Re: The Truth About Global Warming: Sid Harth
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)
...and I am Sid Harth
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.
bademiyansubhanallah
B-day gift: bigger IMF bite
- Compromise gives developing nations near-majority say
K.P. NAYAR
Manmohan with Obama in Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Sept. 26: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is returning home
with the best birthday gift he could have got, not for himself, but
for the country and for developing nations.
A big share of the credit for getting developing countries a near-
majority say in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) goes to Singh’s
persuasive arguments at the G20 summit which concluded in Pittsburgh
yesterday.
Singh, who sat to the right of US President Barack Obama at the G20
dinner here on Thursday, thanks to a draw of lots, made out a strong
case with Obama in support of a long fight by developing countries to
shift the balance of power in the IMF to reflect a changing world, US
sources said.
Yesterday, he made a similar plea at a meeting with British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown, whose views carry considerable weight within
the G20 in view of Brown’s long years as chancellor of the exchequer.
Besides, Brown had submitted a report in Pittsburgh reviewing the
responsiveness and adaptability of international financial
institutions to global crises.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, too, pitched very hard
for changing IMF quotas in favour of his country, India and China at
his bilateral meetings with G20 leaders.
The result was a compromise, Singh admitted at a media conference
shortly before leaving for Geneva. En route, in mid-air, he cut a
birthday cake prepared by Air India as his wife Gursharan Kaur and
daughter Upinder Singh sang “Happy Birthday” with Montek Singh
Ahluwalia, the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, and M.K.
Narayanan, the national security adviser, in accompaniment, according
to members of Singh’s entourage who spoke from Geneva.
A G20 communique issued here at the conclusion of its summit said:
“Modernising the IMF’s governance is a core element of our effort to
improve the IMF’s credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness. We
recognise that the IMF should remain a quota-based organisation and
that the distribution of quotas should reflect the relative weights of
its members in the world economy, which have changed substantially in
view of the strong growth in dynamic emerging markets and developing
countries.”
The communique added that “to this end, we are committed to a shift in
quota share to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries of at
least five per cent from over-represented to under-represented
countries using the current IMF quota formula as the basis to work
from. We are also committed to protecting the voting share of the
poorest in the IMF. On this basis and as part of the IMF’s quota
review, to be completed by January 2011, we urge an acceleration of
work towards bringing the review to a successful conclusion.”
Singh revealed that developing countries, including India, had argued
in Pittsburgh for a seven per cent increase in their share of IMF
quotas, which would have given them an absolute majority of 51 per
cent in the organisation’s decision-making.
But European nations, which stand to lose rights from the changes,
especially Belgium and the Netherlands, lobbied hard against the
proposal.
The compromise was a five per cent rise in the share of developing
countries, giving them a 49 per cent stake in the IMF. Singh said: “We
now have to address the issue of the Fund quota increase by early
2011”, which has been set as the deadline for completing this task.
Britain’s Prime Minister said of the changes to global economic
architecture, announced in Pittsburgh, that “the old system of
international economic co-operation is over. The new system, as of
today, has begun.”
Lula said: “It is a sacred thing that is happening: The crisis is
opening people’s minds.”
China’s vice-foreign minister, He Yafei, told reporters here that IMF
reform “is a bright spot of the Pittsburgh summit. The most important
thing is to send a message, that is to say the (IMF’s) governance
structure and decision-making procedures should reflect the reality of
the world economy today.”
Singh disputed a reporter’s reference at his news conference about an
economic “crisis” in India and said what India was experiencing was
the fallout of the global crisis and a resultant loss of export
markets.
bademiyansubhanallah
Sermons are easy, reforms aren’t
ASHOK V. DESAI
Wives of G20 leaders, including Gursharan Kaur, Michelle Obama and
Carla Bruni, during a visit to Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh on
Friday. (PTI)
Pittsburgh, Sept. 26: The Soviet Union has passed into history. With
it has passed the bipolar view of world politics, and so has the
religion called non-alignment. But loyalties take much longer to die
than the real-world structures that generate them.
After the payments crisis of 1991, India had learnt from its mistakes,
abandoned cherished policies of control and protection, and stopped
fighting the developed countries. But now that it is prospering and
growing, its leaders can afford to resume its pursuit of the
leadership of less developed countries, and try to position India as
their trade union leader.
In his speech to the G20 summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was
explicit and insistent on this position. According to him, exports of
less developed countries would be $900 billion lower in 2009 than in
2008; loss of exports would reduce income, government revenue, and
public expenditure on infrastructure and social services.
It would heighten tensions, and make reforms more difficult. Developed
countries should replace the vanished demand for developing-country
exports with foreign aid for investment. Developed countries would
profit from such investment because import content of investment is
typically higher than that of consumption.
The World Bank is going to increase its lending by $100 billion in the
next three years, but after that it will have to reduce it again
because it is running out of capital. The countries which own it
should double its capital. The cost would be tiny compared to the sums
developed countries have been spending on stimulus packages. He also
warned developed countries not to protect their industries, since that
would reduce developing countries’ imports.
If we leave aside the politics of the speech, it was succinct and well
argued. Trade has shrunk between all countries, more developed or
less; but of course it has hurt the less developed countries. Old-
style development aid would shore up their balances of payments,
ameliorate crises and help maintain the growth of less developed
countries. So development aid makes good sense. And channelling it
through the World Bank avoids the biases and preferences built into
bilateral aid.
The developed countries have been focused on the global financial
crisis, and on shoring up the International Monetary Fund as one step
in dealing with the crisis. Now that the crisis has faded and the
economies of the developed countries are no longer shrinking, what
could be better than that they should turn their attention to the
World Bank?
The world need not be told just yet, but foreign aid, whether
channelled through the World Bank or not, only postpones payments
crises and does not prevent them. As Manmohan Singh suggested, foreign
aid may finance infrastructure investment. But that would not increase
exports or reduce imports, and would not therefore repair an adverse
balance of payments. It can only be repaired if investment goes into
export promotion or import substitution.
But as India’s own prolonged and unsuccessful experiments show, such
directed investment does not work unless the export or import-
replacing industries are internationally competitive; and making them
such involves many things besides foreign aid. They must be exposed to
competition, their owners must pursue technological excellence, and
banks or the capital market should channel capital into efficient
firms.
Avoiding protection and favouritism is even more important for less
developed than for more developed countries, domestic competition is
essential, and quality of entrepreneurship matters. And as East Asian
countries showed, if domestic industries are internationally
competitive, they need no foreign aid; the hunger of foreign markets
for their exports will keep them growing.
For less developed countries, therefore, economic governance is
crucial to the success or otherwise of foreign aid. But to tell them
to improve the way they run their economies would be imperialism; it
found no mention in Manmohan Singh’s speech.
Not everything need be said in every speech; the Prime Minister will
have many other opportunities to give sermons. I hope he will use some
of them to tell less developed countries to reform themselves.
His message will carry even greater weight if he reforms the economy
on which he holds sway — if he does not raid the treasuries of his
public enterprises to subsidise the so-called poor, if he does not
create unprecedented opportunities for corruption under the guise of
giving employment, and if he does not make agriculture internationally
uncompetitive by giving it protection it could do perfectly without.
But then, sermons are easy; reforms are not. And the government of a
country that continues to do well economically can forget reforms and
indulge freely in populist folly.
chhotemianinshallah
Paused at Pittsburgh: the search for the right G-spot
Gautam Chikermane, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, September 27, 2009
First Published: 21:01 IST(27/9/2009)
Last Updated: 21:04 IST(27/9/2009)
The planet’s constant and continuous search for economic global power
consolidation moved one more step ahead when the leaders of the Group
of 20 (or G20, a loose collection of the world’s 19 strongest
economies and EU) joined hands in Pittsburgh last week. And as Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh turned 77 on September 26, he has brought
India to the group that has designated itself as the “premier forum of
our international economic cooperation”. So, apart from putting the
city on the world’s business map, the Pittsburgh Summit — the third to
host G20 deliberations on the ongoing global financial crisis in less
than a year — has paved the way for fast-growing economies such as
China and India, but equally Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa
and Australia, to be partners in the creation of the new global
financial architecture.
This partnership is not merely intellectual (being part of setting up
a new global regulatory structure of banks, financial institutions and
those who man them) but also numeric (a greater share in multilateral
institutions like International Monetary Fund or IMF and World Bank).
“We established the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to include major
emerging economies and welcome its efforts to coordinate and monitor
progress in strengthening financial regulation,” the Leaders’
Statement said. “We are committed to a shift in IMF quota share to
dynamic emerging markets and developing countries of at least 5 per
cent from over-represented countries to under-represented countries
using the current quota formula as the basis to work from.” Or
appointing the heads and senior leadership of these haloed
institutions “through an open, transparent and merit-based process”.
So, as the developing world celebrates its new economic power through
the expansion and inclusion of significant economies in the way global
finance and economy plays out through the G20, the Pittsburgh Summit
has brought with it an expectation on the leaders of the included to
think beyond the narrow confines of their countries. And on that
front, by keeping the spotlight on regulation, on least developed
economies or on the need to continue with the stimulus, Manmohan Singh
has proved that India has the intellectual as well as the economic
clout to stand up and be counted. Where he has lost out is in his
pursuit of anti-protectionism — ironically the biggest challenge to
global trade today but one that has fallen from its priority status of
No. 4 in the London communique to the 28th spot in Pittsburgh’s big
picture (“we will fight protectionism”) and to Para 48 out of 50 among
the specifics. The tug-of-war will continue in Canada in June 2010.
Between the cynics who will claim that this recognition of economic
power is just a temporary eyewash that will melt away with the end of
the ongoing financial crisis and the optimists who look at it as the
beginning of a new dawn in international economic relations lies a
collective history of the poorer nations with the wealthy that’s more
than 45 years old. The Pittsburgh statement concludes a journey that
began on June 15, 1964 when 77 developing countries signed on the
‘Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Countries’ on June 15, 1964 in
Geneva to get the economic voice of the ‘South’ heard in the UN. The
group proposed to promote its economic interests collectively and
called itself the G77 with India as a member.
Seven years later, to bring a sharper focus to its economics, the G77
established the G24, with the objective being to highlight the
position of developing countries on monetary and development finance
issues through periodic meetings of finance ministers and central bank
governors.
The developed nations followed four years later, and in 1975 formed
the G8, representing the world’s seven wealthiest countries — US, UK,
Germany, Japan, France, Italy and Canada — and EU. This took some time
coming. It began as G6, grew to G7 and now to G8. There are great
similarities between the formation and strengthening of G8 and G20.
The G8 was conceived around the global recession that followed the
1973 oil crisis, when the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting
Countries (comprising OPEC, Egypt and Syria) embargoed their oil when
the US decided to arm Israel in 1973. The greater legitimacy to G20
too has been triggered by a crisis and recession.
But as it remained largely academic, the search for the right G-Spot
began in greater earnest in the first decade of the new millennium. In
2005, recognising that the new demographics was quietly and quickly
becoming the source of global economic growth, UK prime minister Tony
Blair invited Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa to
Gleneagles in Scotland for the G8’s 31st summit.
These five countries were also beginning to assert their trading power
in world trade, with China and India being seen as laggards that
needed to be brought to conclude the Doha round. Blair’s strategy
worked and now developing countries are part of a global dialogue and
stand on somewhat equal terms. Loosely termed as G8+5, these five
developing countries, also called the Outreach Five, participate as
“guests” in G8 meetings. With Egypt joining this group last year, the
stage is set for the creation of G14.
This inclusion follows a 2001 Goldman Sachs report which argued that
the combined economic strength of Brazil, Russia, India and China
would be larger than the current wealthiest economies and termed the
fast-growing foursome BRIC. The acronym has caught the fancy of think
tanks and media and BRIC is almost an official gathering. Much of the
economic status that G20 got on Friday was on account of the growth
expectations of BRIC countries — notably China’s 7.5 per cent GDP
growth and India’s 6 per cent.
So, from G77, through G24, G5, G6, G7, G8, G8+5, G14 and BRIC, has the
global search for the G-Spot concluded in G20? I think not. Intense
talks are on between the G2 (the US and China) through the April 1,
2009 US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue to discuss a wide range
of bilateral, regional and global issues in the areas of politics,
strategy, security — and the economy. Coming up behind, though not
very close, is the G11 (I am taking the liberty of baptising the
Next-11 as G11 for this piece) — Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran,
Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, The Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and
Vietnam. Like BRIC, these too have been identified by Goldman Sachs in
a December 2005 report as holding a huge potential of becoming the
world’s largest economies in this century.
Just what are the new entrants going to do on the high table of global
finance? The question is valid — along with inclusion has come a
responsibility to develop internal markets, reduce export reliance on
the developed world, particularly the US, be open to scrutiny by
peers. So far, having an economist-leader in Manmohan Singh has added
intellectual glamour and respect to India. Going forward, the only way
to consolidate this would be through economic growth. Meanwhile, the
changed global economic dynamics at Pittsburgh need to be seen as
evolution not termination; a journey not the destination. The search
for the right G-Spot has not ended, yet.
Sid Harth
Indian researcher's slimy-skinned design to cut ships' fuel
consumption 20pct
ANI 27 September 2009, 01:22pm IST
LONDON: A ship's fuel consumption can be reduced by about 20 per cent
by designing it in such a manner that it exudes slime from its hull,
says an
Indian-origin researcher.
Rahul Ganguli of Teledyne Scientific in Thousand Oaks, California,
says that the slime would form a gelatinous skin that continually
sloughs off, taking with it the barnacles and other marine life forms
that cause energy-sapping drag by accumulating on the ships'
underside.
He and his colleagues are currently testing the idea as part of a
research project, being financed by the US Department of Defense.
His plan is to cover the outer layer of a ship in a metal mesh,
beneath which is a regular pattern of holes that exude a sticky, bio
safe chemical that becomes more viscous on contact with seawater.
The secretion oozing out of the pores will fill the gap in the mesh
and pools on top to form a viscous skin coating the entire hull that
will steadily wear away, taking with it any life that has gained a
foothold, and will be replaced by new slime from below.
So far, Ganguli has tested the idea with two chemicals used on oil
rigs - one used to thicken seawater to force open rock formations and
the other to firm up acid used to dissolve rocks.
"We think they will be safe for marine life," New Scientist magazine
quoted him as saying.
Naval architect Peilin Zhou, at the University of Strathclyde in
Glasgow, UK, feels that making this idea work would be lucrative. "If
you do not have to bring the vessel to dry dock it would save a lot of
money," Zhou says.
The journal also reports that Ganguli's idea is inspired by the skin
of the long-finned pilot whale, Globicephala melas, the surface of
which is criss-crossed with a network of nano-scale canals too small
for any barnacle larvae to gain any purchase.
In a paper published in Marine Biology in 2002, Christoph Baum at
Hannover School of Veterinary Medicine in Germany reported that the
canals are filled with a gel of enzymes that destroy proteins on the
surface of bacteria and algae.
Ganguli is presently trying to make a ship's hull perform a similar
self-cleaning trick.
Sid Harth
India 9th in world tree planting
TNN 23 September 2009, 03:48am IST
NEW DELHI: India has been ranked ninth in the tree planting roll of
honour in a campaign to plant a billion trees, which was launched by
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in November 2006. The
country has registered 96 million trees.
Under this plan, civil society and governments are asked to register
the number of trees that have been planted in their respective
countries. So far, 167 countries have participated in this programme.
The initial target set by the UNEP was to plant at least one billion
trees worldwide each year..
After the campaign hit the two billion mark in May 2008, the UNEP
decided to set a new goal of seven billion trees, which is one for
every person on the planet. The four billion mark was reached in May
2009.
India, however, could be much higher in the ranking, according to UNEP
officials who say that the country does not formally register or
report all its campaigns. “India could have planted a billion of trees
already this year,” Satinder Bindra, director, comm at UNEP, said. “It
would be fantastic if those trees were also registered with the
campaign.”
chhotemianinshallah
India should define plans to curb carbon emissions: EU
Posted On: 29-Sep-2009 20:09:24 News Source: PTI
New Delhi: European Union asked new Delhi to define the plans to curb
carbon emissions and notify them through a treaty likely to be signed
at Copenhagen conference on climate change in December. Though the EU
said it was not seeking a legally binding commitment, the demand for
quantified action seems to build pressure on the country which has
been consistently refusing to move further on reducing emissions.
"We are not asking India to take up legally binding commitments (on
carbon emissions). But what we want is the quantified action on its
part, adopt low carbon strategy and notify them through the climate
change treaty," EU Ambassador to India Deniele Samdja told reporters
here.
The EU's statement has come a few days after Union Environment
Minister Jairam Ramesh presented an annual report to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change detailing India's greenhouse gas
emissions and measures.
The delegation of the EU members also made it clear to India that the
country cannot just keep talking and make declaration but also commit
to more specific action. It is a mutual and global task. The climate
change burden has to borne by both the worlds -developing and
developed, said Swedish Ambassador Lars-Olf Lindergren.
"Being the major developing nations, these countries (China, India and
Brazil) have to take commitments to reduce emissions. As far as EU is
concerned, we have committed to cutting carbon emissions by at least
40 per cent by 2020," Smadja added.
Sid Harth
Climate change measures crucial for Asia-Pacific: UN
AFP/ PTI / Bangkok September 29, 2009, 20:39 IST
UN experts today warned that Asia-Pacific nations and other developing
countries need support to combat climate change as they face an
intensification of extreme weather such as the Philippine floods.
The comments came as a divide between rich and poor nations continued
to dominate crucial negotiations in Bangkok to develop a new climate
treaty before world leaders meet in Copenhagen in December.
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said one of the "key elements" of a deal
was increased support for developing countries in the Asia-Pacific
region and elsewhere to step up efforts to deal with the effects of
climate change.
"Typhoons, floods and extreme weather events regularly make headlines
in this part of the world," de Boer told reporters.
De Boer said the devastation in the Philippines was "the most recent
tragic example" of climate change affecting the region, as the death
toll reached 240, with the same storm, Ketsana, also killing 22 people
in Vietnam.
"The impacts are likely to become more intense over time. Dealing with
emergency situations, reducing disaster risks and increasing the
climate resilience is a necessity for this region," he added.
Indonesia became the latest country to announce plans for a cut in
greenhouse gas emissions, saying it would cut them by more than a
quarter
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate change to hit Asia's poor people most:ADB
STAFF WRITER 12:6 HRS IST
Manila/New Delhi, Sep 30 (PTI) Poor people and rural women from
developing nations in Asia will be among those most affected by
climate change which poses fundamental threats to the region's food
and energy security, according to studies funded by the Asian
Development Bank.
The climate change is also expected to lead to increased migration of
people within national boundaries, mainly into mega cities.
Attributing to three studies on agriculture, energy and migration, the
ADB in a statement today said the impacts of rising temperatures in
Asia would fall disproportionately on the region's poor, and rural
women from developing countries would be among the most affected
groups.
Such a scenario would arise on account of these groups dependence on
subsistence crops, their limited access to resources, and their lack
of decision-making power.
chhotemianinshallah
September 30, 2009, 6:58 pm
Australia’s Dust Bowl and Global Warming
By The Editors
How do scientists know when nature’s disasters are caused by global
warming — a fire, a flood and, in Australia last week, dust storms?
A number of prominent scientists around the world said that
Australia’s recent travails — prolonged drought, devastating fires and
now dust storms, which blanketed Sydney last week — are linked to
climate change, which is making an arid continent’s environment far
more disaster prone. Some Australian researchers emphasized historical
weather patterns. Conservationists, while calling for global action on
climate change, also said that Australia needs to do more in its own
backyard to protect land and water resources from agricultural,
development and industrial interests.
What is the relationship of climate change to Australia’s problems?
What is the lesson for the rest of the world?
Andy Pitman, University of New South Wales
Peter H. Gleick, Pacific Institute
Gregory E. Webb, Queensland University of Technology
Penny Whetton and Kevin Hennessy, Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization
It’s the Heat That’s Different
Andy Pitman is the co-director of the Climate Change Research Center
at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
On Sept. 23, a dust storm hit Sydney, Australia. It actually hit much
of the east coast of Australia. I drove over the Harbour bridge at
6.30 a.m. and I could not see the bridge, the Opera House or the
harbor. It actually got darker as the sun rose.
Every climate scientist was asked, “Is this global warming?”
While dust storms have plagued Australia for thousands of years,
rising temperatures cannot be explained without citing global warming
as a partial cause.
Dust storms have hit eastern Australia for thousands of years. Central
Australia is arid, and our deserts move around easily when it’s windy
— just like in the U.S. Dust storms hit Sydney a few times each
century.
The problem is that eastern Australia is in drought and a large amount
of inland eastern Australia has been subject to some farming practices
that have tended to degrade the native vegetation. Eastern Australia
has undergone major deforestation for pasture and crops which combined
with the ongoing drought has left vegetation cover badly reduced. The
exposed soil is vulnerable to the 100 km per hour winds we saw here
last week. This has direct parallels with the Dust Bowl catastrophe.
So what role does global warming play, if any? The current drought has
not been that dry. Droughts around 1900 and 1940 were probably
similar. But it has been hotter than we have seen before — precisely
as predicted due to global warming.
Read more…
It reached over 46 C (116 F) in Melbourne last summer and Adelaide
recorded six sequential days exceeding 40 C (104 F). This, combined
with many temperature records being broken across eastern Australia,
cannot be explained without using global warming as a partial cause.
And that has made the landscape very vulnerable to the strong winds.
With an unusually warm and dry spring, and a developing El Nino that
tends to bring drought, further dust storms should not surprise any of
us.
Avoid the Unmanageable, Manage the Unavoidable
Peter H. Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute, is
a member of the American National Academy of Sciences.
As the science and actual observations of climate change have become
indisputable, climate deniers have been marginalized as extremists.
But the debate about climate change isn’t over – it has entered a new,
more difficult phase.
We need to think more deeply about adapting to the climate changes we
cannot do anything about.
What should we, the world community, actually do about climate change?
This debate has been narrowly focused on the issue of mitigation: that
is, how to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases to slow the rate
and reduce the severity of climate change. The coming meeting in
Copenhagen is aimed at this goal. Yet as the recent extreme droughts
and dust storms and agricultural challenges in Australia show so
clearly, we had better think far more deeply about the issue of
adaptation as well: how do we deal with those climate changes we will
not be able to avoid, no matter what happens this year in Copenhagen.
In other words, we need to do two things simultaneously: both “avoid
the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable.” Reducing greenhouse
gases will help us avoid impacts from climate change we simply will
not be able to manage. But we must also plan to manage the impacts of
climate change that are now unavoidable because of changes we’ve
already wrought.
Read more…
We do not know for sure if the recent water-related disasters in
Australia are due to climate change. Perhaps they are – certainly
there is evidence to support that position. But as climate changes
accelerate, these kinds of impacts are increasingly likely, in the
western U.S., in northern China, in sub-Saharan Africa, in India, and
anywhere that water is already scarce, or badly managed. And I believe
that dramatic new risks to our water systems are “unavoidable.”
So what do we do? We must learn how to use our water sustainably. This
means we must improve water-use efficiency, so we can get more out of
every drop, stop overpumping and protect natural ecosystems that also
require water. We must also clean up dirty water, and prevent it from
getting dirty in the first place, and ensure that all people have
access to affordable safe water and sanitation.
Climate change is a global issue and requires global actions. Water
resource challenges are local issues and require local actions.
And the interactions between the two remind us that we have no time to
waste at either scale.
The Driest Continent
Gregory E. Webb is senior lecturer in the School of Natural Resource
Sciences at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane.
It seems to be very popular to attribute virtually any modern climatic
phenomenon to “climate change,” or more properly, “anthropogenic
global warming” (climate has been in a continuous state of change
throughout the numerous glacial cycles of the last two million years).
However, there is little scientific justification for attributing
recent large dust storms in Australia to climate change that relates
to human CO2 emissions.
The dust storms are just the most recent in a record that extends back
hundreds of thousands of years.
Australia historically is a very dusty place. It is the driest
continent on Earth, excepting Antarctica, and much of the continental
interior represents a classic subtropical latitude desert. It has been
suggested that more sediment leaves the Australian continent as wind
blown dust than is transported to the oceans by rivers. Historical
records of that dust have been studied in deep sea sediment cores in
the Pacific and Indian Oceans and in glaciers in New Zealand. Major
dust storms are nothing new to Australia.
Read more…
Geological records of pollen, lake levels, sand dunes and dust have
shown increasing aridity on the Australian continent over the last
600,000-800,000 years and that record is overprinted by relatively dry
(dusty) glacial and more humid interglacial cycles over much of the
continent. In Queensland, the last interglacial interval was drier
than the previous one on the basis of lake levels and pollen, and
there is much evidence that aridity has been increasing in Australia
over much longer time frames than anthropogenic “global warming.”
However, despite a large number of dedicated scientists studying the
geological record of climate in Australia, ancient climate was complex
and a great many gaps remain in our understanding.
Even in historical times Australia has been drought prone and most
major drought intervals were associated with major dust storm records.
For example, major dust storms occurred in the 1895-1902 drought
interval and again in the 1937-1945 interval, those being on a par
with the American Dust Bowl. As recently as 1983 a giant dust storm
blanketed Melbourne causing street lights to be turned on in daytime
hours. Could these all have been due to human CO2 emissions? Well,
what then about the Australian dust storms reported by Charles Darwin
in the 1830’s?
Clearly some of this recent dust activity may have been exacerbated by
human agricultural practice and land modification, but in the bigger
scheme of things, human memories are very short, and the Australian
dust storms of September 2009 are just the most recent in a much
longer record that extends back hundreds of thousands of years.
Earth, Wind and Fire
Penny Whetton is leader of the climate change research group at
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Kevin
Hennessy leads the climate change risk adaptation and policy team at
CSIRO.
Was there a link between climate change and last week’s massive red
dust cloud that emerged from central Australia to engulf two of
Australia’s largest cities, Sydney and Brisbane, and the capital
Canberra? Or the Victorian bush fires in February 2009 that claimed
more than 170 lives? One of us, Penny Whetton, has a clear memory of
watching her first dust storm roll in over Melbourne in 1983, the same
year as the Ash Wednesday bush fires in Victoria that claimed 75
lives.
Temperature and rainfall: how they are connected to climate change.
First the fires. There has been no formal detection and attribution
study that our group is aware of to assess whether anthropogenic
climate change contributed to increasing the risk of the extreme
weather event on Feb. 7, 2009. When considering the factors that
contributed to this event, we need to include the sequence of events
leading up to that day. Since fire weather is influenced by
temperature, rainfall, humidity and wind-\ speed, CSIRO has assessed
recent studies of trends in these variables, and the likely
contribution of anthropogenic climate change. Based on literature
CSIRO is aware of:
— Increases in mean and maximum temperature in Australia since 1950
have been mostly attributed to anthropogenic climate change. The
observed rise in maximum temperature (mostly due to anthropogenic
climate change) is likely to have contributed to an increase in the
risk of heat waves and extremely hot days in Victoria.
— The decline in rainfall over southeastern Australia during the past
50 years is mostly due to a trend in the intensity of the subtropical
ridge, which in turn appears partly attributable to anthropogenic
climate change. Hence anthropogenic climate change is likely to have
increased the risk of extremely dry conditions over Victoria.
Close
— Trends in extreme daily humidity and wind speed have not been
analysed to CSIRO’s knowledge, so it is not currently possible to
determine whether anthropogenic climate change has contributed to
changes in these variables.
In Australia, there is a season for dust storms — from September to
March, with its genesis often in the Lake Eyre Basin of Central
Australia, a region of desert, grasslands and wetlands that accounts
for one sixth of the Australian continent. Our colleague, the
atmospheric scientist Ross Mitchell, notes: “We have been observing
from two sites since 1997 and if you look at the 10 years from 1997 to
2007 there was a big change in dust source emission following the 2002
drought. If you take an average dust level from 2002-2007 and compare
that with 1997-2002 there is about a factor of two difference, 2002-07
is about two times higher than the preceding five years, a significant
increase on a decadal time scale.”
Based on our projections, in which Australia will get drier and
warmer, the risk of continuing dry conditions in the Lake Eyre Basin
would be increasing.
1. September 30, 2009
8:12 pm
Link
Anthropogenic climate change (AGW) is yet to be proved. Despite the
political fervor, AGW is looking more and more likely to be disproved.
Despite the billions spent trying to find it, there is still no hot
spot in the atmosphere as predicted by computer models. The famous
“hockey stick” of predicted temperature rise based on tree rings has
just been denounced as a sham based on a selected small sample of
trees that produced the desired result. The oceans are actually
getting cooler; in direct contrast to predictive computer models. AGW
is looking like it is resting on crumbling foundations, yet the
doomsday crowd seem content to ignore the growing research for
idealogical dogma.
Australia’s duststorms have been occurring long before humans were
there. The same applies to the droughts. In fact, the current drought
was predicted by long range forecasters in the 1950’s; not based on
supposed evidence of global warming, but on sunspot cycles.
There might be something to AGW, but it increasingly is looking like a
very vocal crowd crying wolf. It would be nice to present both sides
of that argument without contributors focussing almost exclusively on
AGW.
— Tony Stephenson
2. September 30, 2009
8:37 pm
Link
Whetton and Hennessey did an admirable job in interpreting the data.
I’d just point out a relatively minor omission. They wrote:
“There has been no formal detection and attribution study that our
group is aware of to assess whether anthropogenic climate change
contributed to increasing the risk of the extreme weather event on
Feb. 7, 2009.”
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology issued just such a linkage in
May.
“The combination of record heat and widespread drought during the past
five to twelve years over large parts of southern and eastern
Australia is without historical precedent and is, at least partly, a
result of climate change.”
This official “Drought Statement” can be found at http://bit.ly/4omLn,
and I cite it in an article published in “The Phoenix Sun” last week
(http://bit.ly/4omLn), dealing with the same questions raised here.
— Osha Gray Davidson
3. September 30, 2009
8:42 pm
Link
Sorry, but we can all quit worrying about global warming, because
it’s already too late due to overpopulation.
From the book “The Vanishing Face of Gaia”, by James Lovelock, recent
winner of the Wollaston Medal by the Geological Society of London but
most well known as the founder of Gaia Theory:
“It is not simply too much carbon dioxide in the air… it is the root
cause: Too many people, their bets, and their livestock–more than the
Earth can carry. No voluntary human act can reduce our numbers fast
enough even to slow climate change.
“Like it or not, we are the problem. Because of our numbers and our
depredations, the Earth is in a state of positive feedback: Deviations
of the climate are amplified, not suppressed, so that greater heat
leads to even greater heat.
“Simply cutting back fossil-fuel burning, energy use, and the
destruction of natural forests will not be a sufficient answer to
global heating, not least because it seems that climate change can
happen faster than we respond to it…Because of the rapidity of the
Earth’s change, we will need to respond more like the inhabitants of a
city threatened by a flood. When they see the unstoppable rise of
water, their only option is to escape to higher ground.”
What he goes on to say is that only about 10% of humanity will survive
this century, and that’s only if it flees to habitable pockets near
the poles because such pockets will eventually be the ONLY habitable
pockets anywhere, and those who can had best start moving as soon as
possible.
Before anything described above even happens, however, civilization
will certainly collapse, making it all the more difficult to fulfill
Lovelock’s advice by heading for the poles.
There will be nothing we can do about any of this, but there is ONE
thing we most certainly can do:
Live for Love. Love your children, your loved ones, and all you hold
dear as never before, to the very core of your being, for as long as
you possibly can. LIVE FOR LOVE.
— Captain Ronnel
4. September 30, 2009
8:57 pm
Link
It’s called bad farming practices - over-farming, plowing too deep,
over-fertilization, over-irrigation causing the water table to rise
bringing salty water up which kills trees and grasses…
Then when you get a big dry and some wind, the top-soil just blows
away… it ain’t rocket science.
Michael
— Michael Ellenby
5. September 30, 2009
9:47 pm
Link
Someone asks, what will we do about climate change and drought? The
answer is “nothing” when it comes to meaningful global changes in
human behavior, rather than token efforts by individuals.
Notice that in these several discussions, nobody said anything about
human overpopulation, which is really driving all the other problems,
including deforestation, removal of native land cover, etc., etc.
Of course eventually the human population will crash and it is just a
question of which specific scenario will bring it down. Memo to self:
don’t be on the planet when that happens!
— heat-lightning
6. October 1, 2009
12:11 am
Link
begin to replant trees world -wide. Millions and millions of trees,
suitable to the climate at hand.
Trees absorb carbon dioxide, hold soil in place, provide habitat for
countless species, and have the power to change local climates.
Just ask the inhabitants of places which have been deforested in
recent decades - that was volunteered to me by a resident of Oaxaca,
MX some 20 years ago who said farmers were desperately hurting because
the prior regime had permitted “friends” to clearcut forests wholesale
and severe weather pattern changes ensued. The farmers didn’t need
scientific studies to prove the cause and effect - all they had to do
is look at their withering crops and the naked hills where forests
once stood.
Another modern day proof was the reforestation of Israel thanks to the
Jewish National Fund’s efforts in the last 100 years which produced
localized beneficial weather changes. In northern Israel those forests
were targeted by Hizbollah rockets which caused massive forest fires.
Soil erosion and other ill effects ensued.
And an old joke says that at one time there was a Sahara Forest. Maybe
it wasn’t just humor.
— David from Scottsdale
7. October 1, 2009
12:22 am
Link
Tony Stephenson wrote:
Anthropogenic climate change (AGW) is yet to be proved. Despite the
political fervor, AGW is looking more and more likely to be
disproved.
BS
— mds
8. October 1, 2009
12:32 am
Link
“Of course eventually the human population will crash and it is just
a question of which specific scenario will bring it down.” I’m betting
on ‘anthropogenic climate change,’ or global warming.
— Tom
9. October 1, 2009
12:39 am
Link
Climate change assumptions rather than facts, and computer modeling
rather than real-world observations, underpin efforts to restrict
American liberties and confiscate trillions of dollars of American
income. The science behind this massive intrusion into American life
requires more than a “consensus” of like-minded climate analysts. It
needs to be right.
Critical differences exist between scientists who observe weather and
climate and those who attempt to model nature’s complexities. Those
who observe the natural, economic, and sociological aspects of climate
change are “realists,” not “skeptics.” The modelers, on the other
hand, believe complex mathematics and broad assumptions can forecast
the future of climate, Earth’s most complex system.
Observational facts should force realism and civility into the
political and media hysteria about alleged human-caused global
warming. For example, careful analysis by geophysicist Syun Akasofu of
the International Arctic Research Center shows a natural warming of
the lower atmosphere by half a degree Celsius per 100 years since
about 1660, that is, the coldest time of the Little Ice Age.
Warming and cooling intervals during this general warming trend have
occurred as they have for thousands of years, and warming has not
accelerated during industrialization. Further, the recent 50-year
increase in carbon dioxide of one molecule of per 10,000 molecules of
air every five years has had no detectable effect on climate.
Where is all the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels? Geoscientists have
long known that atmospheric carbon dioxide cycles through the oceans
every 5-10 years, not every 200 years as claimed by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Further, for every fossil-fuel carbon dioxide molecule added to the
atmosphere, the ocean soaks up about 50 such molecules within a
decade. These observational facts mean that humans cannot cause the
doomsday assumption of a “doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide”.
Engineer and climate expert Fred Goldberg of Sweden’s Royal School of
Technology points out the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide
decreases rapidly with increasing concentration. About 95% of that
effect already has been used up at today’s level of 385 parts per
million.
Unfortunately for the computer modelers, their models do not work. The
models’ unanimous prediction that the troposphere (lower 0-15 km)
should have warmed significantly in response to current levels of
carbon dioxide does not match actual measurements.
A team led by physicist David Douglass of the University of Rochester
has shown that the troposphere has remained unchanged or cooled
slightly since 1979 when satellite and balloon-borne measurements of
atmospheric temperature began. Models cannot truly deal with the
realities of weather, that is, evaporation, convection, clouds, rain,
and all the other pathways in which nature inexorably moves heat from
where it is warm to where it is cold.
And then there are the sun and the oceans. Observational and
geological records, changing of the seasons, and correlation of
historical variations with solar activity cycles, all confirm that
radiation and magnetic fields emanating from the sun drive changes in
weather and climate. As Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for
Astrophysics has documented, the position and orientation of the Earth
in its orbit around the sun and the sun’s variable activity determine
weather and climate. As part of this process, oceans store enormous
amounts of solar energy. They create climate variations over vast
regions by transferring that energy around the globe over decades and
centuries through a system of interconnected currents and current
oscillations.
Given what we actually know about climate, as well as the remaining
uncertainties, Americans should think long and hard before giving up
liberties and incomes to politicians who just want to “do something”
to satisfy a particular special interest. Prudent protection of local
environments is one thing – a long-term political agenda to gather
power at the expense of liberty is quite another.
A very high probability exists that “doing something” will not work
against natural climate forces we only incompletely understand. When
we realize what liberties have been lost, the probability also is very
great that we will deeply regret not just preparing for climate change
rather than trying to stop it. Instead, our focus should be on
producing more energy to raise worldwide living standards and not on
how to limit energy use and improvements in the human condition.
Observations of natural variations in atmospheric and oceanic
temperatures, gas concentrations, and currents provide clear
indications of how, but not when, climate will change. Historical and
geological records also illustrate the levels of uncertainty existing
forecasts of either the direction or the timing of changes.
Forecasts based on computer models have proven to be unsuccessful due
to the great number and complexity of critical climate variables, some
of which, like water vapor and clouds, so far defy mathematical
definition. In combination, water vapor and clouds have about 20 times
the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (CO2). Little wonder that
climate models fail, repeatedly, in both replication of current
conditions and in forecasting the future.
Observations provide two important facts about atmospheric CO2. First,
a general but irregular trend of global warming, by half a degree
Centigrade per 100 years, has existed since about 1660, the coldest
part of the Little Ice Age. Obviously, this slow warming persisted for
hundreds of years before industrialization began to add CO2 to natural
emissions from the biosphere and the oceans. Second, detailed studies
of ice cores show that increases in CO2 follow global temperature
increases by many centuries rather than leading, much less causing any
warming. Further, actual observations show no measurable, long-term
alteration of climate patterns during the last century’s slow increase
in atmospheric CO2.
The obvious explanation for the absence of any CO2 effect on modern
climate lies in the physical fact that the greenhouse warming
potential of CO2 decreases with increasing concentration. Most of any
CO2-induced warming has already taken place at concentrations well
below the present level of about 0.0385 percent. In fact, for the
foreseeable future on Earth, CO2 is finished as a greenhouse gas!
If not CO2, what causes the historically and geologically observed
changes in climate? Hundreds of years of recorded observation show
that the position and orientation of the Earth in its orbit around the
sun along with variations in solar activity determine changes in
climate. For example, as Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovic in
1941 and others since have pointed out, the major ice ages on Earth
correlate with 41,000 and 100,000-year cycles in the position of the
Earth in its solar orbit.
Further, the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300) and the Little Ice Age
(1400-1900) correlate, respectively, with very active and very passive
periods of solar flare and magnetic activity.
Widely published analyses exist of tree rings, layering in cave
stalagmites and cores of lake and ocean bottom sediments, and high
altitude wind variations. These all document broadly accepted
correlations of climate variations with many systematic repetitions in
solar activity, ranging from the 11-year sun spot cycle up to the long-
term repetitions mentioned above.
As to the explanation of this apparent solar influence on climate,
research by Henrik Svensmark of Denmark’s Center for Sun-Climate
Research indicates that the strength of solar magnetic fields
influence the flux of cosmic rays that enter the Earth’s atmosphere.
Cosmic rays consist of largely of extremely high-energy, electrically
charged hydrogen and helium nuclei. Cosmic ray collisions with gases
in the atmosphere produce rare isotopes that provide a measurable
history of variations in cosmic ray intensity when taken up in tree
rings and other annually layered materials. These particles also
ionize gases in the lower atmosphere, providing points for water vapor
condensation.
Periods of weak solar magnetic fields allow cosmic rays to penetrate
more readily into the lower atmosphere where they ionize more gas
molecules than average. The reverse occurs with periods of strong
solar magnetic fields. Satellite observations of cloud cover, isotopic
analysis of tree rings, ice cores and stalagmites, and historical
analyses of solar activity by Svensmark and many others support this
hypothesis.
As cloud cover expands, more solar radiation reflects back into space,
resulting in a net cooling of the atmosphere and increased snow
accumulation, particularly in temperate and arctic regions. A current
illustration of the cooling effect of decreased solar activity appears
to be the currently very quiet sun and the recent reversal of the
slightly elevated warming trend of the 1970s through 1990s.
How long this cooling trend will persist remains to be seen; however,
Greenland glaciers have been advancing since 2006, Arctic sea ice has
returned to 1989 levels of coverage, and snowy, cold winters have
dominated northern North America and Europe.
Actual observations show that climate varies in response to natural
forces and that human burning of fossil fuels has had negligible if
any effect over the last 100 years. Lets us hope that policy makers
will understand these facts about climate change before liberty and
incomes suffer further erosion in their search for political power.
— Harrison Schmitt
10. October 1, 2009
12:59 am
Link
Grab some popcorn and get ready for an amazing century!
If we keep breeding like this; who knows how this might end? Two
children is enough.
— John More
11. October 1, 2009
1:26 am
Link
In comment 2, the link I provided to “The Phoenix Sun” article is
incorrect.
The correct link is: http://bit.ly/151CQf.
— Osha Gray Davidson
12. October 1, 2009
3:30 am
Link
If You want to know what a TIPPING POINT looks like look no further
than the Weather and the fingerprint evidence for the Climate
Cassandras can be found in the Soft Commodity markets where the MARKET
is the Message. Sugar, Cocoa and Tea are all boiling over.
Aly-Khan Satchu
http://www.rich.co.ke
Twitter alykhansatchu
— Aly-KhanSatchu
13. October 1, 2009
5:12 am
Link
A few extra degrees having an effect on the fires? Does the
difference between a 44 or 46 degree day really matter when you have
100 km/h winds, a massive buildup of dead wood for fuel and an
arsonist with a chubby? Come on, since European population we have all
but stopped the Aboriginal practice of regularly burning the bush. A
build up of fuel and poor forest management was the problem.
As for dust stroms Micheal Ellenby has it spot on deep plowing,
irrigation and de-forestation in an already arid area, with the side
effect of salinisation are the root of the problem.
Ask the farmers, the climate change scientists above have an agenda
since they are living from grant to grant. The farmers and the people
who live on the land and are seeing the changes know whats going on.
— Stick fireman
14. October 1, 2009
5:53 am
Link
I think that the comment “avoid the unmanageable and manage the
unavoidable” is a good way to look at global warming. Anybody who does
not accept that it is happening in living in serious denial. But
whatever we do must be useful and soundly-based.
However, just repeating over and over that it is anthropogenic does
not make it true. Indeed, major problems are not uni-dimensional, so
it is essential to look at all contributors to the problem; working on
the manageable as they are identified.
What happens if much of global warming is the result of sun cycles and
not human activity? Or that both are forming a feedback loop for
disaster and we are adressing only one when we should address both
simultaneously?
I know that many scientists receive huge research grants on the basis
of global warming research, but I have yet to see any output that is
comprehensive and not designed for the next research grant proposal.
Make it plain, make it balanced, and make it understandable; or there
will never be more than a guilt case for any actions that are taken.
Call me cynical, but I have worked in senior administration in a
number of universities and the system really has not changed: just the
funding sources and stories that must be told to access the funding.
Academic rigour and honesty are the hallmarks of real progress, it is
about time this was applied generally to such a critical question.
— Ken Robertson
15. October 1, 2009
7:47 am
Link
In Australia water is life, pure and simple. We we live in a fragile
environment on a very dry continent. It is only wise to plan for the
worst and hope for the best. In either scenario, our land will be
better cared for and our water resources preserved.
Whether this particular dust storm is the result of AGW is perhaps not
provable in the time frame. That AGW is an existential threat to us
is.
— Alan in Sydney
16. October 1, 2009
7:54 am
Link
Why not integrate China’s weather modification systems that they used
to make today’s 60th anniversary perfect? It sounds like a joke, but
if it worked for China, why not at least research the possible
benefits for a drought ridden country like Australia?
— McBunk
17. October 1, 2009
7:57 am
Link
Permaculture can reverse the soil damage caused by poor farming
practices, and do so quickly. Watch the five-minute video, “Greening
the Desert” an actual case study in a place with half an inch of
rainfall per year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk
You’ll be shocked at what can be accomplished in under a year.
— Donald
18. October 1, 2009
8:02 am
Link
Mr. Stephenson is typical of those that do not want to realize the
facts point directly to high amounts of human produced carbon dioxide
in the troposphere of Earth. It has been known for over five decades.
Five decades of research. It is hideous to continue to deny the
warming of the planet due to the high levels of CO2.
Australia may have made some stupid decisions regarding land use, but,
that is all they are. They are not the reason to continue to deny the
heating of a burgeoning dry planet. It’s pathetic already.
Droughts and destroyed ice fields are everywhere including Greenland
which is deteriorating at an accelertating rate. The problem with
people like Mr. Stephenson is that he actually believe he can live
through climage change, so denial for ’status quo’ economics seems
logical. It isn’t. Earth is a planet. I promise you the changes that
happen on a dynamic that huge won’t allow humans to survive.
— Elisa Barrett
19. October 1, 2009
8:02 am
Link
Lake Eyre has been shown to be the source of this fine dust and the
dust is the result of its origin as fine silt which settled out of the
shallow waters of the Lake which frequently is completely dry but due
to record rains (what drought?) was recently filled and has now dried,
as it always does.
In the mean time the atrocious land management of Australia
exacerbates the situation. There’s plenty of blame to go around
without having to point to the shadowy and quite possibly imaginary
climate boogey man.
— doug l
20. October 1, 2009
8:05 am
Link
Great discussion, brings up two thoughts in my mind:
1) The population bomb is fizzling and the global population will peak
this century around 9 to 10 billion according to UN estimates.
While this is larger than the current population, it will indeed be a
peak. With improvements in efficiency of our use of energy and natural
resources, we will be ok. We need to get away from the doomsday
scenarios and get focused on improving the things that will prevent
these scenarios from happening.
So, to comment #3 and #5, things are not yet decided but there are
reasons for optimism.
2) The whole debate on AGW evidence gets distracted very easily
because of our ability to predict the behavior of a chaotic system.
The two facts to remember are that there is measurably larger amounts
of CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity; and that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas.
So, to comment #1, correlation of the effects are by nature not
possible to directly prove in the sense of a true scientific
experiment. However, it does not seem prudent to declare that we
should experiment with the one biosphere we have by pushing the
natural carbon cycle to historical limits.
— CBusGuy
21. October 1, 2009
8:18 am
Link
heat globally, cool locally;
Geoengineering.
— germ killer
22. October 1, 2009
8:19 am
Link
“As the science and actual observations of climate change have become
indisputable, climate deniers have been marginalized as extremists…
We do not know for sure if the recent water-related disasters in
Australia are due to climate change…”
Actually, it is the AGW Cassandras who are lemmings….
— learned_hand
23. October 1, 2009
8:31 am
Link
Discussing if particular events are attributable to global warming is
a complete stupidity. Boil a pot of water on your stove and point at
the bubbles that would not have been there if you had turned the heat
down to a slower boil. What a pointless exercise! What a distraction
from the real issues!
The “greenhouse effect” was always there, and the contents of
greenhouse agents in the atmosphere has grown, beyond every doubt
possible, as a result of human recycling of carbon deposits in the
ground. The question is not if we have global warming, but how much,
how soon, and what the second and third order consequences will be.
There is no way the increase of greenhouse gases could not push the
temperature equilibrium toward a higher level. With increasing
temperature, the Earth will radiate more, and at some point a new
balance between inflow and outflow of heat will establish itself.
We may have less certainty about the future frequency and ferocity of
storms - they are driven by temperature differences, not by absolute
levels, and we may not know everything about the feedback effects of
methane and carbon dioxide releases from melting tundras, but allowing
such doubts to paralyse all efforts to reduce the releases is
outrageously irresponsible. It is like saying that this man is
drowning, but we do not know if the lack of oxygen may harm his
cancerous tissues more than other tissues, perhaps drowning a little
is actually good for him? Should we postpone efforts to get him out of
the water?
All right, this metaphor is not a perfect fit - we know with certainty
that drowning is lethal. But while we do not know all the effects of
global warming, we know with certainty that we have no guarantee of
global warming being innocuous. The risks are huge. Slowing down the
warming allows more time to mitigate whatever problems can be
mitigated, and to manage the unavoidable, as Mr. Gleick writes above.
All this said, I am not against studying the specifics. Will global
warming lead to overall increased rainfall, globally? Will the dry
belts along the tropics shift away from the equator? Will increased
precipitation over the Antarctic offset some or all of the global
glacial melting? All of this is useful in the quest to manage the
unavoidable. If only we could stop pretending there is no need to act!
— Perez Terron
24. October 1, 2009
8:31 am
Link
Sometimes it seems that people on opposite sides of the climate
change debate must live in parallel universes, with their news sources
presenting mirror-image information!
Comment #1 by Tony Stephenson states:
“…The oceans are actually getting cooler; in direct contrast to
predictive computer models. …”
Skeptical, I googled “ocean temperature climate change” and quickly
found this on a NOAA website:
“The planet’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for
July, breaking the previous high mark established in 1998 according to
an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for
July 2009 ranked fifth-warmest since world-wide records began in
1880.”
So I guess NOAA is part of the “doomsday crowd”?
Bernie Arbic
— Bernie Arbic
25. October 1, 2009
8:31 am
Link
Poster #1: what are your credentials and sources of citation? I am
not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist and I think you
represent the fringe. About ocean temperatures, here is a piece from
the NYT. Cite your sources for your “facts”; you are in the minority
if you think the science is not supporting the IPCC and vast majority
of climate scientists who summarize the science and conclude that AGW
is real–not all the scientists but the vast, vast majority. Too many
bloggers quote “facts” that are not factual. There are many sources of
data, not all lining up in a row, but pointing to the conclusion to
the majority of those who know–that this is real, not just “the way
the earth goes”. But my words won’t stop the deniers…..the blog goes
on, the beat goes on….
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: August 14, 2009
Average temperatures of waters at the oceans’ surface in July were the
highest ever recorded, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration said. The agency said the average sea surface
temperature was 1.06 degrees higher than the 20th-century average of
61.5 degrees. Though July was unusually cool in some areas, like the
eastern United States, analysts at the NOAA Climate Data Center said
the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.03
degrees higher than the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, the
fifth warmest since worldwide record keeping began in 1880. The agency
also said that, on average, Arctic sea ice covered 3.4 million square
miles in July, 12.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average and the third
lowest on record, after 2007 and 2006.
— Steven Wassilak
From 26 to 50 of 69 Comments
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
26. October 1, 2009
8:50 am
Link
There are not “two sides” to the issue of Global Warming. What Tony
calls “a very vocal crowd crying wolf,” is in fact the vast majority
of the world’s scientific community. Try this test Tony: find one
scientific research organization, association, institute, congress,
union, society, museum, magazine or foundation that denies the
existence of global warming and mankind’s role in it. Not political
front groups or conservative ideological institutes like The Heartland
Institute, but groups of scientists. There are none. None. There are
hundreds of such scientific groups across the globe. They all support
the findings of the IPCC.
— jacknoir
27. October 1, 2009
8:58 am
Link
What is the link (if any) between El Nino and AGW? Anybody got any
ideas?
— Carl
28. October 1, 2009
9:40 am
Link
Is anthropogenic warming change fact or fiction? As someone who has
closely followed arguments and research on both sides of the issue, I
can say with great certainty it is real, and it is verifiable through
experiments in laboratories and observations of the world in general.
What ocean cooling (as mentioned by Tony Stephenson in comment #1),
there is, is attributable to the melting of polar icecaps. New sea
lanes are opening up in previously ice-blocked expanses of arctic
seas. Were it not for the polar icecaps, the seas would be much, much
warmer. And so would our atmosphere. The melting of the icecaps has
helped to attenuate atmospheric warming at ground level, but that
source of relief is rapidly dissipating.
But to Captain Ronnel (comment #3), and to all doomsayers, I would say
that throwing up one’s hands in surrender is a selr-fulfilling
prophecy. It is equivalent to losing one’s job and hugging one’s
children while saying, “We’re all going to starve!” instead of
pursuing a new job. If we love our children, we’ll work for change, as
they did in France, for example, where the bulk of electricity is
generated by nuclear power plants.
And the use of hydrogen, to power our vehicles can dramatically reduce
the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. Hydrogen is the most
recyclable fuel on the planet. Burning it produces water, and it can
be readily separated from water by hydroelectric and nuclear power
facilities.
If we truly love our children we will work for change. But we cannot
delay any longer. Delay will fulfill Lovelock’s and Ronnel’s
prophecies.
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
— Leo Toribio
29. October 1, 2009
10:12 am
Link
Global warming is a FARCE. It’s a political term - nothing more and
nothing less. We need to take care of this planet and scaring people
into doing so seems to be the only way a majority will listen.
— Michael
30. October 1, 2009
10:47 am
Link
The increase in asthma incidence, prevalence, and morbidity over
recent decades presents a significant challenge to public health.
Pollen is an important trigger of some types of asthma, and both
pollen quantity and season depend on climatic and meteorologic
variables. Over the same period as the global rise in asthma, there
have been considerable increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration and global average surface temperature. We hypothesize
anthropogenic climate change as a plausible contributor to the rise in
asthma. Greater concentrations of carbon dioxide and higher
temperatures may increase pollen quantity and induce longer pollen
seasons. Pollen allergenicity can also increase as a result of these
changes in climate. Exposure in early life to a more allergenic
environment may also provoke the development of other atopic
conditions, such as eczema and allergic rhinitis. Although the
etiology of asthma is complex, the recent global rise in asthma could
be an early health effect of anthropogenic climate change. Key words:
aero- allergens, anthropogenic cimate change, asthma, carbon dioxide,
phenology, pollen, temperature. Environ Health Perspect 113:915-919
(2005). doi:10.1289/ehp.7724 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online
20 April 2005]
Is the Global Rise of Asthma an Early Impact of Anthropogenic Climate
Change?
Paul John Beggs 1 and Hilary Jane Bambrick2
1Department of Physical Geography, Division of Environmental and Life
Sciences, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia; 2National
Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National
University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
I have to deal with morons. Complete and absolute morons. Climate
Change is REAL and Antropogneic Carbon Dioxide is the reason, causing
real and deadly problems on Earth.
End of Discussion !
— Elisa Barrett
31. October 1, 2009
10:48 am
Link
I’ve looked at climate change from all sides now — … and still
somehow,,, it’s climate change’s illusion I recall…
I worry more about the Amazon rainforest, and the melting ice caps and
human competition (I will not write over scare resources– as human
simply seem to want to compete whatever>..)
— Hetty Greene
32. October 1, 2009
10:55 am
Link
Mr. Gleick makes the most factual statement of his submission when he
says that
“As the science and actual observations of climate change have become
indisputable, climate deniers have been marginalized as extremists…
Climate change has become the most politically correct issue of this
decade and scientists who are “climate deniers” have been cowed into
keeping their mouths and pens closed when facing the alternative of
villification and ridicule by “climate non-deniers” from their lofty
perches on publications such as the Times.
Fifty years from now it will be the climate change group who will
suffer the ridicule, but they won’t be around to feel the sting.
— Bill Keating
33. October 1, 2009
11:14 am
Link
I first realized that the “Global Warming” was a mania and delusion,
back in 1988 when reading The Great Gatsby in high school.
“I read somewhere that the sun’s getting hotter every year,” said Tom
genially. “It seems that pretty soon the earth’s going to fall into
the sun – or wait a minute – it’s just the opposite – the sun’s
getting colder every year.” — The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald,
1925
This quote keeps popping up in the back of my mind, whenever listening
to people with no scientific training (Al Gore & Nancy Pelosi,
newspaper reporters, my idiot brother-in-law) pontificating about the
coming climate catastrophe every time we have an unusually hot day.
— Mike
34. October 1, 2009
11:30 am
Link
I guess before man devised a way to burn fossil fuels en masse, there
were no dust storms, floods, hot days, cold days, hurricanes etc. If
it truly is science, show me some proof!
— Scott Larson
35. October 1, 2009
11:35 am
Link
I wish the infotainment providers would stop attributing every
natural catastrophe to human CO2 emissions. This is exactly what gives
the climate change deniers ammunition and credibility. This is exactly
what turns a valid concern into a fad.
I am deeply convinced that us wantonly wasting the one time gift of
nature called fossil fuels, is a dumb thing on many levels. We are
plain dumb for wasting it and we certainly can be accused of stealing
it from future generations. We add CO2 in huge quantities to the
atmosphere without understanding what that really causes and how fast
and when a point of no return will be crossed.
It is exactly that lack of understanding that should be the foundation
of a scientific, fact based discussion with real action as a result of
logically concluded conviction.
Emotions need to stay far away. Emotions swing.
Ultimately the real argument for a large investment in renewable
energy sources can only be based on risk management derived
decisions.
We are the equivalent of dumb kids having fun turning a knob on a very
complex machine (our lives depend on) running at full speed and just
because the machine doesn’t immediately come to a grinding halt,
killing us all, doesn’t mean we are not severely damaging it or
destroying it by continuing to turn the knob (having all this fun).
What a dumb and unnecessary risk to take….
— marcus maedl
36. October 1, 2009
11:46 am
Link
Is it not time to minimize the growing risk of a climate cataclysm?
Our love affair with the automobile has brought about remarkable new
ways to sharply reduce the need for fossil fuel. Regardless of belief
about climate change, almost everyone can agree on the economic
benefits that make it important to move beyond oil, coal and I would
add, nuclear power, as fast as possible.
Revolutionary new technology will make possible electric cars that
need no recharge - as well as hybrid engines that might need to be
fueled with only one gallon of water for each thousand miles of
driving.
There are little known breakthroughs that promise to lead to cars and
truck that never require fossil fuel or recharge. Later, more advanced
versions can become power plants when parked, wirelessly selling
electricity to the local utility. Such cars can pay for themselves
over time. They also can replace any need to build new coal burning or
nuclear power plants.
The science is new, and will understandably be greeted with widespread
disbelief and skepticism.
However, independent laboratory validation of one extraordinary
breakthrough has taken place at Rowan University. It produced more
heat than can be explained by existing textbook knowledge, clearly
suggesting a new source of energy is involved. The experiments can and
should be repeated, without delay, at National laboratories and other
universities.
The Rowan experiments began the process of proving that new technology
can allow one barrel of water to replace 200 barrels of oil!
For additional information, see the article: 5 Steps to Revive the
Auto industry and the Economy on the website: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Radically new technologies can let the love affair with vehicles
change much of what is currently believed about energy.
The key question would seem to be: How best to accelerate the process?
— Mark Goldes
37. October 1, 2009
11:50 am
Link
Pity the children who must survive what we have caused!
May God have mercy on the gluttonous and depraved who scorn God’s
earth.
— Richard E. Schiff
38. October 1, 2009
12:32 pm
Link
Comment #31 from Bill Keating demonstrates the problem all too well.
Comments #32 & #33 prove the point again. The Deniers have no actual,
real understanding of science. If you don’t understand science, Scott
Larson, than there is nothing anyone can show you that will prove AGW
to you. To paraphrase what Colbert said to Pres. Bush…that’s what I
like about you, Mr. President…you will believe on Thursday what you
believed on Tuesday, despite anything that happens on Wednesday. If
you have that attitude, which the writers of comments 31-33 obviously
do, then science is not something you believe in. Therefore, there is
no scientific evidence you will accept that does not support your
already confirmed beliefs.
Real science is only acceptable to the open-minded. Most deniers are
not open-minded. No argument about what climate science has found or
proven will make the slightest difference to those whose minds are
closed.
As for the comment in #31….”Climate change has become the most
politically correct issue of this decade and scientists who are
“climate deniers” have been cowed into keeping their mouths and pens
closed when facing the alternative of villification and ridicule by
“climate non-deniers” from their lofty perches on publications such as
the Times.”
Here is a clue…not for the author of the above quote as he has
adequately demonstrated his lack of ability to reason logically or
objectively…but for others who might retain the slightest worry that
there is some kernal of truth in this comment. Science actually works
by doing experiments and reporting on results. Yes, you can interpret
the results along the lines of your ideology, but the key is the
actual experimental results. Are they reproducible and can someone
build on them to show that your conjecture on their meaning is either
right or wrong? It’s a very piece by piece process. No one does one
experiment that proves a major hypothesis like AGW is either correct
or incorrect. If you do an experiment that shows some piece of the AGW
hypothesis is wrong, you will not be vilified by anyone….unless you
fake the data. If others can verify your experimental results, science
will march on and your piece of the puzzle will be confirmed as valid.
If enough research is done that shows AGW in general doesn’t hold up,
then it will collapse…under the weight of science…and not because of
right wing, anti-environment ideology which accepts no scientific
evidence that doesn’t support its belief structure.
— Dan
39. October 1, 2009
12:52 pm
Link
To Harrison Schmidt:
“Critical differences exist between scientists who observe weather and
climate and those who attempt to model nature’s complexities. Those
who observe the natural, economic, and sociological aspects of climate
change are “realists,” not “skeptics.”
Those who directly observe weather and climate are not called
“realists” they are called “naturalists” and they are more peeved than
anyone about climate change! I dare you to actually ask a naturalist
what they think, but I know that you won’t.
— Chris
40. October 1, 2009
1:16 pm
Link
Always missing from the Global Warming deniers letters are links to
articles in peer reviewed journals. There are none. Do they really
believe in a “scientific conspiracy”, or do they all work for oil
companies?
— Robbie
41. October 1, 2009
1:28 pm
Link
I guess the international community should start working on measure
to restore greenery then shouldn’t they?
Sigh, no rest for the weary…or the uncompromisingly righteous.
They’ll get helped sooner than later.
— Abimbola
42. October 1, 2009
1:40 pm
Link
Strictly speaking, science doesn’t really prove hypotheses to be
true. It can only prove that they are false. Assertions of truth from
science usually come in the form of probabilities. The typical
assertion is that the probability that humans are causing climate
change is about 95%. There is a probability that we are wrong, but it
is not likely. Thus, the opening comment about AGW not being proven is
gibberish propaganda. Proofs imply 100% probability, which is absurd,
especially when talking about such a complex system.
So if nothing can be absolutely proven, does that give us the licence
to believe anything? Far from it. Every one, and I mean every one of
the assertions I have heard put forward by the so called “climate
skeptics” that was specific enough to be tested is provably and
demonstrably false. And I have read most of them.
I cannot take seriously anyone who continues to repeat statements that
are obviously and demonstrably false to educated and knowledgeable
readers, simply because they know their intended is not educated and
knowledgeable.
— F. M. Arouet
43. October 1, 2009
1:43 pm
Link
For poster number 1-
there’s a point that you just can’t ignore what the vast preponderance
of evidence is telling you.
I use this example with my students- if you were a parent, and you
suspected your child was taking drugs, when would you intervene- the
first time you smell something funny on his/her clothes, or would you
have to wait until you find her/him passed out on the bathroom floor
with a needle in the arm?
— Steve, Jackson MS
44. October 1, 2009
1:58 pm
Link
If we spend the next few decades boiling every major environmental
disaster to “global warming”, we will soon lose the capacity to
address contributing factors. This McCarthy-like single issue
stranglehold that “global warming” has become will soon wreak more
havoc on the human response to environmental issues than the issues
themselves.
— Tim
45. October 1, 2009
1:58 pm
Link
If every scientist in the world believes the IPCC version of reality,
it is extremely odd that EVERY prediction of the CO2-driven warming
theory has been proven wrong by the last few years of research.
The seas are cooling, in terms of total heat content of the top 100
meters, according to the ARGO buoys (not merely the surface
temperature, which is warming due to the coming El Niño). There is no
extra heating of the upper troposphere. Antarctic ice is growing,
while Arctic ice is returning to its long-term average. Satellites
show no warming trend.
In sum, the total of evidence for the CO2 theory is a weak correlation
between temperature and carbon dioxide concentration over the twenty
years 1975-1995. That’s all.
In contrast, the Svensmark effect (cosmic-ray assisted low cloud
formation) shows close correlation on all time scales from months to
billions of years, while accounting for the onset of ice ages and the
Antarctic climate anomaly. Humans have nothing to do with it.
But on that basis we’re turning our economies upside-down and
destroying vast swaths of countryside, wilderness, and coastline with
utterly feckless wind turbines.
The entire world — or at least its media-politcal elite — has gone
completely insane. Cap-and-trade and “renewable” subsidies are the
real threats to the environment and human well-being; “global warming”
is yet another imaginary hobgoblin. The “climate criminals” here are
Gore, Hansen, the IPCC, and the gullible or ambitious politicians who
follow them.
— Craig Goodrich
46. October 1, 2009
2:03 pm
Link
my comments,around the world,some people forgot to pray that there is
god.he is the powerful.all happenings around the world are
nature,please don’t forget our god.if you are richest and poorer in
this earth,we are the same,to go back were you belong,that’s why
always prayer.
— evelinda j. benitez
47. October 1, 2009
2:05 pm
Link
Look, I’m not a climate scientist, but from everything I’ve read the
great majority of same have bought into Global Warming. And the fact
of the matter is that we are dealing with a massive and intricate
system (the Earth), by the time nobody can deny the problem it will be
far too late to fix it!
Secondly, much of what helps global warming has benefit anyway (e.g.
reducing the horrible pollution in many Chinese cities, reducing US
dependence on foreign oil,…).
Thirdly, most studies that I have seen have calculated that reducing
our CO2 generation is not that expensive, all of about $120/family/
year (in the US).
Fourth, despite Mr. Schmitt’s rantings, most GW specialists want just
one simple thing from government, a carbon tax. In what way (can you
please explain sir) is this a huge intrusion of government or the
beginnings of ‘the socialist menace’?
— Bruce Steinback
48. October 1, 2009
2:47 pm
Link
Is global warming the cause of the anamolous weather patterns we have
observed and are experiencing?
Both the possible cause and effect are correlated. But,
correlation does not prove a cause and effect connection — though it
may be very suggestive.
The “cause and effect fallacy” occurs quite often and at times, we
presume it is not a fallacy — but, it is.
In our lifetime, we will probably never KNOW the answer in a
definitive manner. Even with a great amount of investigation.
If it is just a coincidence or one triggers the other… We can’t
determine with certainty. But, the more investigation and data which
is mined… Say, we label coincidence as P = O; and, cause and effect as
P = 1, as more information is gathered, we can go in either direction:
approaching P = O
or, P = 1.
That’s likelihood or probability. [For statistics fans:
the concpet of variance is useful.]
My own guestimate [boy! do I hate that word!] is that most of these
dangerous changes in the Earth’s ecology is cuased by humans. Another
guestimate using probability language: P (most climate and related
changes are caused by people) = .99.
But, probably no one alive now will ever know for sure — because only
the shadow knows.
— David Chowes, New York City
49. October 1, 2009
3:15 pm
Link
Australia is surrounded by water. Although a desalinization plant
will be incredibly expensive, a bit of water cleaning, and creating a
forest from their dry lands might help. The dust bowl existed in the
mid-West of the USA at one time, which was caused by poor farming
practices. I find the lack of effort in proper land management to be
interesting.
Climate change sounds sexy, but Australia needs to deal with issues
that would be easier and simpler to manage. Cleaning the Ocean waters,
and bringing it in inland to re-create grasslands and forests is a
good first step.
— Betty Chambers
50. October 1, 2009
3:21 pm
Link
As a farmer myself, I wonder how much of the dust is from farmland.
It could be significant. Two of the writers state that agriculture
contributed to the the dust storms. Here on the Great Plains, farmers
have largely adopted “no-till” practices in the past 20 years, and
wind-blown erosion has become rare here, including some dry periods in
recent years.
Have Aussie farmers not adopted no-till? (For “no-till” read “chemical-
intensive”, so there are some other serious enviro issues with no-
till.)
— Michael Melius
From 51 to 69 of 69 Comments
« Previous 1 2 3
51. October 1, 2009
3:24 pm
Link
Mike, #33, demonstrates well the warped thinking that consistently
undermines any serious debate about how best to avoid the fallout of a
catastrophic change in our climate.
I’m always amazed when people completely dismiss as irrelevant a
complex and heavily studied field. Usually, as in some of the early
comments, such blanket dismissals are accompanied by a flurry of noise
and googlefacts. But Mike accomplishes that feat with nothing more
than a snide off-hand comment.
A book unrelated to climate science that all high school students read
convinced him that climate change is a hoax, and everything Mike needs
to know about the issue, he learned in 9th grade. All those scientists
who kept reading and thinking well beyond high school, are, according
to Mike, deluding themselves–or they’re in it for the big bucks that
academics always command.
Sometimes those scientists have even disagreed about what they were
observing! Is the earth cooling, or is it warming? Ah Ha! say the
MIkes of the world. That disagreement couldn’t be part of the
scientific method (And who know what that is, anyway? they didn’t
teach it until the 10th grade). Instead, it means that every climate
scientist must be wrong! So stop worrying. Gas up the truck and get
yourself a hamburger. You deserve it America.
— Will
52. October 1, 2009
3:40 pm
Link
As an engineer, however not a scientist engaged in the justification
of a grant, I would say that if 2006 and 2007 had worse sea ice
coverage than 2008, we would be seeing a trend toward ice age…am I
wrong? Average oceant temperatures are not possible to take with our
current infrastructure. We can only employ smoothing calculations to
derive some sort of order. Furthermore to arrive at an average
temperature for the planet covering the entire 20th Century is a
complete and utter fraud when the technology in 1901 was where it was.
I would accept reasonable arguments, but when the bile being flouted
as science is thrown around by kool-aid drinking Phds, how can we ever
arrive at an agreement to talk seriously about something so important?
— Jack Lord
53. October 1, 2009
3:48 pm
Link
I lost my job, climate change. We are in an economic crisis, climate
change. Our healthcare needs reform, climate change. In the 70’s it
was called Global Cooling, in the 80’s and 90’s, Global Warming. Now
its “Climate CHANGE.” It seems like progressive “change.” i.e. B.S.
— Ferris
54. October 1, 2009
4:02 pm
Link
Natural variability in climate complicates the assignment of causes
to any particular weather event like a dust storm or a hurricane.
Cause has to be assigned not for any particular event, but to a
statistically significant sample of a multitude of events. This is why
on the scientific side of the issue, the arguments for anthropogenic
climate change can be made to appear weak…, a good scientist will
always qualify his conclusions. He doesn’t speak of “facts” but of
probabilities and of the quantification of the phenomena being
studied. Error is always present to some degree and the anthropogenic
climate change deniers will fasten on any error as disproof of the
whole premise of climate change.
The aspect of opposing arguments that I find most particularly
offensive is the assertion that climate scientists who do not believe
in anthropogenic warming have somehow been cowed by a misguided
majority into remaining silent. Then there are the accusations that
research money is to be found by supporting the conclusion that global
warming is occurring. This isn’t an argument based on science but
rather on character assassination.
— John Bickelhaupt
55. October 1, 2009
4:14 pm
Link
The new religious dogma: AGW. We choose an issue which is out of our
control, and offer the cues to its solution. The solution never really
comes –maybe the problem is not a problem–, but we have you under
control. Religions did it with death longtime ago.
— jp
56. October 1, 2009
4:38 pm
Link
I have yet to read any scientific article with any indisputable proof
of anthropogenic global warming. I continually look at the info @ GISS
and I don’t even see any data that makes me wonder, and that site is
run by Hansen himself.
— Thomas Paine
57. October 1, 2009
4:47 pm
Link
In the ’50s Pandit Nehru, then the Prime Minister of India, started a
program to control the western desert (Thar) from moving towards New
Delhi. I was a child at that time so I don’t remember the exact name
of the project. Anyhow, the Government of India planted one million
trees around the desert. Consequently, the desrt was pushed back.
Israel and Saudi Arabia had done similar things. We can change the
environment if we cooperate and coordinate with each rather than doing
nothing.
— Fareed Mahmood
58. October 1, 2009
4:53 pm
Link
Whether or not the junk we spew into atmosphere, lakes, rives,
streams and oceans is causing climate change, cancer, etc. is really
irrelevant. We should simply seek to minimize our impact for the sake
of minimizing our impact. Knowing that we lived well on the unaltered
earth should be enough to convince us that we would like to continue
living on the unaltered earth.
Stand behind an exhaust pipe and tell me that stuff is fine going into
the atmosphere. Swim in a river near farm runoff and tell me that it
won’t have an impact. Fish in the giant floating plastic sea in the
middle of the pacific and tell me we shouldn’t be concerned.
Science is a long, long way from being able to tell us the impacts of
human activity on climate, nature, and on ourselves. But a little
common sense should inform of us of what is right and what is wrong.
— Jeff Berman
59. October 1, 2009
4:57 pm
Link
I agree with above-mentioned statements, that only together we can
solve this ‘Global Warming’ problem…
I’m from Georgia (Tbilisi). In my country, despite that there aren’t
factories and its air is clean, I feel that the nature is change. Work
more, speak less…
— oto
60. October 1, 2009
5:06 pm
Link
The Australian scientists explain the Australian phenomena better
than the others.-Sol Bidermanb
— Sol Biderman
61. October 1, 2009
5:14 pm
Link
Great pieces, very thoughtful. I remember when Andy Pittman was just
a little academic, now he’s all grown up and in the NYT. Good on ya
Andy.
— alan
62. October 1, 2009
5:43 pm
Link
The science is not entirely clear, but who wants to take the chance?
Sometimes prudence dictates actions before everything is known. Think
cash in the bank, etc.
— Kurt Schoeneman
63. October 1, 2009
6:19 pm
Link
This whole argument has become so political that rationality, even
scientific rationality, has been abandoned. To attribute the Sydney
dust storm to global warming is clearly silly, since the Law of
Parsimony (Occam’s Razor) coupled with Australia’s climate history
would clearly indicate the improbability of global warming as an
ultimate cause, though It may well have been a contributing factor.
That having been said, it is clear to me that right wing politics in
this country have had a devastating effect on scientific discourse
over the past thirty years.
— James F Traynor
64. October 1, 2009
6:23 pm
Link
My response to #56 is: There are none so blind as those who will not
see. As others have already stated, science doesn’t deal with proofs
indisputable. If that’s your standard, then you don’t understand
science. If you are really visiting the GISS website and don’t see any
data that makes you wonder…then maybe you aren’t capable of wonder…or
science.
#55 treats nature as though it was supernatural. We can affect nature
at our level and we do. No reason is given for why we can’t change the
course of global warming by changing our emissions.
Ferris in #53 seems to have a problem with labels. Science was not
behind a very brief over reaction by journalists during the mid ’70’s
that the next ice age could happen at any moment. Most of the limited
science on climate trends during the ’70’s actually pointed to global
warming. It has continued to do so for the last 3 decades. So, because
some group decided to hide global warming under the euphemism of
climate change, should any reasonable person conclude that the problem
has changed or diappeared? Ferris apparently has…and demonstrates his
reasoning ability by conflating climate change with health care
reform. In other words, if Ferris doesn’t like it, it’s not happening,
regardless of any scientific evidence.
— Dan
65. October 1, 2009
6:29 pm
Link
This “red cloud” phenomenon is almost Bibically frightening. While on
one hand, this occurance is something that has occurred naturally, due
to the specifics of Australian geography and climatology, it is
frightening in its scope.This reminds me of a quote an Mamalestian
Australian political satirist said. Ralphi Dell-Aquilla, quoting the
book the Balenyata said, ” the evils of man will come back to haunt
him”. It means that human kind has treated the planet as its personal
pig pen not caring for what the consequences for others were. But in
the long run, the consequences are going to effect humans, and only
then is it a disaster?? There is a story in the Balenyata about the
ancient Mamalestians and how they were destroying their surroundings
by selfishly abusing the Earth for their own short sighted needs.
Sounds familiar, just like many of today’s consvervative American
politicians who say “God gave us the Earth to do what we please”.
Therefore, Ecological disasters, while this is not yet, are on the
horizon according to the sacred text The Balenyata. I think more
Australians should read this book to see where the future lies and
what they can do about it.
— Ralph Gashnicks
66. October 1, 2009
6:33 pm
Link
In #52, the statement, “I would accept reasonable arguments, but when
the bile being flouted as science is thrown around by kool-aid
drinking Phds, how can we ever arrive at an agreement to talk
seriously about something so important?”
Really? You would accept reasonable arguments? Talk seriously about
the issue of global warming with people who are what? Willing to agree
with you?
One might well ask what gives you the authority to judge the science
being flouted by kool-aid drinking Phd’s??? Are you versed in the
science? If so, then you can write direct rebuttals to the science as
published. Somehow, I’m thinking I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting to
see what you come up with….sitting on the sidelines like a wannabee
watching your football team lose the game and thinking you could do a
better job if only you were in shape, big enough, athletic….and had a
clue.
— Dan
67. October 1, 2009
6:49 pm
Link
Climate change due to global warming means one thing only, in that
weather change is occurring. There should be no debate about change,
it’s happening and will continue to happen ahead.
The question should be what are “we” going to do, as we have only a
few choices, adapt and live with the new changes, deny and die or move
to another planet.
Why doesn’t everyone clearly understand, mother nature is not to be
debated, change is happening, if you want it or not!
For those who argue over if “human activity” is causing climate
change, that is obvious, it is helping to cause climate change!
The question here is how much is human activity causing climate
change. Anyone look at satellite photos, especially taken over China?
If anyone looks at how human activities are pollution the world, which
it is doing, we can all ourselves, is this pollution making life
better for all on this planet?
The only reason there is a debate on climate change, is to delay the
fact. the truth is the economy is to blame, because it directs the
development, which manifast as human activity.
Everyone can see an obverse that the world development is in chaos!
Why? Because, the development based upon the economy is NOT
sustainable.
If you want to resolve the issues of climate change, you resolve the
economic and ideology principles, to support sustainability.
What is not sustainable, NEVER last. Now, ask yourself what
government, those that make the laws, rules and policies to which
shape and form the ways people work, in business are working for
sustainability?
My forecast is there will be billions of less humans in the time
ahead, as the water, soil and air all becomes unfit and polluted for
wealthy capitalist stockholders who are never held accountable for
their investments!
— Roger Box
68. October 1, 2009
6:58 pm
Link
Most everyone has stated that you can’t take a single event like
Australia’s dust storm and conclude that it was caused by global
warming. However, most of the scientifically informed have also stated
that you do need to look at this event in its entirety. But, that has
also opened the door to folks who just want to take a swipe at all of
the science.
Here’s a guy, Thomas Paine (comment # 56) who’s saying that there’s no
indisputable proof of anthropogenic global warming along with there
being no data on the GISS website (Godard Institute of Space Studies)
that refers to data that supports anthropogenic climate change.
The ten featured articles on the GISS home page today are all about
climate change. The ninth article, to pick out but one, “GISS Best
Publication 2008″ is an annual “best publication” of the previous year
by a member of the institute. The abstract titled, Attributing
physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change, is a
peer reviewed paper that appeared in Nature, 453, 353-357.
Every time that I have had the opportunity to dig into an article in
Nature, I have seen reams of data to support the premise being
presented. That is the case with this one, which contains all of the
requisite graphs and charts along with a methods summary which
occupies almost a full page. The summary states that they compiled
their data from peer reviewed papers on climate from 1970 to 2004 and
that there was data collected on papers that both did and did not
support AGW.
This alone seems like serious falsifiable science to me, which is
fully transparent. So, Mr. Paine, if you really looked for data you
would have found it. Forgot, whoops, you were looking for indisputable
proof. I ask though, will you and others like you be so rigorous if
you are offered an experimental drug or procedure that can save you
life? But, after all what we are discussing here is not likely to
effect our lives but it will effect the lives of our grandchildren.
I’m no scientist, in fact I am an artist, so I guess that makes me an
uninformed, head-in-the-clouds liberal who only wants to destroy the
economy by believing in AGW so no one can purchase my work. My bottom
line is that I do believe in science being able to present us with a
reasonably rational picture of the natural world. If there is science
that is peer reviewed and substantial to reverse the current fact of
AGW then I will reverse my position. Till then, you folks (and this
includes astronaut Harrison Schmitt) need to let us folks figure out
how to save the world in peace and quit spewing unsubstantiated
falsehoods about this unprecedented threat to global society. And, Mr.
Paine, how about applying some of your namesake’s most famous writing,
“Common Sense.”
— Burt Levy
69. October 1, 2009
7:00 pm
Link
Climate change is occurring in Australia which is creating more
marginal land and unsustainable farms and food production. You only
have to venture away from the coast (95% of Australians live within
100km from the coast) to see the effects of prolonged drought and
increased dry-land salinity. Reforestation offers positive
environmental and commercial benefits by creating carbon sinks, micro-
ecosystems and new revenue streams for landowners thereby mitigating
effects of decreasing yields from changing climate conditions. Angus
MacNee – CEO, Citola (http://www.citola.com)
— Angus MacNee
chhotemianinshallah
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/congo-forests-in-climate-context/#more-8877
Thursday, October 1, 2009
September 30, 2009, 6:30 pm
Congo Forests in Climate Context
By Ashley Southall
WASHINGTON — With discussions about climate change intensifying ahead
of treaty talks in Copenhagen in December, African and United States
officials and experts on forests and climate met in Washington this
week to discuss United States involvement in a decade-old
international program aimed at preserving the tropical rain forests of
Central Africa’s Congo Basin.
During a roundtable discussion, several leaders of African countries
that are a part of the Congo Basin Forest Partnership spoke with
urgency about the need for the United States, which is also a member,
to provide more money for the initiative, particularly because such
forests not only provide a wildlife haven but also serve as a buffer
against the buildup of greenhouse gases.
“They delivered emphatically two messages,” said Carter Roberts, the
president of the World Wildlife Fund, who attended the talks. “This
program for saving the Congo was a fundamental pillar of their vision
for the future of their countries,” he said, adding that they
emphasized the global benefits of forest conservation. “You can’t
solve climate change without saving the Congo and building the
financial mechanisms to do the same,” he said.
The United States has spent nearly $100 million over the past eight
years to cosponsor the Congo forest partnership. But the United
States’ contribution has remained stagnant as newer partners like
Britain, France and Germany have pledged as much as $50 million
annually.
The money goes toward combatting illegal logging, mining and poaching
in the basin, an area roughly the size of Texas that is home to
almost 12,000 species of plants, birds, and mammals, including
gorillas and chimpanzees. Most of the basin’s forests remain intact,
and the rate of clearing is slower than in the Amazon or Indonesia,
partly because outside investment has allowed the Congo’s nations to
shift their economies to resources other than timber.
But the African contingent at the talks here worried that forests
could start to fall if negotiators pursuing a new climate treaty fail
to include incentives to conserve so-called low-risk forests like
those in the Congo. Agricultural, logging and mining companies that
might be forced out of the Amazon or Indonesia by tighter restrictions
might see the Congo basin as a ripe target, leaders here said.
Denis Sassou-Nguesso, president of Congo and the lead negotiator for
the African Union on climate change, said that domestic pressures on
forests have to be countered with other kinds of economic opportunity.
“When countries sacrifice a large portion of their grounds for
protected areas,” he said, “you cannot ask them not to touch the
forests and not give them anything.”
20 Readers' Comments
1 . Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, Ca.
September 30th, 2009
7:33 pmYou have to applaud WWF and the Congolese government for their
earnest efforts to save that incredible forest, home to gorillas,
Pygmies, and mysteries that we are just beginning to understand.
Here's the problem: The Congo forest is still largely intact, while
the US primary forest is down to about 5% of its original range. Much
of the rest is spindly fire and infestation prone tree farms. For
years, WWF has actively participated in promoting thinning, salvage,
and all of the other logging industry stealth attempts to destroy as
much as they can of what we have left. Impacts on our carbon budget
have been enormous, all to increase access, build roads, and sell us
more things such as three-ply soft toilet paper and two by fours. The
public may buy the cute little panda, but I certainly don't here in
the United States.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 2 . David B. Benson
Pullman
September 30th, 2009
10:34 pmDon't buy rain forest wood products.
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 3 . Dale R. McIntyre, PhD
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
September 30th, 2009
11:28 pm# 1 Mike Roddy,
Dear Mike,
If ever we disagree (and we often disagree) you as often manage to
remind me that we are emphatically agreed on one thing, and that is
the need to cherish our forests.
Forests are the lungs of the planet. They are what makes the very
oxygen we breathe, and their transpiration of water vapor is what
makes the world's temperature livable. They are the temple of our
wilderness and our wilderness creatures.
And for me, personally,without a little corner of wilderness to
retreat to in times of trouble, I greatly fear my spirit would lose
its anchor and drift, lost, a prey to bitterness and despair.
For these reasons I believe re-forestation and stopping de-forestation
are noble work that will pay dividends for generations to come. I
would be well content if I knew my climate-change tax dollars were
going to save or regenerate forests here or abroad instead of so much
going to politcally-correct squirrelly "renewable" energy schemes
which are actually net energy losers.
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 4 . wmar
usa
October 1st, 2009
11:20 amA day without a walk in the woods would be a sad day indeed.
Side-note: Still no word from Mann, or Real Climate, or the IPCC, or
the NYT, regarding the overwhelming climate fraud Mann, et al,
supported by the IPCC, et al, with the complicity of Hansen, et al,
has perpetrated against the world. Which fraud the world has largely
relied upon thus spending hundreds of billions of dollars and
influencing governments, organizations and citizens all across the
globe.
The silence is deafening.
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers Andy Revkin
Dot Earth blogger, Reporter
October 1st, 2009
11:26 amActually, Real Climate posted this morning:
http://www.realclimate.org... 5 . Danny Bloom
Cyberspace
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amGood post, important information.
Ashley, since you are in the DC area, maybe with the Times DC bureau,
you might be interested in the Physicians For Social Responsibilty
fact sheets on global wamriong, and in partcitular, one of the 5 facts
sheets, which was prepared by a regular member of the Dot Earth
community Dr M. Steven Moffic. An blog interview with him is here, and
it might make a good lead for a news story in the print version of
your newspaper. Contact Barb Gottlieb at the PSR office in DC.
http://northwardho.blogspot.com...
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 6 . Wang Suya
Japan
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amFrom Wang Suya
Save the Congo rainforest, it's the home of biodiveristy, it's the
sink of greenhouse gases, it's the beautiy of great earth. Please save
it do not rape it!!!
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 7 . Charles Kay
SC, U.S.A.
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amAnd Mr. Obama has the nerve to proclaim, 'The U.S. can't solve
these problems alone -- you other developed countries must do your
part' !!!
But as an economist, I can tell you DEers (again) that it all comes
down to basic Economics. Well actually, even more basic than the
economy and the national deficit is our national priorities, but I
mean it is even more basic than priorities in our alternative energy
budget. The way our GDP gets sliced up (spending-savings-taxes)
addresses the basics I am refering to. And please note here, that
increases in savings/taxes forces spending to go down. The economics
terms for these are propensity to save, propensity to spend. But with
the present GW crisis, I think a new term should be coined --
propensity to save-the-planet, which would also subtract from the
personal consumption category. This can only happen when people are
convinced of the gravity of the planetary/GW situation, and are
willing to make personal sacrifices in their lifestyles.
OK, so how does all this translate in regard to the present subject?
Taxes, end-use energy taxes would go a long way in addressing most of
our eco/energy problems, including providing revenue so that the U.S.
government can compete with the Europeans in providing funds to save
the Congo forests. So Mr. Obama, I hope you are listening. Let's show
those Europeans that the U.S. IS the leader when it comes to saving
the rain-forests. And when your constituates start griping about new
energy taxes, tell them "Sorry people, our planet has priority". And
also our children, I might add.
Thanks, Charles
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 8 . Mac
UK
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amIt seems you don't have to spend a penny to save the
rainforest.
http://www.reuters.com...
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 9 . Steven Earl Salmony
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amSomething is happening FOUR DAYS FROM NOW.
************COME TO NYC***********
YOU ARE INVITED TO THE SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE DOT EARTH
COMMUNITY AND FRIENDS ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE NYTIMES BUILDING, THE
FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER 2009, THE FIFTH DAY OF THE MONTH AT 2:00 PM.
Be there. Everybody is coming. We are going global
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 10 . Lou Gold
Brazil
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amThank you Andy for that GREAT video and this important post.
INSPIRING !!!
Mike, I dunno? Sure we need to save forests everywhere. Sure the US
forests demand attention. Sure, fascination with charismatic critters
is not a substitute for appreciating biodiversity. As you well know, I
taught that the most important forest being was the mycorrhizal fungus
in the soil and that the majestic coastal redwood or the towering Doug
fir was only a by-product of a healthy system:
But look at those healthy gorilla families. It fills my eyes with
tears and my heart with joy just to know that they exist. And I am
terribly thankful to each and every person or institution or
government that is trying to preserve a bit of life that has not been
overrun or overwhelmed by development and domestication.
Sure WWF milks the Panda icon for all it's worth. But it was that
Panda that arrived in partnership with our little grassroots Siskiyou
Project to almost get our forest preserved permanently as a Wild
Rivers National Monument at the end of the Clinton Administration. It
was a narrow miss. We lost. I raged. I cried. But I knew that we all
did our best -- supported with critical support from WWF -- and to
this day I feel very grateful.
Yeah, I know it's sad but sometimes gratitude is all you get.
hugs and blessings,
lou
http://lougold.blogspot.com
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 11 . G J Lau
Frederick, MD
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amTrees are more than just scenery. They are a working factory
that processes water and minerals and releases oxygen and takes up
carbon dioxide, a process that helps to maintain the only known
atmosphere in the galaxy capable of sustaining life. As such, trees
are worthy of as much protection as any other vital industry would
receive.
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 12 . Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, Ca.
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amDale, thanks for the support. You're right: we subsidized
ethanol even after scientists found out that corn for cars was
actually worse than petroleum for our carbon budget.
Afforestation and allowing our own forests to return to their natural
state would actually do a lot more for our carbon budget than going to
all electric cars. It would be nice if we did both, but leaving the
forests alone for a while is much cheaper than changing over the whole
transportation system, and will change many of our excessive and
throwaway consumption habits. I wrote an article to that effect that
was published last year in Forest Voice.
While I'm no friend of the fossil fuel industry, the ag and timber
industries are much more politically powerful in this country, and
more difficult to dislodge from their destructive practices. Did you
see how Kerry/Boxer exempted factory farms from any CO2 restrictions?
Ridiculous, and a pure money play.
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 13 . Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, Ca.
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmI didn't know WWF helped you back in those days, Lou, but am
not surprised- Dominick was with them then, and they actually helped
me when I was making the rounds in DC. The problem is what has
happened since then. They've sold out, from what I've heard, and are
no longer fighting the good fight here in the US.
A lot of us still appreciate what you did in the Siskiyous, and remain
inspired by it. Floating the Illinois, and seeing that incredible
ecosystem up close, remains a highlight of my life. Otters, eagles,
salmon, lilies, ferns- what a paradise it was. The attempts to destroy
it, which are still going on, are atrocities that must stop.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 14 . Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, Ca.
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmWOW!
Everybody, please follow Andy's link in response to wmar's post #4.
This is the best denier smackdown I've ever read, and it's funny, too.
Sorry, wmar, McIntyre, and the rest: game over.
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 15 . wmar
usa
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmGreat news Andy, thanks for posting, I looked there before my
post and that was not up yet.
Now let’s take a quick (instant) look:
Let us address misstatement #1 by Gavin and crew, that the data was
gotten form the internet as if to malign it. It was sent to Steve M,
as he explains and has documented, by The Royal Society, who obtained
it with regard to a paper they published, why do 'The RealClimateers'
write to malign the data as being some internet ‘thing’ or
manifestation? Is that objective?
If you will merely note the warm up from the LIA in the graphs Real
Climate has posted, you can see the 'warming' began pre-industrially
and was part of the natural backdrop of the overall warming in
recovery from the LIA, few dispute this as baseline.
Next, simply apply TSI, PDO and AMO to the time period post-
industrially. What do you see then?
Answer, these exact same graphs (only more accurately showing both
cooling and warming phases.)
As all of the warming can be accounted for by the base rate of warm up
from the LIA, and then even along the wobbles until today as being
virtually 100% correlated with the natural cycles above noted, and we
do know for a fact that the Yamal data was cherry-picked expost-facto
by Mann and Briffa, et al, (why would they do that?), Wegman was very
clear, then as now, the clique's group-think was too powerful.
Because natural cycles recreate the entirety of these graphs in
practical effect, where exactly is the carbon signature or effect? It
certainly was not seen in the Mann proxies, in fact his proxy’s
altogether shows no hockey-stick at all, and just the cherry-picked
ones do. The NAS said:
The NAS
Panel expressed itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel but in
every essential agreed with it, finding that,
*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***RE tests are insufficient for statistical significance (i.e. the
Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction
In Congress:
North and his panel were then also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings,
and this interesting dialogue ensued:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
consistent.
Thus, Real Climate has not answered the question in their post, merely
confirmed what was already known as a base-line and ignoring the earth/
solar system itself, in a dripping and dismissive manner, hoping the
questions will go away.
They take no efforts to discuss head on the accusation, that Mann, et
all, cherry-picked data, ex post facto, and ignored the balance of the
known data, which would have hurt their ideological goal, they
knowingly allowed this ‘data’ to be used to further their cause, and
then ignored the more obvious and simple explanation for their graphs,
and Real Climate thinks that is just dandy, or that they have been
responsive to this serious issue ... is that how science is supposed
to work?
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 16 . wmar
usa
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmOne final thought,
Gavin speaks about peer-review, Mann. et al, was peer-reviewed, the
review failed utterly as established by all the known facts, the
Wegmen report, the testimony at Congress, this latest revelation of
data, etc... To folks like those at Real Climate, peer-review seems to
mean, get our stamp of approval.
"It was warmer 1000 years ago than in the late 20th century. Existence
of this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) contradicted the claim that post-
industrial human CO2 was causing unprecedented warming. As Thomas
Huxley said, “The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a
beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Solution? Eliminate the fact.
Professor Deming reported receiving an email that said, “We have to
get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” Deming didn’t name the sender,
but we now know it was Jonathan Overpeck, a lead author of
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports.
Mann, Bradley and Hughes tried to achieve Overpeck’s objective with a
1998 (MBH98) “peer reviewed” paper including the “hockey stick” graph.
The graph dominated the 2001 IPCC Report especially the Summary for
Policymakers (SPM) - the part the media cover. Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitrick (MM) used the standard technique of reproducible results to
expose the serious flaws in the research. As Bishop Hill explained,
“He (McIntyre) was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted
the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to
choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes…. He
also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use
of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from
bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this
kind of reconstruction.”(Source)" ..."Chairman of the US House
Committee on Energy and Commerce and Chairman of the Subcommittee of
Oversight and Investigations were interested in determining the
validity of McIntyre’s claims. An independent committee chaired by
Professor Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University found in favor
of McIntyre. “In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat
obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid
and compelling.” and, “Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the
millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot
be supported by his analysis.” This leaves no doubt about the science;
however, Wegman identified a larger problem about control of climate
science. “In our further exploration of the social network of
authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43
authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers
with him.” Wegman confirmed my suspicion that excessive focus on “peer
review” studies was because a group had control of the process. “One
of the interesting questions associated with the ‘hockey stick
controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently
how confident one can be in the peer review process. In particular, if
there is a tight relationship among the authors and there are not a
large number of individuals engaged in a particular topic area, then
one may suspect that the peer review process does not fully vet papers
before they are published.” The fact MBH98, was peer reviewed is
partial proof. Continued publication of peer-reviewed papers using
hockey stick methodology suggests the peer review process is being
circumvented." ..." “However, it is immediately clear that the Mann,
Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique,
each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected
subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else
in the clique.” In comprehensive charts he identified all the
scientists involved, including Amman and Wahl. Wegman wrote, “We were
especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed
was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it
personally without disclosing it to peers.” Both Mann and Jones have
refused to disclose how their results were obtained. (Source)"
It could not be more clear, yet from Real Climate, essentially
nothing, again, is this science?
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 17 . G. Howard
Idaho
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmThe round table that they sat down at for this discussion was
probably made from rain forest wood. It was certainly made from fine
wood.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 18 . wmar
usa
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmBriffa has now replied:
In its entirety:
Please note the rebuttal and graphics as well as the Briffa statement,
take particular note of the one tree which appears to have created the
entire hockey stick.
"1. Plotting the entire Hantemirov and Shiyatov data set, as I’ve done
here, shows it to be almost flat not only in the late 20th century,
but through much of its period.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
How do you explain why your small set of 10 trees shows a late 20th
century spike while the majority of Hantemirov and Shiyatov data does
not? You write in your rebuttal:
“He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in
one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to
give them inappropriate low weights.”
Justify your own method of selecting 10 trees out of a much larger
data set. You’ve failed to do that. That’s the million dollar
question.
Briffa Writes: “My application of the Regional Curve Standardisation
method to these same data was intended to better represent the multi-
decadal to centennial growth variations necessary to infer the longer-
term variability in average summer temperatures in the Yamal region:
to provide a direct comparison with the chronology produced by
Hantemirov and Shiyatov.“
OK Fair enough, but why not do it for the entire data set, why only a
small subset?
2. It appears that your results are heavily influenced by a single
tree, as Steve McIntyre has just demonstrated here.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
As McIntyre points out: “YAD061 reaches 8 sigma and is the most
influential tree in the world.”
Seems like an outlier to me when you have one tree that can skew the
entire climate record. Explain yourself on why you failed to catch
this.
3. Why the hell did you wait 10 years to release the data? You did
yourself no favors by deferring reasonable requests to archive data to
enable replication. It was only when you became backed into a corner
by The Royal Society that you made the data available. Your delays and
roadblocks (such as providing an antique data format of the punched
card era), plus refusing to provide metadata says more about your
integrity than the data itself. Your actions make it appear that you
did not want to release the data at all. Your actions are not
consistent with the actions of the vast majority of scientists
worldwide when asked for data for replication purposes. Making data
available on paper publication for replication is the basis of proper
science, which is why The Royal Society called you to task."
No we have Real Climate and Briffa, neither one being responsive to
the nature of the concerns. As Wegman explained, this is a very tight
clique.
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 19 . Bob
NYC
October 1st, 2009
7:56 pmThe forests are second only to the oceans in converting CO2 to
O2 and therefore priceless. Call me a cynic, I'd rather see those
millions spent here reforesting US areas and providing jobs to fellow
Americans than going to third world despots that may use the money for
personal or other purposes while giving us lip service.
How many more trees do we have today in Africa bought by the millions
spent? I think this sort of specific information is needed to make the
article more convincing.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 20 . Russell Seitz
Cambridge, Mass
October 1st, 2009
11:21 pmOur anonymous friend wmar writes :
"Seems like an outlier to me when you have one tree that can skew the
entire climate record. Explain yourself "
Scientific revolutions often follow from the discovery of excellently
preserved and complete records that improve the signal to noise ratio
in one fell swoop. Examples range from pristine ice and sediment cores
in palaeoclimatology , to Lucy and the Rosetta Stone in physical
anthropology and linguistics.
Wmar deludes himself if he believes intelligent readers incapable of
recognizing that the RC rebuttal of McIntyre deals honestly , and ad
rem, with virtually every point he raises here.
This is doubly unfortunate , because hearing some impudent ignoramus
repeat McIntyre's sporting goods mantra merely reminds us we're
watching a mining statistician evade scientific controversy by riding
his hobby horse through the blogosphere instead of putting his
critique on the firing line of peer review. In short, you can't use
disinformation to fight climate hype.
chhotemianinshallah
Kerry, Boxer Introduce Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
September 30, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chairman of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works, today introduced the
Kerry-Boxer legislation to create clean energy jobs, reduce pollution,
and protect American security by enhancing domestic energy production
and combating global climate change.
The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will cut carbon pollution
and stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean
energy sector.
"This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our
energy future and makes it clear that we will combat global climate
change with American ingenuity. It is our country's defense against
the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate
change," said Kerry. "Our health, our security, our economy, our
environment, all demand we reinvent the way America uses energy. Our
addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies and
risks our security. By taking decisive action, we can and will stop
climate change from becoming a ‘threat multiplier' that makes an
already dangerous world staggeringly more so. I want to thank my
partner in this important legislative mission, Senator Barbara Boxer,
for helping to craft a bill that can put millions of Americans back to
work, invest in homegrown innovation, and safeguard our children's
health and our environment."
Senator Boxer said, "We know clean energy is the ticket to strong,
stable economic growth -- it's right here in front of us, in the
ingenuity of our workers and the vision of our entrepreneurs. We must
seize this opportunity, or others will move ahead. This is our time.
Global warming is our challenge. Economic recovery is our challenge.
American leadership is our challenge. Let's step up right now. Let's
not quit until we have fulfilled our responsibility to our children
and our grandchildren. It is an honor to work side by side on this
important legislation with Senator Kerry, who recognized very early
that this issue is about America's national and economic security."
Attached to this release are several documents which outline the Kerry-
Boxer legislation. For all other questions, please contact the
senators' press offices.
To watch a flash video of the press conference, please click HERE.
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/CommPlayer/commFlashPlayer.cfm?fn=epw093009&st=000
chhotemianinshallah
chhotemianinshallah
September 30, 2009, 3:22 pm
Keeping ‘Climate’ Out of a Climate Bill’s Title
By Andrew C. Revkin
Senate leaders, in unveiling their long-expected climate bill today,
followed the lead of their colleagues in the House: the word
“climate” is not mentioned in the bill’s title. How far things have
come, or retreated, since the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, the
Safe Climate Act of 2007 or even the Climate Security Act of 2008.
The avoidance of the C word in the bill’s title, “ Clean Energy Jobs
and American Power Act,” seems at odds with the urgent arguments put
forward by backers of the legislation that emissions are climbing and
climate is changing more drastically than previously predicted.
Presumably the word choice is a function of polling that indicates
global warming remains far down on lists of voter concerns. Earlier
this year, there was a lot of re-examination of climate messages, in
hopes of finding terms that could stick.
The economics of climate legislation still seems to matter more to
many people than what a bill would do to limit environmental risk.
Organizations that are variously supporting or fighting emissions
restrictions have been busily rolling out competing assessments of
the jobs created or jobs lost under the less-stringent House bill
passed in June. More such analysis is nigh as hearings start in a few
days.
Have a look at the bill summaries (PDF files at this link). What
would you call it?
[UPDATE, 7 p.m.: The bill contains some other semantic innovations.
One is a shift from "cap and trade" to pollution reduction and
investment. Another is repeated reference to " carbon pollution" in
place of "greenhouse gases." The problem there, as I pointed out a few
months ago, is that not all greenhouse gases contain carbon, and not
all carbon-containing pollution plays a significant role in climate
change. UPDATE, 10:30 p.m.: As a backstop should legislation falter
(and/or prod to move things along), the Obama administration expanded
its actions to curtail greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air
Act today, as well.]
readers' comments
Keeping 'Climate' Out of a Climate Bill's Title
A second climate bill without the word "climate" in the title.
49 Readers' Comments
1.bostmaguy Boston, MA September 30th, 2009 3:53 pm
You should write about the Hockey Stick scandal that is reverberating
throughout the climate community (alarmists and skeptics alike). Seems
that Mann is rather a plucky fellow when it comes to data. The big
question is how many other 'scientists' have done the exact same thing
all in the name of justifying the ends.
Read more: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7229
Recommended by 9 Readers
Andy Revkin Dot Earth blogger, Reporter September 30th, 2009 3:53 pm
Inquiries are under way. More to come on McIntyre's work and climate
scientists' reaction.
2.JD Ohio September 30th, 2009 4:23 pm
Dishonest trash. What one would expect from hypocrites.
JD
Recommended by 5 Readers
3.Mike Roddy Yucca Valley, Ca. September 30th, 2009 5:05 pm
Businesses now imitate Hollywood's practice of prescreening and study
groups before rolling out a movie or product. Even the title gets
kicked around to see which buttons to push in the sample audience.
This is one reason movies have become so horrible. Many consumer
products also go through this process, which discourages innovation,
and perpetuates our baser and dumber instincts. Politicians, even two
I respect (Kerry and Boxer) are now following this lead, instead of
actually facing the music and doing the leading themselves.
In other words, what sells? This may work for, say, the audiences of
the more beastly talk radio hosts. The voting and even the consuming
public deserve better.
Campaigns or products that emerge from market research have a stilted
and phony quality, just like the Repower America and Clean Jobs act,
or whatever they call it. Lincoln didn't take a survey or consult with
marketing people before he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Ditto
for Churchill or Roosevelt's great speeches. They came from the heart,
and were motivated by a clear and urgent evaluation of the evidence.
People can smell the difference. It's harder for our leaders to do
market research, and engage in "branding", "framing", and the rest of
it. But we have a right to ask that they bring out their better
natures- and ours. The dangers we are dealing with are the equal of
those that Lincoln and Roosevelt faced, and require equally inspired
responses.
Recommended by 2 Readers
4.Mike Roddy Yucca Valley, Ca.September 30th, 2009 5:05 pm
I meant "easier", not "harder", in my last paragraph of my first post.
When I get worked up, age related dyslexia kicks in, sorry.
I certainly hope you don't do a topic on Steve McIntyre, Andy. He's an
economist/mathematician
with zero understanding of climate science, who yet runs a blog on the
subject. His m.o. is the same as Lomborg- act as if you know what
you're talking about, and play games with statistics, all in the
service of extractive and polluting industries. McIntyre's
professional experience is with the Canadian mining industry, which
has among the worst environmental records on the planet.
Let's try ignoring him, as people who have a clue do routinely.
Recommended by 5 Readers
5.David B. Benson Pullman September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
Andy Revkin --- It occurred to me that you might care to write an
article based on an interview with the authorsw of
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end
global warming
http://www.springerlink.com...
Which, by the way, strikes me as something to at least begin in
Tunisia and possibly Mauritania.
(I posted this as a public comment as others may care to read the
paper. The pdf is public access.)
Andy Revkin Dot Earth blogger, Reporter September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
One of many things on my endless to-do list, actually.... Will they
have to compete with those who want to build huge solar-thermal plant
there?
6.BRIAN M FLYNN LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
I believe "newspeak" was pushed into high gear when Homeland Security
Secretary Napolitano replaced the phrase "terrorism" with “man-caused
disaster”. Sugar-coating an unpalatable “cap and trade” bill merely by
deleting “climate” from the title is further evidence that our
lawmakers truly believe that “ignorance is strength”. The
miscalculation is that Orwell’s “1984” has been standard fare for some
time and the lack of ignorance is working against them. Thankfully,
there is presently no Ministry of Information deleting the written
word and audio recordings.
Andy, do you have any co-workers named “Winston”?
Recommended by 5 Readers
7.Sean Baltimore, MD USA September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
If Congress can't make a good enough case for CLIMATE legislation and
have to re-name it to make it more palletable, then maybe it shouldn't
be consisdered. If our legislators believe in the collective wisdom of
the people that put them in office, at least be honest and trust the
collective wisdom of those same people and sell them on the merits of
what the law will actually cost and what the benefits will be.
Recommended by 3 Readers
8.wmar usa September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
Great ideas seldom need obfuscation, while there is plenty of guilt to
go around. It has long been said that what is known as modern
liberalism, or progressive-ism cannot be honestly described by its
proponents or it will fail, because so many of its precepts are
anathema to individual freedom and self-determination, which are the
basis for the roots and foundation of The USA.
It is in part for this reason, in its most extreme forms, that we end
up with places like North Korea being named The peoples Democratic
Republic of North Korea. Or a wasteful spending bill being named a
'Recovery and Reinvestment Act', and we always here that something is
'for the children'. Of course we all see the commotion now over the
health care bill(s), none of which will have a name representative of
their reality. As I said, many have done this under various political
controls and it is all manipulation and clarifies the contempt our own
elected representatives hold for us.
Of course this leads directly to the current situation whereby, like
the leaders of the DRNK, the climate scientists that I fear Andy is
now talking with, who cannot be objective, or honest brokers,
regarding the fact that Mann and his hockey stick have been entirely
undone as they are complicit, Steve M at Climate Audit and the Wegman
Report are extremely clear, and have been for years, and this was
before the recent data was released and examined. The AGW theocracy
did not care, Mann they felt was the final vindication. Turns out Soon
and Baulinas, Singer, Seitz, the 700 signers of the Inhofe reports,
Inhofe, Limbaugh, Spencer, Michaels, Lindzen, Watts, (again the list
could go on) were entirely correct, and Mann entirely contrived,
knowingly and on purpose to by fraud achieve the specific but bogus
goal of creating AGW out of whole-cloth.
The IPCC, Hansen, RealClimate (same as Hansen, the PR arm of NASA),
Tamino, Rohm (the whole long list) etc… All of these folks have based
their good names, careers and scientific reputations upon Mann being
correct, the entire AGW conjecture is based on it. If the MWP was as
warm or warmer that the present time frame (Mann’s proxies themselves
now that they have finally been pried into the light of day establish
the MWP was as warm as the present time frame), the AGW hypothesis is
kaput. They are too deep to tell the truth now, and distortions and
machinations have worked so well for them until now, they have so many
true-believers waiting for the word from on high as to what to
believe.
If the IPCC overstates the atmospheric residency time for carbon
without scientific foundation (which they objectively do), the AGW
theory is killed by Mann’s own proxies, buried, dug up and then killed
a second time. If the trajectory of atmospheric carbon has remained
the same (which Mauna Loa says it has) despite the massive reduction
of human emissions because of the economic situation, AGW speculation,
killed yet again … three strikes and you are out?
Andy, I am a truth-seeker, please in this, do more than speak to the
‘clique’ to use Wegmans word for them, of the high-priests of the AGW
speculation and hypothesis. Speak to them if you must, but as a
skeptic for they have lied to you for decades, even directly to your
face, as Hansen, the smiling g barracuda, worked his magic on you.
Also, please do not tarry as ‘they’ huddle to formulate some way that
‘only the consensus’ can possibly understand, to explain this
monumental event away. As the Congress now debates this new bill over
this very topic, if Mann’s work is what it now (and then) appears to
be, hoisted upon his own proxies which falsify the AGW hypothesis, and
the entire AGW establishment went along with it, and the MWP was as
warm or warmer, and the residency time is 600% inflated … what exactly
are they debating in Washington?
Truth delayed is truth denied, be an objective journalist in this, the
world understands that you have been misled, you have no reason to
work to help the perpetrators of this massive 500 billion dollar
fraud. If Mann’s proxies show what they do (and they do), the AGW
world has been turned upside down and scientific truth is waiting to
be reported.
Waiting … there is no time to wait, Congress debates and votes and
will at some time finish with this issue. It is time for this story be
properly ‘broken’ in the mainstream media, perhaps a great way to
establish that where science is concerned, Andrew Revkin is not for
sale and when things turn out different than what he expected, he
comes to the fore and says what is true.
I know it is very hard to have ones world up-ended, I have faith that
you can make your way through to some fantastic writing on this matter
that is plain and clear and makes no excuses. Good luck to you, but
time is not anyone’s friend in this, if the cabal keeps you waiting,
keep your own counsel, for they have been exposed and you are now a
threat to ‘the family’.
Best Wishes
Recommended by 5 Readers
9.melty West Orange, NJ September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
Taking Mike's advice and moving on from BogusMan...
OMG is it possible that someone in the WH actually has some guts?
(guts: slang: courage, fortitude, nerve.... audacity. Now where have I
heard that word before?).
On the new bill: looks OK. I have a lot of respect for Barbara Boxer
(tough by name and tough by nature). On the other hand, [look away now
if the t-word results in an apoplectic fit] tax and dividend would be
better: less prone to charges of [gasp!] "big government" extortion
(though we seem to have no problem wasting $trillions on heartbreaking
and unwarranted foreign wars. Many have pointed out that captain trade
is probably not the best solution; on the other hand, he's a whole lot
better than nothing.
Recommended by 1 Reader
10.JKD Templeton Ca September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
It's a good idea to keep Climate out of the bill as it will do nothing
to effect Climate. The most cooling one could expect for this is .11
degrees C surly that is worth 7 trillion dollars.
Recommended by 4 Readers
11.melty West Orange, NJ September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
To answer Andy's question, I'd call it: "The American Stabilization of
Climate and Energy Transition Initiative-C", or ASCETIC. What's the
'C' for? CARBON, of course.
12.wmar usa September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
mike,
It is not about Climate Audit ... you may not be aware that the Mann
proxies were specifically cherry picked for that report, upon which
the concept of a cooler MWP came to be. This is not speculation, The
Royal Society has released the data, Mann and the hockey stick and the
cooler MWP are all undone. That Steve M is good with math is not a
secret nor is anyone asking for a column on him, we want to read all
about Mann, the warmer MWP, etc ... In other words, what is true, even
by Mann's own proxies which he and his cabal hid from the world, not
realizing The Royal Society had the data hidden away. Now it has been
released, and the data is entirely clear, the MWP was warmer, Soon and
Mann now agree (their proxies do), but Mann hid the ones he disliked,
Soon did not. The level of scandal is almost beyond words.
Mann and his clique (see the Wegman report) simply made up the results
by the exclusion and obfuscation of the evidence, this is not
conjecture.
The data establish that the MWP was as warm, global and perhaps even
warmer than the present time frame. The concept that we have warmed
more, faster , more quickly, etc... is no more, it was an intentional
misdirection by the AGW orthodoxy.
The emperor wears no clothes and the fraud of the ages has been
exposed, the precautionary principle cannot apply to AGW theology any
longer as even the research and peer-review has entirely failed and
broken down, the models are exposed, there is no 'there' there.
The order of hotter highs goes in reverse, we are cooler than the
highs of the 1930's and that was cooler than the highs of the MWP,
cooler not warmer, despite the entire industrial revolution and all
the carbon emitted and accumulated. As established by Mann's proxies,
not mine or any skeptics.
Best Wishes
Recommended by 1 Reader
13.M Hunt Alaska September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
A good point you make that the climate bill doesn't mention climate in
the title. One would think that climate is becoming a dirty word
amongst the politicians.
Also of interest is the EPA proceeding with the endangerment finding
on CO2 as a means of "putting pressure" on Congress to write a climate
bill limiting CO2. Last week our Senator Murkowski tried to introduce
an amendment that limited the EPA from considering CO2 under the Clean
Air Act. This was a very courageous amendment, which in part argued
that only Congress is responsible for writing legislation - not the
Supreme Court, not the EPA, not the administration. The amendment was
not surprisingly slapped down by the same Democrats who have given us
a climate bill (without mentioning climate) and an EPA who thinks it
can "force" Congress to write legislation to fit the opinions of the
EPA's political appointees.
One would think that senators of all parties would not take kindly to
being shoved around by the EPA.
Recommended by 3 Readers
14.Laurie Dougherty Brookline, MA September 30th, 2009 7:06 pm
This question about the name of the bill is a total distraction (and
this is evidenced by the comments so far) from trying to understand
what’s in the Kerry-Boxer bill, how it differs from Waxman-Markey, how
effectively it will reduce US greenhouse gas emissions, and what it
will take to get a strong bill passed.
Oh and by the way, the EPA announced that it will regulate power plant
emissions.
Climate Progress has a discussion of both the Kerry-Boxer bill and the
EPA announcement.
Grist is collecting commentary on the bill here:
Today’s news is worthy of a much better level of discussion than
quibbling about the title of the bill.
Take a cue from Shakespeare:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Recommended by 2 Readers
15.Keith Thompson MD Atlanta September 30th, 2009 7:06 pm
Call it a quadro-ped ungulate with a flat snout and helical tail.
It is still a pig.
Do the advocates of the cap-and-trade bill really hold the public in
such contempt that they believe that “re-branding” this monstrosity
will dupe voters, deflect their ire, and increase chance for passage?
“Global Warming Bill?” Well, that brand lost its luster after the
Earth stopped warming a decade ago. Stasis and cooling was not
supposed to happen according to the IPCC computer models that underpin
AGW theory. New brand needed.
“Climate Change Bill” or “Climate Stabilization Bill?” Unfortunately,
most adult voters learned about ancient ice ages, the medieval warming
period, and the little ice age in grade school. They are also old
enough to have experienced warmer years and cooler years. Through
experience and education, they know that the Earth’s climate has
always changed – naturally-- with no need for the government to place
a massive tax on energy to “stabilize” the climate.
How about John Kerry’s latest brand - “Pollution Reduction Bill?”
Unfortunately, most people know that all animals exhale CO2 and that
CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential compound for all life. They
know that plants incorporate CO2 in the presence of sunlight to create
starch and release oxygen to the atmosphere (photosynthesis – learned
that in grade school, too). Many know that the higher the CO2
concentration, the more robust the plants, the greater the crop yield,
which also benefits animals in the biosphere. So a branding strategy
that calls CO2 a pollutant sounds like, well….a lie.
More informed citizens recently learned (not through the MSM of
course, but through the Internet) that the hockey stick graph that the
IPCC so prominently featured as “smoking gun” evidence for man-made,
fossil-fuel-CO2 driven climate Armageddon was manufactured. More
accurately, the hockey stick was fraud.
Now this quadro-ped ungulate with a flat snout and helical tail is
starting to smell really bad.
I’ll call it a pig.
Regards,
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers
16.David B. Benson Pullman September 30th, 2009 7:33 pm
Andy Revkin (5) --- No competition. The Sahara Desrt is over 7 million
square kilometers. Plenty of room for both with some wind power thrown
in as well. Regarding the trees, leaving wide fire breaks is a good
idea and the more industrial solutions could easily use up some of
that land.
Andy Revkin Dot Earth blogger, Reporter September 30th, 2009 7:33 pm
That was meant as kind of a joke (after a long day, things that seem
funny often turn out not to be). : )
17.monkeysinging Windsor, ON Canada September 30th, 2009 7:33 pm
OK, five years of legislation that did include the C word, to what
result? Could the problem be that we don't really understand the
meaning of the term? That merely slapping it on a bill can't
accomplish anything without a clear and agreed upon understanding of
what it means. No surprise to me that division and partisan politics
are stonewalling not just the American, but the global movement toward
sustainability, no ….survivability.
Maybe the concept of the 'Climate' as a singularity, a thing of which
there is only one, makes it difficult for some. National interests,
and commercial concerns they represent, have been operating on this
flawed premise: that the earth's climate can be subdivided. Sure,
there are climate niches and regional climates, none of which are
defined by national boundaries. When the smell of Zug Island floats
here from Detroit (or conversely the smell of Hiram Walker
Distilleries floats out of Windsor), I am reminded that a) those
smells don't carry passports and b) the lines on the map do not
correspond to existing structures on the ground.
There is no such thing as an American ocean, a Japanese sky, or an
Indian river. There is no trading off one cesspit with another only
slightly less odious. Carbon taxes, and like-minded proposals,
perpetuate the myth that there is still time to make a few bucks
before our habits catch up with us. With the money we spend on war and
gross consumerism, we could already have been well along the path to
finding ways of doing things that won't leave us gasping for breath.
One planet, one climate, one chance to choose the right goal, zero
toxic emissions. Then if we fall short, we would have accomplished
something. This is not any one country's problem; it is a problem for
all of Humanity. There I go again with those pesky singularities, but
only when the singularity called Humanity accepts that there is a
single climate for this singular earth, will we make any real progress
toward cleaning up our very own singularly obnoxious mess.
Recommended by 2 Readers
18.G. Howard Idaho September 30th, 2009 7:33 pm
I don't see what's wrong with leaving climate out. In order to pass
the agendas that are being pushed now you have to hide the content.
People kind of get upset if you come right out and say we are going to
curtail you little people rights.
Recommended by 3 Readers
19.David B. Benson Pullman September 30th, 2009 8:41 pm
Keith Thompson (15) --- Not cooling, not even staying flat. Here are
the decadal averages from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com...
Do note that long term trend is ever upwards; intervals shorter than
30 years are not climate.
Recommended by 2 Readers
20.wmar usa September 30th, 2009 8:41 pm
Here Mike, have a look at this, its a nicely done chronology of the
issue I posted about, sort of a start to finish thing. Hope it helps.
Best Wishes
Recommended by 1 Reader
21.David Ropeik Concord, Massachusetts September 30th, 2009 8:41 pm
It seems naive to suggest that there is something dishonest or
manipulative in the titles of these bills because they don't emphasize
their goal of addressing climate change. And it seems a little
absolute when supporters of action on climate change demand that
proposed legislative solutions only be promoted honestly on the
merits, turning their noses up at legislation framed in terms that
will encourage the most support.
This is a practical world of democracy and politics, in which
decisions are driven by people evolved to survive by putting self-
interest first and social interests second. Lament that though we
might, it is the nature of the naked ape, and you only have to look at
any of the crises caused by the unsustainable way we're living,
including climate change, to see the evidence for this truth. Under a
democratic form of government that is at least to some degree "by the
people", advancing goals by appealing to people's self-interest, is
indeed manipulative. But it's also realistic and intelligent if what
we really want at the end of the day are solutions.
Recommended by 1 Reader
22.Robert Brulle Philadelphia PA September 30th, 2009 8:41 pm
Andy:
This is the easiest question you have ever asked on DOT Earth. The
Obama administration and congressional leaders have adopted the
language advocated in the ecoAmerican Report "Climate and Energy
Truths: Our Common Future." Read it for yourself online here:
http://ecoamerica.net... and compare it to what they are saying.
So what the Democrats are doing is taking a page from the Republican
playbook from the past in getting their speaking points from a focus
group. In 1992, Frank Luntz wrote a memo for Republicans to talk about
global warming to discourage action. You can see that here:
http://www.ewg.org/node/8684
This was all covered in the NY Times back in May 2009 when the report
came out: http://www.nytimes.com...
Obviously, the Obama administration and now Senator Kerry are taking
their talking points, and even bill titles from public communications
specialists based on focus group responses.
The links are transparent. The reasons for why they have resorted to
this is not.
Dr. Robert Brulle
Drexel University
Recommended by 4 Readers
23.Leftymartin Canada September 30th, 200 910:34 pm
Mike Roddy (4) - I loved your post. In reference to the McIntyre post
(or lack thereof), I really appreciated your sense of humour. No post
on McIntyre, an economist/mathematician, published in a peer-reviewed
journal, but no problem with posts on Pachauri, an economist. You had
me howling with the "act as if you know what you're talking about, and
play games with statistics", seemingly criticizing McIntyre but in a
very clever way taking a swipe at Briffa, Mann, and the other Team
members who have turned statistical chicanery (and incompetence) into
a high art form. You even managed to get the fossil-fuel-funded
bugaboo in there too. Your tour de force however was your advice
"Let's try ignoring him, as people who have a clue do routinely",
where you cleverly infer that the denizens of RealClimate, a site
where considerable effort has been expended doing precisely the
opposite, don't have a clue. Precisely. I note they have gone into
"silent running" over McIntyre's latest sleuthing.
You have an extraordinary talent for irony - I just wonder if you
yourself realize it......
One way or the other, keep posts like these coming, they are truly
hilarious.
Recommended by 6 Readers
24.Xarissa Arlington, VA September 30th, 2009 10:34 pm
Among many of the activists I know, there is a fear that both "global
warming" and "climate" have lost their punch with the general public.
People are so used to hearing them, they hardly listen anymore. So the
focus on clean energy and jobs is meant to present an old issue in a
more novel (and maybe optimistic?) light. It obscures the real and
multi-faceted problem by trying to find lifestyle angles that people
will connect with. As a rhetorical choice, I think it's a gamble.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 25.Chris DunfordMarylandSeptember
30th, 200910:34 pmJD (#2):
<Dishonest trash. What one would expect from hypocrites.>
I wonder if you said the same thing when Bush's media adviser
suggested referring to "climate change" instead of "global warming":
"'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' As one
focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're
going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has
catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a
more controllable and less emotional challenge."
Lexis-Nexis searches have demonstrated that GWB stopped saying 'global
warming' and started saying 'climate change' shortly after this report
was prepared.
Dishonest trash?
26.wmar usa September 30th, 2009 11:28 pm
Sorry Mike,
Left out the link:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com...
Best Wishes
Recommended by 1 Reader
27.Laurie Dougherty Brookline, MA September 30th, 2009 11:28 pm
Re: the "semantic innovations" in Andy's 7 pm Update
In a word search of the entire bill (not press summaries or overviews
or newspaper stories), "greenhouse gas" occurs 417 times, "carbon
pollution" occurs once ("global warming pollution" occurs 10 times).
If we don't have investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, it
won't happen.
28.Brian M.Colorado October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
There's a funny thing going on here. Ten-fifteen years ago numerous
interests were trying to get clean/renewable energy bills passed for
lots of good reasons--cleaning the air of soot, reducing dependence on
foreign oil, and protecting sensitive landscapes from coal mining/oil
drilling.
But in the 1990s those reasons carried little weight with the American
public. So--against the advice of a lot of us--enviros latched onto
the global warming thing as a way to repackage the bills. It even
seemed to gain some traction for awhile. Never mind that it was
extremely disingenuous--even if we do believe the modeling, all of the
treaties and legislation combined would reduce global average
temperatures by a fraction of a degree.
But now, the American public has started to see through the global
warming ruse. But they also have a lot more concern about $3.20/gallon
gas prices, rising electricity costs, and dependency on foreign oil.
So we're now starting to drop the global warming tie. Good riddance.
But we're getting cries of duplicity from both sides.
There are a dozen excellent reasons to develop clean, renewable energy
sources. The sooner we stop burdening and confusing legislation with
this carbon nonsense, the better off we'll all be.
Recommended by 6 Readers
29.Mark Laguna Niguel, CA October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
It's obvious why they removed any mention of climate from the title...
They think it makes the bill more palatable to the public.
Anybody note how many times the word "international" is in the bill?
161 times. Why? The answer is obvious, much of the cap-and-trade taxes
that we end up paying will pay for infrastructure development (and
some for infrastructure protection) in 3rd world countries. And guess
what happens next? More US jobs offshored to these countries so that
they can build things to sell to us. The bottom line is, AGW is being
used to redistribute the world's wealth, both among countries and
within countries and the hope is that everybody has very similar
incomes by 2100.
For example:
"The [IPCCs] B2 storyline is oriented toward environmental protection
and social equity (that is, assuming a tendency to a more even
distribution of per capita income, quantified by dropping the ratio of
income in developed to developing countries from 16 to 3 over the 21st
century), and emphasizes “local solutions to
economic, social, and environmental sustainability” (Nakicenovic and
Swart, 2000). "
Oh, and Mr. Revkin, I hope that you look into the recent discovery at
climateaudit.org regarding Briffa's apparent cherry picking of tree
ring data in order to get a hockey stick graph.
Recommended by 5 Readers
30.Chris Dudley Maryland October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
I find it interesting that three days after Kanter claims the
legislation is stuck in the Senate, it is moving in a very public
manner. http://www.nytimes.com...
Now, he was reporting from Brussels, but surely rumors of major
legislation must have been available to editors. It makes one wonder
how careful that reporting was.
Let's see, the article jumps right to the claim that EU carbon trading
is the most expensive climate policy program in the world according to
an industry spokesman. But wait, this claim is given without any
numbers and absent any acknowledgment that the EU expects to meet its
Kyoto commitments so that their policy seems to be effective. Humm....
Well, "All the News that Fits" is an epitaph I've heard before.
Perhaps that is how it goes in the business section.
Recommended by 1 Reader
31.Wang Suya Japan October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
From Wang Suya
Do the Senators feel shame? Even do not mentioned "climate" on climate
bill,what will it be called? The main perpouse is to solve climate
change problem, but do not mention "climate change" on the title. Do
these Senators study? Even do not know global warming. What are they
doing? So let people anger and shame Senate of American. Even can not
compare with China. Chinese goverment even make national goal to fight
against global warming. Democracy American goverment even exist so
many do not know global warming politicans or know it but do not care
it in order to keep their own benefits. It is America, world most
powerful country, senators do not concern global warming, even in
order to pass climate bill not use climate on title of bill. What a
corrupt and rotten Senate which is a world most powerful country's
Senate. At this situation, America will weaken away, will left trace
of nowaday's era. Remember what I say, historical wheel will press
America die away if keep this Senate exist in America!!
32.Mac UK October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
From Global Warming to Climate Change and now Global Pollution. From
carbon tax to cap and trade (C&T) and now pollution reduction and
investment (PRI).
Changing and softening the language whilst spinning a positive simply
heightens public suspicion.
For the truth be told rapid greening of the world's economies will
bring global economic collapse, mass unemployment, a huge increase in
poverty, global unrest, and ultimately mass starvation and violent
death, be it in the west or in the third world.
PRI truly stands for - Poverty, Recession and Instability.
Recommended by 5 Readers
33.Steven Earl Salmony Chapel Hill, North Carolina October 1st, 2009
11:23 am
How do we move forward from behavior based upon political feasibility
and economic expediency to actions driven by practical requirements of
biophysical reality? At least to me, it appears that the "window of
opportunity" in which restoration of balance between unsustainable,
distinctly human overconsumption/overproduction/overpopulation
activities on one side and Earth's finite resources and frangible
ecology on the other is rapidly approaching its closing time.
Perhaps necessary change is in the offing and comes soon enough.
Recommended by 1 Reader
34.Peter NJ October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
Given how this universally approved pending piece of legislation, has
smoothly sailed through congress: "America's Affordable Health Choices
Act of 2009"
I suggest that the climate bill be entitled
S xxxx - American's Affordate Climate Change Tax Choices Act of 2009
Recommended by 2 Readers
35.JR Canada October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
In spite of statistical variablity of recent global temperature
measurements, visual evidence is proof positive that the world's
glaciers are melting rapidly. Millions of North American and worldwide
tourists over the past 50 years have seen with their.own eyes the
rapid disappearance of glaciers observed at: (a) The Glacier National
Park and (b) The Athabasca Glacier in the Columbia Icefield while
driving the scenic Banff-Jasper highway. The current global glacier
meltdown is occurring much faster than during previous Pleistocene
inter- glacial episodes. Trust your eyes, not what short term
statistical blips might or might not be recording. If the earth is
cooling, what's causing the rapid disappearance of the world's
glaciers? The truth is increasing greenhouse gas emissions to the
atmosphere since the end of the Pleistocene. This is the result of all
human activities as a result of the continuous growth of human
population. The explanation of almost all current global warming
temperatures is definitely not: (1) CO2 from volcanic eruptions, (2)
sun spot changes, (3) the earth's tilt or (4) other astronomic and
galactic variables that deniers of human-induced global warming and
climate change also falsely promote.
Jack Century
Calgary, Alberta
Recommended by 4 Readers
36.JD Ohio October 1st, 200911:23 am #25 Chris Dunford
"I wonder if you said the same thing when Bush's media adviser
suggested referring to "climate change" instead of "global warming"
Yes I would have. You are stereotyping me. I didn't vote for either
candidate in the last 2 elections, and I thought that the Iraq war was
a disgrace and Bush was a failure.
With respect to climate change as a term, it is a joke. Climate has
always changed. This way the proponents of AGW always have a cover if
their ideas turn out to be wrong. Also, environmentalists obviously
have no credibility on economic matters because the whole point of
most of what they do is to put sand in the gears of market economies
so they can preserve what they view as a static world. They advocate a
highly speculative plan to reduce carbon dioxide (in terms of its
efficacy) at the cost of causing huge and unsustainable energy
increases (my electric rates have gone up 30% in the last two years,
and environmentalists say that isn't enough), and could care less
about the real suffering that will be caused when people won't be able
to afford heat. Of course, the people advocating this (Gore, Krugman
et cet.) can easily afford their bills and are heavy CO2 users and are
quite content to have others suffer.
Definitely dishonest trash by the worst type of hypocrites imaginable.
JD
Recommended by 5 Readers
37.Chris Dudley Maryland October 1st, 200911:23 am
Broder's article on the EPA's draft regulations casts the story as the
administration's unwillingness to wait for Congress to act. It seems
to me that Congress already acted when it passed the Clean Air Act and
it would be a failure to uphold the law if the EPA did not move
forward with this. Already there has been delay when the prior
administration refused to read the EPA's endangerment finding. So, the
story is really more about upholding the law than some conflict with
Congress.
If Congress attempts to repeal the Clean Air Act now, I hope there
will be a veto.
Recommended by 2 Readers
38.hey-hey Milwaukee, WI October 1st, 20093:23 pm
Global warming is much too psychologically benign. We'd like some of
that warming in Wisconsin this winter. More concerning might be
"global boiling". There is a legendary experiment, where, if you throw
a frog into gradually warming water, it will stay there and be cooked
alive. It didn't realize "warming" was dangerous. If you throw it into
boiling water, it will jump out.
Climate change is also much too psychologically benign. Change for the
better or worse. Climate instability is more worrisome: forest fires,
floods, droughts, etc.
The government should hire a naming company, if they haven't already.
39.Chris Dudley Maryland October 1st, 20093:23 pmAndy in #1,
It appears that there isn't anything to McIntyre's "work."
http://www.realclimate.org...
It would be interesting to get a more in depth report on the influence
of the fossil fuel industry in these sorts of deceptions.
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 40.Chris DudleyMarylandOctober
1st, 20093:23 pmThe most informative article so far on the Bill seems
to be here: http://www.nytimes.com...
I would comment that Sen. McCain's idea that the 2020 goal is
unreachable with out a nuclear power title demonstrates a
misunderstanding of nuclear power. If we put a lot of effort into
nuclear power now, we won't see any cuts by 2020 since it takes much
longer than that to get a nuclear plant built.
Senator Landrieu's comments on natural gas seem much better informed.
The tariffs that are a part of the House Bill are left to the very
busy Finance Committee but Leader Reid has said that the committee
structure can be circumvented for this Bill if needed.
This Bill contains language about aviation. That seems to me to be
very forward looking since aviation is a very difficult problem. The
development of lithium-air batteries may make electric aviation
possible.
Recommended by 1 Reader
41.David Lewis Seattle October 1st, 2009 3:23 pm
Theodore O'Neill, an alternate energy analyst at Kaufman Brothers LP,
was interviewed by Lori Rothman, on "Bloomberg Analyst Calls"
9/30/2009, regarding the prospects for alternative energy company
stock prices given that the Senate is considering climate action:
O'Neill: "I was at Climate Week in NYC last week. And I attended a
number of different panels talking about the legislation. And it looks
like there is so much entrenched partisanship on either side of this,
that I don't see anything likely to pass this year, or next."
Rothman: "No kind of emission reduction. Nothing?"
O'Neill: "It doesn't look like we're close to compromise on where
that's going to go yet. Certainly not this year. Next year is a mid
election year. The longer this drags out the less likely it seems
we'll have legislation. So I think that the alternative energy stocks
will have to go on their own merits."
Turning to other news: The US Chamber of Commerce is in court asking
it to rule on if there is a scientific basis for the E.P.A. to act to
limit emissions of greenhouse gases. And, Newsweek has come up with a
list of the 500 "greenest" US companies. I wonder if even Goebbels
went this far. While the German Chamber of Commerce was plotting in
the back rooms with Hitler working out the details of the final
solution did Germans read in their magazines about how it was decided
which 500 were the most Jew friendly German companies?
It takes 2/3 of the Senate to approve an international agreement such
as Copenhagen. The Founding Fathers thought this barrier would ensure
that any international treaty entered into by the U.S. would have at
least some bipartisan support. So when there is no bipartisan support
for anything, the prospects for any international treaties appear
dim.
Recommended by 3 Readers
42.Steven Earl Salmony Chapel Hill, North Carolina October 1st, 2009
7:56 pm
Dear hey-hey (#38),
Do you really believe people will keep pursuing the very same patently
unsustainable overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation
activities we are in hot pursuit of now until the Earth boils? Human
beings are more intelligent and adaptive than frogs, are we not?
Could malignant narcissism, pathological arrogance and unbridled greed
have become such powerful human traits (because they have been
profanely regarded as attributes worthy of praise, richly rewarded and
judged to be virtuous)? Perhaps these traits of 'goodness' reduce
human beings to a behavioral repertoire reminiscent of bloated frogs
and other non-human creatures?
Steve
Recommended by 1 Reader
43.sas new york October 1st, 20097:56 pm
if the proposed carbon emissions restrictions enacted/enforced,
whether 20% reduction by 2020, or 80% reduction by 2050 -- or whatever
-- it will merely indicate that the economy is in a state of extended
collapse.
i do not believe the architects of the agw alarmism are unaware of the
necessity of a significant human dieback during the next century, and
since the subject of overpopulation is taboo, stuffing a potato in the
exhaust of the world economy (hat tip!) is the neatest way to
accomplish their goal of a planet safe from a fatally destructive
species that is unable to control its numbers any more than a bunch of
randy rabbits.
so, maybe cap & trade's a good thing!
when it's all over, the oecd countries will be lucky if their standard
of living has only descended halfway to the sol of the poorest
hellholes of the undeveloping world.
see the article in yesterday's nyt about the futility of trying to
scale up solar power in desert regions (or anywhere) without a
limitless supply of water.
we've past peak oil -- and probably peak water as well.
the die is cast. it's just a question of how we get from A to B.
have a nice day!
44.Bob NYC October 1st, 20097:56 pm
#29 "Anybody note how many times the word "international" is in the
bill? 161 times."
That is the reason I keep mentioning the Left. They are
internationalists, too good to be just Americans, ready to blame
America first for any reason, ready to send money that we don't even
have overseas, ready to put another country's needs ahead of our own.
It has to do with the feeling of superiority they get when they help
"lesser" people and perhaps linked to the old communist dream that was
international in nature and now discredited around the world with the
exception of Cuba, China, N Korea, some US intellectuals and
Washington DC.
Recommended by 1 Reader
45.Bob NYCOctober 1st, 2009 7:56 pm #36
"Definitely dishonest trash by the worst type of hypocrites
imaginable."
Great post!
Recommended by 2 Readers
46.Bob NYC October 1st, 2009 7:56 pm #41
"It takes 2/3 of the Senate to approve an international agreement such
as Copenhagen. The Founding Fathers thought this barrier would ensure
that any international treaty entered into by the U.S. would have at
least some bipartisan support. "
Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves like gyroscopes.
There are ways around that inconvenience. We used to do that with the
Soviets, we signed, never ratified, acted according to the treaties.
Recommended by 1 Reader
47.David B. Benson Pullman October 1st, 20097:56 pm
Seems it is time once again to remind certain commenters of some basic
facts of physics. Here is
Jim Galasyn:
Fundamentally, climate science is based on well-understood principles
of thermodynamics. Before humans burned the sequestered carbon (fossil
fuels) and released CO2, Earth was in radiative near-equilibrium with
space. Humans introduced a sudden, 500-gigaton excursion in the global
carbon budget. Because CO2 is a “heat-trapping gas,” Earth is now in
disequilibrium with space. To return to equilibrium, the atmosphere
must warm.
The rest is details. Interesting details, to be sure, but the basic
thermodynamics have been understood since Svante Arrhenius published
in 1896.
Recommended by 1 Reader
48.spalding craft north carolina October 1st, 200 911:21 pm
The bill may contain some semantic innovations, but it (at least its
summary) contains perhaps the most prodigious collection of agw
cliches and exaggerations in print, rivalling even some of the
comments in this blog. A few examples:
-oil companies are declared as the enemy, and getting off oil is a
panacea, leading to more jobs, better health, protection of national
security, preserving the world for our children, etc. etc. etc.
-renewable energy is our friend. Get a load of this: "every dollar
spent on clean energy creates four times as many jobs as an equal
investment in oil and gas".
-co2 emissions are now "carbon pollution", a scourge on the population
and world that dwarfs other kinds of pollution such as acid rain. This
scourge must be curtailed "to avert a climate disaster". The great
polluters are of course the fossil fuel interests, who until recently
were actually considered positive parts of American enterprise.
We should all be happy to know that agriculture is excluded from cap
and trade, as well as "small business", while it will cover "only 2%
of American business". The targets are the power companies and the
noxious substances that fuel them, oil and coal.
The spectre of inundation by sea level rise is trotted out, citing a
tiny Alaskan village that had to relocate because of melting ice
shelves. This "terrifying scenario will repeat itself farther south
and on far larger scales".
And finally, perhaps the newest of agw cliches and the piece de
resistance, an appeal for national security. A collection of "highly
decorated Admirals and Generals" declares that climate change
"threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more
natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a
staggering scale." Presumably the highly decorated officers includes
Senator Kerry himself, and natural disasters would include phenomena
like the recent earthquakes and tsunamies in the Pacific.
It seems that the two sponsoring Senators have bought the armageddon
scenario and take some pleasure in repeating it. This sort of
extremism will, of course, be met with opposition of the same stripe.
Can a reasonable solution result from this?
49.Peter NJ October 1st, 200911:21 pm #47
has the earth been in near perfect equilibrium for the last 3.5
billion years? and only out of kilter the last 100?
chhotemianinshallah
India proposes talks with EU, US on climate change
STAFF WRITER 10:44 HRS IST
Washington, Oct 3 (PTI) India has proposed bilateral dialogue with the
US and EU on the issue of climate change on the lines of one it is set
to hold with China later this month, Environment Minister Jairam
Ramesh has said.
The proposal in this regard to both the Europeans and the Americans
was made last week, Ramesh said here yesterday.
This would be on the lines of the first India-China energy dialogue
scheduled to take place in New Delhi on October 21, he said.
The meeting with China, Ramesh said, has nothing to do with Copenhagen
negotiations in December on climate change.
"It has to do with the actions of both the governments in climate
change. This is the first consultations. I hope we are able to make it
an annual affair," he said.
chhotemianinshallah
World leaders vow to tackle prob of climate change
STAFF WRITER 12:21 HRS IST
Lalit K Jha
Washington, Oct 3 (PTI) Ahead of the key Copenhagen meet in December
to tackle global warming, leading Indian environmentalist R K Pachauri
and 29 other global leaders have inked a declaration vowing to jointly
work to pursue clean transportation and back national climate change
legislations.
"Addressing the problems caused by climate change is the greatest
environmental challenge of our time," California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, who was among the signatories of the declaration, said
after a climate summit.
At the 'Governors' Global Climate Summit' "we heard leaders and
experts from around the globe discuss the innovative steps and
strategies being championed in the fight against global warming," he
chhotemianinshallah
October 04, 2009
Copenhagen negotiating text: 200 pages to save world?
David Adam
http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/30/stories/2009093055440900.htm
The draft agreement being discussed ahead of December’s crucial
Copenhagen summit is long, confusing and contradictory.
It is a blueprint to save the world. And yet it is long, confusing and
contradictory. Negotiators have released a draft version of a new
global agreement on climate change, which is widely billed as the last
chance to save the planet from the ravages of global warming.
Running to some 200 pages, the draft agreement is being discussed for
the first time this week as officials from 190 countries gather in
Bangkok for U..N. talks. There is only one meeting after this before
they meet in Copenhagen aiming to hammer out a final version.
The Guardian’s environment correspondent has analysed the draft text
which consolidates and reorders hundreds of changes demanded by
countries to the previous version, which saw it balloon to 300 pages.
It must be formally approved before negotiators can start to whittle
it down. Here are the key, edited sections with their meaning.
Traditional sticking points
The text includes sections on the traditional sticking points that
have delayed progress on climate change for a decade or longer:
— How much are rich countries willing to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions, and by when?
— Will large developing nations such as China make an effort to put at
least a dent in their levels of pollution?
— How much money must flow from the developed world to developing
countries to secure their approval? How much to compensate for the
impact of past emissions, and how much to prevent future emissions?
According to U.N. rules, for a new treaty to be agreed, every country
must sign up. The treaty is designed to follow the Kyoto protocol, the
world’s existing treaty to regulate emissions, the first phase of
which expires in 2012. Because the U.S. did not ratify Kyoto, the
climate talks have been forced on to parallel tracks, with one set of
negotiations, from which the U.S. is excluded, debating how the treaty
could be extended. This new text comes from the second track, which
lays out a plan to include all countries in cooperative action.
Edited extracts from the current draft of the U.N.’s global treaty to
tackle climate change, officially called document FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.
2 from the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action Under
the Convention. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has
the ultimate objective, set at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, to
prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate.
I.27. [the parties shall work towards]:
Option 1. [as a stabilisation of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
at [400] [450 or lower] [not more than 450] [450] [least 450] ppm
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO-2} eq) [and a temperature increase
limited to] [so that there is a very low or low level of risk that the
global mean temperature rise will be] 20C or below above the pre-
industrial level [with a probability greater than 50 per cent] [which
requires reversing the trend of increasing global greenhouse gas
emissions by 2020 at the latest].
Option 2. [as a stabilisation of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
well below 350 ppm CO{-2} eq [and a temperature increase limited to
below 1.5{+0}C above the pre-industrial level] [with a probability
greater than 50 per cent of a temperature increase of less than 20}C
from pre-industrial level]..
Option 3. [as a global temperature increase limited to 20}C above the
pre-industrial level.]
Option 5.6 [on the basis of economic and technological feasibility.]
What this means ... Sets up the intended goal of controlling
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The square brackets contain text that
is provisional and often controversial. The options here span the full
spectrum, from option 2, an ambitious goal of 350 parts per million
CO-2}; [equivalent] — which is below today’s level — to option 5.6,
making carbon cuts only if they are economically feasible.
I.31. [To this end, [developed country parties]..., as a group,
[shall] [should] [reduce their [domestic] GHG emissions] [deeply cut
their GHG emissions]: (a) [By at least 25-40] [By 25-40] [By more than
25-40] [In the order of 30] [By at least 40] [By 45] [By at least 45]
per cent from 1990 levels by [2017] [2020], through domestic and
international efforts.
What this means ... Introduces the 25-40 per cent range of cuts by
rich countries that campaigners want to see by 2020. The distinction
between domestic and international efforts is critical. The latter
allows rich countries to buy offsets from abroad to count towards
their target, rather than make cuts at home.
I.34. [Supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-
building from developed country parties, the GHG emissions of
[developing country parties]... as a group, [shall] [should] [could]
realistically change their emission patterns by: (a) [[Significantly
deviate from the baseline by 2020] [Deviate in the order of 15-30 per
cent below the baseline by 2020] [Deviating from the baseline by
2020]; (b) [And] be reduced by 25 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050.]]
What this means ... This asks developing countries to reduce the
growth of their emissions by 2020. Clause (b) is significant because
it would commit China, India and others to binding cuts, albeit by
2050. Expect very stiff resistance.
III B.5 [The extent of mitigation actions undertaken by developing
countries will depend on the extent of effective provision of
financial and technological support by developed country parties.]
What this means ... Strong stuff from the developing world. Pay up or
we won’t act.
III A.17. [All [developed country parties] [shall][should]
[individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the GHGs listed in (x) do not
exceed][take leadership to] adopt [legally binding] [measurable,
reportable and verifiable] [[nationally appropriate] mitigation
commitments or actions] [expressed as] [including] [economy-wide]
quantified emission limitation and reduction [objectives] [for [up, to
and beyond 2012] the period from [1990][2013] [XXXX] until [2017]
[2020] [XXXX],]] [as inscribed in Annexure X] [of at least 40 per cent
relative to 1990, by 2020] while ensuring comparability of efforts
among them,[ based on their historical responsibility,] [[taking into
account] [national circumstances for parties “with economies that are
highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing
and export and/or consumption of fossil fuels” as specified in Article
4.8 (h)]
[differences in their national circumstances]]. [These commitments or
actions shall be inscribed in [Annex ...] [[Appendix ...][Schedule ...]
[...]]] [with a view to collectively reducing their GHG emissions in
the order of 30 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020]
What this means ... A key section. Just how much will developed
countries cut their emissions and by when? On what baseline? All
options remain open. There is a world of legal difference between
whether they “shall” or “should” take on cuts. And “nationally
appropriate” targets are weaker than if they are “legally binding.”
III A.11. [[Developed country parties] shall achieve their quantified
emission limitation and reduction objectives: Option 1 [exclusively
through domestic action.]; Option 2 [primarily through domestic
emission reductions efforts.] [A maximum of [X] per cent of their
commitments should be achieved through the use of [flexible] [carbon
market] mechanisms, including offsets].. Option 3 [through a
combination of domestic emission reductions efforts and [flexible]
[carbon market] mechanisms.]
What this means ... Sets out whether rich countries must cut carbon at
home or whether they can buy offsets from abroad.
II.33. By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in
developing countries must be [at least $67bn] [in the range of
$70-140bn] per year. [Sources of new and additional financial support
for adaptation [must meet the full agreed incremental costs of
adaptation and initially be within a minimum range of $50-86bn per
annum and regularly updated in the light of new emerging science,
financial estimates and the degree of emission reductions achieved.]
What this means ... Rich countries will have to pay hundreds of
billions over the next decade to help poor nations adapt
IV.4 Highlighting that financial commitments have not been met by
developed country parties... and emphasising the ... need for these
parties to honour their commitments ... by providing resources to
support adaptation ... in developing countries.
What this means ... Bad blood and mistrust remain. Rich countries
including Britain have failed to keep past promises on climate
funding. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2009
Posted by Naxal Watch at 12:42 AM
Sid Harth
US throws spanner into climate talks
Nitin Sethi, TNN 3 October 2009, 01:33am IST
NEW DELHI: The promise of a deal at Copenhagen seem to be turning into
a pipedream as the US has refused to put down hard numbers for
mitigation under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol at the ongoing
climate negotiations at Bangkok. EU too seems to be taking a deal-
breaking condition saying, "environmental integrity" was central to
the UN treaty and "equity" of different countries' rights was just one
element.
The negotiations at various levels seem to be grinding into a logjam
with US determined not to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. The US
negotiators fought hard at different forums within the UN talks to
block any progress on industrialized countries' commitments to reduce
emissions in the mid-term under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol.
India stood steadfast in demanding that the rich countries put up
their offers in terms of hard numbers for emission reductions over
2012-2020 under the existing protocol. But, US and many other
developed countries seemed determined to do away with the Kyoto
Protocol entirely.
This is not the first time that US has voiced its opposition to the
Kyoto Protocol which demands quantified targets from rich countries.
US had not signed on to Kyoto earlier and it continues to oppose the
only tool the global treaty has for making measurable and comparable
reductions in the dangerous greenhouse gases.
The protocol is also seen by a select band of industrialized countries
such as US and Japan as a wall of differentiation constructed in the
convention. The parent treaty -- UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change -- lays most of the burden of mitigation on the industrialized
countries that caused it in the first place. The Kyoto Protocol
activates this principle of burden sharing into hard actions and
targets. The protocol in its first phase sets fixed percentages by
which countries reduce their emissions by 2012 below 1990 levels.
Many of the industrialized countries have not moved on a trajectory to
achieve the targets for 2012. Part of the discussions in the UN talks
have been to set a higher level targets for the second phase of Kyoto
Protocol between 2012-2020.
But the US, not keen to take on any commitments in the mid-term, has
always shown interest in disbanding with Kyoto Protocol and instead
taking on a series of actions that are decided by countries on their
own -- say energy efficiency targets -- and merely presented to the UN
forum. India and developing countries have pointed out that would make
the targets incomparable and render it impossible to figure out if any
significant reductions have been made in emissions to prevent a
climate calamity.
Other industrialized countries too have so far shown little interest
in offering credible and robust targets for the second phase of the
protocol. The offers so far on the table from the industrialized
countries, if implemented, would only bring in reductions in the range
of 11-18% by 2020 below 1990 levels. India and other developing
countries have demanded that the industrialized countries follow the
recommendations of the UN climate science panel -- IPCC -- and take
cuts in the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 which would put
the world on a trajectory to avoid temperatures reaching dangerous
levels in the decades to come.
Sid Harth
Converting trash into biofuel may cut CO2 emissions by 80%
ANI 30 September 2009, 01:51pm IST
WASHINGTON: Scientists in Singapore and Switzerland have suggested
that converting the trash that fills the world's landfills into
biofuel could cut global carbon emissions by 80 per cent.
Biofuels produced from crops have proven controversial because they
require an increase in crop production that has its own severe
environmental costs.
However, second-generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol
derived from processed urban waste, may offer dramatic emissions
savings without the environmental catch.
"Our results suggest that fuel from processed waste biomass, such as
paper and cardboard, is a promising clean energy solution," said study
author Associate Professor Hugh Tan of the National University of
Singapore.
"If developed fully this biofuel could simultaneously meet part of the
world's energy needs, while also combating carbon emissions and fossil
fuel dependency," he added.
The team used the United Nation's Human Development Index to estimate
the generation of waste in 173 countries.
This data was then coupled to the Earthtrends database to estimate the
amount of gasoline consumed in those same countries.
The team found that 82.93 billion litres of cellulosic ethanol could
be produced from the world's landfill waste and that by substituting
gasoline with the resulting biofuel, global carbon emissions could be
cut by figures ranging from 29.2 percent to 86.1 per cent for every
unit of energy produced.
"If this technology continues to improve and mature these numbers are
certain to increase," concluded co-author Dr. Lian Pin Koh from ETH
Zürich. "This could make cellulosic ethanol an important component of
our renewable energy future," he added.
Sid Harth
India's thirst for groundwater raising global sea levels
ANI 4 October 2009, 01:35pm IST
LONDON: India's thirst for groundwater is threatening a major water
crisis, and adding to global sea level rise, says a report.
Virendra Tiwari, from the National Geophysical Research Institute in
Hyderabad, says that satellite measurements have shown that northern
India is sucking some 54 trillion litres of water out of the ground
every year.
He and his colleagues used gravity data from the GRACE satellite to
monitor the loss of continental mass around the world since 2002.
In their study report, the researchers highlight the fact that regions
where water is being removed from the ground have less mass, and,
therefore, exert a smaller gravitational pull on the satellite.
As regards their observations, Tiwari's team revealed that groundwater
under northern India and its surroundings was being extracted
exceptionally fast.
The researchers' calculations suggest that an average of 54 cubic
kilometres, enough to fill more than 21 million Olympic swimming pools
was lost every year between 2002 and 2008.
According to them, boreholes in the region show the water table is
dropping by around 10 centimetres a year, reports New Scientist
magazine.
John Wahr, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, considers
agriculture to be the prime culprit.
The researchers reckon that severe water shortages may hit the 600
million people living in the region in the next few years, if the
trend is not reversed soon.
The team also note in their report that the "lost" water does not just
disappear, most of it runs into the oceans.
They believe that it might be pushing up global sea levels by as much
as 0.16 millimetres each year, which is 5 per cent of total sea level
rise.
A research article on the findings has been published in Geophysical
Research Letters.
Sid Harth
India-led effort makes US bite dust on climate
Nitin Sethi, TNN 30 September 2009, 03:29am IST
NEW DELHI: The G77 won a big round at the UN climate negotiations that
began on Monday at Bangkok with US backing down from its threat to
block negotiations unless the line between industrialized countries
and emerging economies is blurred. India played a leading role in the
defensive surge of G77, which many have been claiming could fall apart
sooner rather than later.
On Monday, the US attempted to hold the entire negotiations to ransom
demanding that the emission reduction actions of developing countries
and industrialized countries be considered on a similar platform or it
would not engage in any further negotiations.
At present the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
the Bali Action Plan drawn up in 2007 by all member countries of the
convention draw a clear distinction between the rich nations and the
rest.
The rich are obliged under these compacts to undertake binding
emission reduction commitments while the rest of the countries are
asked to undertake actions that are backed by finance and
technological support from the rich nations.
The US insisted a sub-group of member countries be established to work
on a merged mitigation agenda for industrialized and developing
countries. Australia, Japan, the EU and Norway, besides others
supported such a move.
"The US basically was attempting to blur the different obligations
that industrialized and other countries have under the existing
compact," said Meena Raman, attending the conference for the Third
World Network, a Malaysia-based think tank.
India rose to object immediately pointing out that the differentiation
between the rich countries -- responsible for majority of the
emissions till date -- and the rest was enshrined in the convention
and reiterated by the Bali Action Plan of 2007 and the meeting could
not take up any issue in contravention of the convention.
But in a move that has sent worrying signals back home in India, the
US negotiators oddly used Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh's
statement at a meeting in US to back their position. They said the
Indian minister had suggested a broader interpretation of the Bali
Action Plan, which allowed such blurring of lines between rich and
emerging nations.
This got Indian negotiators up on their feet pointing that the US
negotiators had no right to speak on behalf of an Indian minister and
that India, at the formal negotiations, wanted complete adherence to
the existing compacts.
At this point, key countries Brazil and China also joined in with
other G77 countries backing them. China pointed out that the mandate
of the negotiations is to only `enhance' the implementation of the
existing convention and not rewrite it.
Sensing a logjam with the G77 unrelenting, the chair of the meeting
asked the countries to informally sort out the matter. By Tuesday
morning after the discussions and with the G77 sticking to its guns,
the US backed off and two sub-groups of member countries were allowed
to look separately at the rich nations' obligations and the actions of
the rest of the member countries.
While the US stratagem has not played off for now, observers noted
that it was not the last time industrialized countries would raise the
issue over coming days.
A highly placed Indian official told TOI, "India shall not agree to
any commitments except those placed on it by Parliament."
The controversy comes in the wake of recent suggestions by the Indian
government at different forums on loosening its existing climate
change negotiating position. While the suggestions from senior
government representatives have emanated outside the domain of
official UN negotiations, different parties have jumped at the shift
to interpret it to their advantage.
Sid Harth
EU backs US bid to corner India at climate talks
Nitin Sethi, TNN 3 October 2009, 03:50am IST
NEW DELHI: Differences between the rich and the developing countries
have turned into entrenched battle lines at the ongoing climate
negotiations in Bangkok, with the EU backing the contentious proposal
of the US to do away with the Kyoto Protocol -- the compact that binds
industrialized nations to emission reduction targets under the UN
convention.
While the US, which has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, has always
suggested its demise as the only way forward, the EU had so far not
displayed such an inclination.
The coming together of industrialized countries over the past two days
in the Thai capital signals a renewed and vigorous attempt to get
emerging economies, including India, to take on a set of
internationally binding emission reduction targets without financial
or technical compensation to cover for the economic costs of achieving
them.
India is leading the charge along with other key developing countries
against the move at the ongoing negotiations at Bangkok.
The convention at present demands commitments only from industrialized
countries to reduce their historically disproportionate emission
levels. The protocol turns these commitments into hard targets to be
achieved in fixed time.
While India and other developing countries have demanded for last two
years that the negotiations, as agreed upon under the Bali Action Plan
in 2007, only look to enhance the commitments under Kyoto Protocol and
the mother convention, industrialized nations made it clear in Bangkok
that they wanted to alter the convention and the protocol in order to
corner India and other large developing countries into taking
commitments.
The US wants another omnibus agreement or protocol which locks India,
China, Brazil and South Africa into taking emission control targets.
EU too has wanted action from the four to be brought under
international scanner but had so far not shown too keen an interest in
altering the existing protocol's basic structure which is under review
for second phase of commitment levels.
But at the Bangkok meet, EU made a tactical shift and said it would
prefer a new single "instrument" which binds countries from both sides
of the spectrum -- the industrialised and the developing -- into a
single regime. Interestingly, it also wants pieces of the earlier
protocol that are to its advantage to be chopped into the new deal.
India and others pointed out at the meet that the existing convention
and the understanding achieved by all countries at Bali in 2007
differentiates between "commitments" of the rich countries and the
"actions" of the rest. They also pointed out that the actions of the
developing countries, as per existing convention and decisions, is to
be undertaken only when enabled by finances and technology transfer
from the industrialized countries.
A single regime as proposed by EU and US will break the equity-based
differences enshrined in the convention and force the larger
developing countries with much lower per capita emissions to be
treated at par with the countries responsible for the historical
responsibility of GHG emissions.
Sid Harth
USD 75-100 billion a year needed to adapt to climate change: WB
PTI 1 October 2009, 12:57pm IST
BANGKOK: It will cost developing countries between USD 75 billion and
USD 100 billion a year to adapt to climate change for the next 40
years, a new World Bank study reveals.
The 'Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change' (EACC) study showed
that under the relatively dryer scenario, the adaptation cost is
estimated at USD 75 billion per year, while under the scenario that
assumes a future wetter climate, the cost is USD 100 billion.
In the draft consultation document, released at the ongoing new
climate change treaty talk here, is a key part of the overall analysis
involved in estimating the adaptation costs for major economic sectors
under two alternative climate scenarios.
"Roughly the costs of adapting to a two-degree celsius warmer world
are of the same order of magnitude as current overseas development
assistance," said Katherine Sierra, World Bank Vice President for
Sustainable Development.
Faced with the prospect of huge additional infrastructure costs, as
well as drought, disease and dramatic reductions in agricultural
productivity, developing countries needed to be prepared for the
potential consequences of unchecked climate change, World Bank said.
chhotemianinshallah
Antartica went through heat wave 15.7 million yrs ago: Study
STAFF WRITER 9:37 HRS IST
Washington, Oct 5 (PTI) Scientists have revealed that Antarctica went
through a heat wave nearly 15.7 million years ago during which plants
and algae were abundant, a scientific breakthrough which would help in
understanding climate change.
An international team, led by LSU Museum of Natural Science, has found
evidence of the warm period in Antarctica that lasted for a few
thousand years by analysing fossils.
Among the 1,107 meters of sediments recovered and analysed for
microfossil content, a two-meter thick layer in the core displayed
extremely rich fossil content.
This is unusual because the Antarctic ice sheet was formed about 35
million years ago, and the frigid temperatures there impede the
presence of woody plants and blooms of dinoflagellate algae, the
scientists said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Apple leaves US Chamber of Comm over climate clash
STAFF WRITER 3:8 HRS IST
Washington, Oct 7 (AFP) Computing giant Apple has decided to leave the
US Chamber of Commerce in protest over the organization's opposition
to tough climate change rules, according to a letter.
The firm "supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is
frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort,"
according to Apple vice president Catherine Novelli.
"We would prefer the chamber take a more progressive stance on this
critical issue and play a constructive role in addressing the climate
crisis," said the Apple letter dated October 5, published in US media.
"However, because the Chamber's position differs so sharply with
Apple's, we have decided to resign our membership effective
immediately," it added.
Apple is the fourth major US corporation to walk out of the Chamber of
Commerce over its stance on climate change.
It followed similar moves by Pacific Gas and Electricity, PNM
Resources and Exelon.
bademiyansubhanallah
More floods like Andhra’s coming
Chetan Chauhan and Praveen Donthi, Hindustan Times
New Delhi/Vijaywada, October 09, 2009
First Published: 23:48 IST(9/10/2009)
Last Updated: 00:54 IST(10/10/2009)
Bursts of sudden rainfall — like the 600-per-cent-higher rain that
caused deadly floods in southern India — have gone up by 10 to 15 per
cent across India, and it is affecting what millions of farmers are
growing.
Experts wonder whether those numbers — culled by scientists from
official monsoon data — are signs of climate change. Climate change is
the rising of global temperatures, believed to cause a shift in
weather patterns.
Dr D.N. Goswami, director of Pune-based Indian Institute of Tropical
Meteorology, said rainfall data from 1951 to 2000 showed the frequency
of sudden rainfall had increased by 10 per cent in India. Such rain
often destroys crops.
“Incidence of flash floods may increase in coming years,” Goswami
said. “South Indian floods may be an extreme case … but such rain
incidents will increase in coming years because of the impact of
climate change on monsoons.”
Other studies have found similar patterns.
All that has two men in Andhra Pradesh flummoxed.
“Just when we had declared drought in the state, this unprecedented
rainfall came in two districts,” Dinesh Kumar, state disaster
management secretary told HT.
“For three months there was no rain and in five days it rained so much
that it will be sufficient for the whole year.”
Outside Vijaywada town, farmers in the Krishna basin are traumatised
after the destruction of high investment crops like cotton, sugarcane
and turmeric.
“For turmeric, we have to invest Rs 50,000 per acre. But now we don’t
know when floods will come, so we have to think of short duration
crops like lady finger, brinjal, chillies or pulses,” said farmer
Adinarayana, 36, of Pamurlanka village.
Unprecedented rainfall occurred for three days starting October 1 in
the Krishna and Godavari river basins. Some 700 mm lashed down over a
week.
“Rain patterns are changing faster than what we can realise,” said
R.K. Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
of United Nations. “It’ll have a huge impact on human lives and
agriculture and we need to adapt to it.”
But India is girding to face the challenge. Agriculture researchers in
Orissa have developed rice varieties that grow in a shorter time-
period. Some wheat varieties that can cope with temperature variance
of up to four degrees Celsius are being tested.
And the Centre is pumping money into research on farm crops. “We have
identified 10 research institutions all over the country to develop
crop varieties that meet the challenges of changing weather patterns,”
said an official of the agriculture ministry, not willing to be quoted
as he isn’t authorised to speak to the media.
Sid Harth
Climate Change: Hollow Rhetoric
By Marianne de Nazareth
09 October, 2009
www.Countercurrents.org
Developing nations are certainly concerned with the attitudes of the
developed nations, here at the Bangkok negotiations. Meenakshi Raman
who is a legal advisor of the Third World Network, showed her
annoyance by baldly saying “ there is a lot of hollow rhetoric by the
political leaders at these negotiations. Look at the actual
negotiating stance and you will see its just business as usual,” . She
said they are going back on their commitments made under the UNFCCC by
shifting their responsibility to the markets, thereby weakening their
obligations made.” Developed countries do not talk about the amount of
atmospheric space taken by them during the industrial revolution. But
now those same nations say to the developing world, sorry guys, your
limit is up, your atmosphere is constrained “ she added.
Mauritius, Egypt, Venezuela and the Philippines said they were
concerned that there was an attempt by the developing nations to kill
the Kyoto Protocol. They also felt there was an effort being made to
‘divide and rule’ like in the days of colonialism. The countries were
concerned that the main principles of the protocol were being
distorted and they were not willing to agree to a new structure that
they could no longer recognise.
Developed nations owe an adaptation debt to developing countries for
their historic overuse of the earth’s atmosphere for which developing
nations are suffering. Therefore it is imperative that developed
nations undertake deep emission reductions in order to leave the
remaining atmospheric space to developing countries. The money being
paid out to developing nations is not charity but simply that the
polluter pays. However now its being used by flipping the coin and
saying the one who pays may pollute, say developing nations.
Barbados, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) was
concerned that there were such a few days left for Copenhagen and
failure there was not an option for the small island states. They
would all definitely go under.
At Bangkok one sees that the youth have decided to be more forceful in
pushing for a deal which is more transparent and equitable. A
declaration of “No Confidence in the Road to Copenhagen” was announced
today by the International Youth Delegation attending the UN climate
change talks. The delegation cited the failure of reaching a
commitment from developed countries on strong targets and a lack of
guarantee for protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests,
in its declaration. The current text of the draft climate deal is so
weak and so full of “false solutions,” measures like offsetting that
actually make the problem worse, are unacceptable.
“The youth are sounding the alarm. These talks have been polluted by
self-interested corporations and countries looking to profit off of
our crisis,” said Joshua Kahn Russell from the U.S. and Rainforest
Action Network. “We cannot allow rich countries to use U.S. inaction
as an excuse to kill the Kyoto Protocol. Our future cannot be held
hostage to the politics and interests of the United States or any
other single country. We see Copenhagen as a beginning, not an ending.
We will not accept a dirty deal.”
The glaciers in the Himalayas are melting due to climate change, said
Anil Rimal from Nepalese Youth Climate Action. “This is happening
today, not in 2050, and people are losing their lives, homes and
livelihoods due to GLOF’s (Glacier Flood Outbursts).”
Gemma Tillack from the Australian Wilderness Society said, “ We will
never give up, because it is our future at risk.”
With less than two weeks of negotiations remaining before the
Copenhagen meeting, the pressure is on developed countries to commit
to providing finance and at least a 40percent reduction in emissions
by 2020. “If they do not, we will witness the derailment of this
climate deal in Copenhagen,” said Grace Mwarua from Kenya.
(The writer is a fellow with the UNFCCC and teaches a module on
Climate Change in Bangalore, India)
Sid Harth
G8 States Could Face Class Actions
On Climate Change
By Frank MacDonald
09 October, 2009
Irish Times
The US and other G8 countries could face class actions on behalf of
people in the developing world if they fail to take convincing steps
to cut the emissions blamed for causing climate change, a Filipino
environmental lawyer has warned
Antonio Oposa was speaking yesterday after a self-styled Asian
Peoples' Climate Court in Bangkok predictably found the G8 guilty of
"planetary malpractice" in violation of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
Organised by the Tcktcktck campaign, which has a team of young T-
shirted "negotiator trackers" at the climate talks here, the two-hour
mock trial heard a case "filed" on behalf of children from Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines and Thailand.
One of the "witnesses", a sherpa from Nepal, told presiding judge
Amara Pongsapich, chairman of Thailand's human rights commission, that
ice in the Himalayas was melting at a much faster rate than 30 years
ago, causing flash floods and severe drought. Afterwards, Mr Oposa
said it was "only a matter of time" until properly constituted
international tribunals began hearing class actions seeking reparation
from "over-consuming countries" for damage caused by climate change in
developing nations.
"A group of lawyers are actually thinking of it already," he said,
referring to a network called Global Legal Action on Climate Change.
"The countries most affected in Asia and Africa will begin to stand up
and take action if they get nothing from Copenhagen."
Frustration among the G77 group of developing countries over what they
see as a search for loopholes by rich nations to evade their
responsibilities led to a walk- out by delegates from one of the
sessions preparing for December's climate conference in the Danish
capital.
Yesterday, the G77 - which actually consists of 130 UN member states,
plus China - resorted to a familiar tactic by threatening to block
further talks unless more substantive progress was made in drafting a
realistic negotiating text for ministers to finalise in Copenhagen.
More frustration was evident among the International Youth delegation
at the Bangkok talks; they told a press briefing that they had "no
confidence in the road to Copenhagen" because the current text was "so
weak and full of ‘false solutions' that it's unacceptable".
They cited the failure to secure strong targets on cutting emissions
from developed countries, a growing concern that the Kyoto Protocol
would be allowed to expire in 2012 and lack of guarantees for
protection of indigenous peoples' rights and interests.
Joshua Kahn Russell, a US delegate from the Rainforest Action Network,
said: "We cannot allow rich countries to use US inaction as an excuse
to kill the Kyoto Protocol. Our future cannot be held hostage to the
politics and interests of the United States or any other country."
Anna Collins, representing the Youth Climate Coalition in Britain,
said young people had been "looking to the rich developed countries
like those in the EU to take a leading role to secure an ambitious
climate change deal in Copenhagen, but they are failing us."
Kim Carstensen, of the World Wildlife Fund, said delegates in Bangkok
were "still in the mode of talking in circles - on finance, adaptation
and mitigation. What's needed is a strong political will to
consolidate the [negotiating] texts for a decisive outcome in
Copenhagen."
Kaisa Kosonen, Greenpeace International's climate policy expert, said
it was "no wonder developing countries are getting very impatient"
when there was as yet "no real targets on the table and no real
finance" to help poorer countries adapt to climate change.
At the Climate Action Network's daily briefing, she said developed
countries had "avoided discussing their targets" to reduce emissions
for the past four years and still had not agreed on how these should
be measured or even whether 1990 should be the base year.
Referring to moves by the US and others to replace the Kyoto Protocol
with a less binding agreement under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, Ms Kosonen said the world "doesn't have
time to start from scratch" and needed to keep the "architecture" so
laboriously built around Kyoto.
She said 1990 "must be the base year" against which to measure cuts in
emissions - as it is under the protocol - and there must also be five-
year commitment periods, with the emphasis on domestic action rather
than seeking offsets by buying carbon credits abroad.
A report published yesterday by the Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency said current proposals by the developed countries to
reduce emissions by 10-15 per cent by 2020 "do not yet suffice" to
limit global warming to a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in average
temperatures.
"Developed countries as a group would need to increase their reduction
targets for 2020 by at least 6 to 10 per cent, in order to keep the 2
degrees objective [agreed both by the EU and G8] within reach", it
said, adding that global cost would be only 0.2 per cent of GDP in
2020.
© 2009 Irish Times
Sid Harth
Climate Change: A Lack Of Urgency In Bangkok?
By Marianne de Nazareth
08 October, 2009
www.Countercurrents.org
How much more death and devastation does the world need to sit up and
realise that the catastrophic effects of Climate Change are already
upon us? There has been heavy flooding in several states in India,
typhoons devastating the Philippines, Vietnam and parts of Thailand.
Asia seems to be bearing the brunt of climate change. And yet, here in
the Bangkok negotiations, the developing nation representatives
complain, that there is a lack of urgency in the stance of the
developed nations, in coming to a quick and amicable solution.
Quamrul Islam Chowdhury of the Bangladesh delegation said, “ we are
facing a sea level rise which requires a scaling up of financial
resources and technology transfer by the Annex 1 countries at a much
more rapid speed. A 45 percent cut in emissions by Annex 1 countries
by 2020 is imperative.”
“ We are just two months away from Copenhagen and the Annex 1
countries wish to put an end to the Kyoto protocol,stalling the very
process we have worked towards, for all these years,” states Qingtai
Yu special climate change envoy for China.
“There are several funding opportunities available like imposing
levies on the emissions caused by passengers of international shipping
and aviation,” advises David Lesolle from the Botswana delegation.
“Everyone who flies should be able to take on this critical levy and
pay towards their impacts of travel on climate change.”
Jonathan Pershing of the US delegation said the US is working on a hub
and spokes method of bringing technology to each country. “ The new
government is working towards a new policy but it will take time”, he
said, “ but the strongest part of the whole process is what each
country does at home. A national action plan in each separate country,
is what will make things work over the next 50 years.”
However developing nations felt that the US was not helping sort the
issue instead as David Lesolle stated, “ we are like two elephants
fighting in a room and if the fighting continues there will be a lot
more problems happening for poorer countries to contend with. We have
one planet and we all need to live on it.”
Yu from China said “ What we are fighting for is the right to
development. The problem of climate change was created by unrestrained
emissions over centuries by the developed nations since the industrial
revolution. We are the victims and so the Annex 1 countries have to
pay for that. Look at the percapita emission levels of developed
nations. The per capita emission levels in China per person is 1/3 the
per capita emission levels in developed countries.
Dessima Williams of the Grenada delegation firmly asserted that, “
Adaptation is the here and now and we need to build resilience for the
present and the future. Commitments that are legally binding are
needed. We all can see climate change empirically unfolding on the
ground today. We cannot look at 50 years hence we have to look at the
problem of immediacy now. Modalities are not a substitute for
substance and 1 percent of the GDP of Annex 1 countries for adaptation
is necessary, for the developing world’s survival.”
Karl Falkenberg of the European Commission felt that REDD (Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) was one of the
mechanisms which could help to alleviate the problem. “ But fossil
based energy development in poor countries, is not alleviating
poverty, but only causing its growth.”
“ The current Arab position is mainly focussed on protecting the oil
trade rather than saving the planet from the adverse effects of
climate change,” says Wael Hmaidan, the executive director of IndyACT,
taking the problem to a whole new dimension. “ Saudi Arabia has
utilized its political weight in the region to dominate the Arab
voice.” NGO’s are concerned about Saudi Arabia’s obstructionist role
among developing nations and this will affect the poorest nations who
are reeling under the impact of climate change.
It looks like a caudron of problems which are on the boil here in
Bangkok and hopefully negotiators can work towards some amicable
decision with Copenhagen just 60 days away.
As Jonathan Pershing of the US delegation said on a positive note, “ A
year ago my country was not even interested in an agreement. Today
there are startling changes and tremendous growth.”
“What we are trying to define is a robust, international way forward.
Developing countries by and large are dissastisfied with the financial
architecture in place. Leaders of developed countries must provide the
political greenlight on industrial countries targets on emission
reductions and commited financial packages. We are trying to put real
meat on the bones of the Kyoto protocol as I do not believe in
throwing away old shoes, before we have a new pair. Unless we see an
advancement on ambitious targets, it is very difficult to continue the
good work of the negotiators. We have a clear indication from science
as to the rate of emission cuts. If what we achieve in Copenhagen is
not strong enough, then we have no option left but to reconvene to
gain more ambitious targets,” said Yvo de Boer the UNFCCC Executive
Secretary.
With 60 days left for the final negotiations in Copenhagen, one hopes
that countries find a working solution out of this political
wrangling, which has the fate of our planet and all our lives at
stake.
Marianne de Nazareth is a freelance journalist who writes for various
publications. She is a fellow with the UNFCCC and presently in Bangkok
covering the negotiations.
Sid Harth
While We're Off Fighting Terror,
The Planet's Crumbling
By Richard Steiner
07 October, 2009
Seattle PI
Although first posted in 2004, this well organized, meticulously
inclusive assessment is as timely as ever and its sets of facts speak
for themselves in terms of showing the most central problems being
faced on our planet.
History has shown that human societies often misjudge risk, and that
is the case today. With world attention focused almost exclusively on
terrorism and Iraq, another, even more serious security threat deepens
-- the global environmental/humanitarian crisis.
While we remain virtually hypnotized by terrorism, humanity is quietly
destroying the biosphere in which we live, ourselves and our future
along with it. Just since 9/11, 25 million children died from
preventable causes, the world's population grew by 200 million people
and thousands of species went extinct. Also, 250,000 square miles of
forest were lost, 50,000 square miles of arable land turned to desert,
8 billion tons of carbon were added to the atmosphere and air
pollution claimed more than 4 million lives.
Our boat is sinking, we know the causes and consequences, and we know
how to solve the problem. Yet policy-makers keep rearranging the deck
chairs. Left unattended, this broad environmental/humanitarian crisis
will foreclose any hope for security in the world. Certainly we must
address terrorism, but just as certainly we must ensure our planet's
sustainability.
Some of the key indicators of our current condition help put these
relative risks in perspective.
Population
World population stands at 6.4 billion, more than four times its
number at the start of the 20th century. Although some nations have
reached population stability, many of the poorest, developing nations
are far from it. The population -- growing by 74 million a year -- is
projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, the additional billions coming
almost exclusively in the poorest countries.
The largest generation of young people ever, some 1.7 billion ages 10
to 24, is just now reaching reproductive age. Where fertility remains
high there is widespread poverty, discrimination against women, high
infant mortality and lack of access to family planning, health care
and education. More than 350 million women lack any access to family
planning. Some religions oppose contraception, and female infanticide
has become epidemic. Programs to stabilize population need about $20
billion a year (about one week's worth of world military expenditures)
but now receive about $3 billion a year.
Consumption
Conspicuous consumption has become a homogenizing force across the
developed world. Just since 1950, we have consumed more goods and
services than all previous generations combined. The consumption of
energy, steel and timber more than doubled; fossil fuel use and car
ownership increased four-fold; meat production and fish catch
increased five-fold; paper use increased six-fold, and air travel
increased 100-fold.
In the United States, where malls are more prevalent than high
schools, shopping has become the primary cultural activity. Although
world economic output continues to increase, when real costs are
calculated, sustainable economic welfare has been in decline since the
'70s. One measure of resource consumption of humanity -- our
"ecological footprint" -- surpassed sustainable levels in the late
'70s, and for an average American is now 20 times that of a person in
some developing countries.
Studies estimate that, if the developing world were to consume at our
rate, another five or six planets would be needed to sustain this
level of consumption. The United Nations says that a 10-fold reduction
in resource consumption (or a 10-fold increase in energy/material
efficiency) in industrialized countries will be needed for adequate
resources to be available for developing countries.
Rich-poor divide
The unequal distribution of consumption adds to environmental, social
and economic damage as well. The gap in per-capita income between rich
and poor nations has doubled in the past 40 years. The upper 20
percent in economic class -- Europe, Japan, North America -- account
for more than 80 percent of the material and energy consumed globally
while the poorest 20 percent account for just 1 percent of
consumption. The world's 350 billionaires have a combined net worth
exceeding that of the poorest 2.5 billion people. Those poor live on
less than $2 a day and lack basic sanitation, health care, clean water
and adequate food.
Despite unprecedented economic expansion of the '90s, today some 900
million adults are illiterate and 30,000 kids die every day from
preventable causes. Poor countries pay more than $350 billion a year
just to service the interest on their debt to developed countries (a
total of $2.4 trillion) and often try to raise this money through
environmentally destructive activities. Some countries spend more to
service their foreign debt than on education and health care combined.
Biodiversity
Ecologists fear we are losing between 50 and 150 species each day, a
rate thousands of times higher than the evolutionary background
extinction rate of about one species a year. Some estimate that we
have lost perhaps 600,000 species since the "biotic holocaust" began
around 1950; if present trends continue, half of all species on Earth
would be extinct in the next 50 years. Overhunting, invasive species,
pollution and climate change are factors in this sixth mass extinction
event, but by far the greatest cause is habitat loss. The lost
ecological services could be devastating. It may take 5 million to 10
million years for biological diversity to recover.
Forests
Half of Earth's original forest cover is gone, and an additional 30
percent is degraded or fragmented. Only 20 percent of the original
forest on Earth remains today as large, relatively undisturbed
"frontier forests." And half of this frontier forest is threatened by
human activity, mostly by logging. Another 100,000 square miles of
forest is lost each year, mostly in the tropics, and only a very small
amount of this forest loss is offset by regrowth.
Since 1960, about 30 percent of the Earth's tropical forests have
disappeared and with them, thousands of species. Between 50 percent
and 90 percent of the terrestrial species inhabit and depend upon the
forests, and more than half of the threatened vertebrate species on
Earth are forest animals. The link is clear: lose forests -- lose
species.
Food
Today about 1 billion people are undernourished and 600 million are
overnourished. The United Nations lists 86 countries that can't grow
or buy enough food and predicts that by 2010 global food supply will
begin to fall short of demand.
More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion cattle
(weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter of the
planet's land surface.
More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
Water
Fresh water may well be the most precious substance on Earth. People
use about half of all available fresh water, causing aquifers to
shrink around the world.
Some 70 percent of all water used by humans goes to irrigation; most
simply leaks and evaporates from inefficient irrigation systems. Some
water tables, such as the north China plain, drop by more than a meter
a year. Two billion people have no choice but to drink water
contaminated with human and animal waste and chemical pollution.
The World Health Organization estimates there are 1.5 billion cases of
diarrhea a year in children from contaminated water, causing 3 million
deaths.
Today, water supplies in 36 nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle
East are not sufficient to meet grain production needs. In China, 400
cities suffer from acute water shortage and half of the nation's
rivers are polluted. The world lost half of its wetlands in the past
century, and more than 22,000 square miles of arable land turns into
desert each year. It's projected that in 20 years, the demand for
water will increase by 50 percent and two-thirds of the world
population will be water-stressed.
Atmosphere
Air pollution exceeds health limits daily in many cities in the world.
Some 5,000 people a day die from air pollution, and kids in some
cities inhale the equivalent of two packs of cigarettes every day just
by breathing the air.
Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel now stand at 6.5 billion
tons a year (four times 1950 levels), resulting in atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations 33 percent greater than pre-industrial levels.
Global warming is no longer seriously doubted, and nine of the hottest
years on record have occurred since 1990. The warming has accelerated
the melting of polar ice caps and mountain glaciers; a rising sea
level has inundated some Pacific islands, and more frequent and severe
droughts, storms and floods cost more than $50 billion and 20,000
lives a year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded
most of the warming over past 50 years was human-induced.
Oceans
Once thought to be inexhaustible, the Earth's oceans are more polluted
and overexploited than at any other time in history. Seventy percent
of world fish populations are either overfished or nearly so. Marine
pollution has increased dramatically, and warming ocean temperatures
have killed more than a fourth of the world's coral reefs. The 1998
coral "bleaching" event killed almost half of all Indian Ocean corals
in just a few months, and Australia's Great Barrier Reef is threatened
with complete collapse by the end of the century if warming continues.
If we connect these dots, the picture is clear: We are approaching a
breaking point on the home planet.
The fate of the Earth may well be decided in our lifetime, and we all
should begin behaving as though we are living together on one small,
precious, life-sustaining spaceship, which indeed we are.
The solution is straightforward -- stabilize population, reduce
consumption and share wealth. We know exactly how to do this; we just
need to pay for it.
The United Nations says $40 billion a year -- about what consumers
spend on cosmetics -- would provide everyone on Earth with clean
water, sanitation, health care, adequate nutrition and education.
The secretary general of the 1992 Earth Summit cautioned, "no place on
the planet can remain an island of affluence in a sea of misery ...
we're either going to save the whole world or no one will be saved."
Without urgent attention, the global ecosystem will continue to
unravel and we'll consign future generations to a nightmare of
deprivation, insecurity and conflict.
It's time to broaden our understanding of security beyond just that of
terrorism to securing a sustainable future for spaceship Earth.
Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
bademiyansubhanallah
Congrats Mr Obama, now show some climate leadership
Amit Bhattacharya Friday October 09, 2009
Dear Mr Obama,
Congratulations on getting the Nobel Peace prize, one of the greatest
honours the world bestows on persons who have shown exemplary
leadership in pursuit of peace. What an amazing year you have had:
first the US presidentship and now the Nobel. You have truly become an
icon of hope, justice and peace in the world. That’s a remarkable
achievement for a man who happens to be the US president – a post
that’s historically not exactly been equated with peace and justice.
But as you have repeatedly pointed out, with power and honour come
great responsibility.
Mr Obama, now is the time to show that responsibility to the world.
Many people across the globe find it a touch ironic that you have been
awarded the Nobel for your leadership at the time when the United
States is hardly showing any at the international climate talks.
In fact, the US is being seen as a country that’s holding up progress
on a treaty that could prevent the worst effects of climate change
from visiting the planet. At the just concluded climate talks at
Bangkok – where again no progress was made – the US failed to make any
fresh commitment on cutting its greenhouse gas emissions. Worse, it
again called for scrapping of the Kyoto Protocol – the only
international treaty that seeks commitments from polluting countries
on reducing their carbon emissions. The present negotiations, as you
know, are for phase two of the Protocol which seeks emission-cut
commitments from countries beyond 2012. By continuing to call for
doing away with the Kyoto treaty at this late hour when there are
barely seven days of scheduled negotiations before the Copenhagen
talks begin in December, the US could derail the entire process.
It was your Democrat predecessor in White House, Mr Bill Clinton, who
negotiated the historic Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The treaty required
the US and other industrialized countries to make modest cuts in their
CO2 emissions, averaging 5% from the 1990 levels. Of course,
subsequently Mr George Bush refused to ratify the treaty. These were
decisions you had no control over and you have time and again said
that America would reclaim its rightful place on the climate table.
You’ve also pushed a bill to reduce emissions in the US by 17% from
2005 levels – which translates to a 4% cut from the 1990 levels – by
2020. That’s a good start but falls way below what even the Kyoto
Protocol sought to achieve.
The world clearly wants you to do more to repay the climate debt
America owes it. The US has been the single biggest CO2 emitter since
around 1915 (when it overtook Europe). Its cumulative share in human
induced carbon emissions currently stands at around 28% (World Energy
Outlook 2009) - in other words, the US is responsible for almost one-
third of the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels since 1890.
Scientists say much of this carbon is still in circulation and causing
global warming.
That’s a tremendous debt US owes the world. Yet the US continues to
tie any CO2-reduction commitments to actions taken by China and India,
countries that started developing only in the last 20-30 years.
You, of course, are aware of what needs to be done to redress the
situation. The US has to pledge deeper carbon cuts to energize the
flagging climate talks. The world, in turn, is aware that any
initiative you take has to be put through the grind within the US and
get the nod of the US Congress. That’s often not easy. But it’s
exactly what leadership is all about.
In the coming days, many observers and commentators would say that the
Nobel given to you is based on the promise you have brought to the
world and not on the delivery of that promise. America’s leadership in
clinching an epoch-changing deal at Copenhagen will change that view.
Mr Obama, the world is watching your moves, more so after the Nobel.
Now is the time to deliver on the promise.
Sid Harth
INTERVIEW - India says flexible on climate deal
Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:57pm IST
By Sean Maguire and Krittivas Mukherjee
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India will scale back demands for deep emissions
cuts by rich nations if a global climate deal includes a generous
package of technology transfers and finance, environment minister
Jairam Ramesh said on Friday.
In the latest sign India wants to appear flexible ahead of the
December negotiations in Copenhagen on cutting climate-harming
emissions, Ramesh said New Delhi was no longer insisting on 40 percent
cuts in emissions by 2020.
"The developing world's demand...is a minimum of 40 percent. Now I am
saying, look, that is a political statement," said Ramesh, a fiesty
technocrat credited with restoring credibility to India's stance in
international climate politics since he took office in May.
"If we say, let's start with 25 percent, that's a beginning. I'm not
theological about this. It's a negotiation. We have given a number of
40 but one has to be realistic."
Ramesh said it was still difficult to envisage a comprehensive and
ambitious deal being struck in Copenhagen, recommending that further
talks be scheduled for 2010.
"We may not get the perfect agreement. This is Copenhagen 1.0. You may
have Copenhagen 2.0 a couple of months later...If there is a political
agreement on the broad framework we need to pursue, we can go back,
work the numbers, and come back."
Many countries are unwilling to commit to cuts before knowing the
position of the United States, the world's biggest emitter per capita,
where legislators are unlikely to pass laws outlining their promises
on carbon cuts until next year.
A huge gap also exists between rich countries reluctant to pay the
fiscal and lifestyle costs of deep cuts in their emissions, and
developing states who say they must be allowed to increase emissions
so their economies can catch up.
Ramesh said rich countries such as the United States were offering
"anaemic" cuts. But they still could help seal a global deal by
transferring emissions-reducing technology and paying to reduce the
impact of climate change on vulnerable communities.
"It's a package," Ramesh said.
"I would like the U.S. to come into the mainstream (of climate
politics) and if they can't better their 5 percent (emission cut)
offer, look at technology, look at finance."
FINANCE
Developing countries such as India and China are among the most
threatened by climate change, but their huge populations mean they
will still be heavily reliant on burning fossil fuels to try to lift
millions out of poverty.
Developing countries, under no obligation to make any cuts under the
existing Kyoto protocol, say they could make the shift to low-carbon
economy with a helping hand from the rich.
But negotiations have struggled on disagreement over how far rich
countries should fund action in developing countries.
Initial talk of huge assistance packages has subsided and Ramesh
indicated a lower start-off figure would be sufficient.
"My own numbers say that if by 2015 we're able to get a $15-20 billion
financing mechanism, going up to a $100 billion by 2020, then we can
make progress," said Ramesh, who already faces domestic criticism for
softening India's position.
Many larger developing countries, such as India, say they are taking
voluntary steps to curb the growth of their emissions, such as
increased use of renewable energy and imposing energy efficiency
standards, to help seal a global deal.
Ramesh said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, keen to overturn India's
image as obstructionist in multi-lateral negotiations, had mandated
him to be flexible.
"I tell you my prime minister has told me two days ago, 'don't block,
be constructive, work pro-actively, make sure there's an agreement.'
What more can I say?"
Ramesh will allow monitoring of green projects built with
international finance and prepare annual reports on climate change
that could be submitted to the U.N.
Insistence on outside monitoring of compliance with emissions pledges
riles nationalist sensitivities in developing states.
Ramesh said India would monitor its own progress.
"Every year we are prepared to make public a climate policy document
which authenticates all our activities," he said.
"The verification is that of (India's) parliament...I am not
accountable to any international organisation," he said.
"Maybe in the year 2020 after the developed countries have actually
cut their emissions by 25 percent I may revisit this position but as
of now I am not obligated."
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
Sid Harth
FACTBOX - What is holding up progress in climate talks?
Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:35pm IST
REUTERS -
U.N. climate talks on expanding the fight against global warming have
largely stalled, making the outcome of a major climate summit in
Copenhagen in December uncertain.
With less than 60 days to the Copenhagen meeting, negotiators face
serious differences in finding a way to get the United States and
large developing nations to sign up to a deal that leads to big
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Following are efforts to
expand or replace the Kyoto Protocol climate pact.
MONEY
No money, no deal. Developing nations, who say wealthy countries are
largely to blame for climate change to date, want cash to help them
green their economies. Money to adapt to rising seas and greater
extremes of weather is also essential, they say.
Without cash and clean-energy technology, they see no point in taking
anything more than voluntary steps to curb the growth of their
greenhouse gas emissions.
Rich nations have so far failed to put significant sums on the table
and instead talk of "fast-start" cash in Copenhagen for initial
adaptation and technology transfer programmes.
Details on larger and longer-term funding would come later but there
remains disagreement on whether this should be mostly public money or
raised through carbon markets and levies on shipping and aviation
fuels.
The United States says its hands are tied until the Senate passes a
climate bill. The European Union will likely have clarity on funding
after a leaders' meeting in a few weeks.
TARGETS
Rich nations have also failed to put final emissions reduction targets
for 2020 on the table. Collectively, the figures offered are far below
the 25-40 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2020 the U.N. climate panel
says is needed to help limit the growth of carbon pollution in the
atmosphere.
Many rich nation's targets are also conditional on the outcome of
Copenhagen or the actions of big developing nations, such as top
greenhouse gas polluter China.
Developing nations want rich countries to adopt tougher targets to
show they are serious in fighting climate change.
KILL KYOTO?
Just as contentious is the legal framework of a broader climate pact
to succeed Kyoto from 2013. The European Union says Kyoto hasn't
worked and that most rich nations will fail to meet their 2008-12
emission targets. The U.S. wants a new agreement that focuses on
binding domestic action and wants all nations to put their emissions
reduction steps into a registry.
Developing nations want Kyoto to remain since there's nothing better
to replace it. They fear wealthy states are trying to dodge tough
emissions cuts by 2020 and point to a history of broken promises on
financing and failure to meet past emissions cuts.
MEASUREMENT
Rich nations want all countries to provide regular and detailed
reports on their efforts to cut emissions and to agree on ways to
check, or verify, these steps really lead to greenhouse gas
reductions.
But the G77 bloc of developing countries say they should not be part
of a universal measurement, reporting and verification system, saying
richer nations should be held to a tougher standard. More broadly,
developing nations say they shouldn't be treated the same way as rich
countries in terms of how their efforts to fight climate change are
treated in a new pact.
Analysts say the rigid split in actions by rich and poor nations under
U.N. climate treaties is no longer valid, pointing to China, India,
Indonesia and Brazil being among the top greenhouse gas emitters.
Getting them to agree to binding steps to cut emissions is crucial.
(Reporting by David Fogarty; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)
chhotemianinshallah
Chinese, U.S. presidents in phone link on ties, climate change
www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-21 17:13:14
BEIJING, Oct. 21 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Hu Jintao and his
U.S. counterpart, Barack Obama, exchanged views on bilateral ties and
climate change during a phone conversation Wednesday morning.
Obama expressed appreciation over China's contribution to the
success of the G20 Pittsburgh summit in September, saying that he
looked forward to visiting China in November and discussing with Hu
issues of mutual concern.
Related
China reiterates "common but differentiated responsibilities" on
climate change issue
UN chief urges global leaders to act for agreement in Copenhagen
Looking forward to exchanging views on their bilateral relations
and important regional and international issues with Obama, Hu said,
"China is ready to work with the U.S. side to ensure a successful
visit by President Obama and further promote the positive, cooperative
and comprehensive relationship between the two countries."
On climate change, Hu said the Copenhagen Conference to be held in
December would be an important meeting of the international community
in efforts to tackle climate change.
It conforms to the interests of all parties concerned, including
China and the United States, to strive for a wide consensus and a
successful Copenhagen Conference on the basis of the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, under the
principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" among
developed and developing countries, and in line with the Bali Roadmap,
Hu said.
"Although problems remain in talks for a final deal, there are
hopes for a positive result at the Copenhagen Conference as long as
the convening parties work together closely," he said.
It is essential that any result of the conference should embody
the basic principles of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the Kyoto Protocol, and lock on the achievements of the
Bali Roadmap, he added.
"With shared challenges and interests in dealing with climate
change, cooperation between China and the United States not only
benefits collective global efforts against the problem, but also is
highly significant for the progress of their relations," said the
Chinese president.
China was ready to work with all sides concerned, including the
United States, to enhance coordination and cooperation for a positive
result at the Copenhagen Conference, a better collective fight against
climate change and a greater contribution to sustainable development
worldwide, he said.
For his part, Obama said as the Copenhagen Conference is imminent,
the United States is willing to work with all parties concerned to
push for achievements of the meeting. Both the Untied States and China
have taken important measures in dealing with climate change. The two
sides should make concerted efforts to push for the adoption of
concrete and meaningful steps in facing up to the challenges of
climate change at the Copenhagen Conference, and to make the
conference a success, he said.
Editor: Liu
bademiyansubhanallah
Unity doomed apartheid. Next up: climate change
By Desmond Tutu
The intense debate about dealing with climate change has mostly taken
place in rich countries. The United States, European Union and China
have driven negotiations, and every top-level conversation has been
about what's thought to be possible — and often what's convenient —
for these strong forces.
But as the countdown begins to the decisive Copenhagen climate talks
in December, new voices are making themselves heard. These victims
have become more demanding as the realities of climate change have
become more apparent. Maplecroft, a global risks security group, lists
28 countries as most vulnerable to climate change, and 22 of them are
in Africa.
Last month, the African Union's chief negotiator at the climate talks,
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, said Africa would not only
demand fair compensation for climate damage from the countries that
caused the problem, but would also demand that rich nations cut
emissions and hold global warming to as few degrees as humanly
possible.
Science on our side
The new African assertiveness stems from new science. After Arctic sea
ice melted dramatically in 2007, scientists began re-evaluating their
predictions. It became clear that basic survival was at stake for many
countries. The low-lying islands of the Maldives, though poor, have
begun saving a portion of each year's national budget to buy a new
homeland if, and when, their current home sinks beneath the waves.
Kenya's ongoing drought vividly illustrates what uncontrolled climate
change might bring to the African continent.
Many top scientists agree that there's a number the world needs to
know. It's 350 — as in 350 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The growing consensus is that it's
the most carbon we can have in the atmosphere without causing terrible
climate havoc. Since we're already past that level, at 390 parts per
million,it also implies that we need much swifter political action
than governments have supported in the past to reverse this trend. It
also means, among other things, that we need a rapid effort to replace
the burning of polluting coal with cleaner energy sources everywhere.
350 and counting
Normally, voices from places such as Ethiopia, the Maldives and Kenya
are sidelined in international forums. But this time, it might be
different because a determined movement is building around the world.
This Saturday, 350.org, an organization that I support, will
coordinate thousands of events and rallies in 170 countries to bring
the number 350 to global attention.
Sharing the goals of 350.org will be internationally prominent
messengers, including the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, and NASA's top climate scientist,
James Hansen.
Groups will gather in the world's most iconic places — from Table
Mountain in Cape Town to the tops of Himalayan peaks. Across the
planet, churches will ring their bells 350 times that day. Last
weekend, Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed led 13 Cabinet members in
an underwater meeting to highlight the country's rising sea levels.
People in almost all the nations of the earth are involved — it's the
same kind of coalition that helped make the word "apartheid" known
around the world.
In South Africa, we showed that if we act on the side of justice, we
have the power to turn tides. Worldwide, we have a chance to start
turning the tide of climate change with just such a concerted effort
today.
Desmond Tutu is the former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town and a
Nobel Peace Prize winner.
(AP)
Posted at 12:15 AM/ET, October 22, 2009 in Environment - Forum, Forum
commentary
chhotemianinshallah
Is the Red Dragon a green threat?
Ignore the scaremongering of environmentalist writers and thinkers:
China should be free to develop as it wishes.
by James Woudhuysen
In 2003 Lester R Brown, the influential president of the Earth Policy
Institute, Washington, established the modern green conception of
China. Brown wrote in Plan B:
‘If China were to have a car in every garage, American-style, it would
need 80 million barrels of oil a day – more than the world currently
produces. If paper consumption per person in China were to reach the
US level, China would need more paper than the world produces…. If the
fossil-fuel based, automobile centred, throwaway economic model will
not work for China, it will not work for the other three billion
people in the developing world…’ (1)
In Plan B 2.0, Brown redoubles his attack. China’s consumption of oil,
and indeed its consumption of everything, is one of the main reasons
why he has published a revised edition of his book. The intervening
years, Brown says, have shown that ‘there are not enough resources for
China to reach US consumption models. The Western economic model… will
not work for China’s 1.45billion in 2031’. (2)
It’s true that the Chinese Communist Party’s 30-year resort to the
capitalist market has not brought the most rational, smoothest or even
the fastest kind of economic development that might have been possible
for China. But this is not Brown’s point. His disgust with what he
calls the Western economic model is, in fact, a petit-bourgeois
American’s distaste for growth itself – and especially for growth in
living standards and the whole apparatus of human consumption.
The Chinese, Brown means, should not have a car in every garage, the
way he imagines every American does. They should not develop. If, as
the opening lines of his book announce, our global economy is
outgrowing the capacity of the earth to support it, moving
civilisation ever closer to decline and possible collapse; if our
‘preoccupation’ with economic growth means that we have lost sight of
how large the human enterprise has become relative to the earth’s
resources – then China, which out-consumes the US in grain, meat, coal
and steel, must be brought to some kind of halt.
At the moment, China consumes only a third the amount of oil that
America does. Yet Brown is particularly unyielding here. The world’s
production of oil, he says, will soon reach a peak, and thereafter go
into decline. As a result, ‘China’s fast-expanding use of oil is
already helping create a politics of scarcity’. In oil as in the other
four basic commodities, then, Brown asks severely: ‘What if China
catches up to the United States in consumption per person?’ (3)
In his book Black Gold, the delightfully named George Orwel, a senior
writer for America’s Oil Daily and Petroleum Intelligence Weekly,
spells out the familiar answer to this question. Growing demand for
oil, he says, ‘is putting a strain on the global supply system’ (4).
At Morgan Stanley, chief economist Stephen Roach thinks that the
demands of China and India will make oil prices go beyond $60-70 a
barrel. A senior energy analyst at Merrill Lynch accuses China of
hoarding oil. (5) Since 2004, in fact, China’s consumption of oil has
obsessed analysts throughout the West.
Perhaps China should be less grasping. Or perhaps things are not so
simple.
The West’s focus on China’s oil consumption
Thankfully, the authors of China and the Global Energy Crisis are
encyclopaedic about, but not obsessed with, oil – the main subject of
their book. They refuse to indulge in the alarmism that, along with
excessive euphoria, so often attends Western discussions of all things
Chinese. According to Tatsu Kambara, for decades Japan’s leading,
hands-on authority on Chinese petroleum, and Christopher Howe, a top
British academic in Chinese and Japanese economics and technology,
there ‘appears to be no fundamental reason why China’s demands on the
world energy economy should prove unmanageable’. (6) In that sense, at
least, China should have no inhibitions about pursuing the comforts
and lifestyles of the West.
Anyway, Kambara and Howe show how it is not just demanding energy
users that will affect the future of energy in China. In a slim, lucid
volume, written from a free-market standpoint but with impeccable
research and excellent charts, they show how, in Chinese energy, it is
research, exploration, refining capacity, pricing, inter-regional
capacity-sharing, nationwide transport and distribution, and
international arrangements for supply that contain the keys to the
future. What is important is not just Chinese consumption of energy
per person, as Brown would have it, nor even the much more significant
use of energy by China’s government, agriculture, services and
industry (including very much the energy industry itself). What are
also important are China’s human ingenuity, its current and future
skills in engineering, and its general level of technological
prowess.
We should be talking not just of 1.45 billion mouths to feed in 2031,
as Brown imagines, but also of the innovations that literally millions
of Chinese scientific brains could bring to the domains of energy,
transport and everything else. Brown notes that China is ‘far and
away’ the world leader in solar water-heating panels (it has 52m
square metres of panels and wants four times that by 2015). But that,
apart from China’s strengths in the unrelated field of farming carp,
is the sole technological plaudit Brown is prepared to give the
country (7).
Also critical to China’s energy future, as Kambara and Howe note, are
the institutions of Chinese government, and what they politely term
‘internal reform’. Like Britain, China lacks, in 2007, a powerful
energy ministry (though Gordon Brown may well finally create one).
It’s facts like these that should incite our interest, and indeed our
critique of the Chinese Communist Party. The story of Chinese energy
is not that of limited supply and burgeoning demand, but of
considerable natural endowments mired in chaotic Maoist ‘planning’.
Take oil. After the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s,
China’s petroleum sector managed to raise output by 20 per cent a year
and, after 1973/4 and the OPEC oil crisis, sent pricey exports of oil
to Japan. Yet according to European authorities, by the late 1970s,
crises in the petroleum industry alone got so bad that they proved a
major factor, if not the major factor, in converting the Communist
Party to Deng Xiaoping and his ’Open Door’ policy of marketising and
internationalising all aspects of the Chinese economy (8). From then,
the evidence of Kampara and Howe suggests, matters actually
deteriorated. The 1979 Sixth Five Year Plan looked forward to a
quadrupling of China’s total output by 2000 and a doubling of its
energy output from 100m metric tons to 200m over the same period; in
fact, bureaucratic neglect of oil exploration subsequently turned
China into the world’s second largest importer of oil after the US. In
2004, domestic output of crude oil was merely 174m metric tons, and
imports amounted to a shocking 126m tons.
Yet for greens and, more importantly, for Western governments, China
isn’t a massive monument to the confusions of Stalinist planning. For
them, in the long tradition of Malthus and Keynes, it is mostly the
demand side, and especially consumption by individuals, that counts.
But where Malthus and Keynes thought that there was too little
consumption, bourgeois opinion now has it that there is too much. (9)
For proof, one need only look at Sir Nicholas Stern’s 2006 review on
the economics of climate change. As part of it, the Treasury
commissioned a 36-page report titled Climate Change Mitigation
Strategies for the Transportation Sector in China. That came complete
with admonitions about the need for the Chinese to drive less and to
‘engage in effective sustainable urban planning [sic] to minimise
transportation needs’ – even though in 2004, there were only about
nine cars for every 1000 Chinese, compared with about 800 cars for
every 1000 Americans. (10)
The tale is largely the same with the Paris-based Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the club for rich nations
(mostly). Even though it does not count China among its members, the
OECD last year published no fewer than 51 recommendations about what
China should do to improve its environmental performance (11).
Like many Western diktats on China and the environment, these two
reports were prepared with semi-official help from China itself. But
Chinese participation in and acquiescence to Western strictures on the
environment never stop the West in its new-century craze for telling
Beijing, yet again, what it should do. Lester Brown, for instance,
wants China to impose carbon taxes. And at the recent G8 summit at
Heiligendamm, Germany, China did not have to be a member of the G8 for
George Bush to insist that, for him to sign up to any post-Kyoto UN
agreement based on a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050,
China – and India – would have to make concessions.
Whatever the field, and especially in the domain of climate change,
the idea is that China should slow down, obey Western environmental
norms, and yet not have what we have.
China as No 1 emitter
Perhaps because, as Kambara, Howe and Orwel all point out, China meets
70 per cent of its energy needs from its abundant coal, these authors,
who are strongly orientated to oil and natural gas, hardly touch at
all on China’s contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions.
Surprisingly, Brown doesn’t either, preferring to write about China’s
considerable environmental afflictions. Nor, in his informative but
thoroughly Green general primer on climate change, does Robert Henson.
It’s the same story, too, with Friends of the Earth, the Green Party
and Greenpeace. China is lambasted for its treatment of forests,
management of water, and for its air quality; but apart from noting
that China has been commissioning a one-gigawatt (1000MW) coal-fired
power plant every five days, greens have been fairly quiet about China
and global warming.
That will change. All in all, Western perceptions of environmental
doom are more and more refracted through the blunt, one-sided prism of
Chinese consumption. We can be sure that much critical scrutiny will
surround the environmental dimensions of the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
Already our very own Olympic Delivery Authority’s 10 ‘milestones’ for
the Games in London in 2012 do not just emphasise energy and
sustainability, but are also all organised to be achieved ‘by Beijing
2008’. (12)
Something is going on here. Western governments and greens have enough
eyes in their head to know that China dislikes patronising requests to
conform to Western environmental dogma. So what is more respectfully
suggested instead is that the Chinese cannot be expected to restrain
themselves if we do not restrain ourselves first. At London mayor Ken
Livingstone’s ‘State of London’ conference, Paul de Zylva, head of
Friends of the Earth England, called for the 2012 Olympics go be ‘a
climate change showcase’. At a 24 June Architecture Foundation panel
in which I will be one of the participants, one of the questions for
debate is: ‘Could London be a model for sustainable big cities around
the world?’ (13) For each feast, China does not have to be physically
present for it to be a Banquo. In a globalised economy, the British
public will more and more compare UK national, urban and personal
performance in greenhouse gas emissions not just with American excess,
but with the Chinese sort as well. Already, in closing Friends of the
Earth’s The Big Ask Climate Debate in November 2006, Tony Blair has
observed that ‘any action we take to cut emissions would very quickly
be undone by the economic growth of India and China’. (14)
To aid British dealings with the Chinese on subjects such as climate
change, Lord Sainsbury has already declared science to be ‘an
instrument of foreign policy’. (15) On top of this, we will soon all
be asked to do our bit with greenhouse gas emissions… so that China
will do its much bigger bit. Here, the Guardian’s George Monbiot has
given a tremendous hostage to fortune. Of his book Heat, he writes,
‘I concentrate on the rich nations for this reason: until we have
demonstrated that we are serious about cutting our own emissions, we
are in no position to preach restraint to the poorer countries. The
rich world’s most common excuse for inaction can be expressed in one
word: China. It is true that China’s emissions per person have been
rising by around two per cent a year. But they are still small by
comparison to our own. A citizen of China produces, on average, 2.7
tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. A citizen of the United Kingdom emits
9.5, and of the United States, 20.0. To blame the Chinese for the
problem, and to claim that their rapacious appetites render our
efforts futile, is not just hypocritical. It is, I believe, another
manifestation of our ancient hysteria about the Yellow Peril.’ (16)
It’s fascinating to learn that a typical Brit personally emits 9.5
tonnes of carbon; it’s reassuring to learn that a typical Chinese
isn’t so bad; and it fairly warms this old leftist’s heart to see the
attack mounted on that ancient, dangerous menace, Sinophobia. Indeed,
at the time of the G8 summit, Ma Kai, minister in charge of the
National Development and Reform Commission, China’s chief economic
policymaking and planning agency, made the same point as Monbiot about
his country’s low emissions per head (17). But it will not be long,
hopefully, before China’s average personal consumption rises; and,
given the mistakes of Chinese state planners in the past, it’s hard to
credit Ma Kai’s promise that Chinese GDP energy intensity per head
will fall by 20 per cent between 2005 and 2010. Above all, a big
Western stink has already grown up about China’s overall, national
contribution to greenhouse gases.
In a special issue on global warming, Time magazine raised the alarm
in spring 2006. China’s booming economy, it said, would make it the
world’s No 1 emitter of greenhouse gases ‘as early as 2020’ (18). Yet
a year later, China was under even more pressure. The International
Energy Agency, Paris, reported that its impact on greenhouse gases
would exceed that of the US as early as… November 2007. The Guardian‘s
environment correspondent, John Vidal, declared China the world’s
‘biggest emissions culprit’ (19).
In November, the IEA will publish its annual World Energy Outlook.
China and India, the world’s fastest growing energy markets, will be
the special focus of the 2007 edition. We must look forward to that;
and, the month after, we shall have to see what happens around China
at the meeting in Bali on what to do after 2012, when the 1997
Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
– the Kyoto Protocol – expires.
In my view the portents for international harmony around Chinese
emissions do not look too great. China reserves the right to develop;
but other nations don’t want it to develop in the way that it sees
fit. North America, Western Europe and Australasia would rather chain
China back than see it grow.
China as energy imperialist
On top of oil and carbon, the third way in which China has felt the
West’s restrictive grip in energy matters is around its activities
abroad. Today, following the example set since the 1970s by the Japan
National Oil Corporation, China’s oil firms are active in countries
that include
Venezuela
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Indonesia
Myanmar
Algeria
Sudan
Angola
Nigeria
Libya
Republic of Congo
Gabon
US congressmen rebuffed the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company in
August 2005, when it made a $18.4bn bid for Unocal Corporation, a
small Californian firm with extensive exploration interests in south-
east Asia. But just two months later, as Orwel reminds us, China
National Petroleum Corporation laid out $4.2bn for PetroKazakhstan, a
Canadian company making oil and gas in former Soviet Republics.
Moreover, as Kambara and Howe also relate, China is also interested in
Canada’s oil sands (20).
Yet it is not China’s North American initiatives in energy that have
caught the attention. Nor does Beijing’s recent 25-year gas and oil
deal with Iran appear to exercise Washington as much as Orwel says it
does (21). No, what angers the West about Chinese energy policy is its
pursuit of African resources. On 13 June, that well-known authority
on international affairs, Hollywood actress Mia Farrow, took a lead.
Turning a spotlight on the 2008 Olympics, she indicted China for
‘underwriting genocide’ in Darfur – not just by selling the Sudanese
regime arms, but also by buying its oil.
Farrow launched Dream for Darfur, a campaign to put the heat on China,
and her partner in arms, Eric Reeves, professor of English at Smith
College, Northampton, Massachusetts, published China, Darfur and the
Olympics: Tarnishing the Torch? (22) For Reeves, the 25.8million
barrels of oil that Sudan is set to sell China by the end of 2007 will
make Sudan China’s sixth-largest source of external oil; so:
‘given the rapidly growing petroleum needs of the Chinese economy, and
the enormous Chinese stake in Sudanese oil production [China imports
approximately two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports], the geo-strategic
significance of Sudan could hardly be clearer… Nothing does more to
account for Chinese complicity in the scorched-earth clearances in
southern Sudan during the latter stages of the north/south civil
war.’ (23)
At the time this paradigmatic example of subtle political economy
emerged, a senior official in the Bush administration said that,
behind the scenes, it too was having a ‘very lively’ debate over the
nature of the ‘growing Chinese footprint’ in Africa and beyond (24).
What should China do? Implicitly, Kambara and Howe resist the
traditional green gambit on energy – that supply, in China as
elsewhere, should be decentralised (‘distributed’, as New Labour has
it), and certainly not become reliant on overseas energy resources
such as those of Africa. Kambara and Howe show that the successes of
China’s main post-war oil field, the giant Daqing (Great Joy) field
first drilled in 1959, were achieved despite the Maoist policy of
Chinese ‘self-reliance’ in energy, not because of it. In the 1930s,
Stalin tried and failed with his nationalist stance of socialism in
one country. In 2007, socialism with Chinese characteristics, as the
regime in Beijing likes to describe it, will fare no better. Kambara
and Howe argue:
‘However much the leadership may wish to revert to the days when
China’s energy policies could be largely indifferent to the outside,
this is not a long-term option. In terms of imported energy supplies,
technological solutions for developing their own resources, and
probably in terms of finance, China needs the support of the global
economy and all parties need to get to grips with the implications of
this.’ (25)
Kambara and Howe are right. In energy as elsewhere, China needs
international collaboration, not a growing chorus, from the West, of
sanctimonious disapproval. Whatever the misdeeds of late-arriving
Chinese bureaucrats in Africa and the Sudan, we can be certain that,
for historical reasons alone, the West is in little position to attack
Chinese foreign policy for its imperialism in oil. As Philip Cunliffe
has written on spiked:
‘adopting the cause of Darfur allows Western liberals not only to side
with good against evil, but also to push China around as well. Given
the Sudanese government’s economic ties with China, Darfur offers the
opportunity for the West to demonstrate its moral superiority over the
greedy, oil-addicted, anti-environmentalist Chinese.’ (26)
In the twentieth century, the Western left always vulgarised the ideas
of the Russian revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin, in its fixation on raw
materials in general and oil in particular as the key wellsprings of
imperialism. In the 21st century, the Green remains of the Western
left stand ready unthinkingly to extend the insult ‘imperialist’ to
China’s international search for oil. After all, the liberal
fascination with oil wars now goes further than dissing Haliburton for
its conduct in Iraq. (27)
The West promises more and more to hold up to the light China’s
conduct with Africa’s oil wealth, like its record on climate change.
But we cannot take these new revelations at face value. China has a
whole lot to put right; but what the Chinese people deserve from
internationalists in the West is our unstinting solidarity with their
commendable desire to get away from backbreaking harvests, slum
accommodation, and endless bicycle repairs.
Conclusion: China’s right to develop
In a film earlier this year for the UK’s Channel Five, Jonathon
Porritt, a top British green, fastened on China, so the Observer tells
us, ‘as an example of how booming economic growth has produced an
explosion of consumerism with mixed results: millions have risen out
of poverty, but the consequences for the environment are severe’.
Porritt added: ‘The total spend on advertising is just so enormous now
that it’s little wonder people are seduced into this idea that their
personal happiness results from spending in the way they’re being
encouraged to do.’ (28)
Porritt’s condescension to people ‘seduced’ by advertising did not
single out the Chinese. But Western greens, and more and more bien
pensant Western commentators, believe that the Chinese, like everyone
else, will never achieve happiness through development and economic
growth. Why? Because human beings are stupid. They are wrong to pursue
meaning and durable emotional satisfaction through consumer goods.
This last is an accurate observation that is still breathtaking in its
banality. Yet it is taken as good coin not just in the West, but in
developing countries, too. Just as, in the film Comandante (2003)
Fidel Castro told a sycophantic Oliver Stone of his commitment to the
green cause, so South Africa’s Stalinist premier Thabo Mbeki has
rediscovered the wisdom of the Bible in his desire to moderate
economic development:
‘We must therefore say that the Biblical injunction is surely correct,
that “Man cannot live by bread alone”, and therefore that the mere
pursuit of individual wealth can never satisfy the need immanent in
all human beings to lead lives of happiness.’ (29)
What Mbeki hints at in his disdain for individual wealth, Western
greens, despite their inhibitions, will soon make all too clear to the
Chinese. The Chinese, it’s widely felt, are on the wrong track: our
track, the West’s outdated, twentieth century track of
industrialisation, urbanisation, cars, suburban sprawl, massive energy
use and concomitant destruction of the environment. So no matter how
great their momentum, the Chinese must somehow be stopped from their
ultimately unfulfilling quest for riches.
China’s reactionary regime is not immune from such doctrines. Just as
Mbeki learned his creed from the University of Sussex, so the Chinese
elite of management-minded Stalinists has imbibed environmentalist
misanthropy from Lester Brown – and from US treasury secretary Hank
Paulson, too. In defending his country’s record with carbon emissions,
Ma Kai has the nerve to write:
‘Without China’s strict family planning policies, the country’s
population would have increased by 138m people since 1979, resulting
in an extra 330m tonnes in emissions. The policy has contributed
significantly to easing the world’s population expansion and curbing
greenhouse gas emissions.’ (30)
What a scandal that this bureaucrat from Beijing should outdo even
Lester Brown in his carbonista desire to restrict human procreation!
Everywhere we can find evidence of the Chinese authorities indulging
Green prejudices. There is no space for genuine dissent in China, but
the regime was happy to tolerate, during the May holiday in Haidian
Park, northwest Beijing, a four-day rock festival, co-organised by
Greenpeace, themed ‘Green’ and ‘Peace’. It was preceded with video
recordings of 18 popular Chinese bands talking about ‘something every
individual can do to help bring about change, ranging from not using
disposable chopsticks, changing light bulbs, riding bikes, to using
your own shopping bags’. (31)
Similar patterns have emerged with urban planning. In that discipline,
as Robert Henson records, just northeast of Shanghai, at the mouth of
the Yangtze River, British environmentalism has a major influence:
‘The new city of Dongtan will be built from scratch on Chongming,
China’s third largest island. The population of up to 50,000 expected
by 2010 will drive hybrid cars or pedal bikes along a network of
paths. Renewable power for homes and businesses will flow from a
centralised energy centre being developed in partnership with the
University of East Anglia. It will draw in part on an array of wind
turbines on the island’s west edge. More than half the island will
stay agricultural, to minimise unnecessary food transportation. The
British firm Arup, which is designing Dongtan, may extend the concept
to several other Chinese cities’. (32)
Well, at least the energy centre will be centralised, even if many
Dongtanians, it seems, will have the dubious privilege of being able
to ‘drive’ pedal bikes along paths, not roads.
From the point of view of oil use and greenhouse gas emissions,
China’s aerospace industry looks likely to cause the next green panic
in the West. Chinese airlines had 560 planes six years ago; they have
more than 1,000 today; civil aviation minister Yang Yuanyuan believes
they will have 5,000 by 2025. Boeing believes that air traffic in or
linked to China will grow by 7.4 per cent over the next 20 years,
nearly double the global rate of expansion, and that growth in air
cargo traffic will nearly hit 11 per cent over the same period (33).
In March, Beijing announced plans for China to go head-to-head with
Boeing and Airbus in producing its own large commercial airliner by
2020.
Little will stop China in its course, and certainly whinges on the
part of Western greens are unlikely to make it deviate. But there
remains three points still to register.
First: earlier this month, Giovanni Bisignani, director-general of the
International Air Transport Association (Iata), called on makers of
passenger aircraft to develop a zero-emissions machine by 2050. Yet if
anyone is going to improve seriously on the advances in energy
efficiency already racked up by Boeing and Airbus, it will be the
Chinese. The West might like to improve the energy efficiency of its
transport systems, but its general fear about the consequences of
innovation has already made it raise big questions about the real
merit of ‘alternative’ sources of energy such as bio-fuels.
China has yet to feel this kind of trepidation. While even innovations
of a green stripe make the West nervous, China has on its side a
youthful population that is, by international standards,
scientifically literate and willing to take risks, and an attachment
to scale that is often more rational, at least in engineering
principle, than the West and its fad for energy microgeneration.
Compared with a neophyte West, China has a sceptical approach, born of
bitter experience, to the merits of distributed energy supply.
Brown is right that China is strong in solar power: its $5.5bn company
Suntech is the world’s third largest manufacturer of solar cells,
after Sharp and Q-cells. China has also allowed Suzlon Energy, India’s
biggest maker of wind turbines, to open the largest turbine factory in
the world (34). Moreover, if any nation is likely to bring about truly
‘clean’ coal, it’s China. China may come to lead the way in carbon
capture and storage (CCS). Hopes are high that the Tsinghua-BP Clean
Energy Center, launched – with the assistance of Tony Blair – in
Beijing in July 2003, will make a breakthrough in polygeneration, in
which coal is turned into a synthetic gas, generating a range of
petroleum substitutes as well as a cleaner fuel for modern combined-
cycle power plants.
The second point is that the Chinese elite cannot be relied upon to
deliver. China’s Tenth Five Year Plan, for 2001-5, proved a
‘disastrous guide’ to the future, according to Kambara and Howe: the
overall target for energy consumption in 2005 was exceeded by the end
of 2002, with office and residential construction looking, for 2010
and 2020, like more ‘intractable’ guzzlers of energy than new capital
plant or new vehicles (35).
Even the Chinese regime is exasperated by its failure to deliver.
China’s Eleventh Five Year Plan, for 2006-10, set the economy a target
of increasing the energy efficiency of production by four per cent a
year; yet performance has been very poor. Efficiencies only rose by
little more than one per cent in 2006, prompting prime minister Wen
Jiabao regularly to berate officials for their energy failings.
A state-led switch from heavy to light industry, which brought major
gains in energy efficiency during the Deng era, is also out of the
question. Energy-gulping steel, aluminium, chemicals, paper and pulp
are today the sectors in which China’s exports boom (in steel, China
is now worldwide No 1 in both production and exports). Reading Kambara
and Howe, it’s also clear that Chinese state planning has failed to
deal with regional disparities. China’s 24 provinces continue to
compete with each other for energy resources, rather than share them.
Worse, while the location of energy development has shifted west from
Daquing, as far as the problematic Tarim basin in China’s far west,
the location of industrial development has moved south from the north-
east and Shanghai, toward Guangdong, Fujian and the export centres of
the eastern seaboard generally (36). Nearly three decades after the
Deng reforms, the vastness of China, by no means a God-given,
immutable or natural fact, continues to frustrate Chinese energy
planners.
The final and most important point is that, in energy-related matters,
the West may come to need China more than China needs the West. At the
moment, a report like Climate Change Mitigation Strategies for the
Transportation Sector in China can only discuss hybrid electric
vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, or the use of ethanol and bio-diesel as
fuels by giving the Chinese a lecture: in familiar style, the report
concludes not only with a peremptory list of the ‘Chinese Supporting
Policies Required’ for these technologies, but also another,
positively Pavlovian list of ‘International Investment Opportunities’
around them – opportunities for the West, that is (37). But already it
is China Aviation Industry Corporation (Avic 1) that has won
Bombardier, Canada, as a partner to build and export new, regional
jets to world markets. It is China that could emerge, through a
Western intermediary, as a supplier of between 500 and 2,000 carriages
for InterCity Express, high-speed trains that will replace Britain’s
30-year old InterCity 125s (38).
In these transport technologies, China starts from a low base, but
with – to mix metaphors – a clean slate. In housing, too, as I’ve
argued on spiked, it’s China that has the best chance of manufacturing
the millions of new, inexpensive, energy efficient homes that the
world, including Britain and much of the West, needs each month (39).
Facts like these show that it is in the interests of the West, never
mind the interests of the Chinese masses, for China to develop and
grow. It should refuse to give up its sovereignty in energy matters to
the latest batch of Western missionaries issuing instructions. Of
course, so long as workers in China are ruled by a repressive
Stalinist elite, mistakes, with energy and with the environment, will
no doubt be magnified – and their different dimensions should be
clearly and patiently delineated, not covered up by Mao’s heirs. But
the principle that China be allowed to grow, and to find its own way
to progress in energy, is something that Westerners should rally
round.
China has the right to development, and the right, too, to truck for
oil with sovereign governments in the Third World. But China is easily
important enough, in 2007, for its growth and development to be in the
whole world’s interest. Western governments and Western multinationals
can, should and will do business with China. But China’s energy future
should be decided in the court of Chinese public opinion, not by the
salons of the Earth Policy Institute, London’s liberal intelligentsia
or Mia Farrow.
James Woudhuysen is professor of forecasting and innovation, De
Montfort University, Leicester. His website is here.
China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007 (buy this book from Amazon(UK))
Plan B 2.0: rescuing a planet under stress and a civilisation in
trouble, Lester R Brown, Norton, 2006 (buy this book from Amazon(UK))
Black Gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006 (buy this book from Amazon(UK))
The Rough Guide to Climate Change: the symptoms, the science, the
solutions, Robert Henson, Rough Guides, 2006 (buy this book from Amazon
(UK))
(1) Plan B, Lester B Brown, Norton, 2003, quoted in Capitalism as if
the world matters, Jonathan Porritt, Earthscan, 2005, p165
(2) Plan B 2.0, Lester B Brown, Norton, 2006, pp10-11
(3) Plan B 2.0, Lester B Brown, Norton, 2006, page x
(4) Black gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, p8
(5) Black gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, p127
(6) China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007, p126
(7) Plan B 2.0, Lester B Brown, Norton, 2006, pp197, 17
(8) See Technological superpower China, Jon Sigurdson, Edward Elgar,
2005, pp6-7
(9) For the way in which John Maynard Keynes draws on the Reverend
Thomas Malthus, and in particular shares the latter’s focus on
consumption, see Keynes, The general theory of employment, interest
and money, 1936. In Chapter 23, Notes on mercantilism, the usury laws,
stamped money and theories of under-consumption, Keynes remarks that,
in the later phase of Malthus, ‘the notion of the insufficiency of
effective demand takes a definite place as a scientific explanation of
unemployment’.
(10) The Auto Project on Energy and Climate Change, Climate Change
Mitigation Strategies for the Transportation Sector in China, July
2006, pp11, 19, 33
(11) Review Of China: Conclusions And Recommendations (Final), OECD
Working Party On Environmental Performance, 9 November 2006
(12) Demolish, Dig, Design: The Olympic Delivery Authority’s
milestones’ to Summer 2008, Olympic Delivery Authority, April 2007
(13) See How can a boomtown be green?
(14) See Tony Blair’s response to your comments on the Friends of the
Earth website
(15) Sainsbury, reply to author’s question, ‘Atlas of Ideas: Mapping
the new geography of science’ conference at the Institution of
Engineering and Technology, London, organized by DEMOS, 17 January
2007
(16) Heat, George Monbiot, Allen Lane, 2006, pp xii-xiii
(17) ‘China is shouldering its climate change burden’, Financial
Times, 3 June 2007
(18)‘Clean power for China’, Time, 3 April 2006
(19) ‘China could overtake US as biggest emissions culprit by
November’ http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2064726,00.html
(20) Black gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, pp132, 133; China and the global energy
crisis: development and prospects for China’s oil and natural gas,
Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe, Edward Elgar, 2007, p122
(21) Black gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, pp128
(22) China, Darfur, and the Olympics: Tarnishing the Torch?
(23) China, Darfur, and the Olympics: Tarnishing the Torch?
(24) ‘Darfur adds to US doubts over Beijing’s foreign policy’,
Financial Times, 14 June 2007
(25) China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007, p126
(26) Intellectual imperialism by Philip Cunliffe, 10 May 2007
(27) See for example Oil wars: how wars over oil further destabilise
faltering regimes, edited by Mary Kaldor and Yahia Said, Pluto Press,
2007
(28) Stop shopping ... or the planet will go pop, Observer, 8 April
2007
(29) Nelson Mandela Memorial Lecture, Thabo Mbeki, University of
Witwatersrand, 29 July 2006, on
(30) ‘China is shouldering its climate change burden’, Financial
Times, 3 June 2007
(31) See the video footage of Chinese bands on the Greenpeace website
(32) The Rough Guide to climate change: the symptoms, the science, the
solutions, Robert Henson, Rough Guides, 2006, p287
(33)‘Beijing forges ahead with building its own industry’, Financial
Times, 18 June 2007
(34)‘Sunlit uplands’, A special report on business and climate change,
The Economist, 2 June 2007, pp20, 23
(35) China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007, pp130-131
(36) China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007, p77
(37) Climate Change Mitigation Strategies for the Transportation
Sector in China, July 2006, Table 6: Summary of alternative vehicle
technology and fuel options for China, p33
(38) ‘Bombardier and China’s Avic sign joint venture’ and ‘Global
groups chase UK train order’, Financial Times, 19 June 2007
(39) Constructive ideas from the East by James Woudhuysen, 13 October
2005
spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP Tel:
+44 (0)207 40 40 470 Email: email spiked
© spiked 2000-2009 All rights reserved.
chhotemianinshallah
Brendan O’Neill
Has China had a green ‘Damascene conversion’?
The sight of President Hu almost apologising to the West for his
country’s vast economic growth was a revealing snapshot of our
times.
There was something very peculiar about President Hu Jintao of China
appearing before the United Nations in New York yesterday to declare
his nation’s commitment to cutting its carbon emissions.
Hu is the leader of the most populous and most industrious nation on
Earth. He oversees the world’s third largest economy (after the US and
Japan) and the world’s largest exporting nation, which produces 60 per
cent of the world’s mobile phones, 55 per cent of its DVDs, more than
half of its digital cameras, and 75 per cent of its children’s toys.
His country has a staggering two trillion dollars in foreign exchange
(the largest reserves in the world), and as a result of the
industrialisation that has taken place over the past 30 years it now
has 655 cities (compared with 193 in 1978), a life expectancy of 73.4
years (compared with 36.5 years in 1949, when the People’s Republic of
China was established), a population of 1.3billion (compared with
542million in 1949), and 20.2million students in higher education
(compared with 117,000 in 1949).
Yet here was Hu speaking to the leaders of some far less productive
nations, whose economies have been stagnating for many years and many
of whom have become financially reliant on China, on their terms – in
the language of lowering carbon emissions, achieving sustainability,
and elevating the need to ‘clean up the planet’ over the naked pursuit
of economic growth. Hu spoke, not in the language of a political
leader of an industrious nation, but in the language of those Western-
based international organisations and NGOs that problematise economic
growth for having a dirty and allegedly devastating impact on the
planet. ‘Global climate change has a profound impact on the survival
and development of mankind’, he said. ‘It is a major challenge facing
all countries.’ (1)
This curious event – which was tellingly welcomed by some greens as
evidence of a ‘Damascene conversion’ amongst top Chinese officials to
the climate-change cause – was revealing. It demonstrated that China
is keen to be accepted into the international fold, and that it
recognises – whether in a calculated or genuinely internalised fashion
– that the best way to achieve that is to make a very public pledge to
be true and devoted to tackling climate change, the only unifying
cause and source of moral purpose amongst Western nations today. And
it also revealed that, despite their relative economic weakness, Anglo-
American societies’ new green-leaning politics and morality are the
dominant forces in the international sphere, to the extent that one of
the most powerful nations on Earth – whose economic growth over the
past 30 years has lifted 235million people out of absolute poverty and
thus has been responsible for 67 per cent of the recent total
reduction in global poverty (2) – feels the need almost to apologise
to Western leaders and NGOs for creating a ‘carbon footprint’ in the
process of achieving such mammoth things.
Hu’s speech was the end product of months of diplomatic pressure and
discussion between Western officials and Chinese officials. In the run-
up to the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit in December – the event,
hysterically described by some greens as the ‘last chance to save the
planet’, at which international leaders will hammer out a new climate
change treaty – Western observers have been putting pressure on China
to make a statement on climate change. Like imperialism turned on its
head, 20 British diplomats (for the record, Britain’s manufacturing
has fallen from 21 per cent of economic activity in 1986 to 13 per
cent of economic activity today) and at least twice as many American
diplomats have moved to Beijing to ‘monitor and nudge’ the Chinese
position on climate change ahead of Copenhagen (3). Where Western
powers once carved up China into ‘spheres of influence’ in order to
exploit its resources and labour, now Western officials intervene with
a moral mission to encourage China to ‘respect its own natural
resources’ (4).
The backdrop to this flurry of diplomatic activity, to what one
journalist describes as the ‘cajoling and compromise’ in the Western-
China debates about climate change, has been an increasing cultural
demonisation of China’s economic growth. Amongst Anglo-American
officials and observers, the mainstream view of modern China is that
it is dirty, polluting and potentially even a poisonous threat to the
relatively cleaner and calmer West (5). Industrialised China is
described as a ‘rapidly advancing dystopia where rivers run black’;
apparently it is putting the planet on ‘the fast track to irreversible
disaster’; it is a den of ‘toxins and pollutants’ (6). It was this
build-up of shrill assaults on Chinese growth, coupled with the
diplomatic pressure and, most importantly, the global dominance of the
green ethos, that encouraged Hu to make his much-applauded speech at
the UN yesterday.
In one sense, Hu’s very public embrace of the climate change ethos –
which follows on from China’s own development of various climate-
change programmes in recent years – can be seen as a calculated
diplomatic move. As Frank Furedi has argued, despite all the claims
that China represents a threat to world stability, in truth it is
‘essentially a status quo power whose interests are best served by the
maintenance of an open global economy’; China’s future is ‘closely
linked to the continuation of the present world order’ (7). Thus it
makes sense for China to seek to remove the one political and cultural
barrier that was put in the way of it becoming a respected member of
the ‘international community’ (despite its population of 1.3billion,
its influence across Asia, and its flood of capital that helped fund
the West’s credit boom): that is, its ‘dirtiness’, or more accurately,
its seeming unwillingness to embrace the bible of sustainability. At a
time when much of international diplomacy, in terms of trade,
influence and political relationships, is carried out in enviro-speak,
the Chinese clearly recognised the benefits of making a green public
statement. They even hired the British PR firm Freuds to help them
cultivate a new green image (8). Some have pointed out that Hu failed
to deliver on various green demands, because he intends to plough on
with economic growth while making conciliatory gestures to the green-
leaning international community.
However, Hu’s speech also reveals that some layers of the Chinese
bureaucracy have genuinely internalised the Anglo-American politics of
environmentalism. It was not done entirely for show. Environmentalism
offers to the Chinese authorities, so disconnected and aloof from
their people, a semblance of moral purpose and legitimacy. When I
visited Beijing with a group of Western journalists last week, the
authorities were most keen to show us their green schemes: the air
quality-measuring machines erected across the city; the factory that
is leading the world in developing electric cars; the use of hi-tech
vans to record the CO2 emissions of cars and motorbikes, which can be
banned from the roads if their pollutant output is judged to be too
high. Seemingly unable to justify their economic growth in terms of
human interest, the Chinese authorities have instead created a system
of excuse-making and apologia for their leaps forward. The
environmentalist ethos also allows them to introduce new authoritarian
measures: public smoking bans, driving restrictions and the sacking of
workers have all been justified in the name of ‘protecting China’s
environment’ (9).
Hu’s speech provided a striking snapshot of our topsy-turvy times – an
era in which economically stagnant nations can lecture industrious
nations about their moral responsibilities, and in which powerful
leaders feel the need to prostrate themselves before UN officials, and
effectively Greenpeace and the like, in order to win international
acceptance. It also revealed the double standards at play in the
contemporary debate about China. For those of us who believe in
progress, and in liberating all of humanity from poverty, there is
something nauseating about the leaders and commentators of nations
that were built on industry and manufacturing now chastising the
Chinese for ‘making the same mistakes’ (10). Having benefited from the
gains of coal-fired industry, the development of modern industrial
cities and the technological and nuclear revolutions, comfortable
Western observers now attack China for using the ‘dirtiest fuel of
all: coal’ to create a ‘polluted society’ that is ‘the world’s largest
producer of greenhouse gases’ (11). Such accusations come across as
shamelessly hypocritical.
This is not to argue that there are no problems with China’s
industrialisation, or that the Chinese have to go through the
Victorian-style industrialisation that a country like Britain
experienced. As Leon Trotsky argued, it is often possible for late-
developing countries to exploit the advances made by nations that
developed earlier, with ‘the assimilation of [the] material and
intellectual conquests of the advanced countries’. However, much of
the attack on China’s dirty and frequently old-fashioned growth is
based on a double-standards-driven assault on its temerity to grow at
all, to be so big and populous in the first place, to aspire to become
a wealthier, healthier and more advanced nation. Many observers who
attack the means of Chinese growth – coal, manufacturing, the smog-
producing creation of things – are really offended by the ends: the
creation of a society of relatively wealthier people living more
‘impactful lives’.
The problem with the diplomatic and cultural ‘cajoling and compromise’
over China’s growth is that the question of what is fundamentally in
the Chinese people’s interests gets elbowed off the agenda. An
historic growth that has transformed the lives of millions and
millions of people is discussed as creating a ‘new dystopia’; the
transformation of a nation is measured not by how much it has
benefited its people, but in terms of the levels of toxins and
pollutants and by how much it has ‘impacted on Gaia’; a genuine
discussion about how China might develop further, and how its economic
and social transformation has benefited Western nations (in terms of
the flow of Chinese capital and Beijing’s interest in stabilising the
world order and economy), is sidelined in favour of the evasive and
sometimes dishonest diplomo-speak of ‘climate targets’ and ‘low-carbon
futures’ (12).
We should remember that a full fifth of humanity lives in China. And
for all the labelling of China as the ‘world’s biggest producer of
greenhouse gases’, these 1.3billion people still consume less than we
do in the less-populated nations of America and Britain. Their living
standards and ability to make choices are infinitely more important
than the delicate sensibilities of Western observers who fantasise
that Chinese growth is somehow polluting their local children’s
playground.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. His satire on the green movement
- Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas - is published by
Hodder & Stoughton. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)
(1) President Hu Jintao commits China to carbon-cutting deal, The
Times, 23 September 2009
(2) Facts about poverty in China, Wall Street Journal, 13 April 2009
(3) Copenhagen begins in Beijing. The world waits, Guardian, 16
September 2009
(4) Copenhagen begins in Beijing. The world waits, Guardian, 16
September 2009
(5) See And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to…, by Brendan
O’Neill
(6) See And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to…, by Brendan
O’Neill
(7) See China: threat or opportunity?, by Frank Furedi
(8) Copenhagen begins in Beijing. The world waits, Guardian, 16
September 2009
(9) See Hypocrisy of Olympian proportions, by Nathalie Rothschild
(10) See And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to…, by Brendan
O’Neill
(11) See And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to…, by Brendan
O’Neill
(12) President Hu Jintao commits China to carbon-cutting deal, The
Times, 23 September 2009
bademiyansubhanallah
Friday, October 30, 2009
Beautiful, Beautiful Copenhagen
Like a big rugby or soccer match, the build-up has already begun to
Copenhagen '09! On the 7th of December, teams of negotiators from 192
countries will kick-off a two-week marathon round of talks in order to
secure a new climate treaty to succeed Kyoto.
More than 15,000 will attend the talks - from journalists to
politicians, diplomats and campaigners; as well as presidents and
heads of state from around the globe. Keen to give the right
impression from the start, the Danish organisers are ensuring that,
for instance, all water available at the summit is tap-water, with no
bottles on summit bargaining tables. They've also insisted that a
minimum of 65% of the food and beverages available on site will be
organically produced.
Whilst the city boasts an impressive and reliable public transport
system (which will be free of charge for the delegates) many will of
course arrive by air, with the massive carbon footprint which that
will entail. A recent UN climate conference in New York in September
produced 450 tonnes of carbon. However, the carbon cost of getting
delegates (including 50 presidents and 35 prime ministers) to and from
New York, including flights, motorcades, police escorts, etc. was
neutralised by directly funding a rural power project in India. The
funding will support a scheme which transforms agricultural byproducts
such as corn husks and stalks in electricity. It's still unclear if
the organisers of the Copenhagen summit will do the same!
The COP15 meeting (as its known) is the 15th meeting of the Conference
of Parties - a group brought together by the UN framework convention
on climate change. As such, they are in a race against time to have an
agreement in place and ratified by all parties before the Kyoto
agreement starts to become obsolete in 2012.
Kyoto was negotiated back in 1997 and things have changed utterly
since then. Back then, the US was the single largest emitter of
greenhouse gases. Now that dubious honour goes to China - an
indication of the massive growth that we've seen in the Chinese
economy.
Despite an on-again, off-again debate as to whether climate change and
global warming are actually occurring at all, the weight of evidence
and scientific support suggests that it is a real problem already and
is going to get worse. The most recent report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pointed out that
between 1906 and 2005 the earth's average temperature has risen by
0.74 degrees. Now that doesn't seem like a lot in theory. If I put my
dinner in the oven to cook and I'm out by 0.74 degrees, it's hardly
likely to make a difference. But, on the global scale, if this
continues there will be serious consequences.
This increase in temperature is caused by the famous 'Greenhouse
Effect' - a natural phenomenon which only becomes a problem when you
pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere. On its own, the greenhouse
effect is useful to us - without it, the average temperature on earth
would be around minus 19 degrees celsius (as opposed to 14 degrees at
the moment). Due to the vast quantities of CO2 emitted into the
atmosphere since the industrial revolution, the greenhouse effect is
going into overdrive and the Earth's climate is being effected.
That's why December's summit will focus on reducing the amount of CO2
and various other 'Greenhouse Gases' which countries are allowed to
emit. The task is easier said than done since greenhouse emissions go
hand-in-hand with economic prosperity. Particularly at this time,
countries want to do little that will constrain their businesses and
economies.
However, industrialised countries will be asked to reduce their
emissions substantially. Developing countries such as China and India
will be asked to limit the growth in their emissions - despite their
wishes to grow their economy. Money will be discussed too. Poor
countires will require massive amounts of cash to curb their emissions
and to adapt to the problems a changing climate will pose.
It will be an interesting summit. Already, the various sides are
flagging their opening positions. The stakes are high in beautiful
Copenhagen.
Posted by ScienceWriter at 5:29 PM
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate politics eclipses climate science (Comment-Countdown to
Copenhagen)
November 15th, 2009 SindhToday
For the last few weeks, leaders of industrialised countries have been
busy reducing expectations from next month’s critical Copenhagen
climate summit, while their counterparts in the developing world
declare ambitious plans to control emissions of the greenhouse gases
(GHG) that are warming the world.
In the process, it now appears that the industrialised countries are
ignoring the overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the
world, who have said global GHG emissions must start falling by 2015
if the world is to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change.
Many of the rich countries have not declared the extent to which they
will reduce their GHG emissions after 2012, though the deadline for
doing so is past.
The declarations that have been made are clearly not enough for GHG
emissions to start going down after 2015.
In its benchmark fourth assessment report published in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a group of over
2,500 scientists and over 7,500 peer reviewers from around the world,
headed by R.K. Pachauri of India – had said that if global warming was
to be kept within two degrees Celsius, GHG emissions must start
falling after 2015.
That IPCC report was based on scientific evidence of climate change
between 2003 and 2006. Since then, past and present members of the
IPCC have found evidence that global warming effects are accelerating
faster than they had predicted – be it in the area of more frequent
and more severe extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and
storms; or the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, especially small ones;
or the melting of Antarctic and Arctic ice sheets which are already
raising the sea level to the point where the first line of islands in
the Sundarbans facing the Bay of Bengal have disappeared.
So despite the continued carping of the few climate sceptics left
around the globe, it is now clear that climate change is here, it is
already affecting our lives adversely and now we are essentially left
with two issues. One, how do we keep global warming down to a minimum?
Two, how do we adapt to the changed climate?
Science has a clear answer to the first question – minimise use of
fossil fuels, as their use is the major cause of the emission of
carbon dioxide, the main GHG.
This is where climate politics takes over because, despite the
rhetoric to the contrary, most industrialised countries are reluctant
to change over from coal- and oil-based economies. Their argument:
there is no point in their doing so when large emerging economies like
India and China are going to base their economies on coal and oil in
the foreseeable future.
This argument does not take into account the fact that almost all the
GHGs in the atmosphere today have been put there by the rich
countries. It ignores the fact that China overtook the US as the
world’s biggest GHG emitter only in 2007, and that India is still
fifth. The per capita GHG emissions in the US is around 20 tonnes per
year.
But the developing countries are the ones taking action. India has an
ambitious plan to generate 20,000 MW from solar power by 2022, a
hundredfold increase from today. China has set some tough energy
efficiency standards. Brazil has announced it will reduce GHG
emissions by 38-42 percent by 2020.
Among the rich countries, the EU had consistently led the way to a
greener economy, till its industrial leaders started telling its
governments a few months back that this was making them uncompetitive
vis-a-vis the US, which has so far steadfastly refused to be part of
any legally binding global treaty to reduce emissions. Now, in their
anxiety to bring the US within such a system, the EU leaders have been
bending backwards to weaken any possible Copenhagen agreement.
It has now reached the point where most observers feel there will be
no legally binding treaty to indicate the extent to which rich
countries will reduce their GHG emissions after 2012, when the
commitment period of the current treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, runs out.
At best, there may be a political statement of intent, and even that
at the insistence of host country Denmark.
Rich countries are also unwilling to pay poor countries to help them
mitigate GHG emissions and to adapt to the effects of the climate
change caused by the industrialised world.
The most conservative estimate – made by the World Bank – of the money
needed for adoption is $70-100 billion a year. Not even a miniscule
fraction of that is on the table, while developing countries are
already being forced to spend huge sums to cope with climate change
effects. India spent over 2.7 percent of its GDP last fiscal,
according to the government’s latest economic survey.
As a worried world readies for the Copenhagen summit (Dec 6-18),
veteran observers offer one crumb of comfort. The squabbles were just
as intense before the Kyoto climate summit, where the current protocol
was signed.
(Joydeep Gupta can be contacted at joyd...@ians.in)
[LM1]
bademiyansubhanallah
We’re out of time to conclude global action plan in Copenhagen: Obama
November 15th, 2009 SindhToday
London, Nov. 16 (ANI): US President Barack Obama has recognized that
it would be impossible to reach a fully internationally legally
binding climate agreement in Copenhagen next month as very little time
is left for that.
After a unscheduled meeting with Denmark’s Prime Minister Lars Lokke
Rasmussen and Chinese President Hu Jintao in Singapore, Obama
acknowledged that next month’s meeting should have a realistic aim of
making it a first-stage series of commitments rather than an all-
encompassing protocol.
“There was a realistic assessment by the leaders that it was
unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement
to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days,”
The Guardian quoted Michael Froman, US deputy national security
adviser for economic affairs, as saying.
There will now be intense discussions on whether the political
agreement at Copenhagen contains any detailed meaningful commitments.
Rasmussen, the host and chairman of the climate talks, insisted that
the Copenhagen talks could still set political targets and outline
commitments.
“Given the time factor and the situation of individual countries we
must, in the coming weeks, focus on what is possible and not let
ourselves be distracted by what is not. The Copenhagen agreement
should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline
for their conclusion,’ Rasmussen said.
Obama spoke in support of the proposal, cautioning the group not to
let the ‘perfect be the enemy of the good’, Froman said. (ANI)
[NF]
bademiyansubhanallah
November 25, 2009
PERIPATETIC PRESIDENT TO PRESS FOR PROGRESS....
To demonstrate the U.S. commitment to combating global warming, many,
here and around the world, hoped President Obama would personally
travel to Copenhagen next month for the United Nations meeting on
climate change. They got their wish.
Mr. Obama, who had previously not committed to making an appearance at
the summit, will deliver a speech on Dec. 9 en route to Oslo, Norway,
where he will accept the Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 10.
Mr. Obama had been under considerable pressure from other world
leaders and environmental advocates to make the trip as a statement of
American commitment to the climate change negotiations. The talks,
involving more than 190 nations, are expected to produce a wide-
ranging interim political declaration but stop short of proposing a
binding international treaty.
Delegates are expected to commit to completing the treaty next year.
Mr. Obama has said recently that he would attend the session if his
presence could help lead to a successful outcome. It is significant
that he will appear at the beginning rather than at the end of the 12-
day meeting. Most major decisions at such environmental forums come at
the very end of the process.
Mr. Obama will tell the delegates to the climate conference that the
United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions "in the
range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020," according to a White
House official.
In a statement this morning, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who's helping
lead the Senate fight on a climate bill, said of the president's
travel plans, "This could be one hell of a global game changer with
big reverberations here at home. For the first time, an American
Administration has proposed an emissions reduction target and when
President Obama lands in Copenhagen it will emphasize that the United
States is in it to win it. This announcement matches words with
action. The Obama Administration is now undeniably mustering bona fide
leadership on climate change, not merely departing from Bush
Administration intransigence and ideology."
Now, as we talked about last week, the larger plans for the Copenhagen
meeting have already been scaled back a bit, with leaders eyeing a two-
step process -- incremental progress this year, and a commitment to
renew the next stage of efforts next year.
But Obama's in-person lobbying efforts will give the talks a boost,
and signal to the world that the United States intends to lead.
—Steve Benen 10:35 AM
Comments (8)
Of course, the only angle that the media will cover will be whether
Obama bows at all during his trip.
Posted by: Old School on November 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK
More and more it looks like the United States is approaching global
warming in the wrong way. We're trying to pretend that we can solve
global warming by continuing to do the same things, only do them more
slowly. We're demanding that the third world make promises of
sacrifice that they won't fulfill.
Instead, the United States should move ahead on their own, and let the
world eat our dust (and breathe their own pollution).
Did it take a treaty to get the world to move from typewriters to word
processors? Did it take a series of world conferences to get people to
switch from telephones attached to copper wires?
Hell no.
The president of the U.S. should start an all out, land-a-man-on-the-
moon-and-bring-him-back-by-the-end-of-the-decade push to end the use
of all fossil fuels. He should announce that the federal government
will support research in both pure and applied science, that it will
provide grants for students who want to go to college to study
science, that it will fund pilot projects and that it will subsidize
commercial products.
In a few decades, the world will run out of oil. When that happens,
either the U.S. or China will renewable energy technology to everyone
else. When that happens, the winning economy will rule the world,
while the loser . . . .
Now if only the United States had a president who actually believes in
changing the status quo.
Posted by: SteveT on November 25, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Obama's in-person lobbying efforts will...signal to the world that the
United States intends to lead.
And a bunch of 'centrist' Business Dog Democrat Senators will tell the
world to f*** off.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist on November 25, 2009 at 11:38 AM
The mere fact that Obama had even considered not going tells you all
you need to know about what a fraud this guy is.
Posted by: scott on November 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM
In a few decades, the world will run out of oil. When that happens,
either the U.S. or China will renewable energy technology to everyone
else. When that happens, the winning economy will rule the world,
while the loser . . . .
A rapid development of alternative energy supplies will guarantee that
oil remains plentiful and cheap. The winning economy will be the
economy that persistently spends the least on alternative energy,
while forcing the other to spend the most. Oddly, the US right now is
stimulating demand (the tax credits for purchase) while China is
stimulating production, with the result that the US imports solar
panels and wind turbines from China. With these strategies in place,
China looks to be the winner, and in the not-too-distant future.
Besides that, China is building up both its nuclear power capacity and
its coal power capacity faster than the US is doing.
If winning national competitions is your goal, make sure your strategy
addresses that goal. I expect that whatever Obama says in Copenhagen
will influence the Chinese government as much as his recommendations
on civil rights did. If that happens, a US focus on reducing CO2 will
put US economic development behind Chinese economic development for a
long time to come.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 25, 2009 at 1:11 PM
It's a bit late to lead years after Europe introduced cap and trade.
I'd settle for a United States which is ready to follow.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann on November 25, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Obviously, the message has not gotten out to all... the phrase "global
warming" has been replaced by "climate change", which I suspect was
done to buffer increasing criticism of the "warming" argument (snark,
snark).
Posted by: pencarrow on November 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Good luck. Mean that.
Down here in New Zealand our ever more ridiculous govt just passed an
Emissions Trading law that doesn't have a cap, has the govt subsidise
the biggest polluters by giving them credits, and continues to do so
well till about 2050, or beyond for certain sectors. Result: polluters
are actually encouraged to emit, public debt increases and NZ as a
whole will have to spend more money meeting it's Kyoto obligations by
buying credits. Positive feedbacks. Huzzah.
Thankfully our PM won't be going to Copenhagen, ( he doesn't like bad
news).
He does however become all giggly when he gets a chance to talk to
your Mr Obama. Could y'all do us a favour and get Obama to call our
guy an ass or something?
Posted by: Peebles on November 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM
chhotemianinshallah
Q+A-What is China's "carbon intensity" target?
Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:17am EST
BEIJING, Nov 26 (Reuters) - China has unveiled its first firm target
to curb greenhouse gas emissions, laying out a carbon intensity goal
that Premier Wen Jiabao will take to climate talks as his government's
central commitment.
(For the main story on China's carbon intensity target, click
[ID:nPEK421])
Following are questions and answers about carbon intensity.
WHAT IS CARBON INTENSITY?
Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit
of economic output. Often carbon dioxide is measured in tonnes, while
gross domestic product (GDP) in a local currency represents economic
output, but any units can be used.
Other greenhouse gasses like methane are added to the total by
calculating the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the
equivalent global warming potential.
Emissions are usually calculated indirectly, through looking at inputs
such as the amount of coal burnt in a power plant, rather than
attempting to capture and weigh carbon dioxide gas.
WHY HAS CHINA CHOSEN CARBON INTENSITY?
Cutting carbon intensity allows China to meet international demands
for it to count and curb its emissions, without giving up its
insistence that development must come first while millions of Chinese
citizens are still living in poverty.
By agreeing to control its emissions China will also pave the way for
a carbon market, as accurate measurements of emissions are a vital
cornerstone for any market for permits to emit.
However, if China's economy expands too fast, even massive
improvements in carbon intensity may not be enough to contain
dangerous increases in emissions.
A carbon intensity figure can be worked out for anything from a single
factory to an entire country.
HOW CHALLENGING IS THE TARGET?
Beijing said it faces "special hardships" in meeting the goal, and
Chinese experts said after a five-year energy efficiency drive further
improvements would be tough.
But the current goal -- to boost energy efficiency 20 percent over the
5 years to 2010 -- has already brought even larger improvements to
carbon intensity.
Every tonne of coal saved means a corresponding amount of emissions
are avoided. And an expansion of renewable and nuclear power has
further cut back China's emissions growth.
So Beijing is likely to be at least halfway to reaching its 2020 goal
by the end of next year, many analysts say.
WHY NOT AN EMISSIONS CAP?
China has repeatedly rejected calls to commit to a peak year or level
of emissions because of its worries such a target could hinder efforts
to tackle poverty.
A cap could be a logical next step for Beijing if it can meet its
initial carbon intensity targets.
Some Chinese experts have said emissions could peak around 2030-2035
with enough spending and the right policies, but officials have been
more wary of such ideas. [ID:nPEK276833]
Under the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N. framework which governs efforts
to tackle global warming, developing countries do not have any binding
obligations to cap emissions.
HOW DOES CHINA'S CURRENT CARBON INTENSITY STACK UP?
According to figures published by the United States Department of
Energy, China in 2006 emitted 2.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels for every $1,000 of gross domestic product (GDP), around
15 percent lower than a decade earlier.
In comparison, the United States in 2006 emitted 0.52 tonnes of carbon
dioxide for every $1,000 of GDP, while Switzerland produced 0.17
tonnes, and impoverished Chad just 0.07 tonnes.
For further comparisons see: here (Reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison
and Ben Blanchard; Editing by David Fogarty) ((emma.graham-
harr...@thomsonreuters.com; +86 10 6627 1203; Reuters Messaging:
emma.graha...@reuters.net)) ((If you have a query or comment on
this story, send an email to news.feed...@thomsonreuters.com))
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
...and I am Sid Harth
Sid Harth
US announces emission cuts, China follows suit
TNN 27 November 2009, 02:46am IST
BEIJING/NEW DELHI: China on Thurday declared that it would reduce the
carbon intensity of its economy by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020.
This significant manoeuvre is bound to step up pressure on India and
other emerging economies to relax their stand at the forthcoming
climate-change talks in Copenhagen.
China made it clear that the cut in carbon intensity would be purely
voluntary. But coming a day after US indicated that it would offer a
fixed target for greenhouse gas reductions, it is sure to have
repercussions for cliamte change negotiations, giving a hand to those
who argue that India needs to do more.
There is a fear that India might come under pressure from a possible
US-China duet and runs the risk of getting isolated at the Copenhagen
talks, beginning on December 7.
Such fears had already been expressed by a section in the government
which pressed for flexibility in India's negotiating stance.
Earlier in the month, Brazil had made a conditional offer to reduce
its emissions through forestry if it was provided international
funding to control deforestation of the Amazonian forests. The move
was interpreted by some as a sell-out to the industrialised
countries.
The Chinese move comes a day after the US administration, that held
out for long, announced that it would offer a target of reducing its
greenhouse gas emissions ``in the range of'' 17% by 2020 as compared
to 2005 levels.
When converted to benchmarks set under Kyoto Protocol, this works out
to 4% reduction below 1990 levels - almost seven times less than what
the EU has offered and less than 1/10th of what the UN IPCC requires
industrialised countries to do to check catastrophic climate change.
But this has been showcased as a concession and will be used as a
bargaining chip at Copenhagen and beyond.
The developed countries have said that their offers are contingent on
emerging economies taking on commitments as well as availability of
cheap carbon offsets to limit the economic impact of emission
reductions.
India, China and other emerging economies have not been asked by the
rich countries to undertake absolute emission reduction cuts. But this
is only a partial respite. There have been growing pressure from the
industrialized countries that India and key developing countries also
undertake `substantial action'.
Hours before his departure for China, environment minister Jairam
Ramesh went into a huddle with senior officials to craft India's
response to Beijing's move. Sources said that Jairam's meetings with
the Chinese on November 27 and 28 may offer some clarity on how India
plans to deal with the US-China pincer.
The challenge for India will now be how to escape being seen as the
hurdle. One senior official said: ``These are not absolute reductions,
please note, and they are purely voluntary, China has not offered them
as a commitment towards an international compact. This is along the
lines that China had informed us of. But they leave a positive
impression internationally.''
In fact, the Chinese are aiming to earn goodwill without doing
much.The industrialized countries are obliged under the existing UN
treaty to reduce their emissions by absolute levels below a fixed
benchmarked year. China, in comparison has offered a purely voluntary
reduction in its carbon intensity - the amount of carbon dioxide
emissions emitted for every dollar of GDP it generates. The carbon
intensity target also provides enough leverage for `creative
accounting' in measuring success of targets.
Another expert within the government also pointed out that the Chinese
government had already reported reduction in energy intensity and had
recently announced 3.35% year-on-year reduction for the first half of
2009. "If one was to go by Chinese figures all they are saying is they
shall continue to undertake only those actions to reduce energy
consumption they have already committed to. This is business as usual
for China after it's announced its ambitious renewable energy and
afforestation targets."
But other key government officers also pointed out that the fine print
of the Chinese offer was bound to get a bit lost in the international
political rhetoric at the moment. "While China is not deviating from
the G77 position, the noise for India to take action from outside
India, and even within some sections of the government could
increase," an official close to the developments told TOI.
Xie Zhenhua, deputy head of the powerful National Development and
Reform Commission of China, announced the Chinese move in Beijing on
Thursday and said, "So far we have not seen concrete actions and
substantive commitments by the developed countries. As we've made this
commitment, well, Chinese people stick to their word."
But it is not clear if Beijing was prepared to allow the outside world
to closely examine its implementation of its environmental program.
Both India and China had earlier opposed any outside interference on
this issue.
China has proposed that developed nations contribute 1 per cent of
gross domestic product to subsidize efforts by poorer nations to cut
carbon-dioxide emissions. That translates to more than $140 billion
for the US alone. Of course, Washington is far from accepting it.
"Appropriate handling of the climate change issue is of vital interest
to China's social and economic development and people's fundamental
interests, as well as the welfare of all the people in the world and
the world's long-term development," the Chinese State Council said in
the statement.
That both President Obama of the US and his Chinese counterpart Hu
Jintao would skip the head of the states meeting scheduled at
Copenhagen on December 18 is seen as signalling their intent not to
raise expectations of any big concessions from the two leading
polluters attending the talks.
Sid Harth
Apocalypse alert!
Jonathan Leake, Sunday Times, London
21 November 2009, 05:19am IST
Six months is all it took to flip Europe's climate from warm and sunny
into the last ice age, researchers have found. They have discovered
that the WHEN TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION: The scenario of a sudden
big freeze seems straight out of the film The Day After Tomorrow
(left) northern hemisphere was plunged into a big freeze 12,800 years
ago by a sudden slowdown of the Gulf Stream that allowed ice to spread
hundreds of miles southwards from the Arctic.
Previous research has suggested the change may have taken place over a
longer period - perhaps about 10 years.
The new description, more reminiscent of the Hollywood blockbuster The
Day After Tomorrow, emerged from one of the most painstaking studies
of past climate changes ever attempted.
"It would have been very sudden for those alive at the time," said
William Patterson, a geological sciences professor at the University
of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon , Canada, who carried out the research.
"It would be the equivalent of taking Britain and moving it to the
Arctic over the space of a few months."
His findings, published at a recent conference, reinforce a series of
studies suggesting that the earth's climate is highly unstable and can
flip between warm and cold very rapidly with the right trigger.
Most such research is based on analysing cores drilled from ice or
from the sediments found at the bottom of oceans or lake beds. In such
cores the ice or sediments are found in layers whose composition shows
what the climate was like at the time they were laid down. Ice cores
drilled from the Greenland ice cap have already shown that the big
freeze of 12,800 years ago - known as the Younger Dryas mini-ice age -
happened fast but lacked the detail to pin it down precisely.
Patterson, however, obtained mud deposits from Lough Monreagh, a lake
in western Ireland, a region he says has "the best mud in the world in
scientific terms" . Patterson used a precision robotic scalpel to
scrape off layers of mud just 0.5mm thick. Each layer represented
three months of sediment deposition, so variations between them could
be used to measure changes in temperature over very short periods.
Patterson found that temperatures had plummeted, with the lake's
plants and animals rapidly dying over just a few months. The
subsequent mini-ice age lasted for 1,300 years.
What caused such a dramatic event? The most likely suspect is the
sudden emptying of Lake Agassiz, an inland sea that once covered a
swathe of northern Canada.
It is thought to have burst its banks, pouring freezing freshwater
into the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, disrupting the Gulf Stream,
whose flows depend on variations in temperature and salinity.
A single year's disruption in the Gulf Stream could have been enough,
said Patterson, to let ice grow far to the south of where it usually
formed. Once it had taken over, the Gulf Stream was unable to regain
its normal route and the cold took hold for about 1,300 years.
Some scientists have suggested that if the Greenland ice cap melts it
could have a similarly dramatic effect by disrupting the world's ocean
currents.
Other research has shown that rapid climate flips are normal. In its
4.5-billion-year history, the earth has experienced at least four
major ice ages, of which the last, the Quaternary, is still
continuing.
Within each ice age, however, there are periods when ice advances or
retreats and in the last 60,000 years alone the earth is thought to
have warmed or cooled by up to 7°C at least 20 times. The current
interglacial period has lasted about 10,000 years.
"Human civilization has grown up in a period of remarkable climatic
stability," said Tim Lenton, professor of earth system sciences at the
University of East Anglia . "In the period from 65,000 to 10,000 years
ago there were periods of abrupt warming and cooling roughly every
1,500 years, when the temperature in Greenland might fall or rise by
10°C in a decade." Patterson's findings are supported by other
research by Chris Stringer, professor of human origins at the Natural
History Museum in London.
He believes the extinction of Neanderthals roughly 30,000 years ago
was linked to a series of rapid climate fluctuations that began about
40,000 years ago. He said: "Climate is basically unstable, so one of
the mysteries is why it has stayed warm for the last 10,000 years.
"Some researchers have suggested this may be linked to activities of
early humans, who started growing crops and clearing forests 8,000
years ago. "That may have put enough greenhouse gases into the air to
stave off another ice age, but the problem now is that we have gone
too far the other way. "The amount of greenhouse gases in the air is
greater than at any time in the earth's history, so ironically, the
threat now is from global warming."
Patterson is still focusing his efforts on the past. He has built a
new robot capable of shaving tiny slivers from the shells of
fossilized clams, showing temperature almost day by day from millions
of years ago.
Sid Harth
Dead Sea may dry out completely by 2050
PTI 25 November 2009, 05:21pm IST
LONDON: With water level falling by a meter a year and no measures has
been taken yet to reverse the decline, the Dead Sea may soon shrink to
a pond or even dry out completely by 2050.
According to officials, the political strife in the Middle East has
been undermining measures to halt the decay of the world's lowest and
saltiest body of water.
"It might be confined into a small pond. It is likely to happen and
this is extremely serious. Nobody is doing anything now to save it,"
Dureid Mahasneh, a water expert in the Jordan valley, was quoted as
saying by The Telegraph.
The shoreline of the world-famous lake, a tourism destination renowned
for the beneficial effect of its minerals, has receded by more than a
kilometer and may dry out completely by 2050, said Mahasneh, who is
also a former local government head.
"Saving the Dead Sea is a regional issue, and if you take the
heritage, environmental and historical importance, or even the
geographical importance, it is an international issue," he said.
The Dead Sea, landlocked between Jordan, Israel and the West Bank, is
rapidly vanishing because water that previously flowed into the lake
is being diverted, as well as being extracted for industrial and
agricultural purposes.
Jordan has recently decided to build a $2-billion pipeline to
refilling the Dead Sea without help from Israel or the Palestinian
Authority. But, the expert said the project alone cannot address the
problem.
Sid Harth
Smaller glaciers more vulnerable to climate change: Study
PTI 24 November 2009, 05:27pm IST
NEW DELHI: Smaller Himalayan glaciers are proving much more vulnerable
to climate change than the area's larger glaciers, says a new report
contradicting the recent environment ministry backed study which
claimed that glacier melting can't be linked to global warming.
A joint team from WWF-India, a well-known conservation organisation
and Birla Institute of Technology analysed the three year data
available from the on-going research to monitor two central Himalayan
glaciers since 2006 - Gangotri and Kafni having length of 30 km and
4.2 km respectively.
The study entitled, "Witnessing Change: Glaciers in the Indian
Himalayas," says that while small glaciers are retreating fast and
some of them have even vanished.
Himalayan glaciers too are retreating but at a reduced rate and the
larger glaciers like Gangotri are unlikely to disappear in near future
due to their large mass balance.
However, the study by former deputy director general of the Geological
Survey of India V K Raina, which was recently released by Environment
Minister Jairarm Ramesh, claimed that climate change can't be cited as
a reason for melting of glaciers in the absence of conclusive
scientific evidence.
However, Ravi Singh, Secretary General of WWF India said that, "These
glaciers are perhaps more vulnerable to local climate variations.
"We see a need for more long-term and continuous assessment to monitor
the hydro-meteorological parameters existing in the vicinity in order
to better predict future water resource scenarios."
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate change trial run in Port of Spain
ANI
Port of Spain, November 27, 2009
First Published: 11:22 IST(27/11/2009)
Last Updated: 11:25 IST(27/11/2009)
Commonwealth leaders from 53 member nations, mainly former British
colonies begin their three-day summit in Port of Spain from on Friday.
Host Prime Minister Patrick Manning has said the meeting aims to send
a firm message in favor of cooperation to limit global warming ahead
of UN climate change talks due in Copenhagen on December 7-18.
"We hope to arrive at a political statement that can add value to the
process that will culminate in Copenhagen next month ... what we can
do is raise our voices politically," Manning told a news conference on
Thursday.
Manning also said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and Danish President Lars Lokke Rasmussen would join a
special discussion session on climate change to be held by the
Commonwealth leaders on Friday.
He said the Commonwealth's wide membership, bringing together wealthy
industrialized nations like Britain, Canada and Australia with some of
the world's smallest and most vulnerable states, made the group
especially "reflective of world opinion" in the climate change debate.
Although most nations are not very hopeful of a final binding legal
climate treaty text coming into effect in Copenhagen, prospects for a
broad political agreement have improved by public promises of
greenhouse gas curbs by China and the United States. President Obama
has even said that he would be attending the Copenhagen meet, giving
it a higher profile.
Meanwhile Commonwealth Secretary General Kamlesh Sharma said it would
be up to the Commonwealth leaders to decide on the effectiveness of
their fight against global warming, but he added "If I get a very
clear direction, the happier I'll be".
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that CHOGM leaders must
agree on 'a strong statement on the dangers of letting climate change
continue unchecked'.