as the Amazon Fund, to assist the country
with sustainable development in the Amazon, and Brazil's historic
leadership of the G-77 nations in climate change talks add up to a
prominent position at this year's Conference of the Parties to the
United Nations Framework on Climate Change negotiations in Copenhagen
or COP15. Indeed, the U.S. Climate Change envoy, Todd Stern, recently
visited Brasilia for talks with the government and remarked,
"And I think that an issue like this, which is of enormous importance
to the world ... is an ideal opportunity for Brazil to demonstrate
leadership on the global stage. And if you want to be a global player,
that's what you have to do."
According to the Pew Center, over 180 million Brazilians have weighed
in are now ready to take the stage and steal the show.
Mark S. Langevin, Ph.D., is Director of BrazilWorks
(www.brazilworks.org), adjunct Associate Professor of Government and
Politics at the University of Maryland-University College, and
Associate Researcher at the Political Studies Laboratory of the
Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil. He researches and
writes on U.S.-Brazil relations. He can be contacted at
mark.bra...@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from
spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
bademiyansubhanallah
Press Trust of India
Posted: 2009-08-10 00:41:02+05:30 IST
Updated: Aug 10, 2009 at 0041 hrs IST
New York: Environmental changes will pose profound strategic
challenges to Washington in the coming decades, said a study by the
Pentagon and intelligence agencies on the effect of global climate
change and its impact on US military.
In an exercise last December at the Washington-based National Defence
University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military,
experts explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in
Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into
neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of
contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure, the New York
Times reported on Sunday..
Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist
movements or destabilise entire regions, say the analysts, experts at
the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are
taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate
change.
“It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J Dory, the
deputy assistant secretary of defence for strategy, who is working
with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into
national security strategy planning.
The report noted that recent war games and intelligence studies
conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions,
particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and
Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises
and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand
an American humanitarian relief or military response. The changing
global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United
States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military
intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass
migration and pandemics, the Times quoted military and intelligence
analysts as saying.
The conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of
thousands of people, is partly a result of drought in Darfur, they
said. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-
fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will
urgently have to address.
The Pentagon and the state department have studied issues arising from
dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now
considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning
documents.
The Pentagon will include a climate section in the Quadrennial defense
Review, due in February; the state department will address the issue
in its new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.
chhotemianinshallah
ANALYSTS' VIEW - India says emissions to soar by 2030
Wed Sep 2, 2009 5:04pm IST
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India said on Wednesday it expected its
greenhouse gas emissions to jump to between 4 billion tonnes and 7.3
billion tonnes in 2031.
Per-capita emissions were estimated to rise to 2.1 tonnes by 2020 and
3.5 tonnes by 2030.
Last month the German renewable energy industry institute IWR said
India's carbon dioxide emissions alone were 1.4 billion tonnes in
2008, or about 1.3 tonnes per-capita.
Following is a selection of analysts' views on the emissions data
SIDDHARTH PATHAK, GREENPEACE CLIMATE CAMPAIGNER
"It doesn't seem much because per-capita emissions for the world right
now is approximately 2 tonnes on average to keep the temperature below
2 degrees Celsius.
"This seems like a decent enough trajectory, but we assume India's
emissions will peak by 2030."
SHIRISH SINHA, WWF CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT
"It is fairly expected that India's emissions will grow. This is a
series of exercises that has been released today."
"Our own estimation is India's emission will increase and peak around
2025. It would remain stabilised over a long time period and then
start to decline by 2050 to come down to 1990 levels."
"And we feel it can be done."
SUNITA NARAIN, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT
"Bottomline is India is saying that its per capita emission will be
much lower than the industrial emission in the United States and
Europe by 2020.
"If it reaches 20 tonnes per capita in the U.S and 10 tonnes per
capita in Europe, India is saying that even in 2020, it will go up to
maximum five tonnes due to a series of measures it will undertake to
cut emissions by then."
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
chhotemianinshallah
People won't change lifestyle for planet: straw poll
Wed Sep 2, 2009 5:48pm IST
By Nina Chestney
LONDON (Reuters) - People want to save the planet but are unwilling to
make radical lifestyle changes like giving up air travel or red meat
to reduce the effects of climate change, a straw poll by Reuters
showed.
As leaders gear up for another round of climate change talks later
this month in New York, motivating people to change their lifestyles
will be crucial in ensuring cuts in planet-warming greenhouse gases,
experts say.
Over 40 percent of Britain's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the main
greenhouse gas causing climate change, come from the energy we use at
home and in traveling.
A straw poll of 15 British men and 15 British women between the ages
of 25-75 in central London, showed all were willing to make small
changes for the environment, such as recycling, but few would commit
to more fundamental changes to behavior.
"I try to minimize using my car but I wouldn't give it up," a 42-year-
old man, Emerald Wijesinthe, told Reuters.
Changing small habits like leaving appliances on standby are
relatively easy, but more radical changes face resistance.
"We know from plenty of evidence in social, personality, and clinical
psychology that people generally do not like to change their
identities - they prefer stability," Tim Kasser, psychology professor
at Knox College in Illinois, told Reuters.
Tapping into gender differences could help focus energy efficiency
measures and deliver better results.
"Women are more likely to be energy conscious and willing to make
habit-related changes, whereas men are more likely to make investments
in more efficient equipment," said Sarah Darby, research fellow at UK
Research Council's Energy Programme.
All the women interviewed in the straw poll said they made efforts to
reduce energy use, compared with 60 percent of men.
Seventy percent of men said they were unwilling to change their
lifestyles, compared with just 10 percent of women.
"I make sure the house isn't overheated, lower our meat intake and
grow vegetables," said 71-year old Rosie Hughes.
Eighteen percent of all greenhouse gas emissions is due to meat
production, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural
Organisation.
Research suggests women in general show more empathy and concern for
the greater good than men, Kasser added, which made them more likely
to think about the impacts of their daily behavior on the environment.
In fact, appealing to people's altruistic side is likely to spur
people to make fundamental changes, rather than motivation from
financial concerns, and advertisers can play an important role in
encouraging greener lifestyles.
"Climate change is now a marketing challenge as well as a scientific
one," said Ian Curtis, founder of Oxfordshire climate project
ClimateXchange.
For a factbox on the impact of energy use, click on
(Editing by Sue Thomas)
chhotemianinshallah
FACTBOX - What is likely to emerge from London G20 meeting
Wed Sep 2, 2009 5:40pm IST
By Matt Falloon
LONDON (Reuters) - Finance ministers and central bankers from the
Group of 20 developed and developing economies meet in London this
week to assess how far the world economy and banking system is
recovering from two years of crisis.
Below are the key market themes and what to expect from the meeting.
CURRENCIES
G7 sources say there is unlikely to be any mention of the future role
of the dollar, yuan revaluation or a new global reserve currency in
the main talks in London, despite a broad recognition of the need to
tackle imbalances between surplus and deficit nations.
While some such as France, China and Russia want to discuss
currencies, others such as Britain and the United States think
financial market sentiment is still too fragile for such debate.
ECONOMY/EXIT STRATEGIES
The phrase to look for in the communique will be that the G20 will
keep policy expansionary or accommodative for as long as it takes to
safeguard recovery but will prepare credible, co-ordinated and smooth
exit strategies for the right moment.
A G7 source has told Reuters the language on this is likely to be
little changed from the April G20 meetings.
European Union finance ministers are likely to tell the G20 that plans
to withdraw fiscal stimulus should be prepared, but that it is too
early to implement them, EU sources say.
They may also seek international coordination in the gradual
withdrawal of global fiscal stimuli, while British Prime Minister
Gordon Brown has been pushing for long-term cooperation to ensure a
return to sustained growth.
Despite calls from Germany to reduce the global stimulus, most
policymakers are cautious for two reasons:
-- There are concerns among smaller economies, still shrinking larger
economies such as Britain, and even those such as Japan that returned
to growth in the second quarter, that any recovery could reverse. Most
admit the world's banking system is still fragile and could need
further support.
-- For those wanting to use the current crisis to make sweeping
changes to the financial system such as France, admitting the global
recession is over too early could dampen the appetite for reform.
FUTURE GROWTH
A key area for discussion in London and Pittsburgh is where future
economic growth will come from, given a chastised financial sector in
the West and a weaker U.S. consumer.
China has made positive noises about boosting domestic demand to take
up some of the slack but structural changes could be needed in export
dependent countries such as Germany and Japan to ensure future
prosperity.
Expect the discussion to focus on new technologies, green innovation
and higher education.
The United States, which hosts the G20 summit in Pittsburgh later this
month, is keen to showcase a former steel-making city now finding
success in areas such as health and learning.
FINANCIAL REGULATION
G7 sources say there is little chance of a big breakthrough on the
mass of regulatory changes that have been suggested to fix the world's
financial system since the credit crisis broke.
While Germany and France are keen to act while the appetite for change
is strong, the United States, Japan and Britain are wary of any
drastic measures that may stifle future growth in their crucial
financial sectors.
Some governments have also resisted giving powers to over-arching
regulators, wanting to keep national supervisors at the centre of any
future regime.
Expect London to be a stock-taking exercise on pledges made in April,
resulting in broad support for changes to the way financial sector
wages, hedge funds, derivative trading and accounting are managed.
Credit ratings agencies, banks' capital and liquidity buffers and
general supervision will also feature in discussions though there are
unlikely to be any major new initiatives.
There have been discussions on dynamic provisioning -- banks building
up capital in good times to help in the bad times -- at an
international level but they have yet to be concluded.
BANKERS' BONUSES
Politicians across the world have heavily criticised banks for their
role in the financial crisis and want bonus regimes to be improved to
avoid reckless behaviour in the future.
Expect lots of sabre rattling and a pledge for a structural change to
financial sector remuneration where pay is dependent on sustainable
profitability.
The widespread adoption of specialised Tobin-style taxes on the
financial sector or the French ideas for pay caps and taxes on bonuses
are unlikely though.
MORE MONEY FOR IMF
Global leaders pledged to triple the International Monetary Fund's
capacity to help struggling economies to $750 billion at the April
London summit but some have been slow to fulfil that pledge.
Policymakers will be concerned that global recovery will reduce the
appetite to come good on April's promise, although sources say the
European Union could up its contribution to $175 billion to meet its
pledge.
REPRESENTATION IN GLOBAL BODIES
The drive to make bodies such as the IMF and World Bank more
representative of the interests of fast emerging economies such as
China and India has accelerated this year. Markets will be looking for
details on how changes to voting power will be managed and when they
may come.
ENERGY MARKET SPECULATION
The United States, along with regulators across the world, are working
to tighten trading in areas such as oil and natural gas markets to
reduce the influence market speculators have on the everyday cost of
fuel.
Critics say such action could hurt market confidence and hit tax
income for some nations if prices plunged.
Policymakers from large oil consumers say a volatile oil price is bad
for the world economy and have been discussing how to improve the
transparency of the market with oil producers.
However, little progress has been made and London is unlikely to
produce a solution.
CLIMATE CHANGE
London is a key stage towards agreeing a new global climate change
deal in Copenhagen in December, but policymakers across the world
admit there is a long way to go in finding a way to break through the
deadlock between rich and poor nations.
Developing economies, under pressure from richer countries to act,
want financial help to offset the costs.
Given the need for urgent progress, London could discuss climate
finance and how the necessary billions of dollars a year will be
sourced and managed to help poorer countries curb emissions and cope
with droughts and heatwaves.
Expect the pressure for a breakthrough to increase when the discussion
moves to Pittsburgh.
FARM AID
The G8 group of industrialised nations have pledged $20 billion to
help poor nations feed themselves through improving agriculture.
There may be some preliminary discussion in London on how those funds
might be dispersed, with the World Bank seen as one possible
supervisor.
(Additional reporting by Sumeet Desai, Huw Jones, Lesley Wroughton and
Alister Doyle)
chhotemianinshallah
FACTBOX: Impacts, savings from cutting UK energy use
Wed Sep 2, 2009 6:12pm IST
LONDON (Reuters) - Over 40 percent of Britain's carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, the main greenhouse gas causing climate change, come from
the energy we use at home and in traveling.
As politicians gear up for more climate change talks later this month
in New York, changing people's attitudes toward energy consumption
could be key in reducing emissions.
The average British home emits around five and a half tonnes of carbon
dioxide every year, twice the amount of a car.
Homes could save 1.5 tonnes of CO2, equivalent to 300 pounds a year,
by insulating, improving their heating system and being energy
efficient. Businesses could save over 2.5 billion pounds a year
through carbon reduction measures, such as replacing oil boilers or
installing new lighting.
The impacts of energy consumption in Britain and some potential
savings are set out below.
HOUSEHOLDS
Leaving appliances and gadgets on standby wastes as much electricity
as the annual output of two 700 megawatt power stations.
We waste over 600,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, equal to 170 million
pounds, by leaving lights on unnecessarily.
Over 700,000 tonnes a year of CO2 is wasted by people overfilling
their kettles. If people boiled only the water needed each time, we
could save enough electricity in a year to run Britain's street
lighting for nearly 7 months.
Britain could save 180 mega liters of water a day - enough to supply
nearly 500,000 homes, by turning taps off while brushing teeth.
If we stopped wasting food which could have been eaten, we could save
18 million tonnes of CO2, the equivalent of taking one in five cars
off our roads.
If everyone reduced their thermostat by one degree centigrade we could
save 5.5 million tonnes of CO2, the same reduction as taking 1.8
million cars off the road.
Installing cavity wall insulation could cut CO2 by nearly 4 million
tonnes. That's enough to fill Wembley stadium 500 times.
Drying clothes outside in the summer, rather than using tumble driers,
would save as much CO2 as taking 240,000 cars off the roads.
Upgrading fridges and freezers to energy saving recommended products
could save over 700 million pounds of electricity every year. This
could power UK street lighting for three years.
BUSINESSES
Air conditioning can increase a building' energy consumption and CO2
emissions by 100 percent.
Switching off lights in corridors and rooms not being used could cut
lighting costs by 15 percent.
A seven-day timer on shared equipment such as printers, vending
machines and water coolers could save up to 70 percent on energy
costs.
A single computer and monitor left on for 24 hours a day could cost
over 50 pounds a year. Switching it off out of hours could reduce this
to 15 pounds. Upgrading IT can bring substantial CO2 reductions.
Maintaining boilers regularly could save firms 10 percent on annual
heating costs.
Sources: Energy Saving Trust www.energysavingtrust.org.uk, The Carbon
Trust www.carbontrust.co.uk
(Reporting by Nina Chestney)
chhotemianinshallah
Save reefs, forests to fight climate change: study
Wed Sep 2, 2009 4:36pm IST
By Madeline Chambers
BERLIN (Reuters) - Governments can help combat climate change by
investing more in natural areas including forests and coral reefs, a
European study said on Wednesday.
The study pointed out that nations have natural assets worth trillions
of dollars which can help fight climate change.
"Natural systems represent one of the biggest untapped allies against
the greatest challenge of this generation," said The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) paper.
Using these natural assets could help countries save on industrial
schemes for carbon capture, it said.
The study is part of a global project, to be published next year,
launched by Germany and the European Commission to examine the
economics of biodiversity loss.
Scientists say preserving nature is crucial to the fight against
climate change but warn extinctions are speeding up due to human
activity. Research shows extinction rates are running at 1,000 times
their natural pace and three species vanish every hour.
The study highlighted the dangers facing coral reefs which have risen
due to a build up of greenhouse gases.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are above the levels at which they
cause irreversible damage to coral reefs, said the paper, adding
stabilizing CO2 levels at about 16 percent above current levels could
condemn reefs to extinction and rob millions of people of their
livelihoods.
Coral reefs, which protect coastlines from the effects of global
warming and are essential for some kinds of fish, are worth up to $170
billion a year, said the report.
"An estimated half a billion people depend on them for livelihoods and
more than a quarter of marine fish species are dependent on coral
reefs," said Pavan Sukhdev, the study leader.
The study also highlights the importance of funding for forests, which
absorb an estimated 15 percent of global greenhouse emissions every
year, making them a major natural mitigator of CO2 emissions.
Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the U.N. Environment Program
(UNEP) said: "Governments are considering multi-billion-dollar
investments in carbon capture and storage at power stations. Perhaps
it is time to subject this to a full cost benefit analysis to see
whether the technological option matches nature's ability to capture
and store carbon."
(Editing by Janet Lawrence)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
...and I am Sid harth
chhotemianinshallah
Potential seen for climate insurance in tourism
Wed Sep 2, 2009 4:25pm IST
By Alister Doyle
GENEVA (Reuters) - Insurance is an under-used way for the tourism
industry to manage the risks of climate change, with existing offers
ranging from a "perfect weather guarantee" by Barbados to ski resorts
promising deep snow, experts say.
"Insurance products...have a huge potential for tourism," Daniel
Scott, chair of a team on tourism and climate for the U.N.'s World
Meteorological Organization, told Reuters at a climate conference in
Geneva.
"It's coming but it's been under-utilised. Many operators do not even
know about it," said Scott, who works at the University of Waterloo in
Canada.
The 150-nation conference in Geneva from Aug. 31-Sept. 4 is seeking to
boost the flow of climate information to help nations adapt to shifts
such as droughts, storms or rising seas that will affect everything
from farming to health.
A U.N.-commissioned survey led by Scott of weather-related insurance
in recent years includes Barbados' guarantee, refunding travellers if
daytime temperatures are below 26 Celsius (78.8 F) or there is more
than 5 mm (0.2 inch) of rain.
Temperatures for the Caribbean island were forecast to be around 32 C
(89.6 F) for Wednesday.
Some ski resorts in Europe and North America offer a refund if
snowfall is inadequate. Bombardier Motor Corp. in Canada promised a
partial refund on new snowmobiles if snowfall was less than 50 percent
of a three-year average.
One PGA Golf event in North Carolina bought insurance against too much
rain that would keep spectators away. Some holiday operators offer
insurance against rain on holiday.
WINE BARS
And a chain of wine bars in London took insurance for every Thursday
and Friday when temperatures did not reach 24 C (75.2 F), reckoning
chilly days keep drinkers away.
"Much more should be done to mainstream climate considerations into
tourism policy," said Alain Dupeyras of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Experts say the tourism industry is one of the most exposed to climate
change that is set to disrupt rain patterns, push up sea levels that
could wash away beaches or warm the oceans and damage coral reefs.
Among hurdles, developing nations find it hard to get access to proper
insurance because of a lack of historical weather data, such as
cyclones, on which to calculate risks. And those risks are changing
with global warming.
"Most Caribbean islands don't have a risk profile," said Ulric Trotz,
science adviser to the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre. That
meant their risks were assumed to be the same as for the U.S. Gulf
coast.
"When Hurricane Andrew hit the southern United States the premiums for
all the Caribbean rose," he said, referring to the devastating 1992
storm. There was also a need to consider micro-insurance for tourism
workers who could lose jobs.
Tourism generated $735 billion in revenues worldwide in 2006, of which
$221 billion was in developing nations, according to U.N. data. Some
tropical island states rely on tourism for half their gross domestic
product.
Scott said that it was hard to estimate the overall value of tourism
insurance but it was a tiny part of the market for weather derivatives
-- estimated at $32 billion in 2007-08 and dominated by agriculture
and energy clients.
-- For Reuters latest environment blogs click on: blogs.reuters.com/
environment/
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Event Calendar September 2009
3rd US Carbon Finance Forum
15 September 2009 - 16 September 2009 | The Metropolitan Club, New
York City, United States
Over 150 major carbon markets players will meet on September 15-16 in
New York at the 3rd Annual US Carbon Finance Forum, to get the key
insights they need to stay ahead in this rapidly developing sector.
With the US Senate vote on the landmark Climate Change Bill by
September 18, the two-day event will feature fresh insight from
investors and regulators
11th Renewable Energy Finance Forum London
21 September 2009 - 22 September 2009 | Millennium Gloucester,
London , London , United Kingdom
With more than 400 participants from 38 different countries in 2008,
this is the definitive pan-European forum for renewable energy
investors and project developers, covering the latest to market
trends, policy drivers and sources of capital.
This year's programme will go beyond established technologies, such as
Wind and Solar, to look also at Bioenergy, Marine and Geothermal,
Energy Efficiency and Grid Infrastructure.
6th Ernst & Young Global Renewable Energy Awards
21 September 2009 | London, London, United Kingdom
Attendance at the 6th Annual Euromoney and Ernst & Young Global
Renewable Energy Awards Dinner is free for all participants at REFF
London. The Awards will showcase the best deals and companies in the
global renewable energy industry.
2nd Renewable Energy Finance Forum West
29 September 2009 - 30 September 2009 | The Palace, San Francisco, San
Francisco, United States
REFF-West is an exceptional way to meet high level investors and
renewable energy executives who are active in the Western United
States. The two-day event will examine the renewable energy finance
and investment in the region.
October 2009
2nd Nuclear Energy Finance Forum (NEFF)
28 October 2009 - 29 October 2009 | Hilton, London, London, UK
The 2nd Nuclear Energy Finance Forum will allow you to examine the
financial challenges facing the European nuclear energy industry and
network with the leading nuclear operators and financiers.
January 2010
6th Waste Management Finance Forum
21 January 2010 - 22 January 2010 | Carlton Tower, London, London, UK
The 6th Waste Management Finance Forum will bring together local
authorities with waste management companies and financiers, to address
the financial challenges facing waste management in Europe over the
next 12 months. Over 200 delegates will gather for two-days of policy
briefings, finance sessions, and highly focused pan-European case
studies.
March 2010
4th Renewable Energy Finance Forum - Central and Eastern Europe
10 March 2010 - 11 March 2010 | Marriott, Prague, Prague, Czech
Republic
Carbon constraints, growing energy demand, dated infrastructure and
heavy dependencies on fossil fuels, mean that clean energy projects in
CEE have enormous potential. The 4th REFF-CEE will explore a wide
range of investment options in the region, allowing you to make new
business contacts and gain unrivalled insight into this rapidly
changing market.
Renewable Energy Finance Forum - Canada
15 March 2010 - 16 March 2010 | Canada, Canada
The innaugural REFF-Canada will bring together VC, PE and corporate
investing, power and energy project financing and government
incentives and guarantees, all under one roof.
May 2010
5th Renewable Energy Finance Forum - China
11 May 2010 - 12 May 2010 | Ritz Carlton, Beijing, Beijing, China
The 5th Anniversary REFF-China will bring together over 250
financiers, Chinese government officials, technology manufacturers and
project developers. Jointly organised with the Chinese Renewable
Energy Industries Association (CREIA), the two-day event will address
the ways the industry is coping with the crisis.
June 2010
7th Renewable Energy Finance Forum - Wall Street
22 June 2010 - 23 June 2010 | Waldorf=Astoria, New York, US
With more than 700 participants in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the 2010
conference will come at a crucial time, as President Obama's vision
for an energy revolution is being implemented.
REFF-Wall Street is recognized as the most exclusive and thought-
provoking event of its kind in the US. More than 60% of attendees were
CFOs, CEOs or Managing Directors in 2009.
chhotemianinshallah
On thinning Arctic ice, UN's Ban urges climate deal
Wed Sep 2, 2009 3:01pm IST
Secretary-General says climate change risks Arctic ice
* Counts on commitment on climate pact by global leaders
* Trip comes after scathing assessment of Ban's leadership
By Wojciech Moskwa
ARCTIC OCEAN ICE SHEET, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Standing on increasingly
vulnerable Arctic sea ice, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon made an impassioned plea for politicians to seal a global climate
pact this year.
Ban said the Arctic, where temperatures have been rising faster than
elsewhere, was "ground zero" for climate research and a warning to
politicians to move fast towards a deal to slash emissions of
greenhouse gasses stoking global warming.
"Here on the polar ice I feel the power of nature and at the same time
a sense of vulnerability," Ban told Reuters after disembarking from
Norwegian coastguard ice breaker "KV Svalbard" to walk on the sea ice
and talk to Arctic researchers.
"We must do all we can to preserve this Arctic ice. This is the
political responsibility required of global leaders and we count on
their commitment," he said late on Tuesday.
The Arctic ice cap has been shrinking faster than scientists expected,
as air and water temperatures rise, and may disappear totally during
summers before 2050, research shows.
As the reflective ice cap melts, it reveals darker waters which absorb
more solar energy and accelerate climate change.
Moving northward through increasingly thick sea ice for nearly two
hours, the coastguard vessel met an Arctic research ship some 1,000 km
(600 miles) from the North Pole -- a latitude of more than 80 degrees
North.
There, researchers showed Ban how they measure the ice's thickness,
temperature and other qualities in the hope of finding out why more of
it has been drifting out of the Arctic Ocean in past years to melt in
the relatively warmer North Atlantic.
To protect against polar bears, spotted in the area hours earlier,
guards armed with rifles and flare guns controlled the perimeters of
the ice sheet.
DEMONSTRATING LEADERSHIP
Ban said he expected the 100 or so world leaders who will take part in
climate talks in New York this month to "demonstrate their leadership"
and reinvigorate negotiations before December's main meeting in
Copenhagen.
Ban is also fighting to renew his leadership credentials after a
scathing memo from a Norwegian diplomat criticised him for weak rule
and warned of a potential flop in Copenhagen.
The Copenhagen talks are due to work out a replacement for the Kyoto
protocol which limits emissions until 2012. But a deal remains elusive
until the world's industrialised countries strike a deal with
developing states led by China and India over the scope of emission
curbs and how to pay for them.
Ban said he was "working hard" with leaders to agree emission
reduction targets for developed nations of at least 25 percent by
2020, compared to 1990 levels. Already announced cuts fall well short
of the target.
"We must seal the deal in Copenhagen. That is a must," he said, adding
the Dec. 7-18 talks may produce the framework for a climate pact but
not resolve all the details.
"I do not expect that we will be able to agree on all details in
Copenhagen, time is too short," Ban said.
Melting sea ice does not lead to higher sea levels but warmer Arctic
temperatures are also melting glaciers, whose run-offs fill oceans
with more water.
"Unless we stop this trend, we will have devastating consequences for
humanity," Ban told reporters. (Editing by Janet Lawrence)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Outlook "poor" for Great Barrier Reef: study
Wed Sep 2, 2009 12:19pm IST
Rob Taylor
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the world's
largest living organism, is under grave threat from climate warming
and coastal development, and its prospects of survival are "poor," a
major new report found on Wednesday.
While the World Heritage-protected site, which sprawls for more than
345,000 square km (133,000 sq miles) off Australia's east coast, is in
a better position than most other reefs globally, the risk of its
destruction was mounting.
"Even with the recent management initiatives to improve resilience,
the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor and
catastrophic damage to the ecosystem may not be averted," a government
reef management body said in the report.
The five-yearly reef outlook report, aimed at benchmarking the health
of the reef, found climate change, declining water quality from
coastal runoff, development and illegal fishing were the biggest
dangers to the reef.
The study echoed findings by scientists belonging to the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Great Barrier Reef
could be "functionally extinct" within decades, with deadly coral
bleaching likely to be an annual occurrence by 2030.
The reef was one of the most diverse and remarkable ecosystems in the
world, and populations of almost all marine species were still large,
the government's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said in the
report.
But some ecologically important species, such as dugongs, marine
turtles, seabirds, black teatfish and some sharks had declined
significantly, while coral diseases and pest outbreaks like crown-of-
thorns starfish appeared to be increasing and becoming more serious.
CHALLENGE AHEAD
A separate report by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, also
released on Wednesday, found ocean temperatures on northern parts of
the reef had been a degree above average through winter, pointing to a
bad year for coral bleaching.
"We know that a failure to act on dangerous climate change puts at
risk significant places like the Great Barrier Reef and this report
confirms the scale of the challenge ahead," Australia's Environment
Minister Peter Garrett said.
Bleaching occurs when the tiny plant-like coral organisms die, often
because of higher temperatures, and leave behind only a white
limestone reef skeleton.
Garrett and Queensland state Premier Anna Bligh unveiled a plan to
improve water quality on the reef. It followed a report last year
which found agricultural run-off was killing the reef, with some
sections already irreversibly damaged.
The plan aimed to halve the runoff of harmful nutrients and pesticides
by 2013 and ensure 80 percent of agricultural enterprises and 50
percent of grazing operations were taking steps to reduce runoff.
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said the report added urgency to
a debate in Australia's parliament on laws to curb carbon emissions,
rejected last month by the upper house Senate and due for a second
vote in mid-November.
"We cannot sit back and let the world's largest and most iconic reef
system die on our watch," said WWF reef campaigner Nick Heath.
(Editing by Robert Birsel)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
World must plan for climate emergency: academy
Wed Sep 2, 2009 11:35am IST
By Gerard Wynn
LONDON (Reuters) - Humans may have to reset the Earth's natural
thermostat and develop new technologies like reflecting sunlight back
into space if climate talks fail, Britain's top science academy said
on Tuesday.
So-called geoengineering was not a quick fix but may be needed to head
off planetary catastrophe and so deserved more research as an
insurance policy, the Royal Society said in a report, "Geoengineering
the climate."
Such technologies were not an alternative to cutting emissions,
however, the report stressed.
Political efforts to curb greenhouse gases are in the spotlight three
months before a U.N-led meeting meant to clinch a new climate treaty
to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
"Nothing should divert us from the priority of reducing global carbon
dioxide emissions and ensuring that the December meeting in Copenhagen
does lead to real progress," said Royal Society President Martin Rees.
"But if such reductions achieve too little too late there will be
surely pressure to contemplate a plan B," he told an audience at the
launch of the report in central London.
Growing interest in geoengineering was partly motivated by a "false
hope of a quick fix," Rees said, and Greenpeace's Doug Parr said that
it would be seized upon by polluters.
Britain's chief scientific adviser John Beddington supported more
research, however. "They are part of the solution," he said of the
technology, and painted a bleak picture for the planet.
"There's an enormous 'if' whether there'll be comprehensive action
agreed in Copenhagen, whether it's going to be enough. There are also
going to be (climate) emergencies and surprises," he said, referring
to the "devastating" risk of more acidic oceans as a result of carbon
emissions.
MIRRORS
Geoengineering technologies can be divided between those that remove
the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and those
which reflect sunlight back into space.
Such technologies are now limited to the laboratory and the Royal
Society report called for a 10-year, 100 million pound ($163.2
million) British research program, a 10-fold increase.
People have spewed carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air for thousands of
years from burning forests to clear farmland and more recently burn
fossil fuels in the industrial revolution.
Reversing that trend of emissions poses an enormous challenge, leading
to a growing enquiry into geoengineering.
"Do we need it? I think there is a significant risk that we shall make
insufficient progress with emissions reductions and that some support
for conventional emissions reductions may be needed," said co-author,
James Wilsdon.
The report supported steps to remove CO2 from the air above others,
because they addressed the underlying problem of too many heat-
trapping gases, and so were more predictable and would fight not only
climate change but also acidifying oceans.
In the event of an emergency where the Earth suddenly pitched into a
different, hotter climate, however, the world may need to reflect back
some sunlight, the report said, for example by shooting highly
reflective aerosols into the atmosphere.
That would introduce a new influence on the Earth's climate besides
greenhouse gases and so was less predictable, especially if not
applied across the whole atmosphere.
"You could actually seriously and adversely impact one of the most
critical weather patterns on the planet," said lead author John
Shepherd, referring to disruption of the monsoon.
chhotemianinshallah
Sea levels could rise more than a meter by 2100: WWF
Wed Sep 2, 2009 5:14pm IST
By Sven Egenter
GENEVA (Reuters) - The world's seas could rise by more than a meter (3
feet) by 2100 as the melting Arctic has an impact on weather across
the planet, the environmental group WWW said in a report on Wednesday.
That projection, roughly twice the sea-level rise cited in U.N. and
other research, takes account of the impact of disappearing ice sheets
of Greenland and western Antarctica.
Sharply higher seas could also lead to flooding of costal regions,
potentially affecting about a quarter of the world's population, the
WWF said.
"If we allow the Arctic to get too warm, it is doubtful whether we
will be able to keep these feedbacks under control," Martin
Sommerkorn, senior adviser for WWF's Arctic program, said in a
statement.
"It is urgently necessary to rein in greenhouse gas emissions while we
still can,"
The dramatic loss of sea ice resulting from the Arctic's warming at
about twice the rate of the rest of the world will affect conditions
well beyond the planetary poles, WWF found.
Europe and North America may, for example, experience unusually cold
winters, whereas Greenland may experience warmer winters from the sea-
level changes and shifted humidity.
Moreover, the warming of the Arctic could itself become an engine for
more global warming, it argued.
The Arctic's frozen soils and wetlands store twice as much carbon as
is held in the atmosphere.
As warming in the Arctic continues, soils will increasingly thaw and
release carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane, at
significantly increased rates, the report said.
Levels of atmospheric methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas,
have been increasing for the past two years, probably due to the
warming Arctic tundra.
The WWF called the world's leaders to agree on rapid and deep cuts of
carbon emissions when they meet in December in Copenhagen for the
final round of negotiations for a new global agreement on climate
change.
(Editing by Laura MacInnis)
chhotemianinshallah
UPDATE 3-Khosla raises $1 bln for renewables, clean tech
Wed Sep 2, 2009 5:44am IST
* First time firm has raised external funds
* Investors include Calpers
* Largest cleantech venture capital raise since 2007 (Adds Vinod
Khosla comments, subhead)
By Nichola Groom
LOS ANGELES, Sept 1 (Reuters) - Khosla Ventures said on Tuesday it had
raised more than $1 billion for renewable energy and clean technology
funds, a sign that skittish investors are hot for climate-change-
related projects.
The news marked the largest clean technology-dedicated raise by a
single venture capital firm since 2007 and was also the first time
Khosla Ventures, founded in 2004 by Sun Microsystems Inc (JAVA.O:
Quote, Profile, Research) founder Vinod Khosla, has raised funds from
outside investors.
Previously the venture capital firm had invested hundreds of millions
of dollars on behalf of its partners, including Khosla himself, who
was not available for comment.
Menlo Park, California-based Khosla Ventures is among the most active
early stage investors in renewables and other alternative energy
technologies. Khosla himself was an early backer of biofuels.
The venture funds' investments will range from improvements on
renewable technology, like solar power, to efficiency and biofuels and
new battery systems.
But Khosla is more interested in uncovering technology breakthroughs
than in latching onto the latest green trend.
"Things that are too much in fashion are things that I would shy away
from," he said in an interview. "Whatever the press calls hot are
areas that I'm less interested in."
Although biofuels and photovoltaic solar power companies have received
a lot of venture dollars in recent years, Khosla said he still saw
opportunities in those areas.
He specifically cited Khosla Ventures investment HCL CleanTech, an
Israeli company that makes sugars from materials such as agricultural
waste, grasses and sewage treatment waste. Those sugars that can be
made into advanced biofuels.
"VOTE OF CONFIDENCE" FROM CALPERS
Investors in the new funds include the California Public Employees'
Retirement System (Calpers), the largest U.S. public pension fund.
"The fact that they received money from Calpers is a vote of
confidence. Calpers believes enough in the Vinod Khosla brand that
they would like to formally ally themselves with it," said Dallas
Kachan, managing director of industry research and consulting firm The
Cleantech Group. "It is further vindication that very important
sources of capital feel that we are also past the worst in clean
technology investment."
This year has been difficult for venture capitalists, who have been
slow to put money into new companies during the recession because they
have had trouble cashing out earlier investments due to the sluggish
market for initial public offerings and takeovers.
Both of Khosla Ventures' new funds were oversubscribed, but Khosla
deflected speculation that his success in raising money signaled a
turn in the market for clean tech investing.
"I don't read a lot into it," he said. "In venture capital the story
is always a long-term story. Our investors are people who take a long-
term view and like people who are doing things in areas where there
aren't as many people."
Khosla Ventures was the second most active venture firm during the
second quarter, behind Vinod Khosla's former firm, Kleiner Perkins
Caufield & Byers.
Khosla Ventures' new funds include the $250 million Khosla Ventures
Seed fund, which is focused on high-risk projects that often have
difficulty securing capital, the firm said.
The second fund, Khosla Ventures III, is targeted at early and mid-
stage firms and had aimed to raise $750 million. Both funds were
oversubscribed.
Khosla Ventures' many clean technology investments include solar
thermal company Ausra, geothermal company AltaRock and biofuels makers
Mascoma, Coskata, Range Fuels and Verenium. (Reporting by Nichola
Groom and Peter Henderson; Editing by John Wallace and Richard Chang)
bademiyansubhanallah
UPDATE 1-US climate change bill hits new Senate delay
Tue Sep 1, 2009 2:18am IST
WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democrats said on Monday
they will delay introducing a climate change bill for a few weeks and
aim to unveiling legislation that is high on President Barack Obama's
agenda later in September.
Even with the delay, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "fully expects
the Senate to have ample time to consider this comprehensive clean
energy and climate legislation before the end of the year," spokesman
Jim Manley said.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer
and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry had
intended to introduce the bill next week when the Senate returns from
a monthlong recess.
The delay, they said, is related to the Senate's focus on healthcare
legislation, which has been struggling in Congress, as well as the
death last week of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy and hip surgery
Kerry had this month.
The announcement marked the second time the controversial climate
change legislation has been put off in the Senate.
On July 9, Boxer abandoned her early August deadline for her committee
to finish writing a bill to put the United States on a path toward
reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
When that first delay was announced, Reid set a Sept. 28 deadline for
various Senate committees to write their portions of a climate change
bill in preparation for a full Senate debate in October.
Now, with a late-September goal for just introducing a bill, it could
take several more weeks for those committees to consider a bill.
Backers of legislation to reduce utility and factory emissions of
greenhouse gases want significant progress by December, when a United
Nations meeting is scheduled in Copenhagen to set a course for new
global controls.
The House of Representatives in June narrowly passed a bill that would
reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels.
Boxer has said she would work off that bill, making "tweaks" to it.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
bademiyansubhanallah
U.N. chief calls for urgent action on climate change
Tue Sep 1, 2009 9:40am IST
By Wojciech Moskwa
LONGYEARBYEN, Svalbard (Reuters) - United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon called on world leaders on Monday to take urgent action to
combat climate change for the sake of "the future of humanity."
Ban, on a tour of Svalbard, the remote Norwegian-controlled Arctic
archipelago, said the region might have no ice within 30 years if
present climate trends persisted.
He is trying to drum up support for a comprehensive accord to limit
emissions of greenhouse gases at a U.N. summit in Copenhagen in
December. The accord will be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol which
expires in 2012.
"I would like to draw the attention (of) the world, for urgent action
to be taken at Copenhagen ... We do not have much time to lose," Ban
told reporters aboard a Norwegian coastguard vessel.
Ban said he wants leaders "to agree a global deal that is
comprehensive, equitable and balanced for the future of humanity and
the future of planet Earth."
The Copenhagen talks aim to agree tough limits on emissions, to keep
climate change at a manageable level, and a mechanism by which
technology to reduce emissions is efficiently transferred from rich to
developing states.
Ban said that Arctic ice was disappearing faster than glaciers in
other parts of the world, quickly removing the reflective white shield
that prevents the earth's north and south polar regions from absorbing
more of the sun's energy.
If Arctic sea ice disappears, the darker water underneath will absorb
more solar energy, accelerating climate change,
scientists say.
"The polar ice caps are the world's refrigerator, helping to keep us
cool because they reflect so much heat," Lars Haltbrekker, head of
environmental group Friends of the Earth Norway, told Reuters.
"Some scientists believe that we are already at a tipping point, that
the concentration of man-made (heat trapping) gases already in the
atmosphere will melt the Arctic sea ice during the summer by 2050," he
said.
The area covered by Arctic sea ice fell to its lowest recorded level
in summer 2007, increased slightly last year, and will probably be the
third lowest on record this year, scientists say.
Weather permitting, on Tuesday Ban will visit a research vessel
surveying the polar ice in the Arctic north of Svalbard.
bademiyansubhanallah
SCENARIOS: Fate of climate change bill in Congress
Tue Sep 1, 2009 2:18pm IST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The fate of U.S. climate control legislation is
in the hands of the Senate where it faces an uphill climb, as a year-
end international meeting in Copenhagen on coordinated action to slow
global warming looms.
A Senate bill has not even been introduced yet and Democratic backers
say it could be late September before one emerges. Nonetheless,
Democratic leaders still hope for a vote this year in the Senate.
The House of Representatives narrowly passed its version of a bill to
mandate reductions in industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Here are some scenarios on how the battle in Congress over this part
of President Barack Obama's policy agenda could play out in coming
months:
* BARBARA BOXER'S 'TWEAKS'
California Democrat Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee, says she's taking the House-passed bill
and making some "tweaks." Boxer says her goal is to introduce a bill
"later in September," months behind her original timetable.
Environmentalists and others hope Boxer might opt, as a starting
point, for a slightly higher goal for reducing carbon emissions -- say
20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, instead of the 17 percent in the
House bill.
A big question is whether and how Boxer will "tweak" the initial sale
or giveaway of pollution permits utilities and manufacturers will be
required to obtain. Obama wanted all permits to be sold; the House
ended up doing nearly the opposite, with 85 percent being given away.
Boxer is under pressure from all sides.
Senator John Kerry says the Senate bill will have tougher controls
than the House-passed bill to discourage abusive financial market
speculation on trading of pollution permits.
* 99 OTHER SENATORS' TWEAKS
The magic number is 60 in the Senate. That's how many votes are needed
in the 100-member Senate to shield bills from opponents' delaying
tactics. Reaching 60 votes on the Senate floor will require plenty of
deal-making and just about every senator could get involved. Among the
possibilities:
-- A lower target for reducing emissions. Some moderates want a 14
percent reduction in carbon output by 2020.
-- Prominent senators like John McCain demand that nuclear energy be
included in the "cap and trade" program lowering carbon emissions and
letting companies sell pollution permits to each other.
-- Coal-state senators want more breaks and some of them are in a
strong position to influence the legislation.
-- If the Senate manages to pass a bill, differences would still need
to be worked out with the House, probably early next year.
* THE RENEWABLES ROUTE
Some senators who are lukewarm about a sweeping climate change bill
argue there's not enough time to pass one this year. Their solution:
Just pass legislation already approved by the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee requiring utilities to generate 15 percent
of their electricity by 2021 from renewable sources like solar and
wind power. The bill also encourages other clean energy investments.
Senate Democratic leaders would like to couple this with the bigger
cap and trade climate bill. But if that's not possible, they could opt
for the renewables piece, which also would expand some offshore oil
drilling.
* LEAVE IT TO EPA
If Congress fails to pass a climate change bill by the end of the
year, when countries from around the world meet in Copenhagen to mull
coordinated steps to slow global warming, Obama has a fall-back plan:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is poised to go ahead, maybe
next March, with its own rules on limiting carbon emissions.
Environmentalists think federal legislation would be more effective,
but if that's not politically possible, regulation by the executive
branch might be the next-best option.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan in Washington; Editing by Cynthia
Osterman)
bademiyansubhanallah
Better climate information seen aiding U.N. pact
Tue Sep 1, 2009 6:38pm IST
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
GENEVA (Reuters) - A push to improve climate information for everyone
from farmers to investors in solar power will help a planned U.N.
treaty to combat global warming, the head of the U.N.'s meteorological
agency said on Tuesday.
Michel Jarraud told Reuters that a 150-nation World Climate Conference
in Geneva this week, seeking to boost collection and sharing of
climate information, would assist the world to cope with droughts,
wildfires, sandstorms, floods or rising seas.
Agreement in Geneva would help set the stage for a planned new U.N.
climate treaty, due to be agreed in December in Copenhagen.
"It will support whatever decisions are going to be made in
Copenhagen," said Jarraud, who is Secretary-General of the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO).
"One component (of a deal in Copenhagen) will be bigger use of
renewable energy -- water, wind, solar energy. These three will
require better information to implement," He said.
Investors, for instance, want to know about future climate to decide
where to site a dam, wind farm or solar panels, he said.
Cyprus, for instance, had suffered four consecutive years of summer
drought -- forcing water imports by tanker because it had built dams
and reservoirs sufficient to store winter rainfall only for three
years.
"The dams were based on the best rainfall statistics from the past.
With climate change the probabilities are changing," he said.
EL NINO
Jarraud said a problem with the current information about climate was
that it was only given every now and again -- such as a recent WMO
warning about an El Nino event developing in the Pacific Ocean that
can affect weather worldwide.
"The ambition of this conference is that we should institutionalize
that so that farmers do not have to worry: 'will information come,
will it not?'. They need it every year before the rainy season," he
said.
A planned "Global Framework for Climate Services" to be agreed in
Geneva at the August 31-September 4 talks would also include
investments in monitoring levels of greenhouse gases, mainly from
burning fossil fuels.
The framework, mainly to help developing nations, would bolster
monitoring of the climate -- places such as the Congo basin need far
more weather stations. Jarraud declined to estimate how much the
framework would cost.
He said that it would require cultural changes to get people to act on
climate information -- often viewed with skepticism by planners even
though forecasts have become far more reliable.
About 70,000 people more than normal died in a 2003 heatwave in
Europe, partly because of inadequate preparations. Even so,
meteorologists had predicted a likely heatwave months in advance, he
said.
And it would take big cultural changes.
Farmers in Africa, for instance, in some cases have to ditch
traditional knowledge about signs from nature that help decide when to
sow or harvest crops. Climate change, perhaps affecting the timing of
monsoon rains, was making such knowledge less valuable.
"Cultural changes are tricky, they take time. It was very solid
traditional knowledge but now we can do better than traditional
knowledge. But it will take time," he said.
(Editing by Charles Dick)
bademiyansubhanallah
Urban sprawl, bad sanitation spread dengue fever
Tue Sep 1, 2009 7:50pm IST
MANILA (Reuters) - The rapid growth of crowded cities has helped
spread and increase the transmission of dengue around the world,
health experts said on Tuesday, warning up to 3 billion people were
already at risk.
They also disputed reports that climate change could become a factor
in the spread of the disease from tropical areas because the mosquito
that carries dengue has reached temperate regions due to rising
temperatures.
"Climate change has very little effect on the disease," Duane Gubler,
director of Asia Pacific Institute of Tropical Medicine and Infectious
Diseases at the University of Hawaii, told Reuters on the sidelines of
a three-day dengue symposium in Manila.
Scientists and health experts are meeting to exchange practices and
strategies to combat the disease that infects 50 million people every
year, causing tens of thousands of deaths, mainly among children.
"As early the 1980s, dengue fever had reached epidemic proportions in
some countries in Asia long before climate change became an issue.
Rapid urbanization, increase in air travel and lack of mosquito
control are the main drivers of the disease."
Gubler said dengue spreads quickly in crowded cities with inadequate
basic services, such as potable water, sanitation and waste-management
and weak public health infrastructures.
In the 1950s, when the first dengue outbreak was reported in Manila,
only 10 countries in Southeast and South Asia had dengue problems but
the disease has now spread to about 100 states in the Pacific islands,
Latin America and Africa due to rise in air travel.
About 57 percent of people across the globe are now living in cities,
Gubler said, adding most urban areas in the region now have a
population of over 5 million.
Gubler said only about 50 million people traveled every year in the
1950s, but the figure has risen to about 2 billion in the last six
decades, helping spread the disease.
He said the disease could only be controlled if governments worked
closely with the science and health sectors to improve public health
services, make more people aware of the disease and eliminate mosquito
breeding grounds.
Gubler said the world is rushing to develop an anti-dengue drug by
2012 and a vaccine in five to seven years, citing seven pharmaceutical
and biotech companies that were at various stages of clinical tests to
produce the drugs and vaccines.
(Reporting by Manny Mogato; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Alex
Richardson)
bademiyansubhanallah
World must plan for climate emergency - report
Tue Sep 1, 2009 7:55pm IST
* UK science academy says world may need to control climate
* Supports more research into geoengineering
By Gerard Wynn
LONDON, Sept 1 (Reuters) - Humans may have to reset the Earth's
natural thermostat and develop new technologies like reflecting
sunlight back into space if climate talks fail, Britain's top science
academy said on Tuesday.
So-called geoengineering was not a quick fix but may be needed to head
off planetary catastrophe and so deserved more research as an
insurance policy, the Royal Society said in a report, "Geoengineering
the climate".
Such technologies were not an alternative to cutting emissions,
however, the report stressed.
Political efforts to curb greenhouse gases are in the spotlight three
months before a U.N-led meeting meant to clinch a new climate treaty
to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
"Nothing should divert us from the priority of reducing global carbon
dioxide emissions and ensuring that the December meeting in Copenhagen
does lead to real progress," said Royal Society President Martin Rees.
"But if such reductions achieve too little too late there will be
surely pressure to contemplate a plan B," he told an audience at the
launch of the report in central London.
Growing interest in geoengineering was partly motivated by a "false
hope of a quick fix", Rees said, and Greenpeace's Doug Parr said that
it would be seized upon by polluters.
Britain's chief scientific adviser John Beddington supported more
research, however. "They are part of the solution," he said of the
technology, and painted a bleak picture for the planet.
"There's an enormous 'if' whether there'll be comprehensive action
agreed in Copenhagen, whether it's going to be enough. There are also
going to be (climate) emergencies and surprises," he said, referring
to the "devastating" risk of more acidic oceans as a result of carbon
emissions.
MIRRORS
Geoengineering technologies can be divided between those that remove
the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and those
which reflect sunlight back into space.
Such technologies are now limited to the laboratory and the Royal
Society report called for a 10-year, 100 million pound ($163.2
million) British research programme, a 10-fold increase.
People have spewed carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air for thousands of
years from burning forests to clear farmland and more recently burn
fossil fuels in the industrial revolution.
Reversing that trend of emissions poses an enormous challenge, leading
to a growing enquiry into geoengineering.
"Do we need it? I think there is a significant risk that we shall make
insufficient progress with emissions reductions and that some support
for conventional emissions reductions may be needed," said co-author,
James Wilsdon.
The report supported steps to remove CO2 from the air above others,
because they addressed the underlying problem of too many heat-
trapping gases, and so were more predictable and would fight not only
climate change but also acidifying oceans.
In the event of an emergency where the Earth suddenly pitched into a
different, hotter climate, however, the world may need to reflect back
some sunlight, the report said, for example by shooting highly
reflective aerosols into the atmosphere.
That would introduce a new influence on the Earth's climate besides
greenhouse gases and so was less predictable, especially if not
applied across the whole atmosphere.
"You could actually seriously and adversely impact one of the most
critical weather patterns on the planet," said lead author John
Shepherd, referring to disruption of the monsoon.
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate Change Cacaphony
Our Readers Who Comment have been energized this morning by an article
that says environmentalists are struggling to beat the energy lobby in
their goal to enact major legislation that is best known by the
shorthand "cap and trade." If anonymous reader comments mean anything,
those who oppose the legislation have the upper hand, at least the
hour of this writing.
As David A. Fahrenthold writes, environmentalists "are making slow
progress adapting a movement built for other goals -- building alarm
over climate change, encouraging people to "green" their lives -- into
a political hammer, pushing a complex proposal the last mile through a
skeptical Senate." The House has passed a bill.
A lot of readers say they do not believe there is a global warming
crisis (it's nice and cool right now in the Washington suburbs), that
Al Gore is wrong, etc. Environmental voices are certainly heard, but
as often happens, they get into arguments over whether nuclear power
is a good idea (it's nice and clean as long as you don't have a Three
Mile Island event) and lambaste the concept of "clean coal." Were it
not for health reform, this would be front and center.
We'll start with fenoy, who wrote, "Anyone with three functioning
brain cells long ago came to the conclusion that man-made global
warming is a hoax concocted by loony left environmentalists. Total
sham!"
But fbutler1 said, "...Fossil fuels are and have always been dirty.
There's nothing clean or green about them. Gasification of coal still
produces CO2, but hell, you get that from cars with catalytic
converters (if they are working properly) and that's part of the
problem... This American is tired of it and looks forward to
progressive legislation that ACTUALLY weans us off of the old way."
drees1956 wrote, "Idiots pushing for electric cars that have to be
charged by coal fired plants. Absolutely zero push for nuclear energy.
No one wants a windmill in their backyard. Tons of toxic waste
generated for every kw of solar panel manufactured. Green my donkey!"
rmlwj1 said, "Building nuclear power plants would solve much of the
emission problems."
To which TheBabeNemo replied, "yes! happy monday. Let's call Russia
and Iran. Who's answering the phone today?..."
AmericanInterestsFirstandLast said, "By the way when will these good
folk take action to put a lid on the carbon emissions now being
released by those recurring California wildfires?... For starters,
mandate no more building of new homes in those pristine canyons with
the resulting desecration of the environment and increased liklihood
of accidental fires or opportunities for arsonists with added roads
etc..."
TwoHotel9 wrote, "Cap&trade, the economy killer, will destroy energy
production, industry, and agriculture in America. That is its entire
purpose, to punish America for being productive and successful."
alivo said, "Cap and trade is a good idea. It is not "Marxism" or
"government takeover" as some are claiming. It's government regulation
to protect the environment, something we've been doing for a long
time. Theodore Roosevelt used government to protect the environment.
The House has passed cap and trade. Now it's the Senate's turn. Let's
support this bill. It will serve everyone well."
LarryG62 alleged that "The environmentalists are just another bunch of
liberal dumbos. About like the nitwits in PETA [People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals]. Too much time and money on their hands."
hfaulk01 asked, "Are we stupid enough to sell our environment for a
'free lunch'? And as you chew on that sandwich and drink the beverage
you might ask yourself, 'who is paying for this..and more importantly
why?' People, there is no such thing as 'clean coal' nor a 'free
lunch' PERIOD."
Saladin3 wrote, "Because this isn't science, it's a hoax and burning
skeptics with hatred and dismissal doesn't win a debate... When a
debate consists of slander instead of argument you know something is
wrong. I do hope the hack and slash bill attacking our way of life and
standard of living goes down to bitter defeat, but I don't count on
it."
Atenora said, "Only the elitist liberals have the extra money to pay
for new green taxes. Who cares about the environment when so many
people in this country are struggling to put food on the table."
wesevans wrote, "Much has been said about the oil and gas companies
funding anti-climate change legislation.However the pro climate change
people are also well financed and have a financial motivation every
bit as strong. Example Al Gore stands to make 10's of millions of
dollars if cap and trade legislation is passed. GE and other companies
as well as OPEC hope that the US will restrict it's energy production.
China hopes that it can surpass the US in economic ability. Will we
screw our selves for the benefit of these people?"
camasca said, "There are no free lunches. No one would directly inhale
anything coming out of a car tail pipe or out of a smoke stack. We
should tax carbon. It's simple, easy, and will cover the cost caused
by carbon polluters."
stryker1 wrote, "Looks like this will be a cool year. Every year that
passes, the effect of the Kool-Aid provided by the media, seems to be
wearing off. As in Europe, Americans are beginning to realize that
anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.
The MSM, including the Post, will continue to slant reality to
convince us otherwise but will eventually fail..."
VirginiaIndependent said, "Even those who are convinced that
greenhouse gas emissions pose a severe, immediate threat should oppose
the climate change legislation. This bill is designed to boost energy
costs for most American consumers without reducing the world's
temperature. And most impartial analysts conclude it will cost far
more jobs than it creates."
iamredwolf wrote, "I read Charles Darwin's "On The Origin of Species"
like most good little tykes... I appreciate Darwin's take on Changing
Climate: Those who adapt, thrive. Those who fight it, perish.
Evolution is very straight forward. The gist is: Don't
squander your last resources and energy trying to re-create the past.
Go with the flow and just do what you have to, to roll with any actual
Climate Changes that show up..."
moebius22 said, "...The fact is cap and trade will make energy more
expensive, and will definitely cost jobs without any guarantee it will
replace those same jobs during a recession."
ChrisFord1 wrote, "I think part of the problem is climate change
activists have made several promises that have raised considerable
doubt. They have failed to see China and India and much of the rest of
the world rejecting caps. They have have seen some of their favored
eneergy sources prove too expensive to use or too limited by their
nature while they stand in mindless opposition to nuclear and any oil
or gas drilling and characterizing the people who get the gas or make
nuke electricity gen as EVIL..."
charlietuna666 said, "what happened to global warming? is it now
climate change? the climate has been changing since before the
industrial revolution. Now, it's all man's fault? give me a break. it
was in the fifties last night in the DC suburbs in august..."
We'll close with 12thgenamerican, who predicted, "i can't wait for the
climate bill town halls,if they have them. you are going to see a
backlash that will make the health care town halls look like a sunday
social. out with the radical leftists."
All comments on this article are here.
By Doug Feaver | August 31, 2009; 6:33 AM ET
Previous: Health-Care Reform: A Kennedy Memorial? | Next: Readers See
Another Vietnam
Doug - Please place the date of your post at the top instead of the
end. Thanks
James Makepeace - great name, especially for one working on non-
weapons nuclear. Fusion is certainly the ultimate but realistically,
how far off? In the meantime, Thorium nuclear reactors are proven in
concept and await only some metallurgical and fuel fabrication
advances. Just the problems for a NASA style tiger team. Thorium
resources are all but inexhaustible and we already have enough high
grade material left from Manhattan Project era research to meet
several years of our national energy needs. Thorium has some useful
anti-proliferative properties and thorium reactor can be designed so
they are passively safe, e.g., molten salt type. They not only produce
much less waste which has orders of magnitude shorter half-life, they
also can "burn" nuclear waste from conventional reactors as well as
weapons grade uranium and plutonium we need to get rid of. What's not
to like? The Indians, Russians and French are already ahead of us in
this area.
sh17 - WRI may advertise itself as nonpartisan, but it clearly has a
point of view in favor of the AGW alarmist agenda. Any site that
favors congress's Cap and Trade bill isn't worth a second visit IMHO.
Posted by: FadingFast | August 31, 2009 11:11 PM
someone needs to let russ walker of grist.org know that there are no
"concensus" in science. there is a methodology called the "scientific
method" which helps scientists determine wether or not a hypothesis is
valid. under this well established control, anthrpogenic global
warming has been proven false. i guess they forgot to tell russ.
Posted by: changein2012 | August 31, 2009 3:42 PM
I want a windmill in my backyard. Only fools make generalizations.
Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | August 31, 2009 12:07 PM
There's plenty of room to debate the appropriate response to the
scientific fact of global climate change. Should the U.S. have a
carbon tax instead of a complicated cap-and-trade program? Should
nuclear energy be embraced as a zero-carbon alternative to coal and
oil? Should Congress allow more natural gas development in pristine
parts of Alaska and the American West?
These are important discussions to have. But debating the science of
climate change is like debating weekend chores with the wife: As much
as you don't like it, those chores are a fact about which you have no
choice.
Scientists, by and large, are not political operatives. And the
overwhelming consensus is that climate change is happening, it is
caused by humanity's reliance on carbon-based fuels, and if left
unchecked it will cause significant problems across the globe,
especially for billions of people in the developing world.
By all means, let's debate how best to cut our use of carbon fuels.
But let's stop tilting at windmills by denying that there's a real
problem.
P.S. I'm a card-carrying green and editor of Grist.org, which I hope
you'll check out for more information on climate change.
Posted by: Russ_Walker | August 31, 2009 11:57 AM
The readers are absolutely right that "cap & trade" is just so much
"hot-air" (or hot exhaust gases), and for the short term we need to
return to the cleanest most efficient approaches to nuclear fission,
since it's the only mass-production energy technology we have which
doesn't produce CO2. We also need to put a lot of effort into
maximizing the eficiency of "renewables"... but we must recognise that
these technologies will not produce the kind of grid-load that the
ever more energy-hungry world demands... and that demand isn't going
to reduce anytime soon... in fact the lights will have to start going
out before people wake up to the realities.
For the long term there is only one solution, and that is nuclear
fusion... natures own way of releasing energy on the grand scale.
Fusion is the process which drives the sun and all stars. It burns no
fossil fuels, produces no CO2, virtually no radioactive waste
(actually something not unlike hospital waste, and with just a 12-year
half-life,)and it has a fuel source we humans won't be around long
enough on earth to use up. The primary fuel for fusion will come from
sea water... just one cubic kilometre of sea water contains the fusion
energy equivalent of the entire world's oil reserves.
There are two approaches to fusion... the long-running approach uses
electro-magnetism to confine the plasma (but its running a bit behind
schedule and a lot over budget) and the "new kid on the block" is
fusion driven by very large lasers. This is coming on very fast
indeed, and the team at the National Ignition Facility (NIF)in
Lawrence Livermore are approaching the point of scientific "Proof of
Principle" for this approach.
At that point the world's scientific community is poised to carry
forward the knowledge and develop from it a viable demonstration
version of a fusion reactor which can use laser-driven fusion to
deliver grid-level energy. THAT is going to change the world's energy
future almost overnight... but the challenge of mastering controlled
fusion on earth is complicated and expensive. The smart thing to do is
stop wasting time and money on tinkering with "elastoplast" fixes...
get on, spend the research funding and make laser fusion happen as
soon as possible. What it takes is the kind of belief which put an
American on the moon... the conviction, the tenacity and the daring to
get it done ! Isn't that what the United States of America used to be
famous for ?
Posted by: jameswmakepeace | August 31, 2009 11:53 AM
The environmentalists have invented a powerful weapon by saying that
climate change could endanger the security of the country.They should
make this more detailed and devastating and scare the hell out of the
people to silence the other side till they get what they want from the
Congress.
Posted by: krescera | August 31, 2009 11:19 AM
I urge readers to consult the non-partisan, objective, World Resources
Institute's Myths and Facts piece on climate legislation and climate
change: http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/08/climate-change-legislation-myths-and-reality
Posted by: sh17 | August 31, 2009 10:10 AM
bademiyansubhanallah
UN meeting: help nations adapt to global warming
Environmental activists display effigies of, from left to right, U.S.
President Barack Obama, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Italian Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi during a demonstration calling for the world leaders to
take immediate action against climate change in Jakarta, Indonesia,
Saturday, Aug. 29, 2009. The demonstration marked he hundred days
countdown to the U.N. climate change summit that will be held in
Copenhagen in December. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara) (Dita Alangkara -
AP)
By ELIANE ENGELER
The Associated Press
Sunday, August 30, 2009; 1:59 PM
GENEVA -- As nations negotiate tough decisions on cutting greenhouse
gases, the United Nations is holding a separate conference on coping
with more floods, droughts and other effects of climate change already
assured.
The World Climate Conference - which avoids the political pitfall of
discussing cuts to carbon emissions - aims to make sure poor countries
have the same access to climate data as rich ones, and that the
information is shared among scientists and governments worldwide.
A large U.S. delegation is attending, eager to impress with the new
Obama administration's commitment to combatting climate change.
"Climate change is real," said delegation leader Jane Lubchenco,
administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"It is happening now, in our backyards and around the globe."
Delegates to the five-day conference starting Monday in Geneva hope to
set up a Global Framework for Climate Services to ensure that early
warnings for tsunamis and hurricanes reach everybody and that farmers
in remote African regions know about upcoming droughts and floods.
Lubchenco said decision-makers would require reliable information
about the current and projected impacts of climate change.
Many countries, however, lack information about even their own
climates.
"Hydrological networks in Africa are totally insufficient," said
meeting host Michel Jarraud, head of the U.N.'s World Meteorological
Organization. "Many water basins are managed without any information
about precipitation and run-off amount of water in the underground
water table."
Governments across the globe are facing a December deadline for
separate U.N. talks aimed at forging a new accord to replace the 1997
Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gases blamed for global warming
and climate change. Organizers of the Dec. 7-18 U.N. meeting in
Copenhagen, Denmark, hope to reach an agreement on limiting the
warming of the Earth's temperature to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit) above levels 150 years ago.
"Even if Copenhagen is very successful in making decisions on the
mitigation of greenhouse gases, there will still be a certain amount
of warming" to which the world will have to adapt, Jarraud said.
Rising sea levels may prompt some countries to build more dikes,
relocate inhabitants from low-lying islands and ensure health services
can cope with diseases such as malaria that may spread, he said.
This week's World Climate Conference brings together about 15 heads of
state, including those from Cameroon, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Slovenia,
Switzerland, Tajikistan and Togo, as well as 80 ministers from various
governments. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is to speak
Wednesday.
The conference, costing some 4.5 million Swiss francs ($4.2 million),
was sponsored by several countries, including Australia, Canada,
China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Spain.
The United States contributed $500,000, while Switzerland put in 1.8
million francs ($1.7 million).
chhotemianinshallah
An Energy Plan We Can Start Now
By David Crane
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Energy plans, like health-care plans, tend to be complex. These days
they are particularly complicated because any modern energy plan needs
to dovetail with real solutions to climate change, perhaps the single
most urgent socio-environmental issue mankind has ever confronted.
With regard to timing, energy plans must differentiate between what we
can realistically do in the next five to 10 years and what we can hope
to achieve by 2030 to 2050.
Simply put, most Americans want access to reliable, affordable and
increasingly sustainable power. Yes, we're all worried about national
security. We're also concerned that the burden and benefit of a new
energy plan be shared equitably among the various regions of our
country. But consumers are tired of promises for the distant future.
We don't want to try to plumb more than a thousand pages of strategy
to discern what the goal might be for tomorrow. We want a
comprehensible plan for the here and now.
In recent years there has been a tectonic shift in our energy usage as
our country trends away from fossil fuels in favor of "natural"
energy, such as wind and solar. If we are to focus on these types of
God-given energy sources, we need to go to our energy rather than have
our energy come to us, as we do with fossil fuels.
A progressive, pragmatic energy plan would focus on taking the first
steps toward national energy sustainability. It would start with
technologies that are ready for large-scale deployment but are
concentrated on regions where they can be demonstrated and deployed at
scale to their best advantage. Consider what could happen if we
focused on these five goals:
-- The West gets the sun. Al Gore's vision of a Sonora Desert covered
in a 90-square-mile sea of solar thermal mirrors powering the entire
country is admirably visionary, but transmission constraints would
make this more practical, at least in the near term, at the regional
level. So let's set aside an area and get started. California provides
sufficient scale; its peak electricity demand is coincident with
sunlight, and it is only 250 miles from the Sonora Desert into the
heart of the Southern California population center.
-- The Midwest gets the wind. Wind is the predominant renewable in the
United States today, but for it to be a major factor in the energy mix
of the future we need to tap into the wind resources of the upper
Great Plains states, which are currently stranded. To date, the focus
has been on getting wind resources from places like southeastern
Wyoming to California. Instead, let's take wind from the Dakotas and
feed it into Chicago. It is 1,100 miles from Cheyenne, Wyo., to Los
Angeles, but only 600 miles from South Dakota to Chicago.
-- The South gets nuclear. Democratic policymakers have focused like
lasers on wind, solar and efficiency. They need to recognize that the
South, still one of the nation's most economically dynamic growth
areas, lacks suitable wind and solar resources. The geology of much of
the Southeast is not well-suited to sequestering the carbon emissions
that must be captured by truly "clean coal." On the other hand, the
populace of the South (and that includes Texas) is generally
comfortable with nuclear power, and its incumbent utilities are deeply
experienced in nuclear operations. Nuclear energy should be the
"renewable of the South."
-- The Northeast gets the electric car. The Northeast generally lacks
good onshore wind and sun power options, as well as public acceptance
for nuclear plants. So let's exploit its singular competitive
advantage relative to the rest of the country -- the proximity of its
population centers to each other. An electric car with a 250-mile
range wouldn't make it from Los Angeles to San Francisco, but it would
make it from New York to Boston. For real progress, we need to build
an infrastructure for the electric car in a few parts of the country.
Let the Northeast be a lead "test" region.
-- Pursue "clean coal" as a national priority. We must set as a
national priority -- perhaps a "national project" -- the demonstration
and large-scale deployment of "clean coal." All of the zero-carbon
regional solutions described above, if forcefully implemented, could
have a meaningful impact on U.S. carbon emissions, but only "clean
coal" can actually capture the enormous carbon emissions from the new
coal plants coming on line in China and India. It comes down to a
mathematical certainty: We cannot solve global warming through clean
coal alone; but without clean coal, we simply cannot solve global
warming.
This regionally focused "here and now" energy plan would get us
started quickly and on the right foot. What are we waiting for?
The writer is president and chief executive of NRG Energy, a
Princeton, N.J.-based wholesale power producer that owns and operates
numerous generation facilities, including wind and nuclear, and is
developing solar power.
chhotemianinshallah
Lamy raises global warming bogey
HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, September 03, 2009
First Published: 23:01 IST(3/9/2009)
Last Updated: 23:02 IST(3/9/2009)
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) on Thursday exuded hope that the
ongoing ministerial meeting would help draw out the broad contours for
successful conclusion of the global trade negotiations that have been
stuck on several contentious issues for over 8 years now.
“I hope the Delhi (mini-ministerial meeting) can be the beginning of
the end game of the Doha Round,” WTO director general Pascal Lamy told
industry captains at a meeting organised by the Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci).
Lamy said delivering a deal on climate change was another daunting
challenge facing the international community this year, raising
concerns whether trade talks could now get linked with climate issues.
“Mitigating global warming and adapting to its consequences will
require major economic investment and, above all, unequivocal
determination on the part of policy-makers,” he said.
Lamy envisioned the emergence of a new triangle of global governance,
a “triangle of coherence’ in a world challenged by the climate change,
financial, job, and food security crises.
The WTO, he said, had been closely monitoring trade policy
developments.
“We have seen an increase in restrictive trade measures since the
onset of the global financial crisis. There is no room for
complacency. While I do not think we are in a situation where we need
to cry wolf, we need to remain vigilant and ensure that WTO members
remain open with one another,” Lamy said.
“Whether it is about generating market access for goods and services
or facilitating trade, the most efficient means to achieve these goals
today remains in the multilateral Doha Development Round,” he said.
chhotemianinshallah
Environment
India's greenhouse emissions below global average: study news
03 September 2009
India's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will grow four-fold in the next
two decades if the economy expands by an average 8 per cent a year
during this period, says a government-funded study by five different
organisations.
India's per-capita emissions are estimated to rise to 2.1 tonnes by
2020 and 3.5 tonnes by 2030, the report released on Wednesday said.
But still it remains below the global average for 2005.
The report, India's GHG emissions profile, was released jointly by
Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission,
and environment minister Jairam Ramesh.
"It's not a do-nothing strategy," Ramesh told reporters, adding that
the per-capita principle is the only internationally recognised
measure of equity.
''Four out of the five studies show that even two decades from now,
India's per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be well below the
global average 25 years earlier,'' Ramesh said.
According to the United Nations Development Programme, India's per
capita emission of GHG is 1.2 tonnes, while it is 15 tonnes for the UK
and 20 tonnes for the US.
For long, India has been batting for equity in global climate change
talks. In a Confederation of Indian Industry meet in April 2008, Shyam
Saran, prime minister's then special envoy, said the global climate
change negotiations should be based on the simple principle, ''the
polluter pays'' (See: India for equity in global climate change
negotiations: Shyam Saran).
The present report shows that India's energy use efficiency has been
improving over the years, as the energy intensity of GDP has reduced
from 0.30 kgoe (kg of oil equivalent) per dollar of GDP in 1980 to
0.16 kgoe per dollar of GDP in 2004.
Ahluwalia said the estimates are not projections that will reflect
commitment in international negotiations.
''It is only to give a sense of what is our growth strategy and energy
use in terms of emissions,'' he said.
The country will use the estimate, the first measure of emissions by
the ministry of environment and forests, to support its position in
the global climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
India has refused to accept mandatory emission cuts such as the ones
imposed on some developed countries.
The estimates are based on assumptions on GDP growth rates,
penetration of clean energy technologies, and improvements in energy
efficiency.
Of the five studies, three were conducted by the National Council of
Applied Economic Research and Jadavpur University, one by The Energy
Research Institute and the ministry, and one by the ministry and
Integrated Research and Action for Development.
The report, released prior to the UN climate meet in Copenhagen by the
year end is seen as an official stand to be taken by the country
during the summit.
"The structure of the economy, policy and regulatory regime and energy
endowment together ensure that India's growth over the next two
decades, while rapid, would remain inherently sustainable," the report
said.
Developed nations now emit more than half of global greenhouse gas.
However, they say developing states must agree to emissions curbs as
part of a broader climate pact.
In July, India, along with South Africa and 35 other like-minded
countries have submitted a proposal calling for Annex-I parties
(developed countries) to agree to at least 40 per cent emission
reduction commitment by 2020 as compared to their 1990 levels under
the Kyoto Protocol (See: India, other countries want developed world
to agree to 40 per cent emission reduction by 2020).
According to a study by the German renewable energy industry institute
IWR said India's carbon dioxide emissions alone were 1.4 billion
tonnes in 2008, or about 1.3 tonnes per-capita.
China's carbon dioxide emissions in 2008 were 6.8 billion tones, while
for the US it was 6.37 billion tonnes.
chhotemianinshallah
Environmentalist, author Bill McKibben calls for concerted action on
environment news
Matt McHugh
31 July 2009
Bill McKibben, environmentalist, author, and founder of 350.org, took
the stage in Mumbai yesterday and stated in measured but forceful
words that strong, powerful action needs to be taken very, very
quickly if we want to maintain the climate we are accustomed to.
He encouraged participation in the International Day of Climate
Action, which will be observed on 24 October 2009 and is being
organised by 350.org. The number 350 comes from a Nasa study that
found a level of carbon dioxide (CO2) of 350 parts per million (ppm)
to be the upper limit that the atmosphere can safely sustain if the
earth's climate is to remain substantially similar to the one we are
used to and which supports life and civilisation.
The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390 ppm and rising by 2
ppm per year. The pre-Industrial Revolution level was 275 ppm.
Each summer in the Arctic, an area of ice the size of California melts
away due to global warming. There is now 25 per cent less ice in the
Arctic than there has been at any point in over a million years.
McKibben related the projection that the sea level is expected to rise
between one half and two metres by the end of the century to the fact
that much of the Maldives is less than two metres above sea level.
That country's government has even instituted a fund to relocate its
citizens in the event their current lands are submerged by the rising
sea.
The International Day of Climate Action will arrive six weeks ahead of
the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark,
later this year. The Copenhagen conference is being seen as the
successor to the Kyoto climate change conference. The hope is that
worldwide demonstrations that centre on the number 350 will draw the
attention of the media and of world leaders as they prepare for
Copenhagen.
McKibben contracted dengue fever when in Bangladesh several years ago.
As he sat in a hospital bed, surrounded by Bangladeshis suffering and
dying from the same condition, he was struck by how fundamentally
unfair the problem of climate change is, as the people who suffer the
most are those who have contributed the least to the problem. People
in developing nations in the tropical and subtropical belts will be
the most significantly affected even though their carbon footprints
are negligible.
Cases of dengue fever in Asia have risen 200 per cent since 2000. Some
experts predict that the Gangotri glacier, at the head of the Ganges,
will have completely melted by 2040. Diverging from the oft-argued
stance that an environmentally conscious approach to development could
unduly hinder India's progress, McKibben painted a picture of an India
whose development is impeded by climate change - one where the
Gangotri is melting, the Bay of Bengal is rising, and clinics that now
focus on fighting polio or on family planning are overrun with
patients suffering from dengue fever or other newly widespread
diseases that thrive in warm, wet climates.
The room was full and the audience's questions showed they were
knowledgeable and experienced in the area of climate change. When one
passionate questioner asked for specifics that we can implement on an
individual basis, McKibben stated that, though it is ''a noble and
correct sentiment to react immediately,'' it is too late to act on a
household, campus, or community level. He recommended a focus on
collectively exerting pressure on national governments.
Given that, McKibben urged Indians, some of whom he acknowledged
create CO2 at a rate equal to Americans on a per capita basis, to be a
force for action. It is India's right to ask for financial and
technological aid from developed nations, but this cannot be thought
of in terms of negotiations between governments; it is, at its heart,
a negotiation between human beings on the one side and physics and
chemistry on the other. The laws of nature begin by stating their
bottom line, and it is our job to figure out how to meet it.
The march to 350 is a long one. Even if we begin implementing CO2-
reduction measures immediately and with the greatest efficiency, it
will take a lifetime to reach the 350 level. At the same time, a
course that is even moderately divergent will lead to disaster.
McKibben, whose visit was facilitated by the American Center, Mumbai,
and the Asia Society India Centre, seemed confident of the power of
the demonstrations he was encouraging because of a similar effort he
organised across the US two years ago called 'Step It Up 2007.'
Several days after it was held, both Democratic candidates, Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton, changed their environmental platforms to
include the goal of reducing carbon emissions 80 per cent by 2050, an
aim for which the demonstrators had been strong proponents.
chhotemianinshallah
We gather information and insights from multiple sources and present
you in a digestible format to quench your thirst for right
perspective, with right information at right time at right place . We
encourage people to contact us with any relevant information that
other news media organizations don't cover .
Contact :intell...@gmail.com
September 05, 2009
Indian Scientists Call UN Glacier Retreat Claim Unscientific
Aug. 28, 2009 (EIRNS)—Disputing the forecast made by the United
Nations body studying global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), which warned in early May that the glaciers in
the world's highest mountain range could vanish within three decades,
V.K. Raina, a leading glaciologist and former Additional Director-
General of Geological Survey of India (GSI), claimed recently that the
issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few
individuals. Raina, who has been associated with the research and data
collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the
theory that the Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly. He
maintains that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes which are
witnessed periodically.
The issue of carrying out a joint research on the Himalayan glaciers
that store more ice than anywhere on Earth except for the polar
regions and Alaska, and the steady flow of water from these glaciers
that fills seven of the mightiest rivers of Asia, is now under
discussion between India and China. Indian Environment Minister Jairam
Ramesh told newspersons on Aug. 28 that a comprehensive agreement for
joint research on Himalayan glaciers will be drawn up after another
round of talks when a Chinese delegation of environment scientists and
officials visit New Delhi in October. Both Indian and Chinese rivers
and underground aquifers depend heavily on the snow melt during the
dry summer season. Glacial runoff also is the source of the headwaters
for the Indus River in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra that flows through
Bangladesh, the Mekong that descends through Southeast Asia, the
Irrawaddy in Myanmar, and the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of China.
Raina's views were echoed by Dr. R.K. Ganjoo, Director, Regional
Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who
is supervising study of glaciers in northern Kashmirs Ladakh region,
including one in the Siachen area. He also maintains that nothing
abnormal has been found in any of the Himalayan glaciers studied so
far by him. He points out that Indian glaciers are at 11,500-13,000
feet above the sea level, whereas those in the Alps are at much lower
levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska
are retreating, do not prevail in the Indian sub-continent, he
explained.
Posted by Naxal Watch at 9:56 PM
1 comments:
Ravinder Makhaik said...
There are so many conflicting opinions based on some study or the
other that it is hard for an Himalayan resident like me to discern
what is genuine and what could be propoganda.
Living in the Satluj River Basin, one thing is certainly noticable
that the there are more flash floods in this fast flowing river in the
last decade than they were over the previous three decades.
What the reasons for it are I fail to reason.
September 06, 2009 8:24 AM
chhotemianinshallah
BegleyClimate-Change Calculus
Why it's even worse than we feared.
Published Jul 24, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Aug 3, 2009
Among the phrases you really, really do not want to hear from climate
scientists are: "that really shocked us," "we had no idea how bad it
was," and "reality is well ahead of the climate models." Yet in
speaking to researchers who focus on the Arctic, you hear comments
like these so regularly they begin to sound like the thumping refrain
from Jaws: annoying harbingers of something that you really, really
wish would go away.
Let me deconstruct the phrases above. The "shock" came when the
International Polar Year, a global consortium studying the Arctic,
froze a small vessel into the sea ice off eastern Siberia in September
2006. Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen had done the same thing a
century before, and his Fram, carried by the drifting ice, emerged off
eastern Greenland 34 months later. IPY scientists thought their Tara
would take 24 to 36 months. But it reached Greenland in just 14
months, stark evidence that the sea ice found a more open, ice-free,
and thus faster path westward thanks to Arctic melting.
The loss of Arctic sea ice "is well ahead of" what the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast, largely because
emissions of carbon dioxide have topped what the panel—which foolishly
expected nations to care enough about global warming to do something
about it—projected. "The models just aren't keeping up" with the
reality of CO2 emissions, says the IPY's David Carlson. Although
policymakers hoped climate models would prove to be alarmist, the
opposite is true, particularly in the Arctic.
The IPCC may also have been too cautious on Greenland, assuming that
the melting of its glaciers would contribute little to sea-level rise.
Some studies found that Greenland's glacial streams were surging and
surface ice was morphing into liquid lakes, but others made a strong
case that those surges and melts were aberrations, not long-term
trends. It seemed to be a standoff. More reliable data, however, such
as satellite measurements of Greenland's mass, show that it is losing
about 52 cubic miles per year and that the melting is accelerating. So
while the IPCC projected that sea level would rise 16 inches this
century, "now a more likely figure is one meter [39 inches] at the
least," says Carlson. "Chest high instead of knee high, with half to
two thirds of that due to Greenland." Hence the "no idea how bad it
was."
The frozen north had another surprise in store. Scientists have long
known that permafrost, if it melted, would release carbon,
exacerbating global warming, which would melt more permafrost, which
would add more to global warming, on and on in a feedback loop. But
estimates of how much carbon is locked into Arctic permafrost were, it
turns out, woefully off. "It's about three times as much as was
thought, about 1.6 trillion metric tons, which has surprised a lot of
people," says Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. "It means
the potential for positive feedbacks is greatly increased." That 1.6
trillion tons is about twice the amount now in the atmosphere. And
Schuur's measurements of how quickly CO2 can come out of permafrost,
reported in May, were also a surprise: 1 billion to 2 billion tons per
year. Cars and light trucks in the U.S. emit about 300 million tons
per year.
In an insightful observation in The Guardian this month, Jim Watson of
the University of Sussex wrote that "a new breed of climate sceptic is
becoming more common": someone who doubts not the science but the
policy response. Given the pathetic (non)action on global warming at
the G8 summit, and the fact that the energy/climate bill passed by the
House of Representatives is so full of holes and escape hatches that
it has barely a prayer of averting dangerous climate change,
skepticism that the world will get its act together seems appropriate.
For instance, the G8, led by Europe, has vowed to take steps to keep
global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by reducing CO2 emissions.
We're now at 0.8 degree. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is
already enough to raise the mercury 2 degrees. The only reason it
hasn't is that the atmosphere is full of crap (dust and aerosols that
contribute to asthma, emphysema, and other diseases) that acts as a
global coolant. As that pollution is reduced for health reasons, we're
going to blast right through 2 degrees, which is enough to ex-acerbate
droughts and storms, wreak havoc on agriculture, and produce a planet
warmer than it's been in millions of years. The 2-degree promise is a
mirage.
The test of whether the nations of the world care enough to act will
come in December, when 192 countries meet in Copenhagen to hammer out
a climate treaty. Carlson vows that IPY will finish its Arctic
assessment in time for the meeting, and one conclusion is already
clear. "A consensus has developed during IPY that the Greenland ice
sheet will disappear," he says. Cue the Jaws music.
Begley Is Newsweek’s Science Editor.
© 2009
bademiyansubhanallah
Danish PM vows developed countries on carbon reductionsDescription :
New Delhi, September 12 (ANI): Praising India on its actions on
emissions, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen on Friday vowed
developed countries to commit to cut on carbon reductions. The Danish
PM also termed his meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
as constructive, whom he met earlier on Friday.
bademiyansubhanallah
Warming may cut risky states' GDP by a fifth - study
Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:08pm IST
By James Kilner
LONDON (Reuters) - Climate change could cut gross domestic product in
countries at a high risk from weather catastrophes by up to a fifth by
2030 unless urgent steps are taken, a report said on Monday.
The study by the U.N.-backed Economics of Climate Adaption Working
Group aims to provide a way to evaluate the cost of climate change and
suggest ways to keep the bill down.
"Easily identifiable and cost-effective measures -- such as improved
drainage, sea barriers and improved building regulations, among many
others -- could reduce potential economic losses from climate change
for all regions," a statement accompanying the 147-page report said.
Entitled "Shaping climate-resilient development", the report comes
three months before a summit in Copenhagen where governments hope to
reach a global deal to fight climate change.
The study looked at eight areas, both rich and poor, around the world
seen as high risk from more droughts, hurricanes, floods and rising
sea levels that climate change may cause.
In the worst-case scenario, global warming could trigger severe
flooding in Guyana, costing the South American country over 19 percent
of its annual GDP by 2030, the report said.
The hurricane-prone U.S. state of Florida could see weather-related
costs knock 10 percent off its GDP each year.
The group that produced the report is made up of the United Nations,
insurer Swiss Re, management consultancy McKinsey, the European
Commission, the Rockefeller Foundation, Standard Chartered Bank and
environmental network ClimateWorks.
NICHOLAS STERN
In a foreword to the report, Nicholas Stern, a British economist and
former government advisor on the impact of climate change, said that
too little was being done to stop it and to limit the carbon dioxide
emissions that are a main cause of it.
"Countries will need to plan for adaptation with much greater rigour,
focus and urgency than has been the case until now," he wrote.
"We owe it to the most vulnerable people on the planet to combine the
best-possible support to strengthen adaptive capacity."
One of the biggest arguments in the run-up to Copenhagen is just how
much cash developed nations should give poorer nations to combat the
problem.
The report said warming may increase hurricane damage in Florida,
costing the state an extra $33 billion a year by 2030.
In the central Indian state of Maharashtra, extreme droughts that
historically occurred every 25 years could emerge every eight years
and cost the economy billions of dollars.
David Bresch, one of the report's authors and head of sustainability
and emerging risk management at Swiss Re, said the report aimed to lay
out guidelines for decision makers to assess potential effects.
"This is the first study that really thrashes out the adaptation
policies and puts a price on them," he said.
Last month an academic report said adapting to worse floods, droughts
and other climate problems would probably cost many times more than
the United Nations had so far estimated.
The U.N. climate change secretariat, UNFCCC, puts costs, including
measures such as growing drought-resistant crops and limiting the
spread of diseases, at $40 billion to $170 billion a year until 2030
-- the wide range reflecting the uncertainty.
(For more news on Reuters Money click www.reutersmoney.in)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
...and I am Sid Harth
bademiyansubhanallah
World Bank urges rich states to act now on climate
Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:00pm IST
By Lesley Wroughton
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The world's rich nations must act immediately
and forcefully to cut greenhouse gas emissions or the steeply rising
cost of climate change will fall disproportionately on poor countries,
the World Bank said on Tuesday.
In a major report on the threat of climate change, the World Bank said
developing countries will bear 75 to 80 percent of the costs of damage
caused by climate change and rich countries, which caused the
emissions in the past, should pay for them to adapt to global warming.
It said tackling climate change in developing countries need not
compromise poverty-fighting measures and economic growth, but stressed
that funding and technical support from rich countries is essential.
The report comes ahead of a meeting in Copenhagen in December where
countries hope to agree on a new global climate accord to combat man-
made climate change.
"The countries of the world must act now, act together and act
differently on climate change," World Bank President Robert Zoellick
said.
"Developing countries are disproportionately affected by climate
change -- a crisis that is not of their making and for which they are
the least prepared. For that reason, an equitable deal in Copenhagen
is vitally important," he added.
The report said developing countries countries could permanently lose
as much as 4 to 5 percent of their gross domestic product if the
earth's temperatures increase 2 degrees Celsius as opposed to minimal
losses in rich countries.
ESCALATING COSTS
The report said mitigation measures to deal with the effects of
climate change in developing countries could cost around $400 billion
a year by 2030. Currently, mitigation finance averages around $8
billion a year.
In addition, annual investments for measures to ward off or adapt to
climate change could spiral to around $75 billion from less than $1
billion a year currently available, the Bank said in its annual World
Development Report.
The World Bank said the global financial crisis should not be used as
an excuse to delay action to address climate change because the future
climate crisis is likely to be more damaging to the world economy.
"The economic downturn may delay the business-as-usual growth in
emissions by a few years, but it is unlikely to fundamentally change
that path over the long term," it said.
The Bank said developing nations must also do their part and keep down
the overall costs of climate change by adopting policies that reduce
emission or emissions growth.
"Unless developing countries also start transforming their energy
system as they grow, limiting warming to close to 2 degrees Celsius
above the pre-industrial levels will not be achievable," it said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Reuters Summit - Climate adaptation brings investment bets
Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:42pm IST
By Laura Isensee
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - While many companies and policy-makers
search for ways to lessen the impact of global warming, some are
looking at technologies for climate adaptation -- how to minimize the
impact of climate change already set in motion.
At the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San
Francisco, company executives, policy-makers and venture capitalists
gave their thoughts on what sectors would be good investment bets in a
hotter, drier world. Here's a look:
Steven Chan, chief strategy officer for China's solar panel maker
Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd.
"If you're able to do water purification with some sort of energy
source that's not conventional, that could be an industry that is very
strong. I think the world would need something like that."
Carl Pope, executive director at Sierra Club:
"There are two pathways available to solve this problem and we have a
preference. One is the engineering pathway ... We're going to build
sea walls around Miami.
We're going to have to do some of that, but we actually think that
natural systems are more resilient and we ought to be investing much
more heavily in using natural systems to protect human communities."
John Woolard, chief executive of privately held solar thermal company
BrightSource Energy Inc:
"Energy efficiency is going to be a really big push in the United
States and around the world and there's a lot that we haven't done yet
on that. So the leaders in energy efficiency will be a very real
category.
There are some out there that do demand response. There are some that
do automated meter reading. There are some that do pure energy
efficiency but I think those are all real interesting categories."
Tom Werner, chief executive of San Jose, California-based solar power
company SunPower Corp:
"I don't understand this idea that global warming is an economic
catastrophe. Global warming is an economic stimulus. What does Silicon
Valley do? They find problems and solve them and monetize them.
So what a great opportunity to lower carbon footprints, to improve
efficiency and to find ways to adapt ... Silver Spring Networks as an
example to help utilities better utilize the power that already
exists ... There are other things you're going to see, but there are
not companies to name yet. The world environment does change over
time ... So the agriculture will be substantially different. Another
whole industry is electric cars."
Mary Nichols, chair of California's Air Resources Board:
"The thing I am most interested in using more of is advanced mapping
systems. I think geographical mapping systems that use of layers of
data to display in a graphic and visual fashion what changes could
occur and what they would mean is a very very powerful tool."
Stephan Dolezalek, managing director of Silicon Valley venture capital
firm VantagePoint Venture Partners:
"As much as on a personal level we care about global warming, it isn't
something that we use as a driver for investment. So the reason we
focused on cleantech had almost nothing to do with global warming. It
had everything to do with third-world industrialization ... So we've
made no investments. on the carbon sequestration side.
We've made no investments on carbon trading because the global warming
proposition is one of those policy things that kind of comes and
goes.
It's far less predictable than the notion that populations are going
to grow, they're going to industrialize and they're going to want to
access the finite resources. That's highly predictable, reliable and
isn't going away. For us it's a much much safer investment theme."
(For summit blog: blogs.reuters.com/summits/)
bademiyansubhanallah
Industry Summits
Summit Notebook
Exclusive outtakes from industry leaders
September 15th, 2009
Move over, Nouriel Roubini
Posted by: Melissa Akin
Tags: Russian Investment, crisis, Lenin, Marx, Russia, UniCredit
Mikhail Alexeyev, a veteran of Soviet and Russian banking who now
heads Russian operations for Italian bank UniCredit, said he saw the
2008 financial crisis coming when he was still a student at a Soviet
state institute of finance.
“I knew it would happen back in 1981, when I was studying political
economics. In capitalism you get crises. Marx and Lenin teach us
that.”
September 15th, 2009
Loose lips sink stocks
Posted by: Melissa Akin
The president of Renaissance Capital — Russia’s largest home grown
investment bank, a fiercely competitive institution which has now
survived two crises — is not interested in publicly assessing the
competitive landscape in Moscow’s financial sector.
Russia’s stock market was all but shut down in a single day by
rumours of distress among brokers, sparked by the selloff of stocks
held on margin or as collateral on repurchase agreements.
Operating often on whispers, brokers foreign and domestic slammed
shut limits on each other, causing trade on the stock market to seize
up.
The first victim — brokerage KIT Finance — was announced by
evening and became the first financial instituation to receive a state
bailout.
“The crisis has shown that rumours and gossiping about
competitors is a very dangerous thing,” Renaissance Capital President
Aganbegyan told the Reuters Russian Investment Summit almost a year
later.
September 14th, 2009
Moscow: The least worst place for your money
Posted by: Melissa Akin
Tags: Finance, Global Investing, Hedge Hub, Investment Outlook, Middle
East Investment, Russian Investment, Summit, infrastructure, BRITAIN,
dubai, financial centre, Russia, taxes
Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital was a big backer of
Moscow’s ambition to become a major emerging-markets financial centre,
a bridge between European and Asian capital, a rival to Dubai.
It not only trumpeted the idea, but was one of the first big local
firms to take out offices in a sleek glass skyscraper by the Moscow
River, surrounded by foundation pits and towers of naked steel girders
that were to become Moscow’s Canary Wharf.
Then the financial crisis hit in September 2008, knocking back the
city’s ambitions.
Renaissance Capital President Ruben Aganbegyan said, however, that
other world financial centres were inadvertently helping Moscow’s case
despite its setbacks.
“A lot of people in the world are doing everything they can to
help us,” Aganbegyan told the 2009 Reuters Russian Investment Summit.
“Like the UK raising taxes.”
Russia instituted a 13 percent flat income tax rate in 2001 to
stop rampant tax evasion. Earlier in the day, Finance Minister Alexei
Kudrin told the summit that Russia would try to avoid raising taxes to
cover budget deficits for at least three years.
September 11th, 2009
Global warming: Economic opportunity or not?
Posted by: Peter Henderson
Warming, investment, Reuters Summit
Stephan Dolezalek, Managing Director of VantagePoint Venture Partners
and Tom Werner, Chief Executive of solar power company SunPower, sat
down at Reuters’ Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San
Francisco and shared their views on global warming, investment and
cleantech.
Dolezalek sees industrialization in developing countries as a more
predictable impetus for investment than global warming.
Werner sees global warming as a stimulus for new business and a tool
for adaptation.
What are your thoughts? Is global warming an economic stimulus, an
unreliable driver for investment, neither or both?
(Editing/video by Courtney Hoffman, pictures by Kim White)
September 11th, 2009
Echelon’s Ken Oshman on smart meter sector consolidation
Ken Oshman, the Chief Executive of Echelon, sat down at Reuters’
Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco to speak
about revenue forecasts and smart meters.
The following is Oshman’s thoughts on how the sector may consolidate
as the market picks up.
(Editing/video by Courtney Hoffman)
September 11th, 2009
Note to OPEC: Siberia not Saudi
Posted by: Melissa Akin
An episodic courtship between Russia, the world’s second largest
oil exporter and its sometime rivals in the OPEC group of oil
exporting nations, went cold at the beginning of this year when Russia
failed to make good on hints that it might cut output in line with
OPEC, dominated by Saudi Arabia and other desert states of the Middle
East.
Prices for oil, the economic lifeblood of Russia and OPEC
countries alike, had fallen below $40, OPEC argued, and supply cuts
had to be made to boost prices and finance investment into the oil
industry.
Alexander Medvedev, deputy chief executive of Russian energy giant
Gazprom, told this year’s Reuters Russia Investment Summit that Russia
had an excuse for avoiding the multimillion barrel cuts imposed by
OPEC: the Siberian chill .
“It is a very simple explanation for this: We are not in a desert
where it’s easily to regulate, we are in an extreme situation in
Siberia where reserves could be damaged if you up and down your
production levels.”
If Russia shuts down Siberian wells, its industry members argue,
they could seize up forever as they go cold.
And Russia hardly left OPEC hanging, Medvedev argued: The
financial crisis took its toll even on Russia’s cash rich oil
companies: “Actually the supply was substantially lower in the first
half of the year.”
Medvedev also said he was still struggling to understand where
from the rival Nabucco pipeline will get its gas to rival Gazprom on
European markets.
“Even at the (Nabucco) signing ceremony I looked at the photos
and tried to find any gas supplier and with all my attempts I could
not find any. And it looked strange.”
September 10th, 2009
60-hour work weeks, all in the name of climate change
Posted by: Michael Szabo
Tags: Environment, Alternative Energy, China, India, netherlands,
Reuter Summit, united nations
Some politicians may be accused of dragging their heels when it comes
to dealing with climate change, but you can’t say members of the
United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism’s executive board aren’t
clocking in the hours.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an emissions trading scheme
under the Kyoto Protocol worth $33 billion last year according to the
World Bank, allows companies and countries to outsource their
greenhouse gas reduction efforts by investing in clean energy projects
in emerging countries like China and India, where making emissions
cuts costs less.
Projects are submitted to the CDM for registration and a staff of over
100 examine and scrutinize each one to ensure environmental integrity.
The whole scheme is supervised by a 20-member executive board, chaired
by Lex de Jonge of the Netherlands’ environment ministry.
“The members are all employed by governments and assigned to the
board. They don’t get a salary from the UN but they receive a daily
subsistence allowance to pay for meals, hotel and travel costs,” de
Jonge said at the Reuters Climate and Alternative Energy Summit.
“As chair of the board, I spend 75% of my time on CDM issues and 25%
on domestic issues relating to my actual job,” he added.
The CDM’s executive board holds some 7 to 8 week-long meetings a year,
up from 5 meetings in 2005, the year international emissions trading
really began to take shape.
“They’re quite long days. We start at 9am and it’s seldom that we
finish before 7 or 8pm. The worst I’ve ever seen was we worked until
3am,” de Jonge said.
Between board meetings, de Jonge said members must attend meetings for
other related panels or working groups to which they belong. These
extra-curricular duties can take an additional 6-8 weeks a year.
Factor in the additional work required to prepare for these meetings
and you’re looking at months, not weeks.
“If you add it all up, between 25 and 40 percent of a member’s working
year is devoted to the board, and that is sometimes difficult for
board members because they have other jobs to attend to,” de Jonge
explained.
Would you work this much for climate change?
To read our Summit interview with Lex de Jonge, click here
September 10th, 2009
Enviro-boxer Britain needs to spend more on climate cure
Posted by: Michael Szabo
Scientists may face an uphill battle in trying to warn the world about
the looming perils of global warming, but one of Britain’s top
academics wouldn’t trade places with the politicians tasked with
negotiating a new global treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
“Although the science (of climate change) is difficult and still
uncertain, it’s a doddle compared to the politics,” said Martin Rees,
president of the Royal Society, Britain’s science academy.
Thousands of international delegates will convene at UN climate talks
in Copenhagen in December. All early indications suggest those talks,
seen as critical to agreeing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol after
it expires in 2012, will be anything but a cake walk.
That said, Rees thinks UK policymakers have done a good job so far.
“We must give (the UK) government credit for its leadership in this
area, going back to the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005 when climate
change was pushed up the agenda,” Rees said at the Reuters Climate and
Alternative Energy Summit this week.
“The UK punches above its weight in the debate on climate change even
though we only produce 2% of the world’s emissions,” said Rees,
likening Britain to some sort of environmental boxer.
Rees thinks that because the UK has the high-tech know-how, it should
strive to provide more than 2% of the solution to the climate problem
by upping investment technologies to help replace fossil fuel burning.
“The level of research and development into new energy technologies is
far lower than the scale of the challenge demands … The R&D on
renewable energy should be closer to what we spend on health or
medicine, but it’s tiny, tiny compared to that.”
“Without new technologies, we’ll never meet out 2050 targets,” he
said, referring to Britain’s goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80%
by mid-century.
Should the UK assume a larger climate role relative to its size or
greenhouse gas contribution? Should it spend as much on researching
renewable energy as it does developing cures for disease?
To listen to an excerpt of our interview with Rees, click here
To read the Reuters Climate Summit interview with Rees, click here
(Reuters photo - British boxer Amir Khan)
September 9th, 2009
Google’s Green Energy Czar on investing in renewables
Comments (7)Posted by: Peter Henderson
Bill Weihl, Google’s Green Energy Czar, sat down at Reuters’ Global
Climate and Energy Summit in San Francisco and talked about Google’s
solar thermal project, infrastructure costs and where he sees the
energy mix heading in 20 years.
Here he chats about emerging clean tech hubs and what the United
States should do about investing in renewables.
(Editing/video by Courtney Hoffman)
Scott Lang, the Chief Executive of Silver Spring Networks, sat down at
Reuters’ Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco
to talk about building and expanding within green tech sector.
Here Lang discusses how his company’s technology for reporting power
consumption to utilities also finds problems quickly.
(Editing/video by Courtney Hoffman)
Sid Harth
US planning to weaken Copenhagen climate deal, Europe warnsExclusive:
Key differences between the US and Europe could undermine a new
worldwide treaty on global warming to replace Kyoto, sources say
David Adam, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15
September 2009 17.54 BST Article history
Ban Ki-moon speaks at the Bali climate change conference in 2007. The
UN secretary general told the Guardian on Monday that negotiations
ahead of Copenhagen had stalled and need to 'get moving'. Photograph:
Adek Berry/AFP
Europe has clashed with the US Obama administration over climate
change in a potentially damaging split that comes ahead of crucial
political negotiations on a new global deal to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions.
The Guardian understands that key differences have emerged between the
US and Europe over the structure of a new worldwide treaty on global
warming. Sources on the European side say the US approach could
undermine the new treaty and weaken the world's ability to cut carbon
emissions.
The treaty will be negotiated in December at a UN meeting in
Copenhagen and is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet
from a temperature rise of 2C or higher, which the EU considers
dangerous.
Copenhagen climate deal: 'The world has been set a deadline' Link to
this audio "If we end up with a weaker framework with less stringent
compliance, then that is not so good for the chances of hitting 2C," a
source close to the EU negotiating team said.
News of the split comes amid mounting concern that the Copenhagen
talks will not make the necessary progress.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN general secretary, told the Guardian last night
that negotiations had stalled and need to "get moving".
Ahead of an unprecedented UN climate change summit of almost 100 heads
of government in New York next week, Moon said the leaders held in
their hands "the future of this entire humanity".
He said: "We are deeply concerned that the negotiation is not making
much headway [and] it is absolutely and crucially important for the
leaders to demonstrate their political will and leadership."
The dispute between the US and Europe is over the way national carbon
reduction targets would be counted. Europe has been pushing to retain
structures and systems set up under the Kyoto protocol, the existing
global treaty on climate change. US negotiators have told European
counterparts that the Obama administration intends to sweep away
almost all of the Kyoto architecture and replace it with a system of
its own design.
The issue is highly sensitive and European officials are reluctant to
be seen to openly criticise the Obama administration, which they
acknowledge has engaged with climate change in a way that President
Bush refused to. But they fear the US move could sink efforts to agree
a robust new treaty in Copenhagen.
The US distanced itself from Kyoto under President Bush because it
made no demands on China, and the treaty remains political poison in
Washington. European negotiators knew the US would be reluctant to
embrace Kyoto, but they hoped they would be able to use it as a
foundation for a new agreement.
If Kyoto is scrapped, it could take several years to negotiate a
replacement framework, the source added, a delay that could strike a
terminal blow at efforts to prevent dangerous climate change. "In
Europe we want to build on Kyoto, but the US proposal would in effect
kill it off. If we have to start from scratch then it all takes time.
It could be 2015 or 2016 before something is in place, who knows."
According to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), world emissions need to peak by 2015 to give any chance of
avoiding a 2C rise.
Europe is unlikely to stand up to the US, the source added. "I am not
sure that the EU actually has the guts for a showdown and that may be
exactly the problem." The US plan is likely to anger many in the
developing world, who are keen to retain Kyoto because of the
obligations it makes on rich countries.
Under Kyoto, greenhouse gas reductions are subject to an international
system that regulates the calculation of emissions, the purchase of
carbon credits and contribution of sectors such as forestry. The US is
pushing instead for each country to set its own rules and to decide
unilaterally how to meet its target.
The US is yet to offer full details on how its scheme might work,
though a draft "implementing agreement" submitted to the UN by the
Obama team in May contained a key clause that emissions reductions
would be subject to "conformity with domestic law".
Legal experts say the phrase is designed to protect the US from being
forced to implement international action it does not agree with.
Farhana Yamin, an environmental lawyer with the Institute of
Development Studies, who worked on Kyoto, said: "It seems a bit
backwards. The danger is that the domestic tail starts to wag the
international dog."
The move reflects a "prehistoric" level of debate on climate change in
the wider US, according to another high-ranking European official, and
anxiety in the Obama administration about its ability to get a new
global treaty ratified in the US Senate, where it would require a two-
thirds majority vote. The US has not ratified a major international
environment treaty since 1992 and President Clinton never submitted
the Kyoto protocol for approval, after a unaminous Senate vote
indicated it would be rejected on economic grounds.
The US proposal for unilateral rule-setting "is all about getting
something through the Senate," the source said. "But I don't have the
feeling that the US has thought through what it means for the
Copenhagen agreement."
The move could open loopholes for countries to meet targets without
genuine carbon cuts, they said. Europe is not concerned that the US
would exploit such loopholes, but it fears that other countries might.
The US State Department, which handles climate change, would not
comment.
Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated Kyoto for the US, said: "There has
been a sea change in US attitudes [on climate] and the new president
is deeply committed on this issue. But the EU needs to understand the
limitations in the US. The reality is that is it impossible for my
successor to negotiate something in Copenhagen beyond that which
Congress will give the administration in domestic cap-and-trade
legislation."
Nigel Purvis, who also worked on the US Kyoto team, said: "It's not
welcome news in Europe but the Kyoto architecture shouldn't have any
presumed status. Many decisions were taken when the United States was
not at the negotiating table. Importing the Kyoto architecture into a
new agreement would leave it vulnerable to charges of repackaging."
He denied the US move would weaken the agreement. "It is important for
the US to negotiate an agreement it can join, because another
agreement that did not involve the United States would set back
efforts to protect the climate. Is it weaker to have a system that
applies to more countries? I would argue not."
Sid Harth
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/kyoto-protocol
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/feb/19/climate-change-arrhenius
Climate controversies (of the nineteenth century)Today marks 150 years
since the birth of the man who discovered man-made climate change –
and thought it might save us from an ice age
The title page of Arrhenius's groundbreaking paper on CO2 and
atmospheric warming
A hundred and fifty years ago today a gifted child called Svante
Arrhenius was born in the Uppsala region of Sweden. Self-taught in
reading and arithmetic by the age of three – or so it is said – young
Svante went on to study at the Swedish Academy of Sciences, where his
dissertation included more than fifty original theses and the seed of
work that would later win him a Nobel Prize for Chemistry. (The
dissertation received a third-class mark, nonetheless, so maybe
there's hope for the rest of us yet.)
Among Arrhenius's most important scientific achievements was an 1896
paper entitled On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the
Temperature of the Ground. Published in Philosophical Magazine, this
paper pinned down the workings of the greenhouse effect and laid the
scientific basis for the emissions cuts being debated to this day.
Earlier figures such as Joseph Fournier and John Tyndall had suspected
the air warmed the earth by absorbing infrared energy. In the words of
Tyndall, seemingly a scientist who harboured literary ambitions, the
atmosphere "is a blanket more necessary to the vegetable life of
England than clothing is to man. Remove for a single summer-night the
aqueous vapour from the air … and the sun would rise upon an island
held fast in the iron grip of frost."
Arrhenius took the science to a whole new level by showing that the
power of the atmosphere's warming effect was determined by the amount
of carbonic acid (CO2) it contained. He predicted that if the amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere doubled, then the temperature would rise by
around 5–6 degrees – not a world away from today's figure of 2–4.5
degrees.
It took a huge amount of work to reach this conclusion, but Arrhenius
knew he was fighting an important scientific battle. "I should
certainly not have undertaken these tedious calculations if an
extraordinary interest had not been connected with them", he barked in
the paper.
Arrhenius was well aware of one of the key implications of his
research: that the burning of fossil fuels was likely to warm the
planet. However, partly because he had no way to predict the meteoric
rise in global fossil fuel consumption over the following hundred
years, he wasn't worried about the possibility that man-made global
warming might rapidly render the planet uninhabitable. On the
contrary, he was optimistic that it might prove helpful by delaying
the next ice age.
So Arrhenius didn't get everything right. And his involvement in
"racial biology" – which blazed a trail for compulsory sterilization
and eventually Nazi eugenics – doesn't help his legacy.
Nonetheless, the world should be grateful for the insights of this
remarkable man, not least because he made his key contribution to
science at considerable personal expense. As Rob Kunzig writes in
Fixing Climate, Arrhenius's "ravishing young wife", Sophia, left him
in 1894, half way through his greenhouse number crunching. Clearly
Svante wasn't the only one who found his calculations tedious.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/feb/20/coal-protest-power-shift
Power Shift: Global youth climate movement comes of ageObama's first
big test on climate change - the largest eco protest in history
We're now well into Obama's first 100 days as president, and as is
obvious from his trip to Canada, his green credentials are being
seriously challenged.
His biggest test yet will be how to deal with an event that will
represent the largest mass civil disobedience on climate change the
world has ever seen. For the last eight months, organisers have been
bringing together over 70 conservation, public health, labour, social
justice and faith-based organisations along with figureheads of the
climate movement like Bill McKibben and Dr James Hansen.
On 2 March, over 10,000 people will join a sit-in at the coal-power
plant that literally powers the congressional building in Washington
DC. For many, it is a national symbol for the stranglehold that dirty
energy sources have over their communities, their climate and their
future. Just this week, Hansen released a public broadcast explaining
why he will be taking part.
A Call to Action on Global Warming from Dr. James HansenfromGreenpeace
USAonVimeo.
Thousands of those making history in this action will be youth climate
organisers from all over the US. This Friday, they will themselves be
forming the largest ever youth climate event in history – Power Shift.
From every single state, young adults will be coming for three intense
days of training, strategising and action to build the climate
movement. The organisers, the Energy Action Coalition, have already
mobilised 340,000 young people to vote on climate change during last
year's presidential election – so this is by no means a group of
enthusiastic idealists to be patronised. This is a highly skilled,
highly organised movement of young people who will not let vested
economic interests destroy what the future holds for them.
As organisers of Power Shift UK this September, we have been invited
to work with them over the next week. We'll be joining the last
frantic efforts to house and feed the incoming flood of participants,
learning from their incredible recruitment drive and building our
vision of what Power Shift will mean to young people in the UK.
Although sitting in a metal sausage thousands of feet above the ocean
isn't what I like doing, we will have to fly to America. But because
we know what it takes to build a social movement, we know that
learning from other's success is absolutely vital.
It's important to realise that what's happening in Washington next
week is only one part of a booming global youth climate movement. The
Indian Youth Climate Network have just completed their epic Climate
Solutions Road Tourthat received rapturous praise from Tom Friedman in
the New York Times, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition are
organising their Power Shift for June, and European youth groups are
already planning mass mobilisation around the milestone Copenhagen
climate negotiations in December.
I'm constantly reminded of Al Gore famously saying that he couldn't
understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers
and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants. Well,
his call is about to be answered.
• Casper ter Kuile is the co-director of the UK Youth Climate
Coalition
chhotemianinshallah
Climate change may reduce South Asia GDP 4-5 per cent: World Bank
16 Sep 2009, 1155 hrs IST, IANS
NEW DELHI: A global warming of two degrees Celsius -- the minimum the
world is likely to experience -- could result in permanent GDP
reductions of
four-five percent for South Asia, warns a new World Bank report.
But if developed countries act now, a 'climate-smart' world is
feasible, and the costs for getting there will be high but still
manageable, says the report, adding that high-income countries also
need to act quickly to reduce their carbon footprints and boost
development of alternative energy sources to help tackle the problem
of climate change.
The World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change,
released worldwide Tuesday, says that advanced countries, which
produced most of the greenhouse gas emissions of the past, must act to
shape our climate future.
Developing countries can shift to lower-carbon paths while promoting
development and reducing poverty, but this depends on financial and
technical assistance from high-income countries. A key way to do this
is by ramping up funding for mitigation in developing countries, where
most future growth in emissions will occur.
"The countries of the world must act now, act together and act
differently on climate change," said World Bank President Robert B.
Zoellick. "Developing countries are disproportionately affected by
climate change -- a crisis that is not of their making and for which
they are the least prepared. For that reason, an equitable deal in
Copenhagen is vitally important."
Copenhagen is hosting the next summit of the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change this December.
The report says that that global warming of two degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial temperatures -- the minimum the world is likely to
experience -- could result in permanent reductions in GDP of four to
five percent for South Asia.
The region's water resources are likely to be affected by climate
change, through its effect on the monsoon, which provides 70 percent
of annual precipitation in a four-month period, and on the melting of
Himalayan glaciers, particularly in the western end of the range.
Agricultural productivity is one of many factors driving the greater
vulnerability of developing countries. Extrapolating from past year-to-
year variations in climate and agricultural outcomes, yields of major
crops in India are projected to decline by 4.5 to 9 percent within the
next three decades, even allowing for short-term adaptations.
Rising sea levels are also of important concern in South Asia, which
has long and densely populated coastlines, agricultural plains
threatened by saltwater intrusion, and many low-lying islands. In more
severe climate-change scenarios, rising seas would submerge much of
the Maldives and inundate 18 percent of Bangladesh's land.
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted: Thu, Sep 17 2009. 9:01 PM IST
Economy and Politics
Green initiatives from developing countries
Rich nations have demanded that China, India, Brazil and others set
binding emission reduction targets to help seal a global climate deal
in December, but poorer nations instead say they will take steps
according to their abilities
David Fogarty / Reuters
Major developing nations have announced steps over the past year to
curb their growing greenhouse emissions as the world tries to
negotiate a broader, and tougher, UN pact to slow the pace of climate
change.
Rich nations have demanded that China, India, Brazil and others set
binding emission reduction targets to help seal a global climate deal
in December, but poorer nations instead say they will take steps
according to their abilities. Actions or pledges by leading developing
nations:
CHINA
• Government aims to cut energy consumption per unit of gross domestic
product by about 20% by 2010 compared with 2005 levels which, it says,
will save at least 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from being
emitted.
• Goal for renewable energy to account for 15% of the total energy
consumption by 2020. Wind power generation is forecast to rise to 100
gigawatts by 2020 and the official forecast is 1.8 gigawatts for
solar, though this may be conservative.
• Fuel economy standards among toughest in the world.
Top climate diplomat said last month he wants to see emissions peak as
soon as possible and major Chinese study released in August called for
the government to set firm targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions
so that they peak around 2030.
INDIA
• The government has pledged to ramp up investment in renewables and
has set a solar power target of 20 gigawatts by 2020, up from a
fraction of that now.
Aims for energy efficiency targets for at least 700 industrial
operations as a step towards a national trading system centred on
energy efficiency certificates.
• Enforce energy efficiency for appliances, lighting, power
distribution transformers.
• Mandatory fuel efficiency standards for the transport sector by
2011.
MEXICO
• Plans to put a detailed offer to cut growth of its greenhouse gas
emissions at climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
• President Felipe Calderon said in June that Mexico would voluntarily
cut 50 million tonnes of verifiable annual emissions by the end of his
term in 2012 by bolstering efficiency in the state-run electricity and
oil industries and improving rural land use. But carbon dioxide
emissions from the oil industry soared in 2008.
• Agreed with the US and Canada to build infrastructure to cooperate
on emissions trading.
BRAZIL
• To announce targets to substantially curb carbon emissions.
Announcement to come before the Copenhagen meeting.
• Last year presented a plan to slash Amazon deforestation by half
over 10 years and thereby avoid the release of 4.8 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide.
• Will announce on 17 September new restrictions on sugar cane
planting and ban new cane mills in the Amazon rain forest and the
Pantanal wetland area in the country’s west.
SOUTH KOREA
• Unveiled plan in August to opt for a voluntary 2020 reduction
target. To decide on three options, with a -4% target by 2020 from
2005 levels being the most ambitious.
• Also plans trial emissions trading and tax incentives to achieve the
2020 goal, boost use of hybrid cars and renewable energy and increase
nuclear power output as part of steps to spark a “green revolution” of
the economy.
INDONESIA
• Government-backed National Climate Change Council in August set out
road map for government to adopt measures in forestry, energy,
transport and industry to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
• Created government-backed clean technology fund to ramp up renewable
energy investment.
• The government is a leading supporter of the UN-backed forest
preservation scheme called REDD, which aims to reward developing
nations with valuable carbon credits for saving forests.
• The government has a crash programme to add 10,000MW through coal
and renewable energy such as geothermal power.
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted: Thu, Sep 17 2009. 8:59 PM IST
Economy and Politics
Rich nations insist on targets, say emission cuts not enough
The question now is whether the green measures announced are enough to
seal a new climate deal
David Fogarty and Deborah Zabarenko / Reuters
Singapore / Washington: In the game of climate poker, developing
nations might feel they have the right cards on the table in the
United Nations (UN) talks after ramping up efforts to curb greenhouse
gas output.
Looming danger: A major concern is the pace of emissions growth from
the developing countries, which is set to jump over the next 20-30
years. Stockxpert
China, India, South Korea and other emerging economic powers have
announced a series of measures this year to make their economies
greener and limit the increase of carbon dioxide emissions from their
farms, forests and factories.
The question is whether these domestic steps are enough to seal a new
global climate deal, prompt rich nations to toughen their emissions
reduction pledges and lead to billions in annual financing to help
poorer countries fight global warming.
The measures, focusing on renewable energy and energy efficiency, have
drawn international praise and helped strengthen the hand of
developing nations in talks to try to agree on a replacement to the
1997 Kyoto Protocol.
The UN hopes those talks will culminate in December in the Danish city
of Copenhagen.
But some rich nations want more. Some in the US Congress say China,
now the world’s top greenhouse gas polluter, and other big developing
nations, must agree to binding emissions curbs. It comes down to trust
and accountability.
US senator John Kerry, who heads the Senate foreign relations
committee that will help to craft US climate legislation, was
encouraged by China’s climate moves.
“I’m confident that China is prepared to take some steps that will be
meaningful,” Kerry told reporters on Tuesday, in advance of a flurry
of global climate gatherings in the US.
“I think the crucial question is, can we together, America and China,
forge a partnership that’s capable of acting boldly enough to prevent
a climate catastrophe?” Kerry said.
China said it would unveil new plans to tackle global warming during a
UN meeting later this month.
The UN top climate change official says it is not the time to be
asking poorer nations to take on binding cuts.
“I’d say get real, quite honestly. We know that the bulk of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere are there because of industrialized countries
and that’s why industrialized countries have to take responsibility
and act first,” said Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change
Secretariat.
“China is setting targets already. It is setting targets for
industrial energy efficiency, for renewable energy, for buildings
efficiency, for sustainable cities,” he told Reuters. He also said it
was “nonsense” to ask India, the world’s fourth largest emitter, to
reduce its emissions at the same time as it fights poverty with
increased development.
The Kyoto Protocol, whose first phase ends in 2012, requires only rich
nations to limit greenhouse emissions.
The Copenhagen talks aim to draw up the outlines of an agreement that
brings all nations, plus aviation and shipping, into the fight against
climate change.
Without domestic efforts, there is no prospect for an effective global
deal, Elliot Diringer of the Washington-based Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, said by telephone.
“How serious the initiatives are and what they could actually deliver
remain to be seen, but they certainly create a more positive momentum
going into Copenhagen.”
A major concern is the pace of emissions growth from the developing
world, which is set to jump over the next 20-30 years. India said this
month its greenhouse gas emissions could double or more than triple to
7.3 billion tonnes by 2031.
China’s emissions are also expected to soar and a Beijing energy think
tank said this week that China needs huge flows of clean technology
investment to maintain hope of keeping emissions below levels that
could help push the planet deep into dangerous global warming.
“In the short run, the developing nations are sitting ducks and they
can do nothing to stop global warming,” said climate policy expert
Graciela Chichilnisky of Columbia University.
“In the long run...developing nations are going to have the global
warming issue by the tail.”
How efforts to curb emissions will be funded has been a major sticking
point in talks leading up to Copenhagen, with developing nations
insisting the rich world should meet most of the cost of tackling a
problem they caused in the first place.
Developing countries must use their pledged actions to try to win the
best possible deal in Copenhagen, said Kim Carstensen, head of
conservation group WWF’s Global Climate Initiative.
“Most of what we see at the moment coming from these countries is what
they intended to do in any case, funding or no funding,” he said.
Instead, domestic steps should be part of the grand climate bargain to
try to win the best possible funding for climate change mitigation and
adaptation programmes in poorer countries and the transfer of clean
energy technology.
“What we lack is some kind of agreement of how that translates into
something international,” he said of domestic steps.
For some nations, though, backing away from insisting on emission
targets is just too hard.
Any step by big developing nations to curb emissions was positive and
would help their negotiating positions, said Peter Backlund, a former
science adviser in the Clinton White House.
“But there’s still a kind of a superficial level where the line that’s
got to get passed to really make a huge difference is about setting a
target,” said Backlund, now director of research relations at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
“Even though the steps themselves might be more consequential than a
target, it’s just a kind of superficial marker that’s been
established.”
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted: Thu, Sep 17 2009. 11:35 PM IST
Home
Autonomous body for green clearances
The proposal says that Nepa will be created through legislation
Padmaparna Ghosh
New Delhi: Acknowledging that all was not well with the existing
system of green regulation, the government has proposed the setting up
of an autonomous statutory body to grant environmental clearances and
ensure monitoring and compliance on environmental laws in the
country.
Loading video...
The proposal for the body named National Environment Protection
Authority (Nepa), which was released by the ministry of environment
and forests on Thursday, may be introduced as a legislation in the
winter session of Parliament.
“This is a major step forward at strengthening the executive. In the
last 15-20 years, because of the weakness in the executive, the
judiciary stepped in, in a major way. But the government cannot
abdicate its role in environmental governance to courts,” said Jairam
Ramesh, minister of state for environment.
Delegating work: Environment minister Jairam Ramesh says the body will
be professionally managed, with specialists from various fields.
Nelson Ching/Bloomberg
He added that this authority should have been created in 1986 after
the Environment Protection Act (EPA, 1986), which is a powerful Act
but is backed by a weak institution.
The executive and the judiciary have been sparring over powers in the
environmental sector for a while as Mint reported on 8 September
2008.
Recently, the ministry also released a proposal for a green tribunal,
which will subsume many court-appointed committees and take the burden
of hundreds of environmental cases from the courts.
The proposal says that Nepa will be created through legislation, will
be independent of the ministry and will be equipped with its own
budget and powers to make its procedures. Ramesh said that the body
will be professionally managed with specialists from fields such as
applied sciences, economics and law. The body will draw its powers
from the EPA and will also oversee environmental health, ecosystem
protection, waste management, and chemical safety and biosafety.
The proposal, which has been circulated to all state governments for
comments and is also open to public comments over the next 30 days,
offers four options for how the Nepa’s powers can be shared with the
Central Pollution Control Board, the apex body for monitoring
pollution and setting standards but which reports to the environment
ministry. One of the options, is to give complete power of granting
environmental clearances to the new authority rather than the
ministry, which currently grants these clearances. All major projects
such as in the power, mining, infrastructure, dams, industrial sectors
need mandatory environmental clearance from the Centre.
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted: Wed, May 6 2009. 11:44 PM IST
Corporate News
Citizens have right to participate in public hearing, appeal: HC
The court also said that the purpose of a public hearing is to elicit
the view of the people and activist groups and that such people have a
right to participate in the environmental clearance process and file
appealsPadmaparna Ghosh
New Delhi: Any citizen concerned about the environmental impact of a
project has the right to participate in a public hearing and appeal
against the project, the Delhi high court said on Wednesday, in a
ruling that gives people affected or displaced by projects a voice in
the courts.
The court said this while ruling in a case related to a Vedanta
Aluminium Ltd (VAL) smelter in Jharsuguda, Orissa, whose environmental
clearance had been challenged by an activist first at the National
Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) in 2007, and, subsequent to its
dismissal, at the high court. The order added that the purpose of a
public hearing is to elicit the view of the people and activist groups
and that such people have a right to participate in the environmental
clearance process and file appeals.
The court fined NEAA, a statutory body constituted to hear appeals and
grievances against environmental clearances, Rs15,000 to be paid to
the petitioner by way of cost and ordered it to hear the petition
again on merit.
“The appellate authority was meant to hear grievances and appeals in
environment sector, so that aggrieved people first go to the appellate
for redressal and not have to resort to the court option. Such an
order can ensure that grievance redressal becomes more positive,” said
an environmental lawyer, who did not want to be identified.
The petition was filed in NEAA in May 2007, and was dismissed by the
authority in December 2007 on the basis that the petitioner did not
have a locus standi, or the right to file an appeal. The petitioner
then appealed to the Delhi high court in April 2008.
“A restrictive view of has been taken by the NEAA. The 2006
Environmental Impact Assessment notification narrows the definition
further as only affected people in the area can file appeals whereas
every citizen has a fundamental duty to protect the environment under
the constitution,” added the lawyer.
The petitioner, Prafulla Samantara, president of Lok Shakti Abhiyan, a
local environmental activist group, said he would appeal to NEAA
again. “My petition was filed on grounds of an improperly conducted
public hearing and an inadequate EIA report,” he added. An
environmental impact assessment or EIA report looks at the impact of a
project on the environment.
“Current activity will not be affected... We will explore future
options after we receive a certified copy of the court order,” said a
VAL official who did not want to be identified.
NEAA has previously dismissed several applications—Mint could identify
two instances, one involving the Middle Siang hydroelectric project in
Arunachal Pradesh and another, the integrated steel plant of Monnet
Ispat in Chhattisgarh.
“Where do you draw the line on who is affected in the environment
sector when thermal power plants in India and China are being
protested against in Europe and the US because they are affecting the
climate?” asked the lawyer.
bademiyansubhanallah
UN chief urges world climate deal by year's end
STAFF WRITER 9:27 HRS IST
United Nations, Sept 18 (AFP) UN chief Ban Ki-moon has pressed world
leaders to publicly commit here next week to reaching a global climate
change deal in Copenhagen in December.
"No issue better demonstrates the need for global solidarity," he told
a press conference ahead of next week's UN General Assembly session.
"The current slow pace of the (climate change) negotiations is a
matter of deep concern," Ban said, adding that world leaders due to
attend Tuesday's UN climate summit should "publicly commit to sealing
a deal in Copenhagen."
"We want world leaders to show they understand the gravity of climate
risks, as well as the benefits of acting now," Ban said yesterday.
"We want them to give their negotiating teams marching orders to
accelerate progress toward a fair effective, comprehensive and
scientifically ambitious global climate agreement in Copenhagen.
chhotemianinshallah
Differences remain at Major Economic Forum meeting
19 Sep 2009, 1124 hrs IST, PTI
WASHINGTON: The two-day Major Economies Forum (MEF) meeting on Climate
Change concluded here today with differences remaining on critical
issues
among members of this 17-country grouping including India.
"I think there was some narrowing of differences. There are plenty of
differences that remain," Special US Envoy for Climate Change Todd
Stern said.
"But it was a pretty full ventilation of views in a way that the MEF
is designed to promote," he told reporters after the meeting at the
Foggy Bottom headquarters of the State Department.
Responding to a question, Stern said the narrowing of differences had
to do with issues of adaptation, technology, the way you reflect
mitigation actions and the nature of measurement, reporting and
verification.
"Again, the narrowing doesn't mean the differences have disappeared.
It means that there was a thorough airing, people understood and I
think that there was a narrowing of differences, but they haven't
disappeared," Stern said.
Set up by US President Barack Obama early this year, MEF comprises of
17 major economies of the world including India. Other economies are
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany,
Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Britain
and the US.
chhotemianinshallah
Birth control could help combat climate change
19 Sep 2009, 1340 hrs IST, AP
LONDON: Giving contraceptives to people in developing countries could
help fight climate change by slowing population growth, experts said
on Friday.
More than 200 million women worldwide want contraceptives, but don't
have access to them, according to an editorial published in the
British medical journal, Lancet. That results in 76 million unintended
pregnancies every year.
If those women had access to free condoms or other birth control
methods, that could slow rates of population growth, possibly easing
the pressure on the environment, the editors say.
"There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between
population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and
climate change," the commentary says.
In countries with access to condoms and other contraceptives, average
family sizes tend to fall significantly within a generation. Until
recently, many US-funded health programs did not pay for or encourage
condom use in poor countries, even to fight diseases such as AIDS.
The world's population is projected to jump to 9 billion by 2050, with
more than 90% of that growth coming from developing countries.
It's not the first time lifestyle issues have been tied to the battle
against global warming. Climate change experts have previously
recommended that people cut their meat intake to slow global warming
by reducing the numbers of animals using the world's resources.
The Lancet editorial cited a British report which says family planning
is five times cheaper than usual technologies used to fight climate
change. According to the report, each $7 spent on basic family
planning would slash global carbon dioxide emissions by more than 1
ton.
Experts believe that while normal population growth is unlikely to
significantly increase global warming that overpopulation in
developing countries could lead to increased demand for food and
shelter, which could jeopardize the environment as it struggles with
global warming.
chhotemianinshallah
'The Age of Stupid': A wakeup call on climate
19 Sep 2009, 1112 hrs IST, AFP
PARIS: Could we, the human race, really miss an ever-narrowing chance
to save the planet from the ravages of global warming?
"The Age of Stupid," which will be screened in hundreds of venues
around the world next week, contemplates this grim scenario with the
open aim of galvanizing a collective effort to prevent it.
Former UN chief Kofi Annan is expected to attend a special "green
carpet" showing in New York Monday, on the eve of the world's first
United Nation's climate summit.
The film is a serious documentary dressed up as a futuristic climate
thriller, with a few bits of animation thrown in to help explain the
underlying science.
The story is told in the voice of an ageing archivist -- played by A-
list British actor Pete Postlethwaite -- looking back from the year
2055 on a world devastated by climate catastrophe.
Ensconced in a sea-bound tower harbouring a complete digital record of
human history, the sadder and wiser archivist pulls up image files
that tell the story of real, flesh-and-blood people profiled by the
filmmaker, Franny Armstrong.
"We could have saved ourselves, but we didn't. It's amazing. What
state of mind were we in, to face extinction and simply shrug it
off?", Postlethwaite's character says with a flash of anger.
Gazing back to our time, he details the lives of six people whose
stories intersect with global warming in different ways: a dirt-poor,
aspiring medical student from Nigeria's oil rich Niger Delta; a young
business scion starting up India's third "low cost" airline; a pair of
child refugees from the war in Iraq.
We meet 37-year-old Piers Guy, struggling vainly against the
opposition of his neighbors in the English countryside of Cornwall to
a windfarm that could power several thousand households.
And then there is 82-year old Fernand Parau, a French mountain guide
who has watched Alpine glaciers retreat dozens of metres over his long
career.
The movie's title comes from a retired oil company scientist in New
Orleans, thinking out loud as to how future generations might look
back our era if we fail to reign in global warming.
"The Age of Stupid" (www.ageofstupid.com) will be broadcast on Monday
in more than 400 US theaters.
And on Tuesday, the film -- translated by volunteers into 32 languages
-- will be seen in over 60 countries in locations ranging from the
futuristic Geode in Paris to an open-air screen in Vanatu, a South
Pacific island nation at risk of being wiped off the map by rising sea
levels.
Organisers say more than 200,000 people across the globe will watch
the film, which premiered in Britain earlier this year.
The movie's modest 450,000-pound (500,000-euro, 735,000-dollar) budget
was financed entirely through "crowd funding," explained Armstrong.
"It is a simple concept: basically, 228 people invested between 500
and 35,000 pounds, and they all own a percentage of the profit," she
said in a phone interview.
Armstrong's aims are clear: to help turn up the volume of public
pressure ahead of a make-or-break UN conference in Copenhagen in
December charged with delivering a planet-saving climate treaty.
She points to other grassroots initiatives that have led to major
changes: the US civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam War protests,
investment boycotts that helped unravel South Africa's aparthied
regime.
Science is clear on what needs to be done, she says: keep global
temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times, and make sure greenhouse
gas emissions peak no later than 2015.
"Every generation that come before us did not know about the problem,
and for every generation that follows, it will be too late for them to
do anything," she said. "So it comes down to our generation."
"We have the potential to do it, the only question that remains is
whether or not we are going to give it a try," she added.
chhotemianinshallah
Arctic ice melts to third-smallest area on record
18 Sep 2009, 1101 hrs IST, REUTERS
LOS ANGELES: The Arctic's sea ice pack thawed to its third-lowest
summer level on record, up slightly from the seasonal melt of the past
two years, but continuing an overall decline symptomatic of climate
change, US scientists said.
The range of ocean remaining frozen over the northern polar region
reached its minimum extent for 2009 on September 12, when it covered
5.1 million square km, and now appears to be growing again as the
Arctic starts its annual cool-down, the National Snow and Ice Data
Center reported.
The level falls 20 per cent below the 30-year average minimum ice
cover for the Arctic summer since satellites began measuring it in
1979, and 24 per cent less than the 1979-2000 average, the Colorado-
based government agency said.
This summer's minimum represents a loss about about two-thirds of the
sea ice measured at the height of Arctic winter in March. By
comparison, the Arctic ice shelf typically shrank by a little more
than half each summer during the 1980s and 1990s, ice scientist Walt
Meier said.
The lowest point on record was reached in September 2007, and the 2009
minimum ranks as the third smallest behind last year's level. But
scientists said they do not consider the slight upward fluctuation
again this summer to be a recovery. The difference was attributed to
relatively cooler temperatures this summer compared with the two
previous years. Winds also tended to disperse the ice pack over a
larger region, scientists said. "The long-term decline in summer
extent is expected to continue in future years," the report said.
The US government findings were in line with measurements reported
separately by the 'Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center' in
Norway, which reported this summer's minimum ice extent at just under
5 million square km.
Scientists regard the Arctic and its sea ice as among the most
sensitive barometers of global warming because even small temperature
changes make a huge difference. "If you go from a degree below
freezing to 2 degrees above freezing, that's a completely different
environment in the polar region," Meier said. "You're going from ice
skating to swimming. Whereas if you're on a tropical beach and it's 3
degrees warmer, you probably wouldn't even notice it."
World leaders will meet at the United Nations in New York on Tuesday
to discuss a climate treaty due to be agreed on in December.
Scientists have voiced concern for years about the alarming decline in
the size of the Arctic ice cap, which functions as a giant air
conditioner for the planet's climate system as it reflects sunlight
back into space.
As a greater portion of the ice melts, larger expanses of darker sea
water are exposed, absorbing more sunlight and adding to the global
warming effect attributed to rising levels of heat-trapping greenhouse
gases emitted into the atmosphere by human activity.
Scientists also have measured a thinning of the frozen seas, as older,
thicker ice more resilient to warming temperatures gives way to
younger, thinner layers that melt more easily in summer. Scientists
monitor Antarctic sea ice as well, but the Arctic is considered a more
critical gauge of climate change because more of the northern sea ice
remains frozen through the summer
chhotemianinshallah
Global warming might lead to deadly tsunamis hitting Britain
16 Sep 2009, 1157 hrs IST, ANI
LONDON: Some of the world's top geologists have warned that if global
temperatures continue to rise, Britain might see deadly tsunamis -
like those
that have hit Asia - head towards it in the future.
According to a report by Sky News, geologists have warned of tsunamis
in Britain to huge avalanches in the Alps and volcanic eruptions in
Germany, if global warming continues to rise.
They say that evidence from the past reveals that times of dramatic
climatic change are characterized by heightened geological activity.
For example, 10,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, melting
ice and rising sea levels triggered a significant rise in volcanic
activity.
Professor Bill McGuire, Director of the Benfield Hazard Research
Centre at UCL, warned earth's future could be explosive.
"Climate change is very doom and gloom I'm afraid and it's one of
those problems that the closer we look at it the worst it seems to
get," he told Sky News Online.
"If you want some faint glint of good news from this I suppose that if
we see a big volcanic response, the gases pumped into the atmosphere
will cool things down at least temporarily, but that's not
recommended," he said.
Other experts warn that disintegrating glaciers could cause
earthquakes, triggering tsunamis off Chile, New Zealand and Canada,
perhaps even sending one across the Atlantic capable of reaching
British shores.
"If the temperatures warm and the oceans warm then the hydrates at the
sea bed will melt," said Professor David Tappin of the British
Geological Survey.
"They will melt catastrophically and in doing so, they'll be forced
into the atmosphere but also, they will create submarine landslides
which could trigger a tsunami," he added.
chhotemianinshallah
4.5 million children could die without climate aid: Oxfam
16 Sep 2009, 1015 hrs IST, AFP
LONDON: At least 4.5 million children could die if wealthy nations
fail to provide more funds to help impoverished countries combat
global warming, development charity Oxfam warned today.
The organisation said in a report it was concerned that industrialised
nations would take money out of existing funds dedicated to economic
development in order to help poor countries battle climate change.
"With only Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK in support of
additional funds, Oxfam is concerned that December's climate
negotiations in Copenhagen could fail, unless action is taken now by
Heads of State," it said.
World leaders will meet in Denmark in December to negotiate a new
climate pact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global
warming.
Funds to help the world's poorest nations develop an environmentally-
friendly economy and adapt to the consequences of global warming are
major issues to be negotiated in the Danish capital December 7-18.
In a report titled "Beyond Aid," Oxfam warned that 75 million fewer
children are likely to go to school and 8.6 million less people could
have access to AIDS treatment if aid is diverted to the fight against
climate change.
"Forcing poor countries to choose between life saving drugs for the
sick, schooling for their children or the means to protect themselves
against climate change is an unfair burden that will only exacerbate
poverty," said Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam Great
Britain.
chhotemianinshallah
US Interior Dept. gets ready for global warming
15 Sep 2009, 0837 hrs IST, AP
WASHINGTON: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar moved Monday to prepare US
parks, refuges and endangered species for the onslaught of global
warming.
Salazar signed an order setting up a Climate Change Response Council
and eight regional response centers to study and respond to such
issues as rising sea levels threatening to swamp historic structures
and warmer temperatures shifting where wildlife live.
The order also commits the Interior Department to develop a plan to
reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions, including setting a firm
target.
"The realities of climate change require us to change how we
manage...the resources we oversee," the order reads.
Earlier this year, Salazar directed the Interior Department, which
manages one-fifth of the US landmass, to jumpstart renewable energy
development. Monday's action builds on that effort by launching a
project to develop ways to store carbon dioxide, the most prevalent
greenhouse gas, on park, refuge, and tribal lands.
Carbon dioxide could be stored by pumping it underground, or by
conserving or growing more trees and grasses to absorb it.
Environmentalists lauded the action Monday, saying that it sent a
signal that climate change was a top priority.
"Secretary Salazar deserves praise for recognizing that climate change
waits for no one, and that the impacts of global warming on our public
land and water resources could be very widespread and very serious,"
said Bill Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society.
chhotemianinshallah
Greenland's melt mystery unfolds, at glacial pace
11 Sep 2009, 1651 hrs IST, AP
HELHEIM GLACIER, Greenland: Suddenly and without warning, the gigantic
river of ice sped up, causing it to spit icebergs ever faster into the
ocean off southeastern Greenland.
The Helheim Glacier nearly doubled its speed in just a few years,
flowing through a rift in the barren coastal mountains at a stunning
100 feet (30 meters) per day.
Alarm bells rang as the pattern was repeated by glaciers across
Greenland: Was the island's vast ice sheet, a frozen water reservoir
that could raise the sea level 20 feet (6 meters) if disgorged, in
danger of collapse?
Half a decade later, there's a little bit of good news, and a lot of
uncertainty.
"It does seem that the very rapid speeds were only sustained for a
short period of time, although none of these glaciers have returned to
the 'normal' flow speeds yet," says Gordon Hamilton, a glaciologist
from the University of Maine who's clocked Helheim's rapid advance
using GPS receivers on site since 2005.
Understanding why Greenland's glaciers accelerated so abruptly in the
first half of the decade, and whether they are now slowing down, is
crucial to the larger question of how fast sea levels will rise as the
planet warms.
The issue has gained urgency as scientists rush to supply their latest
findings in time for negotiations on a new global climate pact, set
for December in Copenhagen.
Scientists say the Greenland ice sheet, which is up to 2 miles (3
kilometers) thick and covers an area almost the size of Mexico, is
losing about 7 billion cubic feet (200 million cubic meters) of ice a
year, the equivalent of 80,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
That means snowfall on top of the ice sheet is not enough to replace
what is lost through surface melting and ice chucked out in the fjords
by faster-flowing glaciers. In the process, sea levels rise as
towering icebergs plunge into the Atlantic Ocean and displace water,
much like an ice cube dropped into a drink.
The dynamics of the ice sheet on Greenland, and the much larger ones
on Antarctica, were not included in sea level rise projections by the
UN expert panel on climate change in 2007 because the phenomenon was
poorly mapped at the time.
The picture of what happened in Greenland is just starting to come
together, and scientists are still in the dark about how the
underlying causes were set in motion, how much was owed to natural
variances and how much to man's tinkering with the global climate
system.
"This is like medical science in the 15th century," says David
Holland, director of the Center for Atmosphere Ocean Science at New
York University. "It's going to take a while to find out what's going
on with the patient here."
The most popular explanation is that the patient, Greenland's ice
sheet, contracted its ailment not from warmer air, but a warmer
ocean.
Scientists earlier believed that the biggest factor for the faster
flow speeds was meltwater seeping down to the base of the glaciers,
lubricating the bedrock. They're now shifting attention to ocean
currents believed to have sent pulses of warmer water from southern
latitudes to Greenland's glacial fjords.
Holland found that such water was reaching the edge of western
Greenland's biggest glacier, the Sermeq Kujalleq. A team led by Fiamma
Stranneo, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in
Massachusetts, made a similar discovery last month with probes plunged
into the chilly depths of Sermilik fjord, where the Helheim Glacier
ends.
``We've had a confirmation that the waters are really coming up to the
glacier,'' Stranneo says, her voice nearly drowned by engine noise
aboard the Arctic Sunrise, a Greenpeace ship that offered her a chance
to test her hypothesis. ``This is the first time that we've seen it in
these southeast glacial fjords.''
In July, the world's oceans were the warmest in almost 130 years of
record-keeping. Meteorologists say a combination of factors are at
work, including a natural El Nino system, man-made global warming and
a dash of random weather.
Coinciding with the shrinking of sea ice on the North Pole and the
thawing of the Arctic permafrost, the discovery of Greenland's runaway
glaciers earlier this decade raised a sense of urgency among
scientists studying the impact of climate change on the frozen north.
It has also been used by advocacy groups like Greenpeace to stress the
importance of reaching a deal in Copenhagen to limit global greenhouse
emissions.
The UN's top climate official, Yvo de Boer, said Friday that
negotiations on fighting climate change are moving so slowly that it
will be impossible to reach a comprehensive deal by December. He said
the Copenhagen meeting should aim instead to agree on ``key
cornerstones'' of emissions cuts and how to finance them.
Even a partial melt of the ice sheet could have a big impact on sea
levels, with dire consequences for low-lying areas from Florida to
Bangladesh.
The 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
projects a sea level rise of 7 to 24 inches (20 to 60 centimeters)
this century. Adding the potential impact of ice sheets in Greenland
and Antarctica, many scientists have estimated the rise will be
double.
``It doesn't sound like a lot, but it's an important difference by the
way you sort of deal with that issue,'' says Hamilton, taking a break
from his GPS measurements on a plateau overlooking Helheim's styrofoam-
like bed of jagged ice. “How you engineer for a sea level rise of 30
centimeters is quite different as to how you would ... deal with a sea
level rise of 1 meter.''
His latest measurements indicate that Helheim is flowing at 6.5 miles
(10.5 kilometers) per year, slightly down from its peak in 2005 but
still 50 percent faster than its normal pace.
Other researchers say some, but not all, of Greenland's glaciers have
shown similar slowdowns in recent years, suggesting that a sudden,
dramatic increase in flow speeds may not be such a cataclysmic and
irregular phenomenon after all.
Still, the flows remain fast enough to yield a net loss of mass from
the ice sheet. And if the world continues to warm, sudden spurts of
glacial acceleration may become more frequent, draining the inland ice
until it, eventually, collapses.
chhotemianinshallah
Warming turns global poor's staple into poison
11 Sep 2009, 1332 hrs IST, IANS
SYDNEY: Cassava - the staple of 750 million impoverished people in
Africa, Asia and Latin America - is turning more toxic with much
smaller yields, thanks to global warming and carbon levels.
Monash University researcher Ros Gleadow and her team tested cassava
and sorghum under a series of climate change scenarios to study the
effect on plant nutritional quality and yield.
Both species belong to a group of plants that produce chemicals called
cyanogenic glycosides, which break down to release lethal cyanide gas
if the leaves are crushed or chewed.
The team grew cassava and sorghum at three different levels of CO2;
just below today's current atmospheric levels at 360 parts per million
(ppm), at 550 ppm and double at 710 ppm. Current levels in the air are
approximately 390 ppm.
"What we found was the amount of cyanide relative to the amount of
protein increased," Gleadow said.
"At double current CO2 levels, the level of toxin was much higher
while protein levels fell. The ability of people and herbivores, such
as cattle, to break down the cyanide depends largely on eating
sufficient protein."
"Anyone largely reliant on cassava for food, particularly during
drought, would be especially at risk of cyanide poisoning."
"While it was possible to use processing techniques to reduce the
level of toxin in the cassava leaves, it was the 50 percent or greater
drop in the number of tubers that caused most concern," Gleadow said,
according to a Monash release.
"Reducing carbon emissions wouldn't be a bad idea either," Gleadow
said. The findings underscore the need to develop new cultivars to
feed rapidly growing human populations.
The findings were published in Plant Biology.
Sid Harth
Obama says US 'determined' to act on climate change
STAFF WRITER 20:28 HRS IST
United Nations, Sept 22 (PTI) President Barack Obama today said the US
was "determined to act" to mitigate the effects of global warming but
pressed developing nations to "do their part as well" to curb carbon
emissions.
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to
act and we will meet our responsibility to future generations," Obama
said in his maiden address at the United Nations after taking over as
president in January.
He pointed out that no country alone can meet the challenges on
climate change but warned there would be tough talking ahead of the
Copenhagen climate change conference in December.
"There should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is
in front of us," the US president said, while addressing a gathering
of 100 world leaders at the UN climate change summit.
Sid Harth
Ind is planning aggressive cuts in emissions: Ramesh
STAFF WRITER 16:11 HRS IST
London, Sept 22 (PTI) India is planning "aggressive" cuts in emissions
in a time-bound manner but the country will not compromise on its
target to achieve eight per cent economic growth a year, Indian
environment minister Jairam Ramesh has said.
"India is going to aggressively take on voluntary mitigation outcomes
and we are now going to go for domestic legislation which will
enshrine some targets," Ramesh said.
The target includes, a mandatory fuel efficiency cap which will come
into place in 2011, an energy efficient building code which will come
into effect in 2012 and an increase in electricity produced from
renewable sources to 20 per cent by 2020.
"What India is going to do is to set a target date which is 2020 and
introduce a quantitative outcome which is an implicit mitigation
target -- not explicit target.
Sid Harth
India against negotiating climate change deal
Sep 19 2009 20:57 hrs IST Bookmark/Search this post with:
By KA Badarinath
India has taken the position that G-20, an informal forum of the
world’s largest economies born out of the financial markets crisis
triggered in the US, cannot substitute the United Nations Framework on
Climate Change (UNFCC) for clinching a deal on carbon emissions
reduction.
At the G-20 summit in Pittsburg next week, New Delhi would push for
immediate reforms in the international financial institutions such as
IMF and World Bank, strong regulatory package to monitor financial
markets and institutionalising the Financial Stability Board.
“G-20 cannot be negotiating conditionalities, funding and technology
transfer issues relating to climate change. It cannot be a substitute
to UNFCC,” foreign secretary Nirupama Rao said on Saturday.
Rao said the proposals of France and Germany on climate change should
be discussed at UNFCC summit at Copenhagen in December 2009.
She pointed to India’s commitment not to increase its per capita
carbon emission levels beyond the prevailing 1.1 tonnes as against 20
tonnes prevailing in US and 10 tonnes in most other countries.
“We expect a rule-based, equitable regime on climate change” Rao said.
She urged the developed countries to be more ambitious on cutting
carbon emissions.
India has also pointed to the possible adverse impact on the toiling
masses in developing countries in case a non-equitable climate change
pact is thrust on them.
At the recent London conclave of G-20 finance ministers, developed
countries led by US and the European Union (read France and Germany)
attempted to push for a ‘climate change deal’ sans any binding
commitment on technology transfer and funding arrangements. The
attempt was resisted by Brazil, Russia, China and India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is heading a high-level delegation to
the US to participate in the Pittsburgh summit. His sherpa, or main
aide, would continue to be deputy chairman of planning commission
Montek Singh Ahluwalia. National security advisor M.K.Narayanan and
foreign secretary will also be part of the delegation.
The Indian team is going to Pittsburgh with an ‘open mind’ and expects
world leaders, including US President Barack Obama, to take a long-
term view on the impact of financial markets turmoil that led to
economic recession.
“G-20 leaders are expected review and take stock of the situation.
They are likely to take a long-term view on impact of stimulus
measures”, Rao said.
“These measures will have to ultimately lead to early revival of
private capital inflows, external demand for goods and services and
pick up of exports for countries like India” Rao said.
“Our expectations are not spectacular on outcomes from Pittsburgh
summit”, the foreign secretary said.
“We do believe that a strong political message will be sent across for
economic stimulus, growth and poverty alleviation,” she said. This
should be possible with the implementation of the $ 1.1-trillion
stimulus measures announced at the London summit of G-20 in April.
chhotemianinshallah
We must act immediately to address climate change, says Pachauri
September 23, 2009 02:32 IST
Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri, who is head of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on Tuesday made an
impassioned appeal to over 100 heads of states and governments to act
urgently to mitigate green house gas emission in order to save the
planet.
"If those in this august gathering do not act on time, all of us would
become leaders and citizens of failed states," Pachauri said while
addressing the Climate Change conference at the United Nations.
Reeling out statistics on how the absence of mitigation will ruin the
planet's natural resources and create environmental disaster such as
increasing frequency of hot extremes and heat waves, a rise in sea
level and increasing tropical storms, Pachauri called for adopting
concrete mitigation policies by all countries.
He said the humankind would be failing in its sacred duties to protect
this planet that gives lives to all species if it does not act now.
Noting that mitigation of emission is essential, Pachauri said the
cost of the mitigation by 2030 will not be more than 3 percent of the
world's GDP. In other words, he said, the so-called prosperity
expected in 2030 would be postponed just by a few months.
He also drew the attention of the delegates to the benefits that
mitigation carries, including larger employment and health benefits
and stable agricultural production.
"Science leaves us with no space for inaction now," he said.
Earlier UN Secretary General said pressed the world leaders at the
largest ever gathering on climate change to speed up their action on
global warming and preserve the planet for future generations.
"Climate change is the pre-eminent geopolitical and economic issue of
the 21st century," he stressed. "It rewrites the global equation for
development, peace and security," he added.
The Secretary-General countered claims that addressing global warming
comes at too high a price tag. "They are wrong. The opposite is true.
We will pay an unacceptable price if we do not act now," he said.
He urged developed nations to take the first steps forward, with
developing nations also needing to make strides. "All countries must
do more – now," he added.
Image: Rajendra Pachauri speaking at the UN conference on climate
change
Photograph: Jay Mandal
Suman Guha Mozumder in New York
chhotemianinshallah
The G-20's empty promises
September 22, 2009 10:09 IST
It would be futile to believe G-20's promises to rein in monetary and
fiscal policies, writes Martin Feldstein.
Talk about "exit strategies" will be high on the agenda when the heads
of the G-20 countries gather in Pittsburgh a few days from now. They
will promise to reverse the explosive monetary and fiscal expansion of
the past two years, to do it neither too soon nor too late, and to do
it in a coordinated way.
These are the right things to promise. But what will such promises
mean?
Consider first the goal of reversing the monetary expansion, which is
necessary to avoid a surge of inflation when aggregate demand begins
to pick up. But it is also important not to do it too soon, which
might stifle today's nascent and very fragile recovery.
But promises by heads of government mean little, given that central
banks are explicitly independent of government control in every
important country. The US Federal Reserve's Ben Bernanke, the Bank of
England's [ Images ] Mervyn King, and the European Central Bank's Jean-
Claude Trichet will each decide when and how to reverse their
expansionary monetary policies. Bernanke doesn't take orders from the
US president, and King doesn't take orders from the British prime
minister (and it's not even clear who would claim to tell Trichet what
to do).
So the political promises in Pittsburgh about monetary policy are
really just statements of governments' confidence that their
countries' respective monetary authorities will act in appropriate
ways.
That will be particularly challenging for Bernanke. Although the
Federal Reserve is technically independent and not accountable to the
President, it is a creation of the US Congress and accountable to it.
Because of the lagged effects of monetary policy and the need to
manage expectations, early tightening by the Fed would be appropriate.
But the unemployment rate could be over 9 per cent - and possibly even
more than 10 - when it begins to act. If so, can we really expect
Congress not to object?
In fact, Congress might tell the Fed that it should wait until there
are clear signs of inflation and a much lower unemployment rate.
Because Congress determines the Fed's regulatory powers and approves
the appointments of its seven governors, Bernanke will have to listen
to it carefully - heightening the risk of delayed tightening and
rising inflation.
Reversing the upsurge in fiscal deficits is also critical to the
global economy's health. While the fiscal stimulus packages enacted in
the past two years have been helpful in achieving the current rise in
economic activity, the path of future deficits can do substantial
damage to long-run growth.
In the US, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that
President Barack Obama's [ Images ] proposed policies would cause the
federal government's fiscal deficit to exceed 5 per cent of GDP in
2019, even after a decade of continuous economic growth. And the
deficits run up during the intervening decade would cause the national
debt to double, rising to more than 80 per cent of GDP.
Such large fiscal deficits would mean that the government must borrow
funds that would otherwise be available for private businesses to
finance investment in productivity-enhancing plant and equipment.
Without that investment, economic growth will be slower and the
standard of living lower than it would otherwise be. Moreover, the
deficits would mean higher interest rates and continued international
imbalances.
In contrast to monetary policy, the US president does have a powerful
and direct impact on future fiscal deficits. If the presidential
promise to reduce the fiscal deficit was really a commitment to cut
spending and raise taxes, we could see today's dangerous deficit
trajectory be reversed.
Unfortunately, Obama shows no real interest in reducing deficits. The
centrepiece of his domestic agenda is a healthcare plan that will cost
more than a trillion dollars over the next decade, and that he
proposes to finance by reducing waste in the existing government
health programmes (Medicare and Medicaid) without reducing the
quantity and quality of services.
A second major policy thrust is a cap-and-trade system to reduce
carbon emissions. But, instead of raising revenue by auctioning the
emission permits, Obama has agreed to distribute them without charge
to favoured industries in order to attract enough congressional votes.
Add to this the pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than
$250,000 and you have a recipe for large fiscal deficits as long as
this president can serve. I hope that the other G-20 leaders do a
better job of reining in their budgets.
Finally, there is the G-20's promise to reduce monetary and fiscal
excesses in an internationally coordinated way. While the meaning of
"coordinated" has not been spelled out, it presumably implies that the
national exit strategies should not lead to significant changes in
exchange rates that would upset existing patterns of trade.
In fact, however, exchange rates will change - and need to change in
order to shrink the existing trade imbalances. The dollar, in
particular, is likely to continue falling on a trade-weighted basis if
investors around the world continue to set aside the extreme risk-
aversion that caused the dollar's rise after 2007.
Once the Chinese are confident about their domestic growth rate, they
can allow the real value of the renminbi to rise. Other exchange rates
will respond to these shifts.
In short, it would be wrong for investors or ordinary citizens around
the world to have too much faith in G-20's promises to rein in
monetary and fiscal policies, much less to do so in a coordinated way.
The author, a professor of economics at Harvard, was Chairman of
President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors and President
of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
Martin Feldstein
chhotemianinshallah
India Weighing Emissions Curbs
Proposed Legislation Signals Shift, Aims at Bolstering Image
7 Comments
By Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, September 24, 2009
NEW DELHI -- Trying to burnish its international reputation as it
prepares for a major climate conference, India is considering adoption
of curbs on carbon emissions that it has long resisted.
India had thus far rejected emission cuts, declaring that they would
compromise the populous nation's economic growth, even as developed
countries criticized its intransigence. But under a proposed national
law, India may set limits on greenhouse gas emissions over the coming
decade, focusing on energy efficiency, new building codes, clean
energy and fuel economy standards.
India's leadership hopes that by acting on its own, rather than
responding to what are likely to be tough demands from other countries
during the December climate conference in Copenhagen, the measures
will garner more domestic support.
"We have to take up bold new responsibilities that we have evaded so
far," Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, said at a recent
trade conference. "But if we want durable political consensus, then it
has to be rooted in domestic legislation and not in an international
agreement."
The cuts would be a national goal; they would be neither an
internationally binding commitment nor open to international
verification. Still, Ramesh said he hoped that the measures would
portray India as a "positive player" in climate talks.
India's emerging economic might and global ambitions are nudging Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh, an Oxford-educated economist, to be more
mindful of the nation's image. His aides say he wants India to engage
with the world in a way that befits its aspiration to be a permanent
member of the U.N. Security Council and have greater say in the
running of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
"India does not want to be the global bad boy in international
negotiations. We don't want to be blamed as the stumbling block
anymore," said Tarun Das, head of the Confederation of Indian
Industry, who works closely with the Indian government. "I believe the
mandate from the prime minister is 'Deal, don't break,' whether it is
international trade or climate change negotiations. He believes that
India should not be locked up in the old-world fears any longer. What
is there to be afraid of?"
The new resolve was visible last month when the Indian government
convened a meeting of key trade officials from 30 countries to restart
global talks that broke down in July 2008 over the issues of farm
subsidies and import tariffs. Many Western nations blamed India for
the collapse of the negotiations, upsetting Singh.
"He did not want India to become the lightning rod for international
criticism," said Sanjaya Baru, a former spokesman for the prime
minister.
Coal meets about 60 percent of India's power needs, and the country is
ranked fifth in the production of greenhouse gas emissions. India,
which has more than 1 billion people and a rapidly expanding economy,
has argued that its per-capita emissions are a tenth of those in the
United States and that the bigger polluters should cut first.
"The prime minister feels the arguments that worked two years ago may
not work anymore," said an aide to Singh, speaking on the condition of
anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter
publicly. "We will not barter away our national interest, but we can
afford to make marginal adjustments."
Singh's new confidence that he will win political support among
Indians comes from the majorities his party won in recent elections,
freeing his government of its five-year-old dependence on Communist
allies who refused international concessions.
India took its first step toward more cooperation on carbon emissions
two months ago, at the Major Economies Forum in Italy, when it signed
on to a declaration to cap the average global temperature at 2 degrees
above preindustrialization levels.
But India also has long said that richer nations must assist poorer
ones with the cost of mitigating climate change. Not expecting any
financial assistance to be offered at the Copenhagen summit, the New
Delhi government is not prepared to have its new efforts at reducing
emissions overseen by other countries.
"The goals we set will not be open to international verification,
because there does not seem to be any money on the table for us at
Copenhagen," said Ajay Mathur, director general of India's Bureau of
Energy Efficiency. "But Copenhagen need not fail. We can still go for
the low-hanging fruit by agreeing on joint development of new
technologies. That builds goodwill between nations."
NoWeCant wrote:
Arm twisting poor third world countries to placate western tree
huggers is "fairness" in the western hemisphere and "imperialism" in
the rest. Liberalism.
9/24/2009 1:13:35 AM
Recommend (2)
rbrtfis wrote:
You are informed of the below in keeping with the Board of Regents of
the University of California Code of Ethics
regarding the Alumni's Duties and Responsibilities to the PEOPLE of
the State of California (1983)
Both the State of California Air Resources Board and the California
Energy Commission infamous for their "snail pace" in the
implementation of global warming curbs continue to drag their feet and
refuse to adopt "some emergency regulations" in the "Low Carbon Fuel
Standard Program."
For example, instead of adopting proven fuels that work, such as, CNG/
LNG emergency regulations for light private passenger vehicles
(consumer autos), it appears that said agencies are waiting for the
mass production of hybrid, electric and hydrogen vehicles, which could
take years.
Unfortunately, planet earth does not have years to wait, according to
global warming scientists, as evidenced in the article below:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090923/sc_nm/us_climate_antarctica
cc: Governor Arnold Swartzeneggar
by:
Robert E. Fisher, Master of Social Welfare, 1971
The University of California at Los Angeles
Former City of Los Angeles Legislative Analyst/Rep to
the California Coastal Commission 1974-79
9/24/2009 1:10:55 AM
Recommend (1)
dvsikka wrote:
India is so corrupt that it would not be possible to implement any
such rules.
9/24/2009 12:36:30 AM
Recommend (3)
A1965bigdog wrote:
Repeat after me: The Albore Gorebal Whining thing is a croc!!!
VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
9/24/2009 12:34:09 AM
Recommend (0)
jayrkay wrote:
sir, this article written by Wheelan, strangely he is keeping quiet-
does not answer any email and from Chicago, may be his life ate stake.
I hope this gets posted, for the sake of Mr.Wheelan, this more than an
year old
9/23/2009 10:49:48 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
jayrkay wrote:
there was an article in one of the economic issues- The Times of
India, Sept 23, regarding out-sourcing. Here is an article written by
Charles wheelan, economist from where- Chicago,IL-
Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. The Naked Economist
Skills Deficit Makes 'Creating Jobs' a Pipe Dream
Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008, 12:00AM
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/63874;_ylt=Apc3P2b.yWBr6i.0wNsKBRe7YWsA
I have a naïve request for the balance of the presidential campaign: I
don't want to hear any candidate say one more thing about "creating
jobs" or "bringing back jobs" or doing anything with the word "jobs"
in it.
That might seem strange at a time when the economy is teetering on the
brink of recession, and has eclipsed Iraq as the No. 1 issue on many
voters' minds.
Here's my reason: Other than during the depths of the Great
Depression, the government doesn't "create jobs." (World War II
created most of the jobs then anyway, and I'm not sure that's the
direction we should go.) Instead, a sensible government should help to
create a skilled workforce and a decent business climate. If it does
that, the jobs will take care of themselves.
Skills Gone South
To appreciate this distinction, consider two thought experiments.
Here's the first one:
1. How many different jobs could you find in the next six or eight
months if you had to? Not perfect jobs, but places where you could get
hired and earn a salary reasonably close to what you're earning now.
I suspect this answer is going to vary widely among the people reading
this column. For a star pediatric heart surgeon, the answer might be
10; every major children's hospital would love to have him or her on
staff. For an unemployed autoworker in Michigan, the answer is zero --
or else he wouldn't be unemployed.
The crucial point is that unemployment and low wages are not a
function of too few jobs, as most politicians would have you believe.
They're a function of too few skills.
Joblessness in Context
We're used to hearing about the unemployment rate, which climbed to 5
percent in December. Even that figure is somewhat misleading, though,
because there's extraordinary variance by education level. According
to the most recent data from the Department of Labor, the unemployment
rate is:
• 8.2 percent for high school dropouts.
• 4.7 percent for high school graduates with no college.
• 3.7 percent for workers with an associate's degree or some college.
• 2 percent for workers with a bachelor's degree and higher.
See the pattern?
Not Everybody's an A-Rod
Here's the second thought experiment, which gets at the heart of
trade, outsourcing, and related causes of employment anxiety:
2. In December, the New York Yankees signed Alex Rodriguez to a 10-
year, $275 million contract with a $30 million bonus if he breaks the
all-time home run record. Why didn't the Yankees hire a Chinese or
Indian worker who would take the job for $500 a year, with a free
moped for breaking the home run record?
Because there's not a person in all of China or India (that we know
of) who can hit a baseball like A-Rod. The Yankees can hire lots of
people cheaper, but they won't get the job done. Rodriguez can command
a unique salary because he has unique skills. The same is true
everywhere else in the economy, albeit to a less extreme degree than
in professional sports.
There's a crucial link between pay and productivity. Your job can't be
outsourced if there's not someone in China or India or Vietnam capable
of doing the same thing for less. Of course, the primary driver of
productivity is education, broadly construed. That means everything
from preschool education to highly specific skills learned on the job.
A Clear Distinction
That's why I find it both puzzling and frustrating to hear politicians
talk so much more about jobs than skills. The sad fact is that if a
modern automobile plant came to Flint, Mich., most of the unemployed
workers there wouldn't have the right skills to get hired.
Could they write the software to run the automated assembly process?
Do they have experience with hybrids and other green technologies that
will be at the core of the next generation of vehicles? No one is
going to get paid an above-average wage to screw bolts on an engine
block. That's something that can be done cheaply just about anywhere
else in the world.
This distinction between jobs and skills may seem like a semantic
point; it's not. It's at the core of what constitutes good economic
policy. Politicians who chase jobs tend to favor offering subsidies to
attract or retain big employers. They favor making it more difficult
to move jobs overseas and to buy foreign products and services. They
view the world as having a fixed number of jobs that must be protected
using government resources -- money that could otherwise be spent on
programs that actual.
9/23/2009 10:44:57 PM
Recommend (1)
TheInsaneMoon wrote:
I think it's pretty rich that we're criticizing countries like India,
which have per capita emissions that are a tiny fraction of ours. No
one was bullying us when we industrialized, but now that developing
countries are finally starting to grow, the good old US of A suddenly
starts caring about greenhouse gas emissions? Sigh!
9/23/2009 10:43:49 PM
Recommend (4)
chhotemianinshallah
Obama asks more economic balance from G-20 nations
PHOTOS
President Barack Obama is the last one to leave the room after his
meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Wednesday, Sept. 23,
2009, in New York. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) (Charles Dharapak -
AP)
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks as United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki-Moon, left, listens before offering a toast at a luncheon
during the United Nations General Assembly, Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2009.
(AP Photo/Henny Ray Abrams) (Henny Ray Abrams - AP)
By CHARLES BABINGTON
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 24, 2009; 9:34 AM
PITTSBURGH -- With the world's major economies having stepped back
from the brink of a devastating meltdown, President Barack Obama comes
to a global summit here pushing a slimmed-down agenda designed to
prevent a repeat of the conditions that caused such panic a few months
ago.
Obama will tell world leaders that the global economy cannot
continually rely on huge borrowing and spending by Americans and
massive exports by countries such as China.
In informal chats and fancy receptions at the two-day summit beginning
Thursday, the buzz words will be "balanced and sustainable."
Obama gave a hint of the message when he spoke at the United Nations
in New York on Wednesday. He said other nations cannot "stand by and
wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. Now is the time
for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global
response to global challenges."
This is the third meeting of the Group of 20 top economies in the
aftermath of the financial crisis that plunged the world into fear a
year ago. When the G-20 met in April, the economies of the United
States and many other countries were under severe strain, and world
leaders largely agreed on common remedies such as dramatically
increased government spending to provide some stimulus.
Now, with the crisis seemingly averted, the leaders will meet in a
calmer atmosphere to discuss how best to keep reinvigorating their
economies without repeating earlier mistakes.
"This is not a trillion-dollar summit," said Mike Froman, a top
economic adviser to Obama. He told reporters the administration hopes
world leaders will agree "on a framework for balanced and sustainable
growth, a set of policies, parameters and process" that can "avoid the
sort of imbalances that contributed to this crisis."
U.S. officials expect no binding, treaty-like language. But Froman
said they hope for some type of process "for holding each other
accountable, reviewing each other's actions in much the same way that
the G-7 has done in the past in terms of focusing on each other's
economic policy frameworks."
Obama plans no one-on-one meetings with world leaders or extensive
discussions of Iran, White House officials said late Wednesday. And
Froman told reporters that "we do not expect major announcements of
new, significant financial commitments."
In that regard, the G-20 is likely to have less pizazz than did
Obama's visit to the United Nations this week.
Still, it will let him play host to an array of world leaders and
their spouses and try to nudge them closer to his thinking on climate
control, banking regulations and other matters.
Obama and his wife, Michelle, will greet their guests at a "working
dinner" Thursday at Pittsburgh's Phipps Conservatory and Botanical
Gardens.
Friday will feature group sessions on various topics, capped by an
Obama news conference.
The president has signaled plans to call for an end to extensive
government subsidies that encourage the use of fossil fuels, such as
oil, coal and natural gas, which are believed to contribute to global
warming. He will propose a gradual elimination, White House officials
said.
Many countries, including the U.S., provide tax breaks and direct
payments to help produce and use oil, coal, natural gas and other
fuels that emit carbon dioxide, a gas that traps heat in the
atmosphere.
Fast-growing industrial nations such as China and India are likely to
resist the idea.
G-20 leaders also will discuss limits on bankers' pay in hopes of
discouraging risky ventures. And the United States will support
greater influence in the International Monetary Fund by emerging
economies such as China, India and Brazil. Some European governments
complain that the move would come at their expense.
Sid Harth
Will Anarchists Reign in Pittsburgh at the G-20?
By Marty Levine / Pittsburgh Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009
Protesters call on global leaders to do more to create jobs in the
U.S. and around the world at a peaceful march in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Michelle Nichols / Reuters
The anarchists came to Pittsburgh to prepare to disrupt the G-20
summit. They quickly saw signs that made them believe that someone, or
some entity, was prepared for them too. "Obviously, repression has
already started," Pittsburgh anarchist Alex Bradley told a gathering
of anti-authoritarians — the Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project — in a
closed-door meeting on Sept. 20. Members of the group say they have
been followed, photographed, stopped and searched in the run-up to
their protests of the Group of 20 meeting of the world's leading
economic powers on Sept. 24 and 25. The 40 people in the room were
urged to write local lawyers' phone numbers on their bodies in case of
arrest.
"When these events happen, there's a huge amount of propaganda that
goes out from the state," Bradley told the group. "So a huge part of
our effort was to reach out to people. People out there are angry, and
they're angry about the same issues you're angry about." He was
referring to G-20 globalization policies that he says take advantage
of the cheapest labor markets and most vulnerable environments, which
are running roughshod, in the anarchists' view, over the 6.7 billion
people not invited to this week's meeting.
(Read about how anarchists disrupted Seattle.)
The Resistance Project has announced a Sept. 24 march on the downtown
summit site, the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, as well as
scattered actions by smaller groups on Sept. 25. Resistance has kept
its numbers and the makeup of its alliance a secret; it has also kept
mum about the specific actions that are planned for Friday's big
protest. Unlike the 11 other organizations (led by the Thomas Merton
Center’s Anti-War Committee, Three Rivers Climate Convergence and the
local chapter of Codepink) hitting the streets, the Resistance Project
has actively avoided applying for a city permit to protest and is
likely to meet, in turn, resistance from law enforcement.
(Read "Why Is the G-20 Being Held in Pittsburgh?")
One thing they probably won't encounter are citizens. Fear of
protesters is the talk of grocery and bank lines. At one point, local
media were filled with reports of surreptitious foreigners training in
a vacant building (they turned out to be a Swedish punk band on tour).
For the duration of the summit, most locals are clearing out. School
districts 10 miles away from downtown have canceled classes. Even
before the Secret Service announced its security perimeters,
businesses blocks away decided to shut down or arrange for workers to
telecommute. Several storefronts have already been boarded up. And one
downtown apartment-building owner advertised in Craigslist for ex-
military personnel to man fire hoses to guard against protest-related
vandalism.
With so much public anxiety, the city hasn't hidden its preparations
against the protests. Since the White House's selection of Pittsburgh
in May as the site for the summit, the city has said it is readying up
to 1,000 jail cells for protesters, importing 3,100 law-enforcement
officers from around the country to supplement its 900-member force
and mobilizing 2,000 National Guard troops. The city council passed
new laws (set to expire on Sept. 30) targeting the possession of
certain tools and "noxious substances" — items allegedly thrown or
used to blockade space at protests elsewhere.
The city's preparations haven't gone unchallenged. The American Civil
Liberties Union has sued Pittsburgh over the police treatment of a
Montana-based organization, Seeds of Peace Collective, which set up
mobile kitchens and delivery trucks to feed protesters for free. The
ACLU alleges that police hounded the collective from one neighborhood
to the next with a series of petty charges. While ACLU lawyers failed
to stop police action against the group, they did successfully sue to
open Pittsburgh's iconic Point State Park to groups advocating action
on climate change and women's rights.
Sid Harth
Why Is the G-20 Being Held in Pittsburgh?
By Dan Fletcher Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009
A police boat patrols the Allegheny River in preparation for the G-20
leaders meeting in Pittsburgh
Jim Young / Reuters
When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced in May that
the Obama Administration had chosen to hold the Group of 20 summit in
Pittsburgh, Pa., the press corps broke out laughing. It's tough to
blame them. The meeting, which begins Sept. 24 and includes top
financial officials from the world's 20 largest economies, carries
with it a hefty security burden. In the past, local officials have had
to cope with both terrorist threats and violent protests at the site
of the summit, and it's the type of logistical nightmare that would
seem to demand a venue accustomed to hosting globally important
events. So why Pittsburgh?
(See pictures of scenes from the G-8.)
The pick was left to Obama's discretion after the governors of the
G-20 decided the event would be held in the U.S. Obama said he chose
Pittsburgh to showcase the city's reinvention from an aging industrial
town into a tech-heavy, eco-friendly metropolis with a burgeoning
alternative-energy sector. The success story isn't all hype —
Pittsburgh's unemployment and foreclosure rates are lower than the
national average, and the sagging steel industry is no longer the sole
engine of the city's economy.
(See pictures of world leaders partying at the G-8.)
Pittsburgh is just the second noncapital city to hold the event, after
Montreal in 2000. But it shouldn't be too overjoyed. While the
designation is certainly an honor, hosting the G-20 doesn't really
have economic benefits. In addition to security concerns, the host
pays a premium. To hold March's meeting of the G-20, London shelled
out an estimated $131 million — a big number for any city to absorb,
and more than four times the expected cost. With fewer than 4,000
people expected to attend the Pittsburgh summit, experts say the local
economy should see a boost of only about $8 million. And while the
U.S. government is covering many of the city's costs, the Pittsburgh
city council had to temporarily shift $16 million in funding to cover
outlays that they say will be reimbursed eventually.
Sid Harth
How Organized Anarchists Led Seattle into Chaos
By MICHAEL KRANTZ;Steven Frank/Seattle and Margot Hornblower/Los
Angeles Monday, Dec. 13, 1999
If you want to label me," says Lincoln, "anarchist is as close as
you're going to come." Lincoln is a lanky 19-year-old Texan who came
to Seattle to protest "one-world government" and will leave sporting a
nom de guerre, a nasty forehead gash courtesy of a tear-gas canister,
and a green bandanna for meeting the press. His beliefs mirror a
standard anarchist line: Autonomous government, yes. Private property,
no. Would he commit acts of violence to further them? In some cases,
Lincoln allows.
Is this the face of 21st century activism? The '60s-era left was
marginalized by two giddily capitalist decades of leveraged buyouts,
Web IPOs and rising tides that lifted the biggest ships. That may have
changed last Tuesday, when masked youths started smashing windows in
Seattle. In one red-hot CNN Minute, the eclectic concerns of a
planetful of protesters--environmentalism, Tibet, child labor, human
rights--crystallized right where most of them didn't want to be:
beneath the anarchist banner.
Meaning what? The anarchist movement today is a sprawling welter of
thousands of mostly young activists populating hundreds of mostly tiny
splinter groups espousing dozens of mostly socialist critiques of the
capitalist machine. Ironically, the groups are increasingly organized;
the Pacific Northwest in particular, with its unionist past, grungy
youth-culture present and ever Green future, is an anarchist hotbed.
Add to that the hundreds of under-25ers from San Francisco to
Vancouver who spent months learning nonviolent civil disobedience from
groups like the Ruckus Society and the Direct Action Network. "The
WTO," notes Ruckus Society coordinator Han Shan, "gave us home-field
advantage by coming to Seattle." The '98 trashing of a Eugene, Ore.,
NikeTown was an informal dry run for last week's mayhem, some of whose
perpetrators call themselves the Eugene Brickthrowers Local 666.
"Their goal is to take things to the furthest edge of acceptability,"
says Seattle activist Dana Schuerholz of the Eugene radicals, "to get
their message out by literally smashing the state."
That's the anarchist's primal goal: to replace central government with
the sort of self-sufficient, egalitarian collective now aborning at
918 Virginia Street, a largely vacant building on the edge of downtown
Seattle. The "squat" popped up two weeks ago as a protesters' crash
pad. About 100 people a night sleep there. There's no power or water,
but organizers have set up a kitchen and security and toilet systems.
House rules hang on one wall: NO ILLEGAL DRUGS, NO ALCOHOL, NO WEAPONS
and so on, ending with NO VIOLENCE.
Oops. Most anarchists publicly decried last week's vandalism, which
was perpetrated in part by local teens whose direct actions for social
justice consisted of looting StarTACs from a cell-phone store.
"Several press accounts have stated that there were only 'hundreds of
anarchists'" in Seattle, an online activist wrote last week. "This
would be true if you only counted teenagers dressed in black. This
would have left out...the vast majority of us, who look just plain ole
working class."
Or like Portland native Cassandra Mason, a black-clad anarchist and
"18-year-old unemployed female. It pisses me off that everyone's
saying, 'The anarchists, the anarchists,'" she fumes. "Every anarchist
group I know is really peaceful."
But even most peaceful anarchists maintain an uneasy detente with
rougher tactics. "I distinguish between violence and property damage,"
says Ruckus Society director John Sellers. "I think violence is done
to living things." And as the debate over globalization and trade
grows--the 2000 anarchist calendar features a spring conclave in
Ontario and a visit to the Republican National Convention in
Philadelphia next summer--footage of the WTO riot, whose date is
already canonized as "N30," will make for great p.r. Sellers
disapproved of last week's vandalism, "but if the global audience sees
it as a political act, the result could be interesting."
Schuerholz embodies the conflicted anarchist mainstream. She's a 35-
year-old photographer who helped found the advocacy group Art and
Revolution, which spread from a '97 gathering to dozens of groups
along the West Coast. She comes off as a smart, sincere woman who
disavows violence. But she was also in Eugene soon after the radicals
hit NikeTown. "And I have to say," she says of that small blow to
global capitalism, "I had a tingle of joy in my heart when I saw those
broken windows."
--By Michael Krantz. With reporting by Steven Frank/Seattle and Margot
Hornblower/Los Angeles
Sid Harth
Is China Turning Into the Climate Change Good Guy?
By Bryan Walsh Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009
A resident rides a motor bike past the Helanshan Wind Power Plant in
Ningxia province on Sept. 23, 2009
Reuters
The U.S. entered this week's round of climate negotiations as the
global bad guy, a holdover from eight years of barely veiled contempt
for the process from former President George W. Bush's Administration.
But China wasn't far behind. The world's biggest country is now it's
biggest carbon emitter, and its sheer rate of economic expansion —
fueled chiefly by polluting coal — ensures China won't lose that spot
any time soon. While the U.S. earned the world's antipathy for
refusing to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol, China, as a developing
nation, had no requirements under that pact — and rarely seemed
interested in stepping up to its responsibilities within the UN
climate change process. While the standoff between the U.S. and China
— over who needed to cut carbon emissions and who needed to pay for it
— has been the main reason behind the deadlock in global climate
negotiations over the past few years, both countries deserved blame
for failing to take the lead internationally.
The world knew the U.S. would change when President Barack Obama took
office, given the importance he placed during his campaign on climate
change. But coming out of the UN's high-level meeting on climate
change on Sept. 22, it is China that has managed to seize the moral
high ground — fairly or not. President Hu Jintao told the UN that
China would increase the share of renewable and nuclear power in its
energy supply to 15% by 2020, plant 40 million hectares of forest by
2020, increase investment in a greener economy and reduce its carbon
intensity — the amount of economic value it gets per unit of power —
by a "notable margin" by 2020. Many of those domestic goals had
already been announced, but the tone of Hu's speech made an impact on
his audience. "I think China has provided impressive leadership," said
Al Gore after Hu's talk.
(See pictures of Beijing's attempt to clean up its air.)
Now the world's fastest growing big economy is ready to move into one
of the world's fastest growing financial markets: carbon trading. The
China-Beijing Environmental Exchange (CBEEX) and the French emissions
exchange BlueNext announced on Sept. 23 that they were putting
together a carbon market standard for China. Although details at the
announcement were fuzzy — aside from the fact that it would be called
the "Panda Standard" — the move is an early step toward creating a
voluntary carbon trading system in China. Although China is still very
far from accepting the mandatory carbon caps used by countries covered
by the Kyoto Protocol — Hu emphasized the importance of economic
development first in his speech — the Panda Standard is a sign that
China could see a stake in the creation of a global carbon market.
"Any carbon market inside China has the potential to be a game-
changer," says David Yarnold, the executive director of the
Environmental Defense Fund.
China is already involved in the emerging global carbon market —
companies in the developed world can sponsor carbon-cutting projects
in China under the Kyoto Protocol to earn offsets. But the CBEEX-
BlueNext collaboration could begin to allow Chinese companies
themselves to get involved in the offset market — just as voluntary
markets in the U.S. have done for American companies. For now, the
standard will focus on agriculture and forestry projects, with
expectations that it will grow to cover Chinese transportation, power
and manufacturing. "We think that Chinese companies are very aware of
their greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and that they're
keep to support a voluntary carbon reduction initiative in China,"
said David Ralpin, a BlueNext official.
(See pictures of China's infrastructure boom.)
The key word is "voluntary" — China is a long way from accepting the
need to put an absolute cap on its carbon emissions. Hu didn't promise
to actually reduce Chinese carbon emissions, but simply become more
energy efficient — something it needs to do anyway. "China knows that
if it continues consuming and developing the way it has been, the
machine will collapse," said Yvo de Boer, the head of the United
Nations Framework on Climate Change. But China hasn't even said how
much it will improve its carbon intensity — Xie Zhenhua, China's top
environmental official, only told reporters that "We are studying this
issue and we should be able to announce a target soon."
Still, it's a notable change for a country that's been played its
cards tightly on the diplomatic stage. The U.S., after all, has yet to
say for sure how much it is willing to cut its own carbon emissions,
thanks to the slow movement of the Senate, which still has yet to
fully take up a cap and trade bill. Both countries will need to do
more — much more — if the UN Climate Change summit in Copenhagen is to
be a success, and they'll need to be more straightforward. But as
EDF's Yarnold said in a speech today: "China is no laggard in the race
to develop clean energy and reduce global warming pollution. In fact,
it is moving ahead." If the U.S. isn't careful, it might get lapped.
Sid Harth
Behind India's Intransigence on Climate-Change Talks
By Madhur Singh / New Delhi Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009
Children play near a brick factory in a village on the outskirts of
Amritsar, India, on Nov. 8, 2008
Altaf Qadri / AP
Narinder Kumar wants to buy an electric steam iron. The 24-year-old
dhobi, or washerman, earns his living ironing clothes with a coal-
fired iron as his ancestors did, in the same shack in south Delhi's
Lajpat Nagar district as his father and grandfather before him. It's
hard to imagine a workplace with a smaller carbon footprint than
Kumar's: At 6 by 4 ft., it consists of only four iron poles holding up
a roof made of plywood and corrugated iron. There's one electric fan
for the summer days when the heat from the bulky coal iron makes him
dizzy and one electric bulb, which is rarely used because work is over
by 6 p.m.
Kumar has heard of global warming, but to him it's incomprehensible
that the live coals in his iron are partly to blame for it by
producing black carbon, or soot, a greenhouse gas considered more
destructive than carbon dioxide. Though he would like to stop using
coal — "an electric iron would be so much more convenient," he says —
the upgrade is too expensive. But he is saving up for one, and once he
does, he will move from using coal to using electricity produced with
coal, the source of more than 60% of India's electricity.
(See pictures of how climate change is affecting the planet.)
If you ask India's climate-change negotiators, the December summit in
Copenhagen will be not about how to save the planet but about how to
accommodate the rights and aspirations of millions of Indians like
Kumar. Since developed countries have already pumped out a large
proportion of the greenhouse gases that the environment can safely
handle, they argue, those same nations must vacate some atmospheric
space for the latecomers to industrialization. The current
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 380 parts per
million (ppm), 72% of which has been emitted by developed countries.
Most scientists agree this needs to be stabilized at 450 ppm or less,
leaving a tiny wedge — about 70 ppm — in which the developing
countries must jostle for space to industrialize and pollute.
(Read a story about how India's cows contribute to global warming.)
According to India's climate-change policy, there's no question that
it is the moral obligation of developed countries to accept binding
emissions cuts. Further, the argument goes, since developed countries
are historically responsible for the state of the planet, they should
pay up by helping developing countries with money and technology to
leapfrog to green technology without following the familiar high-
carbon path to growth. Only with outside funding will India be able to
effectively shift to renewable sources of energy, which, being
costlier, will have to be subsidized for widespread use by people like
Kumar and the over 400 million Indians still without access to
electricity.
Obviously, bringing these demands, which other developing countries
like China and Brazil support, to the global negotiating table has
been contentious. There is a stalemate over just about everything —
from how to apportion blame to who should pay and how. In the run-up
to Copenhagen, the Indian government and Indian NGOs have upped the
ante against what they call the one-sided Western discourse that
blames India and other developing countries for being obstructionist
and not doing their bit. In recent weeks, there has been a steady
stream of Indian-generated reports bolstering India's assertions that
it is unilaterally greening its act. A report released last week says
India has consistently greened its GDP since the 1980s, with the
energy intensity of India's GDP falling from 0.3 kgoe (kilogram-of-oil
equivalent) per dollar of GDP in 1980 to 0.16 kgoe in 2004. This, it
adds, is an achievement on par with über-green Germany and is bettered
only by Japan, the U.K., Brazil and Denmark.
The Indian government has also announced a range of policy initiatives
— a $22 billion solar-energy program, $2.5 billion forestation fund
and a national energy-efficiency mission, among others — that won
kudos from visiting British Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband. "I
think India wants to be a dealmaker — not a deal breaker — in
Copenhagen," Miliband said during a visit to New Delhi on Sept. 2.
Both the nonprofit sector and industry have also been organizing
seminars and workshops with aims ranging from enhancing the Indian
carbon market to supporting India's negotiating stance in three
months.
(See pictures of the elephants of India.)
"Our contention is not only that rich countries have been the biggest
polluters, but also that they have done nothing about it," says Sunita
Narain, director of the New Delhi–based Centre for Science and
Environment, which organized a South Asian media workshop two weeks
ago. Rich countries, or Annex-I nations of the Kyoto Protocol, were
supposed to cut emissions 5.1% over 1990 levels by 2008-12, she
explains. But barring the economies in transition (like those of
Eastern Europe, whose economies collapsed following the breakup of the
Soviet Union), developed countries' emissions actually increased 14.5%
during this period. "The fact is, even if India stopped breathing
today, the West would have to undertake cuts at home to save the world
from an ecological catastrophe," says Narain. More crucially, she
adds, "there is no serious effort towards lifestyle changes in the
west. Households need to consume less. More people need to take public
transport."
For their part, Western countries have accused India and other
developing countries of obfuscating the bigger issue by equating the
"stock" problem of global warming with its "flow" problem. The stock
of historical emissions for which the West is largely responsible must
be dealt with by assigning responsibility, but the flow — the
continuing emissions that developing countries are increasingly adding
to — must be resolved by incentivizing cuts on future emissions. They
demand more flexibility from India; the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997 because it would not accept any binding cuts unless
developing countries accepted cuts too.
(Watch an interview with Energy Secretary Steven Chu.)
Developing countries refuse to do this. They say the hard-fought Kyoto
Protocol, whose successor they will be working out at Copenhagen, is
unequivocal in laying out differentiated responsibilities, and since
the biggest polluters have yet to fulfill their responsibilities, the
goalposts cannot be changed. But, they add, India will be happy to
green its energy mix if the West provides the money and technology
(this is the common position of developing countries — Brazil, India
and China have all submitted proposals demanding that funds and
technology flow from rich to poor countries to enable the latter to
undertake mitigation and adaptation efforts). Regardless of who will
appear the correct party in 20 years, any solution will have to be not
only fair — and seen to be fair — but also acceptable to all parties.
Intransigence will only hurt the fragile process that scientists,
industry and government will engage in this winter, and negotiators
will do well to remember that this is one case in which no deal may
not be better than a bad deal.
Sid Harth
Cows with Gas: India's Global-Warming Problem
By Madhur Singh / New Delhi Saturday, Apr. 11, 2009
Cows from Rajastan travel on the Golden Quadrilateral highway to find
water and grazing areas
Ed Kashi / Corbis
Indolent cows languidly chewing their cud while befuddled motorists
honk and maneuver their vehicles around them is an image as
stereotypically Indian as saffron-clad holy men and the Taj Mahal.
Now, however, India's ubiquitous cows — of which there are 283
million, more than anywhere else in the world — are assuming a more
menacing role as they become part of the climate-change debate.
By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a
greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide —
India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats)
contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals
obstruct. With new research suggesting that methane emission by Indian
livestock is higher than previously estimated, scientists are
furiously working at designing diets to help bovines and other
ruminants eat better, stay more energetic and secrete smaller amounts
of the offensive gas. (See pictures of India's largest ruminant: the
Asian elephant.)
Last month, scientists at the Space Applications Centre in Ahmedabad
in western India published a pan-India livestock methane-emission
inventory, the first ever, which put the figure at 11.75 million
metric tons per year — higher than the 9 million metric tons estimated
in 1994. This amount is likely to increase as higher incomes and
consumption rates put pressure on the country's dairy industry to
become even more productive. (See pictures of China's cow town.)
Already the world's largest producer of milk, India will have to yank
up production from the current 100 million metric tons to 180 million
metric tons by 2021-22 to keep pace with growing population and
expanding disposable incomes. Livestock such as cows, buffalo, goats,
sheep, horses and mules are indispensable to India's rural economy —
whether the animals are yoked to plow land, raised for milk and manure
or harnessed to pull carts to move goods and people. The Ministry of
Agriculture estimates that livestock contribute 5.3% to total GDP, up
from 4.8% during 1980-81. But, says K.K. Singhal, head of dairy cattle
nutrition at the National Dairy Research Institute in Karnal in
northern India, "while livestock plays a crucial role in the economy,
global warming is becoming a huge worry. We're trying to find
indigenous solutions, because our realities are very different from
the West."
(See 10 things you should know about the world's cheapest car, India's
Nano.)
For starters, most Indian livestock is underfed and undernourished,
unlike its robust counterparts in richer countries. The typical Indian
farmer is unable to buy expensive dietary supplements even for
livestock of productive age, and dry milch cattle and older farm
animals are invariably turned out to fend for themselves. Poor-quality
feed equals poor animal health as well as higher methane production.
Also, even when Western firms are willing to share technology or when
Western products are available, these options are often unaffordable
for the majority in India. For instance, Monensin, an antibiotic whose
slow-release formula reduces methane emission by cows, proved too
expensive for widespread use in India. So the emphasis for Indian
scientists is on indigenous solutions. "We know we cannot count on
high-quality feed and fodder," says Singhal. "No one will be able to
afford it. What we have done instead is develop cheaper technologies
and products." One example is urea-molasses-mineral blocks that are
cheap, reduce methane emission by 20%, and also provide more
nutrition, so they're easier to sell to illiterate farmers who don't
know a thing about global warming but want higher milk yields.
Most dietary interventions work by checking methogens — microbes that
thrive in oxygen-free environments like cows' guts, where they convert
the available hydrogen and carbon (by-products of digestion) into
methane, a colorless, odorless gas. "We encourage well-to-do farmers
to use oilseed cakes, which provide unsaturated fatty acids that get
rid of the hydrogen," Singhal says. Another solution is herbal
additives. Some commonly used Indian herbs such as shikakai and
reetha, which go into making soap, and many kinds of oilseeds contain
saponins and tannins, substances that make for lathery, bitter meals
but block hydrogen availability for methogens. Singhal says the herbs
are used in small quantities and the cows don't seem to mind the
taste. "Imagine how much potential they'd have in the international
market," he says. (See pictures of India's biodegradable dishware.)
Several other institutions, like the National Institute of Animal
Nutrition and Physiology (NIANP) in Bangalore, are also researching
herbs. "We're studying the effect of tannin compounds from various
easily-available sources like tea leaves. We're also studying
prebiotic and probiotic feed supplements," says K.T. Sampath, director
of NIANP. Other institutes, like the New Delhi–based Energy Research
Institute (TERI), are working on methane-capture strategies. One long-
running project has been biogas production — cow dung utilized to make
biogas for use in kitchens, and even compressed biogas for use in
vehicles. "Biogas plants have been very successful," says R.K.
Rajeshwari, a fellow at TERI. "Farmers are able to use biogas in their
kitchens, to light lamps and to even drive vehicles." Such projects,
she says, have been particularly successful at gaushalas, cow shelters
supported by donations from the devout and by government grants, of
which there are 4,000 across India. Most gaushalas are for abandoned,
dry and aged cattle, of which there are many, since killing cows is
illegal in all but two states (the communist-ruled West Bengal and
Kerala). "This way they are put to some use at least," says
Rajeshwari. "And by replacing conventional sources of energy, they
help prevent global warming."
chhotemianinshallah
Climate Conundrum: How to Get India to Play Ball
By Bryan Walsh Tuesday, Jul. 21, 2009
Hillary Clinton speaks about climate change in New Delhi alongside
Indian Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh
Mustafa Quraishi / AP
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit on July 19 to the Indian
city of Gurgaon, on the outskirts of New Delhi, was supposed to
showcase the way India and the U.S. might work together to slow
climate change. On the agenda was a tour of an ultra–energy efficient
office building called ITC Green Center, which has earned the highest
environmental rating from the U.S. Green Building Council. It was just
the sort of project that exemplified how the world's second biggest
carbon emitter (the U.S.) and the fourth biggest (India) could
cooperate best — on high-tech projects designed to cut greenhouse-gas
emissions.
But Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Environment and Forestry Minister, had
other ideas. With Clinton standing by, Ramesh told reporters that
India was in no position to reduce its rising levels of carbon-dioxide
emissions, and that the West — which had polluted with impunity for
decades — was in no position to dictate reductions to developing poor
countries. "There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have
among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce
emissions," he said.
(Read a story about how India's cows contribute to global warming.)
Though Clinton assured her Indian counterparts that the U.S. "does
not, and will not, do anything that would limit India's economic
progress," the uneasy exchange illustrated a troubling reality: with
less than five months to go before the crucial U.N. climate-change
summit in Copenhagen, there remains a deep chasm between developed and
developing nations on the issue of CO2. Unless that gap is narrowed —
and the world can find a way to fairly reduce emissions from rich
countries while making developing nations pay their fair share — years
of global climate-change negotiations could finally collapse.
(See pictures of the elephants of India and the rest of Asia.)
No country has proven more recalcitrant than India. Some of the clamor
owes to the fact that India is a more openly contentious society than,
say, China; and, like American leaders, Indian politicians need to
cater to their own domestic constituencies. While India is booming, it
is still incredibly poor on average, and that is reflected in its per
capita carbon emissions, which are 13 times smaller than America's.
"This is not our responsibility," Shyam Saran, India's climate envoy,
recently told TIME.
India is industrializing fast, however, and carbon emissions could
more than quadruple over the next 20 years if the country does nothing
to slow them. Ramesh pointed out that even in 2030, India's per capita
emissions would still be far lower than levels in developed countries
— but sheer population growth means India will become a bigger carbon
emitter on the whole. In the future, developing nations will
contribute the large majority of CO2 emissions, but if the world has
to wait for countries like India to get rich before they begin cutting
carbon, the planet is doomed.
Ramesh's outburst may have been triggered by concerns that the U.S.
cap-and-trade bill that was recently passed by the House of
Representatives — and which will soon be taken on by the Senate —
includes a provision that would eventually impose trade sanctions on
countries that did not accept binding emissions targets. The passage
was inserted to appease members of Congress who worried that a carbon
cap would lead to the migration of energy-intensive industries from
nations with emissions limits to those without them. That restriction
seems fair — until you realize that many of the products exported from
countries like India and China, with lower environmental standards,
are sent to rich countries like the U.S.
(Watch an interview with Energy Secretary Steven Chu.)http://
www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,23935487001_0,00.html
President Barack Obama has said that he is concerned about the
potential impact of such tariffs on free trade, and that putting up
such barriers would only make a global agreement more elusive. But
other provisions could give the U.S. quiet leverage over developing
nations. Annie Petsonk, the international counsel for the
Environmental Defense Fund, says that the U.S. could make access to
American carbon markets — which could eventually be worth trillions —
contingent on how developing nations deal with climate change, for
example by agreeing to mandatory reductions in the rate of growth of
their emissions. "Carbon-market access is the first and most powerful
carrot and stick," she says. "Members of Congress can say that if
countries want to sell us carbon credits after we have capped our
emissions, we want them to follow suit."
However the responsibility for climate change is divided, the reality
is that poorer nations like India will sacrifice disproportionately in
a warmer world. It's up to rich nations like the U.S. to move first
and move most — and the good news is that Obama seems ready to do so.
Still, those efforts will come to naught unless countries like India
do their part as well — with a lot of help from the developed world.
It's not fair, but it is true.
See TIME's global warming covers. http://search.time.com/results.html?N=46&Ntt=Global+Warming&iid=covers
Watch TIME's video "The Truth About Wind Power."http://search.time.com/
results.html?N=46&Ntt=Global+Warming&iid=covers
chhotemianinshallah
Environment: Shrinking Shores
Monday, Aug. 10, 1987
Patricia and Francis O'Malley bought their summer home in Long
Island's fashionable Westhampton Beach four years ago. "There used to
be a dune in front and a beach in front of that," Patricia recalls.
"The very first winter we had a horrible storm, and we lost the dune."
Two years later gale- force winds blew the house's roof and top floor
off. "We rebuilt a whole new house. Since then, we've lost 8 ft. of
sand." Now, she complains, "there's water under the house. The steps
are gone. The houses on both sides of ours are gone." She adds
bitterly, "And they say you can't lose in real estate." The O'Malleys
figure their home will wash away completely by next year. The
potential loss: hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Jan and Bill Alford's troubles began during the devastating winter
storms of 1982. That January a 15-ft. chunk of earth slid away from in
front of their bluff-top home in Bolinas, Calif., about 30 miles north
of San Francisco, and crashed to the beach below. A year later another
15 ft. vanished, leaving the house just a few feet from the edge of a
160-ft. cliff. So, in the summer of 1984, the Alfords moved their
1,300-sq.-ft. house 32 ft. back from the edge. Then came Valentine's
Day 1985. Following unusually high tides, 30 ft. of land dropped into
the sea. The foundation of the house remained just a foot from the
precipice, with nothing but air between the guest-room deck and the
surf below.
"We loved the lot," says Jan. "On a clear day, you could see all the
way to San Francisco. We tried everything to save it, but the erosion
just didn't stop." Last autumn the Alfords moved their home again,
this time hauling it a third of a mile to a new site more than 300 ft.
from the cliffside. The cost of the two moves: $80,000.
The problem is hardly limited to New York and California. The scourge
of coastal erosion is felt worldwide, especially in such countries as
Britain, West Germany and the Netherlands, where oceanfront property
has been heavily developed. In the U.S., entire coastal areas are
disappearing into the sea. Virtually every mile of shoreline is
affected in every state that borders an ocean, as well as those on the
five Great Lakes, where large chunks of waterfront property have been
lost or damaged due to record-high water levels in recent years. Some
86% of California's 1,100 miles of exposed Pacific shoreline is
receding at an average rate of between 6 in. and 2 ft. a year (the
cover photo shows the coast northwest of Santa Barbara). Monterey Bay,
south of San Francisco, loses as much as 5 ft. to 15 ft. annually.
Cape Shoalwater, Wash., about 70 miles west of Olympia, has been
eroding at the rate of more than 100 ft. a year since the turn of the
century; its sparsely settled sand dunes have retreated an astounding
12,000 ft., or more than two miles, since 1910.
Parts of Chambers County, Texas, have lost 9 ft. of coast to Galveston
Bay in the past nine months. Louisiana has shrunk by 300 sq. mi. since
1970; entire parishes may disappear in the next 50 years. At Boca
Grande Pass, an inlet on the Gulf Coast of Florida, some 200 million
cu. yds. of sand have been carried seaward by the tidal currents. In
North Carolina, where erosion this year alone has cut into beachfront
property up to 60 ft. in places, the venerable Cape Hatteras
lighthouse is in peril of the encroaching sea. Soon it must either be
moved or surrounded by a wall. Otherwise, it is likely to suffer the
fate of the Morris Island light, near Charleston, S.C. Once on solid
land, it now stands a quarter of a mile offshore.
Coastal erosion is only one of the natural processes that have altered
the world's shorelines ever since the oceans first formed some 3
billion years ago. Over geologic time, the daily scouring action of
waves and the pounding of storms, as well as the rise and fall of
ocean levels, have changed coastlines dramatically. "Sandy beaches are
dynamic. They are meant to erode," says Richard Delaney, chairman of
the Coastal States Organization, a group that advocates better coastal
management in 30 states (including those that border the Great Lakes)
and five territories. The problem, however, is Americans' passion for
living and vacationing at the seashore. That has led to a boom in the
development of U.S. coastal areas since World War II. "When you ; put
a permanent structure onto a piece of land that is by nature mobile,"
says Delaney, "you have a very serious problem."
"If we had known 30 years ago what we know now, New Jersey and much of
the rest of the country would be in better shape," admits Governor
Thomas Kean, a strong believer in shoreline protection. "We wouldn't
have built in those areas, and we wouldn't allow people to build in
those areas." Even now, however, billions of dollars worth of coastal
development -- some would say runaway overdevelopment -- cannot simply
be abandoned. Says Chris Soller, management assistant of the National
Park Service's Fire Island National Seashore, off Long Island: "It's a
tough tightrope to walk. Our whole concept of property rights clashes
with the natural process."
Along with property, receding U.S. coastlines threaten the survival of
shore-dwelling wildlife. Florida's sea turtles, for example, including
loggerheads, green turtles and others, cross hundreds of miles of
ocean to lay eggs on the same sections of the same beaches. If the
beach has eroded badly, a turtle is forced by instinct to use it
anyway, dooming the eggs to be washed away or eaten by seabirds and
raccoons. Least terns, Gulf Coast shellfish and beach-spawning fish,
like the California grunion, are also in danger.
In the past few decades, as property owners began to demand that
coastal areas stay put -- by buying up seaside property and erecting
multimillion- dollar beachfront houses, condominiums, hotels and
resorts on the shifting sand -- the natural process of erosion began
to matter to growing numbers of Americans. Along with the roads,
parking lots, airfields and commercial interests that serve them,
development projects not only put more people and property in harm's
way but also unwittingly accelerated the damage to U.S. coastal areas.
How? On the West Coast, houses perched atop cliffs create new runoff
patterns for rainfall and irrigation; combined with seepage from
septic systems, the drainage weakens the land itself. On the East and
Gulf coasts, the major problem is destruction of beaches and sand
dunes that normally check the ocean's force. Of particular concern are
the 295 barrier islands -- strips of sand dune, marsh and sometimes
forest -- that protect most of the U.S. coast from Maine to Texas. Not
surprisingly, they are considered prime development spots: Atlantic
City, N.J., Virginia Beach, Va., and Hilton Head, S.C., among others,
were all built on barrier islands.
It is mainly the dunes, explains the National Park Service's Soller,
that keep coastal areas, including barrier islands, intact. "The
natural process is for dunes to roll over on themselves," he says.
When the ocean breaks through, "what was once the secondary dune
becomes the primary dune. The beach retreats as the ocean level rises.
When you have houses on the beach, there's no place for the dunes to
move."
In Ocean City, Md., developers hoping to reinvent Miami Beach, where a
single mile of oceanfront is now worth an estimated $500 million,
began building high-rises on the dune line in the 1970s. So that
people on the lower floors could have an unimpeded view of the ocean,
the dunes were simply bulldozed away. Since then, the ocean has come
to see the tourists: beneath many buildings, pilings are exposed to
the waves. At Garden City, S.C., just south of Myrtle Beach, where big
condos dot the waterfront, crumbled seawalls and wrecked swimming
pools testify to the power of storms unchecked by protective dunes.
Sand dunes can also be destroyed in subtler ways. For a dune to form
in the first place, sand must somehow be trapped, much as a snow fence
traps drifting snow. That something is dune grass. After the dunes
form, the roots anchor the sand in place. "Dune grass is pretty hardy
stuff," explains Stephen Leatherman, a University of Maryland coastal-
erosion expert. "It can take salt spray and high winds. But it just
never evolved to take heavy pedestrian traffic or dune buggies." Since
the plants depend on chlorophyll in their green leafy parts to convert
sunlight into food, he says, and since there is only so much food
reserve in the roots, "a couple of weekends with a few hundred people
walking back and forth to the beach, or a single pass from an off-road
vehicle, kills off the dune grass."
On the Gulf Coast, the erosion of dry land is only part of the
problem. Vast areas of wetlands normally protected by barrier islands
off Louisiana are disappearing as well. In both Louisiana and Texas,
where channels deep enough for barges have been cut through marshes,
the dredging and waves caused by ship and boat traffic have
accelerated the normal process of shoreline loss. What is more, salt
water from the Gulf of Mexico has flowed into the marshes, endangering
local fisheries.
Along a broad expanse of southern Louisiana, between the Atchafalaya
and Mississippi rivers, a million acres of wetlands have disappeared
since 1900. ^ Scientists now estimate that an additional 60 sq. mi.
are vanishing every year -- a rate that could double by 1995. "It's a
catastrophe that's happening to the wetlands. You're looking at the
genocide of an entire ecosystem," says Oliver Houck, a Louisiana
environmental lawyer. Indeed, the loss of the state's marshes affects
more than just local residents: the area provides almost 30% of the
nation's fish harvest and 40% of the fur catch, and is a winter
habitat for some two-thirds of the migratory birds in the Mississippi
flyway. Says Oysterman Matthew Farac, speaking of the 32-mile stretch
from the mouth of the Mississippi to Empire, La.: "There is no land
left. It's all gone now."
In the bayou country, the intrusion of salt water from the Gulf has
been aided by miles of canals and pipeline rights-of-way dredged by
oil and gas companies. Ordinarily, much of the salty water would be
forced out of marsh areas by seasonal freshwater overflows from the
nearby Mississippi. But the river now rarely floods, thanks to massive
levees built along its banks to protect riverside land. The
combination of saltwater intrusion and freshwater cutoff, says Houck,
leaves the wetlands "caught in a double whammy. You couldn't do a
better job of screwing up Louisiana if you planned it."Wilma
Dusenberry, a Chauvin, La., restaurant owner, reflects the fears of
many who depend on the bounty of the wetlands: "If we lose the marsh,
we lose our livelihoods."
Shoreline erosion, however, is exacerbated by less well understood --
and perhaps more ominous -- factors. Over the past 100 years, the
ocean has risen more than a foot, a rate faster than at any time in
the past millennium. Sea- level fluctuations are part of a natural
cycle, but scientists suspect that this one may be different. They
believe it is magnified by a fundamental change in world climate
caused by a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect. Since the
Industrial Revolution, people have been burning greater quantities of
fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas. One by-product is carbon
dioxide, which has entered the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.
While carbon dioxide allows the warming rays of the sun to reach the
earth, it blocks the excess heat that would normally reradiate out
into space. As a result, the atmosphere is gradually growing warmer,
thus melting the polar ice caps and raising sea levels. It may be
years before scientists determine just how significant the greenhouse
effect is -- but they know the process is accelerating. Sea levels are
expected to rise at least a foot in just another half-century.
While the oceans are rising, some coastal land is actually sinking.
Much of the East Coast, for example, is made up of silt sediments
deposited from rivers, bays and inlets over the past 5,000 to 8,000
years. As the sediments gradually compress under their own weight, the
surface sinks lower. On the Gulf Coast, a process called subsidence,
caused in part by the extraction of groundwater and petroleum from
subterranean layers of sand and clay, has forced the land, already
virtually at sea level, to drop 3 ft. a century. In all, the coastline
of the northeastern U.S. may recede an average of 200 ft. in the next
50 years; in some parts of Florida, where the land is flatter, the sea
might move in as much as 500 ft.
There is an additional complication on the West Coast. Periodically, a
warm- water current in the Pacific shifts eastward in a pattern called
El Nino, a Spanish eponym for the Christ Child, so called because it
appears off South America around Christmastime. The result: higher sea
levels, unusually high tides and severe winter storms along the
western coast of the Americas. During the most recent major occurrence
of El Nino, in the early 1980s, sea levels along the California coast
rose an average of 5 in. With the added tides and storms, the effects
were catastrophic. Thomas Terich, a professor of geography at Western
Washington University, warns that even a slight permanent rise in the
average sea level could wreak worse havoc. Says he: "The sites with
the highest value -- the sandspits and low beachfront -- are going to
be severely threatened."
For all the danger, people still want to own seafront property. And
why not? They are still protected -- and encouraged -- by knowing that
they can write off storm damage on their taxes.* In many cases, they
can depend on federal flood insurance for at least partial
reimbursement in case of disaster. Environmentalists believe the
insurance program actually encourages building in high-risk locales.
Says Town Councilman Neil Wright, of Surfside Beach, S.C.: "It's an
incentive to build in dangerous places. The feds need to change the
rules."
Federal flood insurance has traditionally reimbursed owners for
rebuilding, rather than for relocating houses to safer ground. The
owners of the Sea Vista Motel on Topsail Island, N.C., whose property
was damaged in 1985 by Hurricane < Gloria, wanted to move inland, but
their federal insurance would not cover the $150,000 cost. It would,
however, pay $220,000 for repairs and renovations. The motel stayed
put. Then came last winter's New Year's storm, which tore out all 15
of the first-floor units. Says Manager Frances Ricks: "There's a
feeling we can't win."
That does not stop people from trying. The growing damage to
oceanfront property has generated a host of makeshift solutions to
erosion. On Galveston Bay, desperate ranchers have positioned junked
cars on the shore to prevent the waters from washing away roads.
Conservation officers are planting dense patches of cordgrass just
offshore in an effort to buffer the bay's clay banks from the
relentlessly lapping waters. To protect the transplants until they
take hold, conservationists have jury-rigged a protective barrier of
old Air Force parachutes in the water to absorb and attenuate the
force of the waves. Harry Cook, a Texas shrimper, is considering wire
mesh and old tires to keep the bay waters from chewing away any more
of his bluffs, which he is losing at the rate of 10 ft. yearly. On
Long Island, beach residents shore up dunes with driftwood and old
tires. And in Carlsbad, Calif., the community has come up with a
number of ideas, from planting plastic kelp to laying a sausage-like
tube along the beach in order to trap sand normally washed away during
high tide.
There are more substantive approaches to beach protection. When
properly designed and built, they can slow beach erosion. Nonetheless,
most are ineffective in the long run and can actually exacerbate
damage. A seawall, for example, may protect threatened property behind
it, but it often hastens the retreat of the beach in front as waves
dash against the wall and scour away sand. Louis Sodano, mayor of
Monmouth Beach, N.J., knows the process firsthand. "When I moved here
28 years ago, you could walk the whole beach," he remembers. "Now the
waves slap against the wall. We've lost 100 ft. of beach in the past
28 years."
A variant on the seawall that can also hasten erosion is riprap --
rocks and boulders piled into makeshift barriers to absorb the force
of incoming waves. While seawalls and riprap run parallel to the
beach, groin fields extend directly out into the water. Made up of
short piers of stone extending from the beach and spaced 100 yds. or
so apart, they can slow erosion by trapping sand carried by
crosscurrents. But down current, the lack of drifting sand can result
in worse erosion. "It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul," says
Leatherman -- a concept the O'Malleys of Westhampton Beach understand
all too well, since it was a neighboring groin field that robbed their
beach of replenishing sand.
Jetties can cause beach larceny on an even grander scale. Long
concrete or rock structures, they jut out into the water to keep
inlets and harbors navigable by keeping sand and silt from drifting
in. Like groin fields, jetties can keep sand from replenishing beaches
down current. The construction 90 years ago of a pair of jetties to
improve the harbor at Charleston, S.C., altered currents and natural
sand drift so drastically that there is no beach left at high tide at
nearby Folly Beach. In Florida an estimated 80% to 85% of the beach
erosion on the state's Atlantic Coast is caused by the maintenance of
19 inlets, all but one of them made or modified by man to link the
open ocean and inland waterways.
There is one anti-erosion scheme, however, that can be effective:
beach nourishment, which simply involves replacing sand that has
washed away. Between 1976 and 1980, a ten-mile stretch of Miami Beach
was rejuvenated with a brand-new, 300-ft.-wide beach. Oceanside,
Calif., has struggled for more than 40 years to maintain its sandy
beaches, ever since the creation of a boat basin at nearby Camp
Pendleton during World War II interrupted the flow of sand down the
coast. More than 13 million cu. yds. of sand have been dredged from
offshore or trucked in from nearby rivers to replenish the Oceanside
beaches.
Beach nourishment, however, is expensive. Just off the southern tip of
Key Biscayne, Fla., an Army Corps of Engineers' hydraulic pump ran 24
hours a day, from mid-April to early July, sucking up sand from the
ocean bottom and piping it to the beach half a mile away. By the time
the dredge had finished, it had moved some 400,000 cu. yds. of sand at
a cost of $1.55 million, much of it from the pockets of local
businesses. In the early 1980s, the Army Corps brought in sand to
widen the dwindling strip at Wrightsville Beach, N.C., by 200 ft., as
well to construct and regrass new dunes. Price tag: $2.95 million.
That is small change, however, compared with a program begun in 1976
for the New York City Rockaway beach project. Total cost for the
twelve-year, 11.5 million-cu.-yd. project: $52 million in federal,
state and city funds.
But even beach replenishment is a temporary measure. At the sprawling
resort complex of Myrtle Beach, S.C., the community had little choice
but to haul in 854,000 cu. yds. of new sand along ten miles of beach
that had dwindled to a 10-ft. width in places, creating a glistening
100-ft.-wide strip at high tide. Ex-Mayor Erick Ficken says the
community will be paying for the $4.5 million project over the next
ten years. Naturally, he wonders, "How long will it last?" There are
no guarantees. John Weingart, director of coastal resources for New
Jersey's department of environmental protection, recalls one of that
state's first replenishment projects. The 2 million-cu.- yd., $5
million nourishment of the beach at Ocean City was unfortunately
timed; it was completed just before the stormy fall season. "Within
ten days of finishing," he says, "we had several really bad local
storms. Over 60% of the sand was washed away."
In Louisiana, the Army Corps has several ideas for reclaiming wetlands
endangered by the encroaching sea. Among them: a series of major
diversion schemes that will pipe fresh water from the Mississippi and
spread it over marshland areas. By early 1988, the corps hopes to
launch the first large project, a $25 million culvert system that will
fan fresh river water out on the marshes near Breton Sound, which have
been overrun and heavily damaged by saltwater intrusion. Says Cletis
Wagahoff, chief of the corps's planning division for the New Orleans
district: "It's not the ultimate answer -- I don't foresee one -- but
I'm confident we can slow erosion down." A program already under way
has created 3,000 acres of new marshland with sediment dredged up in
the process of maintaining waterways.
Despite such efforts, anti-erosion measures that might be expected to
last for years can be wiped out by a single big storm. The worst to
hit the Northeast in this century was the hurricane of 1938, which
killed at least 600 people on the East Coast. Property damage was
assessed at $3.2 billion (in 1987 dollars). A future recurrence of
that kind of debacle worries experts like Norbert Psuty, director of
the Center for Coastal and Environment Studies at Rutgers, who notes
that the eastern U.S. has enjoyed the relative peace of a "low-storm
phase" for the past 25 years. He believes the lull cannot last.
"Because of continued development in high-hazard areas," he predicts,
"the longer this phase continues, the worse the damage will be when a
big storm finally hits." Gered Lennon, a geologist with the South
Carolina Coastal Council, concurs: "There's always a bigger storm down
the road."
Restricting shoreline development has fallen largely to individual
states. Since 1971, 29 of the 30 states with coasts have adopted
coastal zone management programs (the lone holdout: Texas). New Jersey
and New York, for example, have programs to prevent beach erosion and
stem development in high- risk areas. The former is welcomed by
property owners and tax-base-hungry municipalities; the latter is not
-- and is, therefore, politically difficult to maintain. Although a
1981 law permits New York State to redesignate coastal areas "not for
development" after major storm damage, a 1985 amendment requires a
twelve-month delay before redesignation, leaving ample time for
rebuilding.
In North Carolina, developers cannot build large projects any closer
than 120 ft. from the first line of dunes. The state outlaws permanent
seawalls and other man-made barriers, a policy irreverently referred
to as "fall back or fall in." Florida controls seaside construction by
requiring approval by the Governor and state cabinet for any new
building closer than about 300 ft. to the water's edge. For buildings
granted past exemptions, Florida can and does take a stingy line in
doling out reconstruction permits after hurricane or storm damage.
Michigan offers low-interest loans in order to help move houses back
from the shoreline. In South Carolina, on the other hand, there are
scarcely any limits to where builders can build. They can go just
about to the surf's edge. If their property is threatened, they can
usually get a permit to erect a seawall.
A major problem in the battle against coastal erosion is the lack of
statewide coordination. Says Dick McCarthy, a member of the California
coastal commission: "We have a series of fractionalized local efforts
that has each community involved in its own projects, often without
taking into account the effects its protective measures may have on
adjacent areas."
The Federal Government's record on beach protection is spotty. In 1982
Congress removed about 600 miles of coastline and 187 islands -- about
1% of U.S. coastal areas -- from eligibility for federal flood
insurance on new construction. The Senate is considering a bill,
passed by the House in June, that would help people relocate their
houses away from eroding beaches. But the Reagan Administration is
cool toward a proposal now before Congress, introduced in March by
Democratic Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, that would identify all
threatened coastal wetlands and provide as much as $40 million over
two years for their protection.
One problem with getting the Federal Government involved in coastal
management is that there is no single responsible Government agency.
The Army Corps of Engineers comes closest, but it is often hamstrung
by its dual mission: it is charged with both protecting vulnerable
wetlands and keeping waterways navigable. In Louisiana, complains
Environmental Lawyer Houck, when there is a conflict, the waterways
win every time. This does not have to be the case, contends Bill
Wooley, planning chief for the corps's Galveston office. While he
concedes the task is formidable, he insists that "we can manage both.
It's a matter of how much we want to spend."
Environmentalists criticize the Army Corps for relying on anti-erosion
schemes -- seawalls, jetties and groin fields -- that often cause more
problems than they solve. "The Army Corps of Engineers has had a long,
checkered history," says Gary Griggs, a professor of coastal geology
at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Still, he admits, the
Army Engineers "have done better recently." Says Charles Rooney, the
corps's chief of civil projects in New York: "The state of the art in
coastal engineering has improved. We understand more than we used to.
We build smaller to allow the bypassing of sand. We try to be less
disruptive. Done correctly, groin construction and jetty construction
can stabilize beaches without causing problems."
The simplest and most effective response to coastal erosion would be
to prevent people from living at the edge of the sea. The nonprofit,
Washington- based Nature Conservancy encourages just that by buying
threatened coastal areas and refusing to develop them. The group has
made 32 separate purchases in eight states, sheltering more than
250,000 acres, including 13 barrier islands off the coast of Virginia
that it bought for $10 million. Says Orrin Pilkey, a Duke University
geologist and one of the country's top experts on beach erosion:
"Retreat is the ultimate solution. Property owners must pack up and
move."
That is not likely. "Abandonment is a joke," scoffs Folly Beach Mayor
Richard Beck, noting that his island is almost completely developed
and that tourism is just too valuable an income source. Indeed, unless
it is voluntary, any restriction of land use, even for good
environmental reasons, must respect , property rights. Two recent
Supreme Court decisions served as timely reminders that local
governments have a constitutional responsibility to protect property
owners. Even so, those who resist a balanced policy of coastal
management, whether they are motivated by greed or by genuine concern
for the well-being of coastal communities, will probably lose in the
end -- to the sea. Says Coastal Geologist Griggs: "In the long run,
everything we do to stop erosion is only temporary." John Tesvich, a
Louisiana oysterman, perhaps puts it more feelingly, "The land has
shrunk. It looks like a lake out there. My heart sinks to see the land
get lost to the sea."
FOOTNOTE: *Since damage lowers the value of an investment, owners can
deduct the amount as a capital loss.
chhotemianinshallah
Environment: Cloudy Crystal Balls
By David Bjerklie;J. Madeleine Nash/Chicago Monday, Oct. 19, 1987
Climatologists regularly issue confident warnings about impending
atmospheric disasters. The secret of their wizardry: sophisticated
computer models, which are no more than mathematical representations
of the world's climate and the conditions that scientists think may
contribute to a specific phenomenon like, say, ozone depletion.
Unfortunately, when all the variables are fed into the computer, the
predictions can fail miserably to match reality.
Take the Antarctic ozone hole, for example. Before it was discovered,
climate modelers trying to simulate ozone loss in the atmosphere had
not yet factored in the presence of ice clouds in the Antarctic
stratosphere. Thus their models failed to predict the existence of the
ozone hole. After the hole was finally stumbled upon two years ago,
Susan Solomon, a chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in Boulder, and Rolando Garcia, of the National Center
for Atmospheric Research, plugged more numbers into NCAR's computer
model to account for the Antarctic ice clouds. Bang! The hole
appeared.
Does that mean, as one critic put it, that models projecting climatic
change are "just the opinion of their authors about how the world
works"? Not necessarily. That the model eventually proved accurate, if
only in hindsight, was a tribute to the powers of computer climate
models -- and a demonstration of their shortcomings. The models
attempt to reduce the earth's climate to a set of grids and numbers,
then manipulate the numbers based on the physical laws of motion and
thermodynamics. The sheer number of calculations involved is mind-
boggling. A three-dimensional model, for example, requires more than
500 billion computations to simulate the world's climate over one
year.
Not surprisingly, the earliest models in the 1960s were hopelessly
simplistic. The earth's surface was often reduced to one continent
with one ocean, fixed cloud cover and no seasons. But as computing
power grew, so did the complexity of climate modeling. Continents were
added. So were mountain ranges, deeper oceans and surface
reflectivity.
Even so, climate modelers admit, building a completely realistic mock
earth is an impossibly tall order. "You divide the world into a bunch
of little boxes," explains Michael MacCracken, an atmospheric
scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The size of the
geographic box -- the degree of detail called for -- limits the model.
Smaller grids dramatically increase the number-crunching power
required. "The state of the art would be to get down to small areas so
we can say what's going to happen in Omaha," says Livermore's Stanley
Grotch. "The models just aren't that good yet."
Why, then, do scientists trust them? How do they assess their
accuracy? "You compare them with reality," explains Princeton
Climatologist Syukuro Manabe. "How well do they reproduce the movement
of the jet stream, the geographical and seasonal distribution of
rainfall and temperature? You can also reproduce climate changes from
the past. Eighteen thousand years ago, there was a massive continental
ice sheet. Given the conditions that we know existed, can we reproduce
accurately the distribution of sea-surface temperatures then? The
answer is, We can do this very well. It gives you some confidence."
Large-scale phenomena can be modeled more easily than those affecting
small areas. So when it comes to the global warming produced by the
greenhouse effect, for example, the outlines are predictable but the
specifics are not. Says Manabe: "All we can say is that maybe the mid-
continental U.S. becomes dryer."
A major drawback of computer models is that the various data do not
necessarily behave as a system. Coaxing ocean currents to interact
with the atmosphere is no small matter. For starters, oceans heat and
cool far more slowly than the atmosphere. "We've had a hard time
coupling the two systems," admits Manabe. "Even though the atmospheric
model and ocean model work individually, when you put them together,
you get crazy things happening. It's taken us 20 years to get them
together, and we're still struggling."
+ Offsetting the obvious weaknesses of climate models, says Warren
Washington, who developed the model now used at NCAR, is one
significant advantage. "They are experimental tools that allow us to
test our hypotheses," he says. "We can ask such questions as 'What
happens when a big volcano like El Chichon goes off?' and 'How much
will the earth warm up by 2030 if we continue to dump CO2 into the
atmosphere?' "
Models can also describe the effects of climatic phenomena that have
never been seen. In 1983 a group of scientists that included Cornell's
Carl Sagan calculated what would happen if the U.S. and the Soviet
Union fought a nuclear war. Their conclusion: the dust and smoke from
burning cities would blot out enough sunlight to plunge the land into
a "nuclear winter" that would devastate crops and lead to widespread
starvation.
The problem with their model was that it ignored such key factors as
winds, oceans and seasons. When NCAR's Stephen Schneider and Starley
Thompson ran the numbers through their agency's three-dimensional
computer model, they found that the winter would be more like a
"nuclear autumn." Schneider says the less dramatic conclusion does not
change the fact that "nuclear autumn is not going to be a nice picnic
out there on the rocks watching the leaves change color." Despite the
limitations and omissions of climate models, he argues, scientists
cannot afford to ignore their predictions. They are, he concedes, a
"dirty crystal ball. The question is, How long do you wait to clean
the glass before you act on what you see inside?"
chhotemianinshallah
The Heat Is On
By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK Monday, Oct. 19, 1987
At this time of year, the Cabo de Hornos Hotel in Punta Arenas (pop.
100,000) is ordinarily filled with tourists who spend their days
browsing in the local tax-free shops or mounting expeditions into the
rugged, mountainous countryside just out of town. But the 120 mostly
American scientists and technicians who converged on Chile's
southernmost city for most of August and September ignored
advertisements for hunting, hiking and ski tours. Instead, each day
they scanned the bulletin board in the hotel lobby for the latest
information on a different sort of venture.
Thirteen times during their eight-week stay, a specially outfitted
DC-8 took off from the Presidente Ibanez Airport, twelve miles
northeast of Punta Arenas. Often the 40-odd scientists and support
crew listed for a given flight had to leave the hotel soon after
midnight to prepare the plane and its research instruments. Once
airborne, the DC-8 would bank south toward Antarctica, 1,000 miles
away, fighting vicious winds before settling into a twelve-hour round-
trip flight at altitudes of up to 40,000 ft. Along the way, the
instruments continuously collected data on atmospheric gases, airborne
particles and solar radiation high above the frozen continent.
Meantime, parallel flights took off from Ibanez to gather additional
atmospheric data at nearly twice the altitude. Manned by a lone pilot,
a Lockheed ER-2, the research version of the high-altitude U-2 spy
plane, made twelve sorties into the lower stratosphere, cruising at
nearly 70,000 ft., or more than 13 miles, for six hours at a time.
Both aircraft were part of an unprecedented, $10 million scientific
mission carried out by the U.S. under the combined sponsorship of
NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
National Science Foundation and the Chemical Manufacturers
Association. The purpose: to find out why the layer of ozone gas in
the upper atmosphere, which protects the earth's surface from lethal
solar ultraviolet radiation, was badly depleted over Antarctica. The
scale of the mission reflected an intensifying push to understand the
detailed dynamics of potentially disastrous changes in the climate.
The danger of ozone depletion is only part of the problem; scientists
are also concerned about the "greenhouse effect," a long-term warming
of the planet caused by chemical changes in the atmosphere.
The threat to the ozone was first discovered in 1983, when scientists
with the British Antarctic Survey made the startling observation that
concentrations of ozone in the stratosphere were dropping at a
dramatic rate over Antarctica each austral spring, only to gradually
become replenished by the end of November. At first they speculated
that the phenomenon might be the result of increased sunspot activity
or the unusual weather systems of the Antarctic. It is now widely
accepted that winds are partly responsible, but scientists are
increasingly convinced that there is a more disturbing factor at work.
The culprit: a group of man-made chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), which are used, among other things, as coolants in
refrigerators and air conditioners, for making plastic foams, and as
cleaning solvents for microelectronic circuitry. Mounting evidence has
demonstrated that under certain conditions these compounds, rising
from earth high into the stratosphere, set off chemical reactions that
rapidly destroy ozone.
The precise chemical process is still uncertain, but the central role
of CFCs is undeniable. Last month Barney Farmer, an atmospheric
physicist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.,
announced that his ground-based observations as a member of the 1986
Antarctic National Ozone Expedition pointed directly to a CFC-ozone
link. "The evidence isn't final," he said, "but it's strong enough."
Earlier this month, results from NASA's Punta Arenas project confirmed
the bad news. Not only was the ozone hole more severely depleted than
ever before -- fully 50% of the gas had disappeared during the polar
thaw, compared with the previous high of 40%, in 1985 -- but the CFC
connection was more evident. Notes Sherwood Rowland, a chemist at the
University of California at Irvine: "The measurements are cleaner this
time, more detailed. They're seeing the chemical chain more clearly."
Atmospheric scientists have long known that there are broad historical
cycles of global warming and cooling; most experts believe that the
earth's surface gradually began warming after the last ice age peaked
18,000 years ago. But only recently has it dawned on scientists that
these climatic cycles can be affected by man. Says Stephen Schneider,
of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder: "Humans
are altering the earth's surface and changing the atmosphere at such a
rate that we have become a competitor with natural forces that
maintain our climate. What is new is the potential irreversibility of
the changes that are now taking place."
Indeed, if the ozone layer diminishes over populated areas -- and
there is some evidence that it has begun to do so, although nowhere as
dramatically as in the Antarctic -- the consequences could be dire.
Ultraviolet radiation, a form of light invisible to the human eye,
causes sunburn and skin cancer; in addition, it has been linked to
cataracts and weakening of the immune system. Without ozone to screen
out the ultraviolet, such ills will certainly increase. The National
Academy of Sciences estimates that a 1% drop in ozone levels could
cause 10,000 more cases of skin cancer a year in the U.S. alone, a 2%
increase. These dangers were enough to spur representatives of 24
countries, gathered at a United Nations-sponsored conference in
Montreal last month, to agree in principle to a treaty that calls for
limiting the production of CFCs and similar compounds that wreak havoc
on the ozone.
Potentially more damaging than ozone depletion, and far harder to
control, is the greenhouse effect, caused in large part by carbon
dioxide (CO2). The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is comparable to
the glass of a greenhouse: it lets the warming rays of the sun in but
keeps excess heat from reradiating back into space. Indeed, man-made
contributions to the greenhouse effect, mainly CO2 that is generated
by the burning of fossil fuels, may be hastening a global warming
trend that could raise average temperatures between 2 degrees F and 8
degrees F by the year 2050 -- or between five and ten times the rate
of increase that marked the end of the ice age. And that change, notes
Schneider, "completely revamped the ecological face of North America."
The relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is more than
theoretical. Two weeks ago, a Soviet-French research team announced
impressive evidence that CO2 levels and worldwide average temperatures
are intimately related. By looking at cores of Antarctic ice, the
researchers showed that over the past 160,000 years, ice ages have
coincided with reduced CO2 levels and warmer interglacial periods have
been marked by increases in production of the gas.
Although the region-by-region effects of rapid atmospheric warming are
far from clear, scientists are confident of the overall trend. In the
next half- century, they fear dramatically altered weather patterns,
major shifts of deserts and fertile regions, intensification of
tropical storms and a rise in sea level, caused mainly by the
expansion of sea water as it warms up.
The arena in which such projected climatic warming will first be
played out is the atmosphere, the ocean of gases that blankets the
earth. It is a remarkably thin membrane: if the earth were the size of
an orange, the atmosphere would be only as thick as its peel. The
bottom layer of the peel, the troposphere, is essentially where all
global weather takes place; it extends from the earth's surface to a
height of ten miles. Because air warmed by the earth's surface rises
and colder air rushes down to replace it, the troposphere is
constantly churning. A permanent air flow streams from the poles to
the equator at low altitudes, and from the equator to the poles at
higher levels. These swirling air masses, distorted by the rotation of
the earth, generate prevailing winds that drive weather across the
hemispheres and aid the spread of pollutants into the troposphere.
Above this turmoil, the stratosphere extends upward to about 30 miles.
In the lower stratosphere, however, rising air that has been growing
colder at higher and higher altitudes begins to turn warmer. The
reason, in a word: ozone.
Ozone (O3) is a form of oxygen that rarely occurs naturally in the
cool reaches of the troposphere. It is created when ordinary oxygen
molecules (O2) are bombarded with solar ultraviolet rays, usually in
the stratosphere. This radiation shatters the oxygen molecules, and
some of the free oxygen atoms recombine with O2 to form O3. The
configuration gives it a property that two- atom oxygen does not have:
it can efficiently absorb ultraviolet light. In doing so, ozone
protects oxygen at lower altitudes from being broken up and keeps most
of these harmful rays from penetrating to the earth's surface. The
energy of the absorbed radiation heats up the ozone, creating warm
layers high in the stratosphere that act as a cap on the turbulent
troposphere below.
Ozone molecules are constantly being made. But they can be destroyed
by any of a number of chemical processes, most of them natural. For
example, the stratosphere receives regular injections of nitrogen-
bearing compounds, such as nitrous oxide. Produced by microbes and
fossil-fuel combustion, the gas rides the rising air currents to the
top of the troposphere. Forced higher still by the tremendous upward
push of tropical storms, it finally enters and percolates slowly into
the stratosphere.
Like most gaseous chemicals, man-made or natural, that reach the
stratosphere, nitrous oxide tends to stay there. Indeed, a recent
National Academy of Sciences report likened the upper atmosphere "to a
city whose garbage is picked up every few years instead of daily." As
long as five years after it leaves the ground, N2O may finally reach
altitudes of 15 miles and above, where it is broken apart by the same
ultraviolet radiation that creates ozone. The resulting fragments --
called radicals -- attack and destroy more ozone molecules. Another
ozone killer is methane, a carbon-hydrogen compound produced by
microbes in swamps, rice paddies and the intestines of sheep, cattle
and termites.
For millenniums, the process of ozone production and destruction has
been more or less in equilibrium. Then in 1928 a group of chemists at
General Motors invented a nontoxic, inert gas (meaning that it does
not easily react with other substances) that was first used as a
coolant in refrigerators. By the 1960s, manufacturers were using
similar compounds, generically called chlorofluorocarbons, as
propellants in aerosol sprays. As industrial chemicals, they were
ideal. "The propellants had to be inert," says Chemist Ralph Cicerone,
of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "You didn't want the
spray in a can labeled 'blue paint' to come out red. Since then the
growth of CFCs has been fabulous, and they've been pretty useful."
Indeed, CFCs turned out to be a family of miracle chemicals: produced
at a rate of hundreds of thousands of tons yearly, they seemed almost
too good to be true.
They were. In 1972 Rowland heard a report that trace amounts of CFCs
had been found in the atmosphere in both the northern and southern
hemispheres. What were they doing there? The answer, as Rowland and
his colleague, Mario Molina, soon found, was that there was nowhere
else for them to go but into the atmosphere. CFCs in aerosol cans are
sprayed directly into the air, they escape from refrigerator coils,
and they evaporate quickly from liquid cleaners and slowly from
plastic foams.
In the troposphere, CFCs are immune to destruction. But in the
stratosphere, they break apart easily under the glare of ultraviolet
light. The result: free chlorine atoms, which attack ozone to form
chlorine monoxide (ClO) and O2. The ClO then combines with a free
oxygen atom to form O2 and a chlorine atom. The chain then repeats
itself. "For every chlorine atom you release," says Rowland, "100,000
molecules of ozone are removed from the atmosphere."
In 1974 Rowland and Molina announced their conclusion: CFCs were
weakening the ozone layer enough to cause a marked increase in skin
cancers, perhaps enough to perturb the planet's climate by rejuggling
the stratosphere's temperature profile. In 1978 the U.S. banned their
use in spray cans. "People assumed the problem had been solved,"
recalls Rowland. But the Europeans continued to use CFCs in aerosol
cans; other uses of CFCs began to increase worldwide. Says Rowland:
"All along, critics complained that ozone depletion was not based on
real atmospheric measurements -- until, that is, the ozone hole
appeared. Now we're not talking about ozone losses in 2050. We're
talking about losses last year."
For several years NASA's scientists failed to accept data on the
Antarctic ozone hole that was before their eyes. The reason: computers
prescreening data from monitoring satellites had been programmed to
dismiss as suspicious presumably wild data showing a 30% or greater
drop in ozone levels. After British scientists reported the deficit in
1985, NASA went back to its computer records, finally recognizing that
the satellite data had been showing the hole all along.
Still, the existence of an ozone hole did not necessarily mean CFCs
were to blame, and a number of alternative explanations were proposed.
Among them, says Dan Albritton, director of the Federal Government's
Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder, was the notion that the "hole did not
signify an ozone loss at all, just a breakdown in the distribution
system." An interruption in the movement of air from the tropics,
where most ozone is created, to the poles could easily result in less
ozone reaching the Antarctic. Another theory: perhaps the sunspot
activity that peaked around 1980 created more ozone- destroying
nitrogen radicals than usual, which would be activated each spring by
sunlight.
But while most scientists agree that atmospheric chemistry and
dynamics are major causes, the increased scrutiny of the Antarctic
atmosphere following the discovery of the hole has seriously undercut
the sunspot theory. Data from Punta Arenas, says Robert Watson, a NASA
scientist involved in that study, made the verdict all but final.
Nitrogen and ozone levels were down, but concentrations of chlorine
monoxide were 100 times as great as equivalent levels at temperate
latitudes. Says Watson: "We can forget the solar theories. We can no
longer debate that chlorine monoxide exists and that its abundance is
high enough to destroy ozone, if our understanding of the catalytic
cycle is correct. We need to go back to the lab and resolve the
uncertainty."
That is not all. Scientists are still not completely sure why the hole
remains centered on the Antarctic or why the depletion is so severe.
It may have to do with the peculiar nature of Antarctic weather. In
winter the stratosphere over the region is actually sealed off from
the rest of the world by the strong winds that swirl around it,
forming an all but impenetrable vortex. Says Cicerone: "Looking down
at the South Pole is like watching fluid draining in a sink. It's like
an isolated reactor tank. All kinds of mischief can occur."
One likely source of mischief making: clouds of ice particles in the
polar stratosphere. Explains Rowland: "Mostly, you don't get clouds in
the stratosphere because most of the water has been frozen out
earlier. But if the temperature gets low enough, you start freezing
out the rest." Indeed, ice may prove to be a central cause of the
ozone hole, since it provides surfaces for a kind of chemistry only
recently associated with reactions in the atmosphere. In a gaseous
state, molecules bounce around and eventually some hit one another.
But adding a surface for the molecules to collect on speeds up the
reactions considerably.
It is not yet clear whether ozone depletion in the Antarctic is an
isolated phenomenon or whether it is an ominous warning signal of more
slowly progressing ozone destruction worldwide. Data indicate that the
decline over the past eight years is 4% to 5%. Scientists estimate
that natural destruction of the ozone could account for 2% of that
figure. The Antarctic hole could explain an additional 1%. The
remaining 1% to 2% could simply be the result of normal fluctuations.
As Albritton's research team reported, "A depletion of this magnitude
would be very difficult to identify against the background of poorly
understood natural variation."
The same can be said for the greenhouse effect: it is too soon to tell
whether unusual global warming has indeed begun. Unlike ozone
depletion, the greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon with positive
consequences. Without it, points out Climate Modeler Jeff Kiehl, of
the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "the earth would be
uninhabitable. It is what keeps us from being an ice-frozen planet
like Mars." Indeed, if gases like CO2 did not trap the sun's energy,
the earth's mean temperature would be 0 degrees F, rather than the
current 59 degrees.
Still, as far back as the late 1890s, Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius
had begun to fret that the massive burning of coal during the
Industrial Revolution, which pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into
the atmosphere, might be too much of a good thing. Arrhenius made the
startling prediction that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would
eventually lead to a 9 degrees F warming of the globe. Conversely, he
suggested, glacial periods might be caused by diminished levels of the
gas. His contemporaries scoffed. Arrhenius, however, was exactly
right. In his time, the CO2 concentration was about 280 to 290 parts
per million -- just right for a moderately warm, interglacial period.
But today the count stands at some 340 p.p.m. By 2050, if the present
rate of burning fossil fuels continues, that concentration will
double, trapping progressively more infrared radiation in the
atmosphere.
The consequences could be daunting. Says National Center for
Atmospheric Research's Francis Bretherton: "Suppose it's August in New
York City. The temperature is 95 degrees; the humidity is 95%. The
heat wave started on July 4 and will continue through Labor Day."
While warmer temperatures might boost the fish catch in Alaska and
lumber harvests in the Pacific Northwest, he says, the Great Plains
could become a dust bowl; people would move north in search of food
and jobs, and Canada might rival the Soviet Union as the world's most
powerful nation. Bretherton admits that his scenario is speculative.
But, he says, "the climate changes underlying it are consistent with
what we believe may happen."
Such changes may already be under way. Climatologists have noted an
increase in mean global temperature of about 1 degrees F since the
turn of the century -- within the range predicted if the greenhouse
effect is on the rise. But, warns Roger Revelle, of the University of
California at San Diego, "climate is a complicated thing, and the
changes seen so far may be due to some other cause we don't yet
understand." The absence of a clear-cut signal, however, does not
disprove the theory. Scientists expect any excess greenhouse warming
to be masked for quite some time by the enormous heat-absorbing
capacity of the world's oceans, which have more than 40 times the
absorptive capacity of the entire atmosphere.
"Right now," declares University of Chicago Atmospheric Scientist V.
Ramanathan, "we've committed ourselves to a climatic warming of
between one and three degrees Celsius ((1.8 degrees F to 5.4 degrees
F)), but we haven't seen the effect." This extra heat, now trapped in
the oceans, he says, should be released over the next 30 to 50 years
-- unless, of course, an event like a big volcanic eruption
counteracts it. Notes Ramanathan: "By the time we know our theory is
correct, it will be too late to stop the heating that has already
occurred." Schneider sees no need to wait. Says he: "The greenhouse
effect is the least controversial theory in atmospheric science."
Maybe. But climate is governed by an array of forces that interact in
dizzyingly complex ways. The atmosphere and oceans are only two major
pieces of the puzzle. Also involved: changes in the earth's movements
as it orbits the sun, polar ice caps, and the presence or absence of
vegetable and animal life. "The feedbacks are enormously complicated,"
says Michael MacCracken, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
in California. "It's like a Rube Goldberg machine in the sense of the
number of things that interact in order to tip the world into fire or
ice."
One of the most fundamental elements of the Rube Goldberg machine is
the three astronomical cycles first described by Serbian Scientist
Milutin Milankovitch in the 1920s. The swings, which involve long-term
variations in the wobbling of the earth's axis, its tilt and the shape
of its orbit around the sun, occur every 22,000, 41,000 and 100,000
years, respectively. Together they determine how much solar energy the
earth receives and probably cause the earth's periodic major ice ages
every 100,000 years or so, as well as shorter- term cold spells.
But Milankovitch cycles only scratch the surface of climatic change.
Volcanoes, for example, send up veils of dust that reflect sunlight
and act to cool the planet. Deserts, with their near white sands, also
reflect sunlight, as do the polar ice caps. Tropical rain forests,
however, have the opposite effect: their dark green foliage, like the
dark blue of the ocean, absorbs solar radiation; both tend to warm the
planet.
Clouds, which shade about half the earth's surface at any given time,
are another important climatic factor. Says James Coakley of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research: "If you heat up the
atmosphere and pump more water in, clouds will change. But how? We
don't know." Water vapor, for example, is yet another greenhouse gas,
but the white-gray surfaces of clouds reflect solar energy. Which
effect predominates? Answer: it depends on the cloud. The bright, low-
level stratocumulus clouds reflect 60% of incoming solar rays. But
long, thin monsoon clouds let solar heat in while preventing infrared
radiation from escaping.
Another contributor to climatic change is the biosphere -- scientific
jargon for the realm of all living things on earth. And it is the
biosphere that threatens to tip the balance. To be sure, many of its
effects are natural and as such have long been part of the climatic
equilibrium. Termites, for example, produce enormous amounts of gas as
they digest woody vegetation: a single termite mound can emit five
liters of methane a minute. The methane escapes into the atmosphere,
where it can not only destroy ozone but also act as a greenhouse gas
in its own right. "Termites," says Environmental Chemist Patrick
Zimmerman, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "could be
responsible for as much as 50% of the total atmospheric methane
budget."
Actually, the biosphere becomes a problem only when humans get
involved. In Brazil the Amazon rain forest, which once covered 3
million sq. mi., has been slashed by an estimated 10% to 15% as the
region has been developed for mining and agriculture; an additional
20% has been seriously disturbed. When the downed trees are burned or
rot, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are released. The same kind of
deforestation in Africa, Indonesia and the Philippines, say experts,
may already be helping to make the world warmer.
To make matters worse, a host of other gases are now known to add to
the greenhouse effect. In 1975, Ramanathan was amazed to discover that
Freon, a widely used CFC, was an infrared absorber. "It had a very
large impact," he says. "Since then, tracking down the role of other
trace gases has become a cottage industry. There are dozens of them,
and they are rivaling the effects of increasing CO2." In fact, by the
year 2030 the earth will already face the equivalent of a doubling of
CO2, thanks to these other rapidly increasing gases, including
methane, nitrous oxide and all the CFCs. "These are the little guys,"
says Schneider. "But they nickel and dime you to the point where they
add up to 50% of the problem."
Is there any way to slow either the greenhouse effect or the depletion
of the world's ozone? The Montreal accord, agreed to last month after
nearly five years of on-and-off negotiations, is a good start on
ozone. It calls on most signatory countries to reduce production and
consumption of CFCs by 50% by 1999. Developing nations, however, will
be allowed to increase their use of the chemicals for a decade so they
can catch up in basic technologies like refrigeration. The net effect,
insist the treaty's advocates, will be a 35% reduction in total CFCs
by the turn of the century.
Some experts do not believe the projected cutback is good enough. Says
Rowland: "The Montreal agreement simply isn't sufficient to protect
the ozone. We should have signed a treaty that reduced CFC production
by 95% -- not 50%." Nonetheless, the Environmental Protection Agency
has calculated that without the accord, a staggering 131 million
additional cases of skin cancer would occur among people born before
2075.
Any similar attempt to ease the greenhouse effect by imposing limits
on CO2 and other emissions is unlikely. John Topping, president of the
Washington- based Climate Research Institute, argues that adjustments
in agricultural production, like limiting the use of nitrogen-based
fertilizers, would have only a slight effect. A more important step
would be to protect the tropical rain forests, a move that would
certainly be resisted by developers. Obviously, the most far-reaching
step would be to cut back on the use of fossil fuels, a measure that
would be hard to accomplish in industrialized countries without a
wholesale turn to energy conservation or alternative forms of power.
In developing countries, such reductions might be technologically
feasible but would be all but impossible to carry out politically and
economically.
Until now, the earth's climate has been a remarkably stable, self-
correcting machine, letting in just the right amount and type of solar
energy and providing just the right balance of temperature and
moisture to sustain life. Alternating cycles of cold and warmth, as
well as greater and lesser concentrations of different gases, have
forced some species into extinction. The same changes have helped
others evolve. The irony is that just as we have begun to decipher the
climatic rhythms that have gone on for hundreds of millions of years,
we may have begun to change them irrevocably. And as the unforeseen
discovery of the ozone hole demonstrates, still more unexpected
changes may be on the way.
chhotemianinshallah
North Dakota: The Big Dry
Monday, Jul. 04, 1988
Leon Malard sat at his small kitchen table, covered with a blue
plastic cloth, and with strong, thick fingers stroked the stubble on
his chin. His black hair was cropped to its roots, his glasses coated
at the edges with the grit from a morning of tilling in his stunted
cornfield, which hugs a bluff above the Missouri River between
Bismarck and Cannon Ball, N. Dak.
The 93 degrees F wind scoured the boards of his tiny home, gusting and
swirling up to 30 m.p.h., drying, loosening, lofting, trying again to
blow him away. The big prairie sun, without a wisp of cloud to soften
it, hammered the land as far as a squinted eye could see, which is a
long way out there.
Malard is dead center in the biggest and most cantankerous drought
North America has had in 50 years, stretching from California to
Georgia, from the Canadian prairies to the Texas plains, withering,
parching and shrinking land, crops, rivers, lakes, animals and people.
Federal emergencies have been declared in 30 states. Grain farmers in
the upper Midwest may lose nearly three-quarters of their crops. There
is more trouble to come if the rains don't. On Friday dark storm
clouds scudded across the skies over parts of Iowa, Wisconsin and
Minnesota, but the squalls soon gave way to the familiar empty,
mocking skies.
The forecast is devastating for farmers who were just recovering from
a decade of low prices and high interest rates. Silos full of surplus
grain from past harvests will protect grocery shoppers from noticing
much more than a modest increase in most food prices. With thousands
of undernourished cattle and hogs being driven to the slaughterhouse,
meat prices may even go down. But trading in the commodity pits of
Chicago has been frantic, a new pot of gold for plungers who bet on
feast or famine. This cursed drought has brought them a bonanza.
Soybeans, for instance, are now selling at about $10 per bu., nearly
double the price of just six months ago. God must be a Democrat,
somebody muttered near the White House. He surely is showing Ronald
Reagan and George Bush, as he did all those who went before them, that
the only workable farm policy ever devised was left in the Garden of
Eden along with some other innocence.
Nobody knows for certain how much this is costing the nation.
Economist Arlen Leholm of North Dakota State University ventures that
his state alone will lose $2.7 billion in crops, lower federal farm
subsidies and reduced farm spending. The U.S. Soil Conservation
Service's William Fecke estimates that in Montana, Wyoming and the
Dakotas the precious topsoil of 750,000 acres of farm and grazing land
has been blown away by the angry wind, an additional 7 million acres
is damaged and 12 million more threatened. "If the wind keeps up,"
Fecke says, "we may see chunks of the Northern Plains blowing to New
England."
In the mountain states and along the West Coast, record temperatures
have brought the fire season in two months early. Montana has suffered
through more than a dozen significant forest and range fires this
month, including a 23,000-acre burn on the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation. Brush and desert fires have blackened more than 8,000
acres in California, Idaho, Washington and Utah. Forest fires may be
the most immediate of California's water problems, but the long-range
crisis of a huge, thirsty population competing for limited supplies of
water dramatically raises fundamental questions about life and land in
the Golden State.
The lower Mississippi River, which is supposed to run full and fat
with spring water, is wan and puny, coughing up sandbars that have
blocked as many as 130 towboats and 3,000 giant river barges filled
with paper, grain and chemicals headed for market. Around Greenville
and Vicksburg, Miss., the Army engineers have had to dredge an
emergency channel in the shrinking river to & unclog the bizarre
traffic jam. At Memphis low water levels broke all the records that
had been put down on the books going back to 1872. But where somebody
is losing a buck, there is always an American hustler trying to make
one. The Illinois Central Railroad has put on additional cars to carry
grain that can't go by water. Where the barges wait and wallow, small
"midstreamers" dart here and there, peddling groceries and supplies to
the stalled rivermen.
Mark Twain never saw anything like this. When he piloted on the river
more than a century ago, he wrote mostly about storms and floods and
the excess water curving and shifting over banks and through new
channels. He knew, though, the majesty of the great valley. "The basin
of the Mississippi is the body of the nation," is the description that
starts his classic river chronicle. That remains true today and is
reason for the profound concern now.
The big drought is actually three droughts, according to Donald
Gilman, a long-range forecaster with the National Weather Service.
There have been shortages of moisture in the Southeast for years and
in the West for several seasons. The winter and spring rains failed to
fill reservoirs around the Tennessee Valley. The winter snowpack in
the Rockies has been as much as 60% below normal. "Then the drought
began in the Missouri-Mississippi watershed all the way to the Gulf,"
said Gilman. That was caused by a split in the jet stream, which
usually carries storms across California into the Midwest, sucking
moisture up from the Gulf. But this year its larger current swung
north to Hudson Bay, its lesser branch south to Mexico, leaving the
midlands arid and hot. Now, after nearly three months of deprivation,
the great Missouri-Mississippi watershed has fused into a giant arc of
aching thirst. The heartland bower of James Whitcomb Riley and Edgar
Lee Masters, of Indiana and Illinois, has received less than half the
normal spring rainfall. The soft night lawns are brown crackling
grist. The old swimming holes have evaporated.
Leon Malard at his kitchen table smiled a good open smile when he
talked about Sioux Indians being called to Ohio to do a rain dance,
priests shaking holy water on farm fields and prayer gatherings in
sale barns. Show business. The forces out there are so huge and
incomprehensible, you don't waste energy trying to stop them in their
tracks. You hunker down, you survive. Malard has for 60 years, and his
dad before him, and before that his grandfather, who homesteaded on
the Missouri River in 1905.
"The barley and the oats are gone," said Malard. "If we have rain
soon, we can get some corn. But even some of that is shot." He watches
the fields particularly in the evening, when the light is softer. "The
corn is beginning to turn white," he said. "The leaves are curling. If
there is no rain, if the wind keeps blowing like this, if it stays so
hot, all the corn will be lost."
Malard's mind, tuned to seasons and years, is already calculating
1989. He got one scraggly hay crop this spring and has some carry-over
bales from last year for his 75 Herefords and Black Angus cattle. With
careful planning, that can get him into next year. But then without
new hay and grain his future looks bleak.
Yet Malard might stare even that specter down for a little while
longer. He did as a boy in the 1930s. "The country around here is not
as bad off as it was then, not yet anyway," Malard said. His dad
planted seeds that never sprouted. The dust blew so much it covered a
hog house on his grandfather's farm. Malard walked right over the top
of it. About the only thing that dimmed the sun during the big dry of
those years was the clouds of swarming grasshoppers.
Malard has a fan-cooled house, and his big White tractor has an air-
conditioned cab. The shelter belts of Chinese elms and Russian olive
trees that he planted between fields have endured, and retard the dust
and wind over the 1,200 acres he and his son farm. Malard's hunch is
that the improved farming practices, the big dams and reservoirs on
the main stem of the Missouri, farm ponds and all the other modern
techniques will prevent the terrible devastation and suffering of the
1930s.
Yet there is the faint question that comes with the endless wind. How
long before this drought tumbles the old records? Then what? Malard
shrugs. The last good rain he felt on his face was in August 1987. In
March of this year a 10-in. blizzard roared in and hit his area. He
waited it out in his house, daring to hope that this was a break in
the dryness and that a normal spring of rain would follow. It did not.
Instead came the heat and the wind. Malard gets up every morning by 6
and checks the sky and looks at the thermometer outside his window. He
tunes in radio station KFYR in Bismarck for the weather reports. Day
after monotonous day the news is the same. Clear skies, or thin empty
clouds, temperatures already in the 70s or above and not a trace of
dew on the land. When a slight shower came a few days ago, the baked
land and superheated air seemed to cause the droplets to vanish as
fast as they fell. A ferocious drought feeds itself.
From the air, a dry spell of even this magnitude is hard to see with
the naked eye. Some fields are parched out, and crops are plainly
scraggly. But the patchwork of greens and golds still reels by under
jet wings heading west. The great shoulders of the Rockies have some
snow on them still. It takes a closer inspection and a conditioned eye
for full understanding. The trees of Minneapolis hide devastated home
lawns and gardens. Out West, dry-weather weeds have sprung up in the
draws of prairie pastures, adding deceptive color. All through the
Midwest are fields of wheat, corn and soybeans that took root much
earlier on slight rains, then simply stopped developing. They hover
now between life and death, still handsome to the casual observer. A
delegation of Senators and Congressmen whirled across the area in
helicopters, minced around in their city shoes looking at the drought
wreckage, but sometimes were not impressed. When one of them spied a
wheat field he thought looked pretty good, the farmers pulled up the
plants to show the withering roots, the stunted buds.
Farmer Malard walked his acres last week and understood how others
might not sense the stress. Behind him the low hills along the
Missouri were beige, fringed with the green of buckbush and
cottonwoods, durable species. "This time of year it should all be
beautiful green," he said with a sweep of his muscled arm. The land is
muted, it is leached, some of the soul sucked out and blown away. A
farmer sees and knows about those things.
In another age, in a simpler society, a drought of these dimensions
was mostly a farm calamity. What could make this drought more menacing
than anything yet seen should the rains not come is the interwoven
nature of the environment, economy and people. Crop failures, farm
bankruptcies, high food costs, transportation disruption, municipal
water shortages -- bad as all these are, they are familiar
difficulties. Now there is the threat of other, more subtle damage. In
California's Silicon Valley, a plan to cut pure reservoir supplies
sent a shock through the semiconductor industry. Ionizing mineral-
laden well water to the proper purity would send the water-treatment
bills for just six firms from $2.1 million to $4.9 million,
threatening their competitive positions and jobs. The San Francisco
water authorities were successfully lobbied to hold off for this year.
Lowered lakes and rivers mean more danger of sewage, industrial wastes
and agricultural chemicals tainting drinking water and recreation
areas. Pollutants are diluted and flushed away by surface water in
normal times. The drought has also sent water-hungry users to deep
wells, and some of these show disturbing concentrations of nitrates
and herbicides.
The trade balance is involved in the complex equation that deals with
the drying of America. After dismal years of crop surpluses, falling
prices and sagging overseas markets, the federal program to sell
foodstocks abroad and take millions of acres out of production was at
last paying off. Wheat surpluses had dwindled by 35% in the past two
years, and exports were up 75%. So far, Clayton Yeutter, the U.S.
trade representative, is resisting the cries to stop selling grain
overseas and preserve it for American markets. But if grain sales
abroad must be halted, the frustrated overseas customers may be doubly
hard to woo back when the granaries again bulge with surpluses -- as
they will. When that day comes, farmers will complain and taxpayers
will moan. And that is why farm policy is never settled.
Driving south along Highway 1804 above Cannon Ball, Leon Malard looked
right and left reading the land and assessing the scorched crops,
feeling the wind and watching for neighbors' activity. One was cutting
hay in a narrow field. "Without last year's leftover it wouldn't be
worth it," Malard said. "I was hoping to get some weeds, so I might
have something to cut out of my fields. But not even the weeds came."
He points at a patch of his land. "I couldn't even get the plow in
that ground, it was baked so hard. The plow just rode up on top of
it."
Battle after battle Malard fights with this capricious force called
Nature. Right now, it seems, he is losing more than he is winning, but
he is a man of almost endless patience. Nature, he knows, will sooner
or later grow weary of its tantrum. When it does, he will still be
around.
bademiyansubhanallah
Antarctic coastal ice thinning surprises experts
REUTERS 25 September 2009, 11:50am IST
OSLO: Scientists are surprised at how extensively coastal ice in
Antarctica and Greenland is thinning, according to a study Wednesday
that could help predict rising sea levels linked to climate change.
Analysis of millions of NASA satellite laser images showed the biggest
loss of ice was caused by glaciers speeding up when they flowed into
the sea, according to scientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS)
and Bristol University.
"We were surprised to see such a strong pattern of thinning glaciers
across such large areas of coastline - it's widespread and in some
cases thinning extends hundreds of kilometers inland," said Hamish
Pritchard of BAS who led the study.
"We think that warm ocean currents reaching the coast and melting the
glacier front is the most likely cause of faster glacier flow," he
said in a statement.
"This kind of ice loss is so poorly understood that it remains the
most unpredictable part of future sea level rise," he added. BAS said
the study gave the "most comprehensive picture" of the thinning
glaciers so far.
Rising seas caused by a thaw of vast stores of ice on Antarctica and
Greenland could threaten Pacific islands, coasts from China to the
United States and cities from London to Buenos Aires.
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said earlier this month that global
warming, blamed mainly on burning fossil fuels, could raise sea levels
by 50 cm to 2 meters this century - higher than most experts have
predicted.
Among findings, Wednesday's study said 81 of 111 fast-moving glaciers
in Greenland were thinning at twice the rate of slow-flowing ice at
the same altitude.
"Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet margins is more
sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously
realized," they wrote. "Dynamic thinning" means loss of ice due to a
faster flow.
They said it was too early to determine whether the thinning was a
sign that sea level rise would accelerate from a current rate of about
3 mm a year.
"Working that out is the next task," David Vaughan, a BAS glaciologist
among the authors, told Reuters. Thinning in some areas could be
caused by changes in snowfall, for instance, not the slide of ice
toward the ocean, he said.
bademiyansubhanallah
G20 to become world's top economic body: UK's Brown
24 Sep 2009, 2100 hrs IST, REUTERS
UNITED NATIONS: Global leaders will institutionalize the G20 as the
world's main economic governing council, British Prime Minister Gordon
Brown A to Z of G-20
said on Thursday.
He said G20 leaders would meet regularly, with South Korea taking over
the presidency next year.
"The G20 will take a bigger role in economic cooperation than the G8
has in the past," Brown told reporters ahead of this week's meeting of
G20 leaders in Pittsburgh.
Brown said Shriti Vadera will leave her role as business minister to
become Britain's G20 coordinator and work closely with South Korea.
Trade minister Mervyn Davies will take over Vadera's ministerial
responsibilities.
Brown said he did not expect any discussion on the Chinese currency at
this week's G20 meeting but said he would like to see China importing
more.
"We would like to see China importing more from our countries," he
said.
Brown noted there were $7 trillion worth of foreign exchange reserves
which he said were "not necessarily being used in a constructive
way."
Brown said he wanted to see the International Monetary Fund come up
with an insurance scheme that would lessen some countries' need to
accumulate reserves so that they could use those funds to support
their economies.
Before flying to Pittsburgh later Thursday, Brown will attend a
meeting of the United Nations Security Council on nuclear non-
proliferation.
"We are coming to a moment of truth with Iran," Brown said. "We will
be proposing fuller and tougher sanctions."
bademiyansubhanallah
G-20 opponents, police clash on Pittsburgh streets
25 Sep 2009, 0334 hrs IST, AGENCIES
PITTSBURGH: Police threw canisters of pepper spray and smoke at
marchers protesting the Group of 20 summit Thursday after anarchists
responded to calls to disperse by rolling trash bins and throwing
rocks.
The march turned chaotic at just about the same time that President
Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrived for a meeting with
leaders of the world's major economies.
The clashes began after hundreds of protesters, many advocating
against capitalism, tried to march from an outlying neighborhood
toward the convention center where the summit is being held.
Police in riot gear stood guard near the protesters, who banged on
drums and chanted ``Ain't no power like the power of the people,
'cause the power of the people don't stop.''
The hundreds of marchers included small groups of self-described
anarchists, some wearing dark clothes and bandanas and carrying black
flags. Others wore helmets and safety goggles.
Some held a banner that read, ``No borders, no thanks.'' Another
banner read, ``No hope in capitalism.'' A few minutes into the march,
protesters unfurled a large banner reading ``NO BAILOUT NO
CAPITALISM'' with an encircled ``A,'' a recognized sign of
anarchists.
The marchers did not have a permit and, after a few blocks, police
declared it an unlawful assembly. They played an announcement over a
loudspeaker telling people to leave or face arrest and then moved in
to break it up.
Protesters split into smaller groups. Some rolled large metal trash
bins toward police, and a man in a black hooded sweat shirt threw
rocks at a police car, breaking the front windshield. Some protesters
used pallets and corrugated steel to block a road. Police said the
windows at one bank branch were broken.
Officers fired pepper spray and smoke at the protesters. Some of those
exposed to the pepper spray coughed and complained that their eyes
were watering and stinging.
About an hour after the clashes started, the police and protesters
were at a standoff. Police sealed off main thoroughfares to downtown.
Some of the protesters were seen ducking into alleyways to change out
of their all-black clothing and then milling about in the street.
Twenty-one-year-old Stephon Boatwright, of Syracuse, New York, wore a
mask of English anarchist Guy Fawkes and walked up and down in front
of a line of riot police yelling at them. He then sat cross-legged
about near the riot line, telling the police to let the protesters
through and to join their cause.
``You're actively suppressing us. I know you want to move,''
Boatwright yelled, to applause from the protesters gathered around
him.
Protesters complained that the march had been peaceful and that police
were trampling on their right to assemble.
bademiyansubhanallah
G20 leaders agreed on bonuses, divided on IMF
25 Sep 2009, 0644 hrs IST, AGENCIES
PITTSBURGH: Leaders of the main world economies on Thursday began a
summit hosted by Barack Obama, looking to curb bankers' pay and agree
on how best to overhaul the financial system.
Even before the US president and First Lady Michelle Obama sat down
for a gala dinner to host their first major summit, tough new rules on
limiting bonuses and executive pay were in the offing.
Disputes on the long-awaited reform of the International Monetary
Fund, however, opened a rift between Europe and emerging nations as
voting rights came to the fore at the Group of 20 summit.
The start of the gathering was marred by isolated incidents of
violence as small groups of anti-capitalist protesters defied police
warnings not to march on the summit venue.
Police fired pepper spray and non-lethal rounds and deployed
loudspeakers blasting piercing sound waves to repel the mostly young
protesters. Fifteen people were arrested, police said.
The G20 is a forum for the world's biggest developed and emerging
economies and its meetings are a magnet for anti-capitalists opposed
to what they see as an undemocratic body promoting globalization and
free market policies.
After a series of bilateral meetings ahead of the main summit with
Japanese and Chinese officials, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
reaffirmed the US strong-dollar policy.
Following China-led calls to review its role as a reserve currency, he
reminded Beijing that: "A strong dollar is very important to the
United States."
But Geithner said Europe and the United States were close to agreeing
tough new rules on limiting bankers' bonuses despite earlier
differences.
In the run-up to the summit there was friction between Washington and
some European capitals, with France and Germany in particular pushing
for stricter caps on the pay-outs, which they say encourage excessive
risks in trading.
"We actually are very close and I believe we are in the same place,"
Geithner told reporters. "We want to have very strong standards to
limit the risk."
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, who holds the rotating
presidency of the European Union, took a similar line.
"I expect the G20 will make a clear statement about the need for
global rules on bonuses and compensation, and I also expect broad
agreement on how to strengthen supervision in general."
There was some discord in the air however, with a top advisor to
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hitting out at European
"resistance"
to giving more voting weights to emerging nations.
For Brazil, China and other emerging countries, it is crucial to
achieve a breakthrough in negotiations in Pittsburgh so the IMF can
endorse the reform at its annual meeting on October 6 to 7 in
Istanbul.
The summit of the world's 19 biggest developed and emerging economies
plus the European Union comes just over a year after a US credit
collapse triggered a global economic slowdown.
It also comes six months after the same G20 chiefs met in London to
coordinate their response to the crisis, and their performance in
Pittsburgh will be judged in part on whether they have lived up to
their earlier vows.
International Monetary Fund spokeswoman Caroline Atkinson, addressing
a news conference in Washington ahead of the summit, said G20 leaders
had implemented many promises but needed to stay focused on nurturing
a lasting recovery.
"I expect leaders this time will be focused on what they need to do
and what the world needs to do to make sure that the recovery we're
seeing the beginnings of now is one that's sustained."
Summit delegates have all pledged to take tough and lasting measures
to bring order back to the markets, shore up failing institutions,
save jobs and rekindle growth, but each arrives in Pittsburgh with
their own priorities.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would push other nations to
impose sanctions on uncooperative tax havens starting next year.
"Tax havens, banking secrecy, that's all over," he told French
television. "I will fight for sanctions tomorrow in Pittsburgh."
Aside from financial regulation and climate change, the summit is also
expected to discuss when and how to begin scaling back the multi-
trillion dollar stimulus packages countries established to fight the
recession.
Japan and Europe have begun to edge out of the slump and are starting
to look at cuts -- cheered on by China, which fears US deficits will
destabilize the dollar -- but others feel such a move would be
premature.
bademiyansubhanallah
G20 summit
REUTERS
What would qualify as success for US President Barack Obama at the G20
summit he hosts in Pittsburgh?
Here is a look issue-by-issue:
Macroeconomics
The US proposal to rebalance the global economy -- smoothing out the
huge trade and current account surpluses in export-driven countries
such as China while debtor nations like the United States save more --
would take years to implement.
But Obama could claim as a success any signals of support in
Pittsburgh from other G20 leaders for the US plan to launch in
November reviews by the International Monetary Fund of national
economic policies.
Any avoidance of talk among G20 leaders of quick moves to remove their
huge economic stimulus -- which could unsettle financial markets --
would be a success too.
Climate change
G20 finance ministers were unable to make substantial progress on
climate finance before the summit. If Obama is able to show any sign
of movement, it would be a success.
Separately, if Obama can persuade G20 nations to phase out fossil fuel
subsidies, the administration would paint that as a victory for the
climate and the economy.
Financial regulation
Obama will earn an A+ at the summit if he can forge agreements, with
substantive details and timetables for implementation, on restraining
executive pay and writing new bank capital and liquidity rules.
Another sign of success would be accords on regulating over-the-
counter derivatives, combating offshore tax shelters, converging
global accounting standards and bringing more government oversight to
hedge funds.
Trade
Success on trade might be to divert attention from the fact that Obama
does not have a strong agenda to open new markets and is increasingly
being perceived as a protectionist.
The rebalancing initiative would presumably boost U.S. exports -- and
so his popularity with domestic industry.
IMF/World Bank
Success would mean getting the G20 to commit to specific targets for
increasing the IMF voting power of large emerging market countries.
Will it be a 5 percent shift in voting power from developed countries
to some "dynamic" emerging economies as proposed by the United
States?
Or 7 percent as proposed by main emerging economies? Obama would also
be successful if he got the G20 to agree on the management of $20
billion in commitments to increase investment in agriculture in
developing countries.
While countries pledged the funding in July at a Group of Eight summit
in Italy, there has been no progress on an overseer for the process --
whether the World Bank or a combination of the World Bank and U.N.
agencies including the World Food Programme.
US leadership
Obama hopes for a reassuring message about the global economy, which
was in worse straits when the G20 last convened in London five months
ago.
Playing host to the G20 offers him a chance to show leadership on the
world stage, where he remains popular but is facing new doubts about
his ability to deliver on his agenda.
bademiyansubhanallah
What to expect from the G20 summit
25 Sep 2009, 0122 hrs IST, AGENCIES
PITTSBURGH: A year after the near-collapse of the global financial
system, leaders of the Group of 20 nations gathered Thursday in the US
city of Pittsburgh for a two-day summit aimed at tightening
regulations and shoring up the world economy.
Here are some of the main talking points:
GLOBAL REBALANCE
- US President Barack Obama wants to iron out the massive trade and
current account imbalances that were seen as contributing to the
financial crisis, but he will meet with strong opposition from big
exporters China and Germany.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
- The US will call for a bigger financial policing role for the IMF,
which will also come under pressure to reform its voting system to
give more clout to the big emerging nations such as Brazil, China,
India, and Russia.
STIMULUS 'EXIT STRATEGIES'
- As countries claw back from recession, led by growth in Asia, the
onus on leaders gathering in Pittsburgh is to decide when to pull the
plug on state stimulus packages and how to coordinate that move.
CLIMATE
- European heads of state will put pressure on Obama to take more of a
lead on climate change three months ahead of a summit in Copenhagen to
ink new targets for global emissions beyond 2012, when the Kyoto
Protocol expires.
The EU wants to rich nations to provide major funding to developing
nations to combat global warming and its impact.
The US is pushing key developing and developed nations to agree on a
plan to phase out subsidies for fossil fuel industries blamed for
global warming.
After new pledges from China and Japan at a climate meeting in New
York earlier in the week UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the
"political momentum" had moved towards sealing a deal in Copenhagen.
BANK BONUSES/EXECUTIVE PAY
- France and Germany have been pressing for caps on bankers' bonuses,
amid opposition from Britain and the United States, but a watered-down
compromise deal appears likely as well as a broader agreement to try
and limit exorbitant salaries for banking executives.
BANK CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
- Leaders will discuss new rules dictating how much banks must stash
in their vaults versus the amount they are putting to work. Woefully
inadequate reserves were blamed for the meltdown of banks like Lehman
Brothers after a sharp drop in the value of their assets, in this case
dodgy debt derivatives.
REGULATING DERIVATIVES
- Derivatives, the complex financial instruments believed to be a key
element of the global financial crisis, will again come under the
microscope.
The financial system was pushed to the brink last year when AIG and
Lehman Brothers were put on the hook for trillions of dollars of
failed subprime, or high-risk, mortgage securities.
G20 leaders tightened at their last in London in April, but the US
will be leading calls for official exchanges to be set up and further
checks and balances.
TAX HAVENS
- Leaders agreed in London to block these "black holes" in the
financial system, arguing that the ease with which some market players
hid their profits was contributing to instability. New lists of "non-
cooperative" countries were published, sanctions were threatened and
several places -- including large financial centers such as Belgium
and Luxembourg -- have since done what was needed to get off the "grey
list".
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is now calling on his G20 partners to
agree on imposing sanctions on uncooperative tax havens as of next
year.
ACCOUNTING
- Top bank supervisors published plans in August for new accounting
standards in a bid to prevent a replay of the financial crisis. These
will provide the platform for discussions at the G20 on tighter market
regulation.
WORLD TRADE/PROTECTIONISM
- European Commission chief Manuel Barroso called on G20 leaders to
push for a rapid global trade deal, but a quick conclusion to the Doha
round of talks is highly unlikely given years of deadlock between the
major trading blocs.
The US and China will look to move on from their own recent row over
protectionism.
Earlier this month Obama slapped punitive tariffs on Chinese-made
tires, arguing that the emerging power was dumping exports onto the US
market and costing American jobs.
China hit back, accusing Washington of violating World Trade
Organization rules on protectionism and said it would investigate
whether to take similar measures against US car products and chicken
meat.
Sid Harth
Manmohan Singh meets British, Japanese, Australian leaders
September 25th, 2009 - 10:09 pm ICT by IANS -
Pittsburgh, Sep 25 (IANS) Starting his day early, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh held bilateral meetings with his counterparts from
three countries on the margins of the G20 Summit here Friday.
His first meeting was with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 7.30
a.m. at the Omni Penn Hotel where he and his delegation are staying,
followed by meetings with new Japanese premier Yukio Hatoyama and
Australia’s Kevin Rudd.
His meeting with Rudd, who is scheduled to visit New Delhi in
November, also came against the backdrop of the attacks on Indians in
Australia that both sides have condemned.
About 30 Indians, mainly students, have been attacked Down Under in
recent months, even as Rudd has promised to ensure their safety.
Sid Harth
Grouping calls for tough laws on bank capital and continuing stimulus
plans
India and China gain more clout at G20 conclave
Pittsburgh, Sep 25, Reuters & PTI:
The Group of 20 will take on the role of caretakers of global economy,
giving rising powers such as India and China more clout, and roll out
tougher rules on bank capital by the end of 2012, a draft communique
said on Friday.
A draft declaration of the summit said G20 countries had a
“responsibility to the community of nations to assure the overall
health of global economy” and pledged to secure next year a deal in
long-running world trade talks.
In another boost for India and China, the G20 moved close to a deal
shifting more voting power at the International Monetary Fund,
recognising their growing economic power. The group, which accounts
for 90 per cent of world’s economic output, also agreed to rein in
financial industry excesses that triggered the credit crisis two years
ago, and to tighten rules on how much capital banks must have to
absorb losses. The new rules aimed at improving the quality and amount
of capital should be ready by the end of 2010 and will be phased in in
the following two years, the draft said.
Taking on board the concerns of India and other countries, the G-20
decided to continue the stimulus packages to quicken global economic
recovery. The draft declaration is believed to have stressed the need
for continuance of the booster dose.
Global economic forum
Establishing the G-20 as premier global economic forum, Obama called
on world’s leaders to reform global economic institutions to meet the
needs of an interconnected world economy. The global forum is the
primary vehicle in the G-20’s effort to promote greater tax
transparency, the draft said.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has already said the summit should send
a strong message against protectionism in all its forms and that it
should not be business as usual for countries because the global
economy is yet to come out of the woods.Planning Commission Deputy
Chairman, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, was India’s pointsman in the
negotiations as Singh met world leaders.
The declaration endorses India’s stand for reforms of international
financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary
Fund to reflect ground realities by giving greater say in their
affairs for emerging economies.
Sid Harth
India, China will behave responsibly on Climate Change: B'desh
New York, Sep 24 (PTI):
As the Climate Change Summit at the UN concluded, Bangladesh today
expressed confidence in the two regional giants, China and India, to
act responsibly in dealing with the issue.
"I believe that both the countries are very responsible members of the
international community and they will do what is not only in their
best interest but also the best interest of the region," Bangladesh
Foreign Minister Dipu Moni told PTI here.
The high-level summit, which featured more than 100 world leaders was
convened to mobilise political will before the Climate Change
Conference in Copenhagen.
The meeting in the Danish capital is expected to yield a climate
treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. India was
represented by Foreign Minister SM Krishna and Environment Minister
Jairam Ramesh at the Summit.
India has 16 per cent of the world's populations and produces less
than five per cent of the word's greenhouse gases, while China has 17
per cent of the global population and produces 23 per cent of the
greenhouse gases.
The United States, which has 5 per cent of the world's population,
produces 22 per cent of the global greenhouse gases.
Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
India to push for expansion of WB capital
Lalit K Jha, Press Trust Of India
Pittsburgh, September 24, 2009
First Published: 15:50 IST(24/9/2009)
Last Updated: 15:56 IST(24/9/2009)
India will push for the expansion of the capital of the World Bank,
similar to that of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a top Indian
official said on Thursday, ahead of the key G-20 Summit on Friday to
review the progress made to check the global economic crisis.
"From our point of view, we would also like to have the Capital of the
World Bank to be expanded and of course there is the whole question of
climate change which is very much on the agenda in the run up to
Copenhagen," said Meera Shankar, the Indian Ambassador to the United
States.
Shankar told reporters on the eve of the start of the two-day G-20
Summit in Pittsburgh that one of the issues that is being discussed is
"the issue of financing for climate change for developing countries
and I think there is the view that this should be done through the
existing multilateral financial institutions".
"While that is something which can be considered, we feel that there
should be net additionality of funding and should not detract from the
existing orientation and existing missions of these institutions," she
said.
Shankar said this was one of the suggestions made by the Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh at the first G-20 meeting that many poor
developing countries will be very adversely effected by the economic
crisis and argued that there is a need to provide additional capital
to the multilateral institutions so that they are in a position to
respond quickly to any crisis requirements from these countries.
bademiyansubhanallah
I lost touch with stock markets, says Manmohan Singh
26 Sep 2009, 1636 hrs IST, IANS
PITTSBURGH: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who as finance minister in
the 1990s invited criticism for saying he does not lose sleep over the
rise or fall of a key equities market index, was cautious Friday night
when answering a question on the stock markets.
"I am now out of touch with what's happening in the stock markets,"
the prime minister replied during a press conference after the
conclusion of the G20 summit here.
But the economist in him did not betray him.
"Obviously, in recent months, the stock markets have benefited from
the flow of confidence, the return flow of capital back into India,"
he said, adding the fundamentals of the Indian economy had also a role
to play.
Indian stock markets have risen sharply in recent months, after a
major crash last year, with the key sensitive index, or Sensex of the
Bombay Stock Exchange, rising 3,590.82 points, or 27.41 per cent over
the past year.
bademiyansubhanallah
Key agreements at the G-20 summit
26 Sep 2009, 1548 hrs IST, AGENCIES
Key points of agreement by leaders of the Group of 20 on Friday:
ECONOMIC GROWTH: Support economic activity until recovery is assured.
Finance ministers will develop coordinated exit strategies from
stimulus efforts at appropriate time.
NEW ROLE FOR G-20: G-20 will replace the G-8 as the main forum for
coordinating global economic policy. The G-20 includes rapidly
industrializing nations such as China, India and Brazil that are not
part of the wealthier G-8.
MORE REGULATION: Improve the regulation, functioning and transparency
of financial and commodity markets ``to address excessive commodity
price volatility.'' Financial institutions ``must be subject to
consistent, consolidated supervision and regulation with high
standards.''
BONUS PAYMENTS: Tie bank executives' pay more closely to long-term
performance of their investment decisions. Discourage guaranteed
multiyear bonuses, which encourage risky investments.
TAX HAVENS: Maintain momentum ``in dealing with tax havens, money
laundering, proceeds of corruption, terrorist financing, and
prudential standards.'' Improve tax transparency and exchange of
information among governments.
TRADE: Oppose protectionism. Swiftly implement the $250 billion trade
finance initiative. Oppose new barriers to investment or to trade in
goods and services.
FOSSIL FUELS: Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and push
toward investment in cleaner energy sources. ``Spare no effort'' to
get a global warming agreement passed in Copenhagen, Denmark in
December.
BALANCED GROWTH: Take steps to ensure ``strong, sustainable and
balanced growth'' and to build a stronger international system.
Monitor economic policies to pursue sustainable patterns that don't
rely heavily on huge exports from a few countries and huge consumption
by a few others.
POOR PEOPLE: Through the World Bank and regional development banks,
take steps ``to increase access to food, fuel and finance among the
world's poorest while clamping down on illicit outflows.''
BANK CAPITAL: Improve the quantity and quality of bank capital and
``discourage excessive leverage.''
bademiyansubhanallah
G8's history, G20 to call the shots now
26 Sep 2009, 0250 hrs IST, T K Arun, ET Bureau
PITTSBURGH: The G20 summit underway here got a boost on Thursday night
when, at the inaugural dinner for the leaders of the 20 leading
economies
and their spouses, host President Obama said categorically that the
Group of 20 has now replaced the G8 as the premier global economic
forum. Rarely do changes in the global balance of economic power find
such rapid reflection in the global architecture of economic co-
operation as in the present instance, said Mr Obama.
This cooption of large, fast-growing economies, such as India and
China, into global decision making found its resonance in the flurry
of bilateral meetings held by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with
leaders of other nations. He had meetings with the prime ministers of
Britain, Japan and Australia.
While the summit and the bilateral that meet on its sidelines are not
yet over, as this goes to print, a meeting with the Dutch premier is
in the offing. But there are no signs yet of the widely anticipated
meeting of Mr Singh with South Africa’s President Zuma materialising.
In his speech at the summit, Mr Singh focused on three things: the
need to sustain the coordinated stimulus measures by national
governments around the world for some more time, at least till the end
of 2010, the developed countries’ obligation to take the lead in
quelling protectionist eruptions and concluding the Doha Round of
trade negotiations fast and stimulating investment in the developing
countries.
All these three imperatives flow, he said, from the major blow
received by the developing countries from the financial crisis wrought
essentially by the developed world. Developing country growth has
dipped to 1.5%, they have lost $900 billion worth of non-oil exports
and lower domestic revenues have deprived them of essential public
investment in vital social infrastructure, hurting future growth.
The prime minister also indirectly held out a hand of friendship and
cooperation to China by virtue of the prescriptions that he
recommended for regaining global growth momentum.
Dr Manmohan Singh posited stepped up investment in developing
countries as the way out for both developing and developed countries.
And for this, it is vital, in the present context of vastly reduced
developing country access to commercial capital flows, for
multilateral loans such as from the World Bank to expand
significantly. The PM urged developed countries to recapitalise the
World Bank, doubling its capital, so that it could undertake steeply
stepped up infrastructure financing in the developing countries.
Such investment in infrastructure would compensate developing
countries for lost exports and boost their capacity for future growth.
Developed nations would also gain from greater infrastructure
investment in developing countries — such investment tends to be
import-intensive, spreading the growth impulse further.
Interestingly, Dr Singh’s emphasis on infrastructure investment in
developing countries serves to deflect some pressure that has been
mounting on China to boost domestic consumption as the way to create
additional demand for global output.
Dr Singh pointed out that India has fared relatively well during the
crisis but, in his deprecating style, attributed some, at least, of
the credit to India’s Asianness — the Asian economies, after all, have
fared better than its counterparts on other continents. That India had
to widen its fiscal deficit to maintain this Asianness was also driven
home. The PM also took credit on India’s behalf for kickstarting the
Doha Round with the recent informal ministerial hosted by India, where
most countries agreed to restart negotiations in earnest.
bademiyansubhanallah
India at global high table
G20 replaces rich club as economic forum
K.P. NAYAR
Manmohan Singh’s wife Gursharan Kaur with US First Lady Michelle Obama
during a reception hosted by Barack Obama in Pittsburgh on Thursday.
(PTI)
Pittsburgh, Sept. 25: After tip-toeing on the fringes of big power
status for almost a decade, India was last night formally inducted
into a seat at the global high table when the White House announced
that the Group of 20 (G20) will replace the Group of Eight (G8) as
“the premier forum for international economic cooperation”.
A White House statement late last night said an agreement tantamount
to burying the G8 had been endorsed by world leaders gathered in
Pittsburgh “to reform global economic institutions to meet the needs
of an interconnected global economy”.
Within hours of the White House announcement, prime minister Manmohan
Singh outlined the rationale for the decision acknowledging a new
status in the international economic order for India and some other
emerging economies.
“India too has been affected” by the economic crisis, Singh said at
the plenary session of the G20 today, “but, in common with other Asian
countries, we have weathered the crisis relatively well given the
circumstances”.
The Prime Minister told his fellow global leaders here that “after
growing at nine per cent a year for four years, our economy slowed
down to 6.7 per cent in 2008-09”.
Explaining what he called a “relatively strong performance”, Singh
said that “despite a drought, which will affect agricultural
production, we expect to grow by around 6.3 per cent in 2009-10 and
then recover to seven to 7.5 per cent growth next year”.
Arguing strongly for a redistribution of economic power in the world
order, Singh pointed out that developing countries “were in no way
responsible for the (current global economic) crisis, but in many
ways, they are the hardest hit”.
Their GDP had grown at an annual average of 6.5 per cent for seven
years, but this year such growth had fallen to 1.5 per cent, “implying
a fall in real per capita income”.
The White House announcement replacing G-8 by G20, belatedly
acknowledged that “dramatic changes in the world economy have not
always been reflected in the global architecture for economic
cooperation. This all started to change today”.
The statement described the change as “historic”, pointing out that in
addition to industrialised countries that formed G8 — originally as G6
in 1975 — India, China, Brazil and other similarly emerging G-20
economies will now be “at the centre of efforts to work together to
build a durable recovery while avoiding the financial fragilities that
led to the (current global economic) crisis”.
The Obama administration said “this decision brings to the table the
countries needed to build a stronger, more balanced global economy,
reform the financial system, and lift the lives of the poorest”.
The White House announcement made it clear that US president Barack
Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other Western leaders had
not come to the decision in any hurry. Nearly a decade ago, India was
first invited to the fringes of a G8 summit.
In April, at the London summit of G20 leaders, it was decided to
expand the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to include India and other
G-20 partners in an effort to develop and implement sweeping reforms
to transform the system of global regulation.The FSB is the successor
to the Financial Stability Forum, created in 1999 by what was then the
Group of Seven Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
It was also decided this year to add all the G20 members to the Global
Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information, which serves as the
primary vehicle in the world economy to promote greater tax
transparency.
Last night's announcement was a logical progression to this process.
Although world leaders meeting here may have acknowledged the need to
include emerging economies in the process of global financial decision-
making, it is unlikely that they will immediately wind up G8
altogether.
Howsoever anachronistic the G8 may have become in the light of
changing realities of the world order, the rich countries will not
easily give up their cosy club, which is also often used to keep in
line India and others on strategic issues like non-proliferation and
disarmament.
The dominant view here is that industrialised states have merely made
a tactical concession to emerging economies in view of their need to
seek the support of China, India and Brazil in order to tackle
pressing issues thrown up by the present global financial crisis.
Alert to this possibility, the prime minister called today for
following up decisions made in Pittsburgh by doubling the capital of
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) so
that it can lend more to middle-income and creditworthy poorer
countries.
bademiyansubhanallah
Difficulties remain in reaching climate pact, says Manmohan
PITTSBURGH: Saying that he was not an "astrologer'', Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh on Friday said he cannot predict whether countries
could seal a deal on climate change before the Copenhagen meet but
acknowledged that "difficulties'' remain in the path of negotiations.
“I am not an astrologer,'' Dr Singh said when asked about if a
December conference in the Danish capital Copenhagen would succeed in
sealing a successor framework to the Kyoto protocol. However, he noted
that there was a broader agreement on the climate change among key
world economies, he said while acknowledging that difficulties remain
in the path of successful negotiations on this issue.
“There are difficulties in climate change. Now there is a broad
agreement, but how to bring about the adjustment in emission is a
competitive matter, which requires an exercise in burden sharing,'' he
observed at a press conference held at the conclusion of the G-20
Summit in Pittsburgh.
Dr Singh said there is no agreement on the rules of the game as to how
this burden sharing needs to be brought about. The developed countries
should carry out credible commitment, credible action in order to
control, emission, he said.
“The developing countries are required taking national action for that
resources should be provided, energy resources as well as
technological support,'' he said. - PTI
Sid Harth
Why the G20 summit in Pittsburgh a step forward
September 26, 2009 23:39 IST
The visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] worked.
On conclusion of his short trip to Pittsburgh to attend the G-20
summit, he was in upbeat mood.
His admirer and director of G-20 research group of Toronto University
John Kirton told rediff.com that amongst the 19 leaders of G-20, only
Dr Singh is truly qualified to talk about the complex world of
international finance because he has doctorate degree in economics and
has practised his knowledge throughout his life.
He said that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown [ Images ] is only
partly qualified because he was finance minister before becoming PM;
but Brown was a student of history in his college days.
PM Singh's personal qualifications and India's thriving democracy
continue to give it an edge at international summits that are dealing
with the world of economy. In spite of India's dismal contribution in
international trade, which is little above 1 percent, India sits
confidently on high table.
Was G-20 at Pittsburgh a success?
It was certainly a step forward for developing countries. The bottom-
line of such high-level international summits can be termed successful
if rich people yield even little space to developing or poor
countries. In real world, developed, rich and powerful countries are
controlling leverages of the finance sector while the leaders of the
developing countries, who are struggling with poverty, inflation and
money for infrastructure but still growing impressively, are trying to
make these Western countries realize that they can no more dictate the
world -- because their growths are stagnating, their dependence on
developing world is increasing and it is becoming irreversible.
Following points of the statement released by the G-20 leaders
suggests why the summit at Pittsburgh was a way forward and positive
for India and other developing countries.
The statement said G-20 countries will "make sure our regulatory
system for banks and other financial firms reins in the excesses that
led to the crisis. Where reckless behaviour and a lack of
responsibility led to crisis, we will not allow a return to banking as
usual."
This means that millions of dollars of hefty pay packages and salary-
linked performance which breeds greed amongst bankers and financers
will come under scrutiny.
G-20 leaders also said, "We designated the G-20 to be the premier
forum for our international economic cooperation. We established the
Financial Stability Board to include major emerging economies and
welcome its efforts to coordinate and monitor progress in
strengthening financial regulation."
PM Singh in his press conference also emphasised this resolve to G-20
as an achievement.
PM Singh on this issue said, "We have agreed that the G-20 will
henceforth be the premier forum for international economic issues.
This is an important development broadening the global governance
structure."
Another big shift came in rich nations' behaviour, when G-20 leaders
said, " We are committed to a shift in International Monetary Fund
quota share to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries of at
least 5 percent from over-represented countries to under-represented
countries using the current quota formula as the basis to work from.
Today we have delivered on our promise to contribute over $500 billion
to a renewed and expanded IMF New Arrangements to Borrow."
PM Singh in his interaction with mediapersons also pointed out,
"Agreement on 5 percent shift was a compromise. Developing countries
had asked for 7 percent." Nevertheless this shift means that China,
India and other countries would get voting rights in functioning of
IMF.
Another major signal that has emerged from the G-20 is that the IMF
and World bank has got attention, more focus and more funds, specific
role and their focus is again directed to the real issues of poor
nations.
The statement resolved that, "We stressed the importance of adopting a
dynamic formula at the World Bank which primarily reflects countries'
evolving economic weight and the World Bank's development mission, and
that generates an increase of at least 3 percent of voting power for
developing and transition countries, to the benefit of under-
represented countries. While recognizing that over-represented
countries will make a contribution, it will be important to protect
the voting power of the smallest poor countries. We called on the
World Bank to play a leading role in responding to problems whose
nature requires globally coordinated action, such as climate change
and food security, and agreed that the World Bank and the regional
development banks should have sufficient resources to address these
challenges and fulfill their mandates."
G-20 has decided to take steps to increase access to food, fuel and
finance among the world's poorest while clamping down on illicit
outflows. Steps to reduce the development gap can be a potent driver
of global growth.
Another big issue that cropped up at Pittsburgh is about food security
and concrete action to help poor face climate change.
It said, " Over four billion people remain undereducated, ill-equipped
with capital and technology, and insufficiently integrated into the
global economy. We need to work together to make the policy and
institutional changes needed to accelerate the convergence of living
standards and productivity in developing and emerging economies to the
levels of the advanced economies. To start, we call on the World Bank
to develop a new trust fund to support the new Food Security
Initiative for low-income countries announced last summer. We will
increase, on a voluntary basis, funding for programs to bring clean
affordable energy to the poorest, such as the Scaling Up Renewable
Energy Program."
But India is unlikely to agree to one issue that came up at the G-20
summit. No Indian government can afford to withdraw subsidy on
kerosene. G-20 recommended, "To phase out and rationalize over the
medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted
support for the poorest. Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage
wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in
clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of
climate change."
G-20 wants government to withdraw subsidy on one hand and give cash
directly to poor to buy clean energy.
Another issue of Indian interest was about protectionism.
G-20 leaders said, "We will fight protectionism. We are committed to
bringing the Doha Round to a successful conclusion in 2010."
PM Singh mentioned this issue to media and said that, " I think things
could be worse in regards to protectionism. There is evidence of
creeping protectionism it has not reached an alarming point. And
therefore, it is necessary to bring international pressure to restrain
and restrict the growth of protectionism."
G-20 has also sent political message to spare no effort to reach
agreement in Copenhagen through the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change negotiations. However, again, on this
issue India is not on same page with most of the developed countries
including USA.
PM Singh refused to predict outcome of Copenhagen saying, "I am not an
astrologer.."
Image: The leaders of the G20 Summit pose for a group photo in
Pittsburgh, USA on Friday
Front row, L-R: South Africa's [ Images ] President Jacob Zuma, South
Korea's President Lee Myung-bak, France's [ Images ] President Nicolas
Sarkozy [ Images ], Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,
Brazil's [ Images ] President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, US President
Barack Obama [ Images ], China's President Hu Jintao, Mexico's
President Felipe Calderon, Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de
Kirchner, Russia's [ Images ] President Dmitry Medvedev and Canada's
[ Images ] Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Second row, L-R: European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso,
Japan's [ Images ] Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Australia's
[ Images ] Prime Minister Kevin Rudd [ Images ], Sweden's Prime
Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, Germany's [ Images ] Chancellor Angela
Merkel, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Turkey's Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,
Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, Spain's Prime
Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Italy's [ Images ] Prime
Minister Silvio Berlusconi [ Images ], Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister
Prince Saud al-Faisal [ Images ].
Top row, L-R: Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Thailand's Prime
Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-
Kahn, International Labour Organization Director General Juan Somavia,
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, World Bank's President
Robert Zoellick, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria, Director-General
of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy, Chairman of Financial
Stability Board Mario Draghi.
Photograph: Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
Sheela Bhatt in Pittsburgh
Sid Harth
G20 rules out ‘premature withdrawal’ of stimulus
Siddharth Varadarajan
IMF asked to prepare a report by next year on banking system
G20 renews commitment to fight protectionism
Pittsburgh: In pitching for a more inclusive structure of global
economic governance, the G20 may have set its sights on the future
management of the world economy. But the single most important
decision taken by the group of leading economies on Friday was to
press ahead with the stimulus measures currently being implemented
till recovery was certain.
Speaking to reporters here shortly after the end of the group’s
summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it was good that the G20
had agreed that there would be no premature withdrawal of the
“trillion dollar” stimulus flowing from its last two summits. Since
the global economy had clearly not bottomed out, it was too early to
talk of an “exit” from this approach in the short-run. Instead, the
communique said a transparent and credible process for withdrawing the
“extraordinary” fiscal, monetary and financial sector support should
be developed for implementation “when recovery becomes fully
secured.”
In terms of strengthening the international financial regulatory
system, the G20 agreed to a number of measures that would ensure there
was no return “to the excessive risk taking prevalent in some
countries before the crisis.” These include calling on banks to retain
a greater proportion of current profits to build capital, imposing
tougher regulations on over-the-counter derivatives and reforming
compensation practices in the financial sector to support stability.
Excessive pay and bonuses in the sector have encouraged excessive risk
taking, the G20 said, pitching for a supervisory structure in which
firms with “risky” salary and bonus policies could be forced to
implement corrective measures like higher capital requirements in
order to offset additional risks. In particular, firms that failed or
required public assistance should be forced to modify their
compensation structures, the G20 noted in a nod to the controversy in
Europe and the U.S. over multi-million dollar bonuses being paid from
public funds to executives of bailed out banks.
In another first, the G20 has tasked the IMF with preparing a report
by next year on how to get the financial sector to “make a fair and
substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated
with government interventions to repair the banking system.” This
suggestion, mooted by Germany, is meant to cover proposals like the
‘Tobin tax’ on speculative capital flows.
The battle to recapitalise the World Bank and other regional
development banks — a key priority for India — was only partially won
with the G20 agreeing to find the necessary resources based on a
review of the capital needs of these banks to be completed in the
first half of 2010.
The G20 also discussed the important issue of climate change and
called for a successful outcome in the forthcoming UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Copenhagen. But Prime
Minister Singh said that this call was more in the way of a “pious
wish” since it was not at all clear that the developed countries were
willing to implement the emission cuts earlier UN conventions required
of them.
Though the Prime Minister did not draw attention to it, the final
communiqué also includes a commitment by the G20 for the phasing out
of “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” over the medium term, with the
interests of poor consumers in the developing world addressed by
targeted cash transfers (as Indonesia has been attempting to
implement) rather than price distorting subsidies that may lead to
excessive consumption. Moreover, “relevant institutions” like the
International Energy Agency, the World Bank and OECD have been asked
to “provide an analysis of the scope of energy subsidies” and suggest
how these could be eliminated, a process that may see India being put
in the dock.
That India has a problem with this approach was made clear by the
Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, Shyam Saran. On
September 24, he told reporters here that he was not convinced about
the utility of introducing such a subsidy phase-out at the G20. At
stake was the interest of India’s poorest consumers, who benefit from
affordable kerosene for their cooking and even lighting needs, and
farmers who use subsidised diesel. Though India subsidised fossil fuel
consumption, post-subsidy prices in relation to the purchasing power
of the average citizen were among the highest in the world, he had
said. But other Indian officials made light of the G20 formulation,
saying the government itself was keen to limit subsidies and move
towards cash transfers.
In his remarks to reporters, Prime Minister Singh also highlighted the
renewed commitment of the G20 to fight protectionism. The group agreed
that this could be realised by working for “an ambitious and balanced
conclusion” to the Doha round of trade talks by 2010.