the good news… it’s a climate change

The UN Climate Chief, Yvo de Boer, praised the United States in having a night-to-day shift in climate policy and beliefs surrounding climate change.

Speaking from Tokyo where leaders have spent a couple of days laying the ground work for the upcoming international climate change meeting in which the next version of the Kyoto Protocol will be signed, de Boer felt that the change of heart in climate policy will allow for an international agreement on emissions reductions, and the like.

This is a fantastic first step in ensuring this planet is sustainable for generations to come.

hello irena

IRENA: International Renewable Energy Agency:  the first multinational agency focused solely on spreading clean energy across the globe, officially launched this week, according to the Environmental News Network

The expectation of this group is that they will assist countries and private industries in the expansion of alternative energy installations.  “IRENA will help to remove the many obstacles which up to now have delayed the rapid expansion of renewables,” said Sigmar Gabriel, the German federal environment minister, in a conference address [PDF]. “The market is still distorted by subsidies for conventional energies, technological know-how is inadequate, information is not always correct.”

The initial conference was attended by 120 delegates from various nations, and the resulting treaty was signed by 75 countries, including Germany, Spain, United Arab Emirates and Kenya.  The United States, United Kingdom, Japan, China and Australia have yet to join, but have stated that they may still join in the future.

As was reported a month back, the United Arab Emirates is taking a stand for renewable energies and stated that it joined IRENA to provide energy expertise to the renewable energy sector and broaden support for its Masdar City project - a plan to create an entirely carbon-neutral, zero-waste city.

The increase in renewable energy installations is very positive.  In 2008 alone, about 12,000 megawatts of wind power capacity were installed, bringing the global total to 106,100 megawatts, according to the World Wind Energy Association. In addition, 9,740 megawatts of cumulative solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and at least 6,000 megawatts of geothermal energy projects have been installed, according to the Worldwatch Institute and U.N. Environment Programme, respectively.

As always, we are pleased with the increase of attention on taking action and fixing this problem, instead of arguing about is it real and where the responsibility lies.

* photo by Robert Scoble via Flickr

the fall of california

California is actually not on the top list of areas that will be affected by global warming, but it should be.  In his first public statement as Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu said that California can expect to lose all of its agriculture and many of its cities by the new century, if more is not done, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

“I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.

In his first interview he was clear in his beliefs that public education is necessary in the administrations climate change policy.  He feels that public awareness has not caught up with the beliefs held by politicians, and that it must.

And while his comments have been met with joy from environmentalists, there are still skeptics in Washington that feel he is doing a disservice.  One Senator, who sadly is on the Environment and public Works Committee, does not feel that we are in such dire straights, and thinks there is scientific data to support it.

In all honesty, we want to believe that Senator.  Because what we see points to disaster on many levels and fear the American public will not wake up in time.

know your science

 

Not sure if you have heard, but the United Kingdom just experienced one of its worst cold snaps in decades.

The question is…. does this validate or refute global warming?

Many people use the argument that global warming must not be real, because if it were we would not have such harsh winters.  But many scientists feel that these extreme weather conditions are the proof that’s in the pudding, so to speak.

“Even though this is quite a cold winter by recent standards it is still perfectly consistent with predictions for global warming,” said Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Department of Physics, University of Oxford, speaking to the Telegraph UK.

“If it wasn’t for global warming this cold snap would happen much more regularly. What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common.”

The essence of this statement is that since we have a longer period of time between extreme weather conditions, like this cold snap, it is more likely that that global temperatures are increasing.  Especially since we used to experience harsh weather more frequently. Therefore, the winter seems bad because it is unusual.  

Another explanation is that only certain areas will have harsher, colder climates due to global changes.  The Earth and its atmosphere may always be searching for balance.  As we wrote yesterday, California and other sub tropical areas are expanding, making the regions more dry and hot.  This will effect air currents and water temperatures in the surrounding areas, which have an impact on the currents and temperatures in other areas.

So, as some regions get hotter and hotter, other regions may get colder and colder.  But that doesn’t mean the global warming does not exist.  

One must also remember that there is a big distinction between climate and weather.  Climate encompasses the temperatures, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological factors in a given region over long periods of time.  And, weather is a set of all the phenomena occurring in a given atmosphere at a given time.  Climate is usually described by tracking weather over a long period of time, and is influenced by specific latitude, terrain, altitude, and currents.  

Therefore it is a fallacy to look at an individual weather occurrence and use it to define climate.  Climate scientists look at the patterns of weather and determine changes in climate.  For example, an over abundance of hurricanes becomes a pattern and changes the definition of the climate for that region.  In the case of one cold snap, it cannot be used to define a new climate if it occurs one time.

The reason we are spending the time making this distinction is because it is felt that more and more people will use this to justify that global warming is not real, and they will use single weather events as proof.  If those who understand that we are indeed undergoing a climate destabilization do not understand the facts behind how weather occurs, they will be unable to explain the truth to those who question.

in the news

 

First glimpse of greenhouse gases comes into view, via The Daily Climate

 

BOULDER, Colo. – Scientists have taken the first crack at solving a fundamental climate mystery, criss-crossing the globe in a souped-up corporate jet to determine where and when greenhouse gases enter and leave the atmosphere.

An understanding of how these climate-warming gases move about the globe is a critical prerequisite for any policy aimed at curbing global warming, scientists said Thursday. Information gained over the next three years will play a crucial role in in sharpening future predictions and improving their accuracy.

Using a high-performance jet, scientists will take a series of “slices” of the atmosphere over the next few years from the Arctic to Antarctic and from the surface to the atmosphere’s upper reaches.

The Greenhouse Effect and the Bathtub Effect, from the New York Times

That characteristic is the “bathtub effect” behind the human-amplified greenhouse effect. Dr. Sterman, a prominent analyst of risk perception and management at the Sloan School, has devised various tools akin to flight simulators to help corporate leaders understand the nature of a variety of problems and choose among various remedies. He recently turned this approach to climate, which he says bears much more resemblance to deficit spending and the national debt than it does to 20th-century-style pollution problems like acid rain.

Fish Poop Helping To Protect Ocean’s Delicate Acid Balance, via Huffington Post Green

WASHINGTON — The ocean’s delicate acid balance may be getting help from an unexpected source, fish poop. The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not only drives global warming, but also raises the amount of CO2 dissolved in ocean water, tending to make it more acid, potentially a threat to sea life.

Analysts Warn Emissions Are Growing, via New York Times

 

Planet-warming emissions from industry are on track to grow faster than previous estimates, and delaying reduction measures beyond 2010 would risk triggering dangerous levels of climate change, according to McKinsey & Company, a leading consultancy.

The findings by McKinsey, which are expected to be announced on Monday afternoon in Brussels, appear to reinforce the view of some leading scientists and economists that failing to take action now to reduce emissions could badly hobble economic growth in the future.

iron’t you glad we didn’t follow through

We have been closely following developments of  the ship that has been heading to the Antarctic to dump loads of iron into the ocean.  

About a month ago, researchers had discovered that by dumping iron into the ocean, may create an algae bloom, that would then suck up a whole bunch of carbon dioxide. Obviously, the idea of this working would be fantastic.  But many people voiced concern ranging from what it would do to the ecosystem all the way to was it even legal under international law.

Well, all of the discussion may not make much of a difference.  New evidence is emerging that the iron may not suck up as much carbon dioxide as originally hoped, according to the New Scientist.

In fact it may be 80 times less effective than originally assumed.  There are some cases in which bloom is limited because of too much iron in the water, thereby not working to trap carbon.

What this all means, at least to us, is that much more research needs to be done to determine the efficacy of such an experiment.

other ghg on the rise, more deadly

Carbon dioxide may be the least of our worries when it comes to greenhouse gases.  While it makes up over 70% of the GHG’s, it is the least harmful offender. Many studies are showing that more harmful gases are on the rise in the atmosphere, according to a report from Discover Magazine.

One such gas is Nitrogen Triflouride (NF3).  This is released in the production of microchips and flat screen televisions.  While it makes up a small percentage, by comparison, it is much more dangerous.  

This particular gas is increasingly being released by 11% each year.  It is 17,000 more times effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere and remains for 550 years.  In contrast, carbon dioxide has a half life of 20 years.

The other gas that is on the rise is methane.  This gas is released from landfills, melting glaciers and permafrost, and livestock flatulence.  More can be found about that by going to this article.

The point to reporting this is to understand and inform the public of new developments in climate science.

following in germany’s footsteps

Last week, we reported how Germany was quite revolutionary in telling its citizens to stop eating meat, unless on special occasions.  Following their lead, Britain will have meat-free menus promoted in hospitals as part of a strategy to cut global warming emissions across the National Health Service, according to the Guardian.

The biggest difference with this, however, is that it is not a single suggestion but rather, part of a nationwide plan to reduce carbon emissions in the UK Health System.

 

Last year the NHS published what it believes is the biggest public sector analysis of carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas, which showed the organisation’s emissions in 2004 were 18.6m tonnes and rising. This accounts for more than 3% of all emissions in England, and if the NHS was a country it would have been ranked as the 81st biggest polluter in the world that year, between Estonia and Bahrain.

One-fifth of the emissions were from transport, one-fifth from buildings, and the remainder from procurement, including drugs, medical equipment and food.

They have committed to a government pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.  Other proposals include reduction of water bottle use, greater sterilization and re-use of equipment, and encouragement of public transportation for visitors.

opinion: children are being hurt

I have written about this before, but it doesn’t seem to fully absorb into people’s minds.  So, I am going to use this forum to say, once again, that it is my belief that if you are not effectively and purposefully, environmentally responsible then you are contributing to the abuse of your child and the other children on this planet.

I have felt this for a long time.  I have made a point in my life to fully understand science, specifically the science and health behind global warming.  With each article I read about children’s exposure to chemicals, or increase in unnecessary diseases like diabetes and asthma, or the growing concern over food shortages or the decline of water, I make the logical conclusion that who will be most affected by these issues is our children.

I have spent much of my time on this site being polite; trying to educate and hoping that the public starts to understand the severity of climate destabilization. But that hasn’t seemed to be effective.  I used to worry about saying things controversial. I was apologetic to my friends with children when I hinted at my theories.  However, as I think about it more and more, I can’t help but think that this one is accurate.  

So, I decided to look up the legal definition:

 - Any recent act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or

 - An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

So, I ask you, do you not see how not doing everything imaginable to change how we are currently living is a form of child abuse?

The act or failure to act which results in death or serious physical harm.  

This site has spent a lot of time writing about phthalates, bisphenol-a, food shortages, water shortages, and air quality.  In many cases, especially the cases of toxic poisoning, study after study has shown the negative impact to children through premature cancers, genital deformities, male extinction, and the list goes on.  

If the result of such acts is physical harm to a child then I conclude that by using the products that contain chemicals that are known to hurt infants, you are abusing your child.

If a parent would go to jail for purposefully starving their child, then I argue by not providing your child with the best food in the present, and ensuring high quality of food in the future, you are abusing your child.

If you, as a parent, were to find out that a neighbor had done something inappropriate to your child, you would go after that neighbor with all of your force.  But, when your neighbor drives an SUV, polluting the air and creating a place where your child can’t live, you let it go by without a second glance.  You and your neighbor are negatively impacting the future of your child and that is neglect and abuse.

I can probably come up with an argument to prove in many cases that you are inflicting abuse on your child, or neighbors child, by your lifestyle.  It is quite pathetic that there is some level of acceptable abuse that we put onto the children of this world.  We have made a silent assent that convenience is more important than your child’s health.  We have made a silent assent that corporations can manipulate us into buying harmful products and that we will not hold them accountable.  We have made a silent assent that we will not demand that we, as a community, are accountable and responsible to future generations.

You are going to argue that child abuse is violent and sexual, by nature.  And, I would come back to you and ask you to read the legal definition.  Read it over and over and over again until it sinks in.  Anything you do (or fail to prevent) that causes physical harm or damage is abuse.  Being passive and ill-informed is not an valid defense.

By exposing your child to something that is toxic, causing physical harm is abuse.  By not investigating everything you bring into your home to ensure that it does not harm your child is neglect.

My hope is that I make you angry.  I don’t care if it is being angry at me, or angry at some corporation, or angry at our government or angry at yourself.  Be angry.  Anger is the place in which people tend to start doing something. I want you to get so angry that you start learning more and researching, in a way to defend your actions, because you will find that the science backs me up.   I want you to get so angry that you learn everything you can about global warming, find out that this is real, that we are in a dire position, and learn that every action you take is not inconsequential. 

I want you to get so angry that you prove me wrong, because in all honesty, I want to stop caring about your child, since you seem to not care about them.

forests are dying

 

The death rate of the most stable and resilient forests in western North America has doubled during the past few decades as the climate has warmed, according to The Daily Climate.

The study focused its research on Western states and was comprised of data from 11 scientists.  The conclusion: Western forests are becoming more susceptible to wildfire, disease and invaders such as bark beetles. Average tree size is shrinking; creatures dependent on large, old-growth trees will increasingly find themselves out of a home. 

And as conditions get worse, the trees ability to trap CO2 will get less and less, making them carbon sources instead of carbon sinks.

The study started in 1955 and track growth rates and mortality until the present.  The data showed that while death rates are increasing, birth rates are decreasing.  It also concluded that rising temperatures are the sole cause.

Unfortunately, this becomes a double edged sword: as more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are put into the air, the temperatures rise.  As the temperature rises, more trees are susceptible to death making them unlikely to absorb more CO2.  As they stop absorbing CO2, more is released into the air and the cycle starts all over again.

« Previous Page — Next Page »