| Climate Change Fraud - Global Warming Industry Meets Reality By tom@climatechangefraud.com (Jonathan DuHamel,... It seems that there really is "Mann"-made global warming. It is made of fraud, data manipulation, collusion, squelching dissent, hiding data, deleting data, and punishing scientific journals that. Climate Change Fraud - http://www.climatechangefraud.com/home |
| Washington Times: "Obama digs in on global warming" and "stolen e ... By Joe Obama digs in on global warming. President Obama's decision to attend the Copenhagen climate summit next month is an indication of how seriously he takes the fight against global warming. He could have allowed the conference to happen ... Climate Progress - http://climateprogress.org/ |
| Debunking the Great Global Warming Conspiracy Conspiracy : TreeHugger One of the strangest things about the ongoing non-controversy over the hacked climate emails is that it's revealed how irrational much of the thinking behind global warming denial really is. It's always been understood that people have ... TreeHugger - http://www.treehugger.com/ |
| Gary Herbert And Other Global Warming Deniers Crippling Ski ... By The Huffington Post News Editors The only way to tell for certain whether we are going through a drought or global warming will be in retrospect. By examining the data in the future. But from where I am sitting at the moment it certainly looks like climate change is ... The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raw_feed_index.rdf |
| Only 10% Will Survive Global Warming | Sweetness & Light By Steve MOST of the world's population will be wiped out if political leaders fail to agree a method of stopping current rates of global warming, one of the UK's most senior climate scientists has warned. Professor Kevin Anderson, director of ... Sweetness & Light - http://sweetness-light.com/ |
Global Warming
Conservation among keys to coping with water woes
The old quip in the West that whiskey's for drinkin' and water's for fightin' is a tired cliche by now but still rings true.
Only these days, there's more people with a stake in the water fight and a dwindling supply to go around.
Quenching the growing demand for water in the warming West will require a bigger push for conservation, innovative technology and a rethinking of supply and demand, Western governors and water experts said Sunday.
About 600 people gathered in Park City for the first day of the Western Governors' Association meeting.
The three-day meeting focuses on key issues that affect states throughout the West, including water use, climate change and energy. This year—with several cabinet members from the Obama administration and a record attendance—the political landscape has shifted and there's a renewed urgency for swapping ideas and working together, attendees said.
"This is kind of where it all begins," said Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, WGA's outgoing chairman,
The governors approved several resolutions Sunday, including one calling for a national policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"Global warming poses a serious threat to the Western economy, public health and environment," the resolution said.
Sunday's main discussion, which included Canadian officials and experts from the Middle East and Australia, focused on managing water amid changing climate conditions.
"As governors and premiers of the West, we're all challenged by this," said Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter.
Although many of the controversies in the West center around urbanization, natural resources and energy development, water—and often the lack of it—comes up again and again.
"Water is connected to all those things," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank based in Oakland, Calif.
Gleick, one of four panelists who spoke Sunday, said there's evidence of intensified water disputes, ecosystem collapse in some places and a population growth that's driving a sometimes-fractured water management system.
States can no longer rely on simply building more storage capacity, which can be expensive and "politically challenging," he said. The West needs to consider other supply options such as rainwater, use of treated wastewater and desalination plants, Gleick said.
Climate change—which will alter precipitation and the timing of mountain snow melt—also needs to be incorporated into all water management decisions, he said.
Ritter said the region needs to do more to protect the water that's already available.
"Conservation has to become an ethic in the West," he said.
Inevitably, though, there will be hard decisions to make about who gets water and who doesn't, said Doug Miell, an Australian water consultant and former leader of an irrigation council during some of the country's worst drought conditions.
"The bad news is there's no silver bullet," said Miell, who advocated for more information gathering and sharing among resource managers.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the incoming WGA chairman, agreed that water needs to be better measured, moved more efficiently and conserved on a larger scale.
"Those of us who are managing water in the West know how important this is," he said.
Monday's agenda includes a session about tapping the West's renewable energy potential. Scheduled speakers include Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
An afternoon session on climate change is expected to include Robert Zoellick, president of The World Bank and Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Source: mercurynews.com
Only these days, there's more people with a stake in the water fight and a dwindling supply to go around.
Quenching the growing demand for water in the warming West will require a bigger push for conservation, innovative technology and a rethinking of supply and demand, Western governors and water experts said Sunday.
About 600 people gathered in Park City for the first day of the Western Governors' Association meeting.
The three-day meeting focuses on key issues that affect states throughout the West, including water use, climate change and energy. This year—with several cabinet members from the Obama administration and a record attendance—the political landscape has shifted and there's a renewed urgency for swapping ideas and working together, attendees said.
"This is kind of where it all begins," said Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, WGA's outgoing chairman,
The governors approved several resolutions Sunday, including one calling for a national policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"Global warming poses a serious threat to the Western economy, public health and environment," the resolution said.
Sunday's main discussion, which included Canadian officials and experts from the Middle East and Australia, focused on managing water amid changing climate conditions.
"As governors and premiers of the West, we're all challenged by this," said Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter.
Although many of the controversies in the West center around urbanization, natural resources and energy development, water—and often the lack of it—comes up again and again.
"Water is connected to all those things," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank based in Oakland, Calif.
Gleick, one of four panelists who spoke Sunday, said there's evidence of intensified water disputes, ecosystem collapse in some places and a population growth that's driving a sometimes-fractured water management system.
States can no longer rely on simply building more storage capacity, which can be expensive and "politically challenging," he said. The West needs to consider other supply options such as rainwater, use of treated wastewater and desalination plants, Gleick said.
Climate change—which will alter precipitation and the timing of mountain snow melt—also needs to be incorporated into all water management decisions, he said.
Ritter said the region needs to do more to protect the water that's already available.
"Conservation has to become an ethic in the West," he said.
Inevitably, though, there will be hard decisions to make about who gets water and who doesn't, said Doug Miell, an Australian water consultant and former leader of an irrigation council during some of the country's worst drought conditions.
"The bad news is there's no silver bullet," said Miell, who advocated for more information gathering and sharing among resource managers.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the incoming WGA chairman, agreed that water needs to be better measured, moved more efficiently and conserved on a larger scale.
"Those of us who are managing water in the West know how important this is," he said.
Monday's agenda includes a session about tapping the West's renewable energy potential. Scheduled speakers include Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
An afternoon session on climate change is expected to include Robert Zoellick, president of The World Bank and Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Source: mercurynews.com
Global Warming Conference: The Science of Climate Change
The first panel at the Heartland Institute today brings together four of the world's best scientists when it comes to climate change study. The first speaker is Anthony Watts, creator of the website SufaceStations.org, "created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey data exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide." SufaceStations.org is a project that monitors the quality of data at America's 1,221 weather stations. Once a believer that manmade carbon dioxide had a significant effect on the earth's atmosphere, Watts' change of heart is largely based on the lack of credible science.
Watts is widely known in the climate change science community for visiting weather stations across the country. He found that several biases in the location of many of the temperature reading devices. Many are on unnatural surface temperatures: on cinder, asphalt, wood chips, and concrete. They lay on top or roofs or on airport runways. Other spots for stations included spots next to an incinerator, waste management facilities (where it's much warmer) and outside of an air conditioning unit right next to where the warm air is released. One station in Baltimore had readings of over 100 degrees F when no other nearby station did. That station has been shut down but the climate records remain. His conclusion is that most of the weather stations have an upwards bias of 1 degree Celsius and in many cases it's two degrees C. Check out Watts' project, SurfaceStations.org for much more.
University of Virginia professor Fred Singer is up next. His main conclusion is the science is not settled. Singer is also the president of the Science and Environmental Policy project and just published an 800 page report entitled, "Climate Change Reconsidered" that questions and debunks many of the conclusions found by the IPCC report – the report Al Gore and others use as evidence manmade carbon dioxide is a severe problem. Singer's report is one of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, mockingly suggesting the conclusions of the original IPCC report came more from politicians than climatologists.
There are too many unsolved problems when it comes to climate sensitivity and the feedback effects of water vapor and clouds. Many scientists purport natural forcings are the chief contributor to global climate change, and scientists continue to study the effects of internal oscillations and the sun's effect on climate change, which leads us to the next speaker.
Harvard astronomer Willie Soon follows Singer. Dr. Soon is known for his tireless work advocating that solar activity and not man-made emissions is the leading variable behind the earth's temperature change. He recently had the opportunity to tell Al Gore he "strongly disagreed" with his stance on global warming. He begins with a joke, suggesting that the reason he gets so hot in his car with the windows rolled up in the summertime is not from greenhouse effect but must be from the carbon dioxide he is breathing, a joke approved by the audience with laughter and applause. He then asserts that carbon dioxide is not an "air pollutant" but food for plants and marine life.
The focus of Soon's speech is removing politics from science, a large challenge. Soon argues the "magical" CO2 knob that we can turn to the right or left to control the weather and climate simply does not exist. He emphasizes that sun-induced climate change theories are making significant progress, which is largely Soon's own doing.
Soon, about 5'9" and 170 pounds uses an interesting analogy to discuss carbon dioxide's effect on the climate. He has three photos on a slide: himself eating a cheeseburger, Tom Brady, and a gorilla drinking water. Soon represents carbon dioxide, Tom Brady represents the climate and the gorilla represents the sun. His point is simple. He can eat as much meat as he wants but at the end of the day, it's the gorilla that can knock Tom Brady over, not Willie Soon. The translation: Even if carbon dioxide is increasing at a rapid rate, because the sun is such a significant contributor, the smallest amount of change will have a much more dramatic effect.
Soon asks an important question: What happens if we find out carbon dioxide is not a pollutant that has significant effects on global temperature and once we spend trillions of dollars to regulate it, it disrupts the CO2 vital for plant and marine life? He warns it could be an ecological disaster.
Rounding up the panel is Harrison Schmidt, a former NASA astronaut, one of the most recent Americans to walk on the moon, an earth scientist and a former Congressman. His talk is more political than scientific. He believes that any attempt to regulate carbon dioxide will be one of the largest losses of liberty our country has ever faced. By regulating just about everything that emits carbon dioxide, the government could force people to significantly change their behavior and reduce consumer choice in ways almost unimaginable. A good message from someone who understands both the science and the politics behind climate change.
Watts is widely known in the climate change science community for visiting weather stations across the country. He found that several biases in the location of many of the temperature reading devices. Many are on unnatural surface temperatures: on cinder, asphalt, wood chips, and concrete. They lay on top or roofs or on airport runways. Other spots for stations included spots next to an incinerator, waste management facilities (where it's much warmer) and outside of an air conditioning unit right next to where the warm air is released. One station in Baltimore had readings of over 100 degrees F when no other nearby station did. That station has been shut down but the climate records remain. His conclusion is that most of the weather stations have an upwards bias of 1 degree Celsius and in many cases it's two degrees C. Check out Watts' project, SurfaceStations.org for much more.
University of Virginia professor Fred Singer is up next. His main conclusion is the science is not settled. Singer is also the president of the Science and Environmental Policy project and just published an 800 page report entitled, "Climate Change Reconsidered" that questions and debunks many of the conclusions found by the IPCC report – the report Al Gore and others use as evidence manmade carbon dioxide is a severe problem. Singer's report is one of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, mockingly suggesting the conclusions of the original IPCC report came more from politicians than climatologists.
There are too many unsolved problems when it comes to climate sensitivity and the feedback effects of water vapor and clouds. Many scientists purport natural forcings are the chief contributor to global climate change, and scientists continue to study the effects of internal oscillations and the sun's effect on climate change, which leads us to the next speaker.
Harvard astronomer Willie Soon follows Singer. Dr. Soon is known for his tireless work advocating that solar activity and not man-made emissions is the leading variable behind the earth's temperature change. He recently had the opportunity to tell Al Gore he "strongly disagreed" with his stance on global warming. He begins with a joke, suggesting that the reason he gets so hot in his car with the windows rolled up in the summertime is not from greenhouse effect but must be from the carbon dioxide he is breathing, a joke approved by the audience with laughter and applause. He then asserts that carbon dioxide is not an "air pollutant" but food for plants and marine life.
The focus of Soon's speech is removing politics from science, a large challenge. Soon argues the "magical" CO2 knob that we can turn to the right or left to control the weather and climate simply does not exist. He emphasizes that sun-induced climate change theories are making significant progress, which is largely Soon's own doing.
Soon, about 5'9" and 170 pounds uses an interesting analogy to discuss carbon dioxide's effect on the climate. He has three photos on a slide: himself eating a cheeseburger, Tom Brady, and a gorilla drinking water. Soon represents carbon dioxide, Tom Brady represents the climate and the gorilla represents the sun. His point is simple. He can eat as much meat as he wants but at the end of the day, it's the gorilla that can knock Tom Brady over, not Willie Soon. The translation: Even if carbon dioxide is increasing at a rapid rate, because the sun is such a significant contributor, the smallest amount of change will have a much more dramatic effect.
Soon asks an important question: What happens if we find out carbon dioxide is not a pollutant that has significant effects on global temperature and once we spend trillions of dollars to regulate it, it disrupts the CO2 vital for plant and marine life? He warns it could be an ecological disaster.
Rounding up the panel is Harrison Schmidt, a former NASA astronaut, one of the most recent Americans to walk on the moon, an earth scientist and a former Congressman. His talk is more political than scientific. He believes that any attempt to regulate carbon dioxide will be one of the largest losses of liberty our country has ever faced. By regulating just about everything that emits carbon dioxide, the government could force people to significantly change their behavior and reduce consumer choice in ways almost unimaginable. A good message from someone who understands both the science and the politics behind climate change.
US House committee approves climate change bill
The oil and gas industry joined other industries that responded critically after the US House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill May 21 to address global climate change by instituting a cap-and-trade system.
The committee beat the Memorial Day holiday weekend deadline that Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) set by 1 day when it approved HR 2454 by 33 to 25 votes.
"This bill, when enacted into law this year, will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader in clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution," Waxman said following the vote.
The bill's cosponsor, Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), described the bill as "bold action to preserve good-paying jobs here in American and preserve our planet." Markey is chairman of the committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee.
Markey said he believes more was accomplished in 8 weeks toward energy independence than the US has accomplished in 8 years.
But HR 2454 immediately drew fire from leading oil and gas associations.
American Petroleum Institute Pres. Jack N. Gerard said, "While the bill has laudable environmental and economic goals, its inequitable system of allocations remains intact and, if enacted, would have a disproportionate adverse impact on consumers, businesses, and producers of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, crude oil, and natural gas."
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Pres. Charles T. Drevna said, "While this may appear, in the short term, to be a monumental political success, ultimately it represents nothing more than an abject policy failure. The whole notion of capping carbon dioxide emissions, issuing allowances disproportionately to favored industries, and hoping that the false promise of 'green jobs' could gloss over the current and real jobs that will be lost should HR 2454 become law belies the complexity of fairly balancing energy and environmental policy."
'Neither wanted nor needed'
"The role of the federal government is not to choose winners and losers in the business sector," Drevna said. "Such policies, with the back of a hand, cast aside millions of hard-working Americans with the simple message that they and their livelihoods are neither wanted nor needed. Such policies fail consumers by effectively limiting individual preference and choice for vehicle and fuel type."
Waxman delayed marking up the bill, called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, by a week so changes could be made from its original version to secure enough votes for its passage. One of the most crucial changes came when Rick Boucher (D-Va.), chairman of the committee's Communications, Technology, and the Internet Subcommittee, announced that he had reached an agreement with Waxman and Markey to preserve coal-related jobs, facilitate more coal production, and keep electricity rates affordable in his southwestern Virginia district and elsewhere where power comes from coal-fired plants.
"It is now inevitable that federal controls on greenhouse gases will be adopted," Boucher said as the bill's markup began on May 18.
"The [US] Supreme Court ended the debate on whether there would be controls when it effectively mandated 3 years ago that the [US] Environmental Protection Agency regulate greenhouse gas emissions unless the Congress regulates first," Boucher said. "Virtually all interested parties, from the coal industry and electric utilities to the environmental community, would prefer that Congress adopt the regulations rather than have them be adopted by EPA."
Chief executives of some of the biggest US power companies have said that action to address global climate change now is essential.
"I understand the arguments against action on energy and climate with concerns focused on the economy," Duke Energy Corp. Chief Executive James E. Rogers told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 19.
"However, the reality is we can't afford not to act if we hope to compete and lead," Rogers said. "The right comprehensive energy and carbon legislation can provide not only the certainty and rules of the road by which we can plan, build, and compete; it will also protect consumers, help us advance efficiency and alternative technology efforts, and all while cleaning up the environment."
'Gasoline prices above $4/gal'
The problem is that HR 2454 doesn't fit Rogers's description, oil and gas industry leaders maintained.
API's Gerard said, "As a recent independent analysis shows, this inequitable approach, by itself, will produce additional unemployment, driving annual job destruction totals related to the legislation to more than 1 million. Another independent study projects job losses more than double this: up to 2.7 million net jobs lost annually, even with new green jobs created. According to one of these reports, an average family will pay an additional $1,500/year for energy and 74% more for gasoline. Today, that would mean gasoline prices above $4/gal, an increase nearly equivalent to a ten rise in the federal gasoline tax."
The bill also would compromise the ability of US refiners to compete with overseas oil product processors, Drevna indicated.
"Imports of refined products, not simply crude, could actually increase under HR 2454, thus impeding national energy security," Drevna said. "American refiners, who already face stiff foreign competition in the fuels markets, would be severely disadvantaged with higher compliance costs under the Waxman-Markey scheme. Foreign refiners, whose facility emissions are obviously not addressed in HR 2454 and whose operating costs are much lower, would gain a distinct advantage over American businesses in the marketplace."
But the American Gas Association, which represents natural gas utilities, said the Energy and Commerce Committee took an important step when it passed the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill allocates emission allowances to local distribution companies to cover the carbon emissions of their residential, commercial, and small industrial customers, it noted. Gas utilities' residential and commercial customers would not be covered by the bill's carbon cap until 2016, it said.
In a fact sheet that it distributed following the vote, NPRA pointed out that US refiners must meet the earliest compliance mandate for fuels in 2013, while other sources would not be phased in until 2014. "Compared to other industries, domestic refiners receive a disproportionately low number of emissions allowances to meet HR 2454's requirements: just 2% to cover nearly half of the total US carbon dioxide emissions as covered in the bill," it said.
"Assuming a conservative carbon price of $26/ton with 2% of the emissions allowances, a domestic refinery with 100,000 b/d of capacity would have to spend roughly $330 million annually if it were required to purchase emissions allowances for the fuels it produced. Aggregated, these costs would total roughly $58 billion/year for the American refining community and escalate over time as the cost of the program increases," NPRA continued.
Ability to compete worldwide
The American Chemistry Council said that, while committee members made a number of positive changes in the bill, several key issues related to US energy-intensive manufacturers' ability to compete globally still need to be addressed.
"Specifically, we are very concerned that the emissions allocation provision for trade-vulnerable industries (Title VII, Section 782) treats energy-intensive industries differently from other US sectors," Cal Dooley, the group's president, said.
"The bill assigns a baseline year of 2005 for energy-intensives versus a flexible, multiyear base period for other sectors," Dooley said. "The year 2005 was a low-emission one for the chemical industry due to hurricane-related production disruptions, and the designation puts chemical makers at a disadvantage despite the significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions the industry has achieved over the past 2 decades.
"The bill also employs a different emission allowance schedule for energy-intensive industries as compared with other sectors, reducing allowances over time and unfairly depriving energy-intensive manufacturers of receiving more than 200 million allowances through 2021 at an estimated cost of more than $5 billion."
While the committee's vote on the bill largely followed party lines, not every Democrat supported it. Charlie Melancon (La.) said that he fully backed many of its aspects but still voted against it because of concerns about its potential impacts on Louisiana's energy workers and industries.
"South Louisianians want to reduce pollution in the air we breathe and the water we drink," Melancon said. "We want to slow or even reverse climate change. And we want our nation to become more energy-independent. But we must do so in a way that won't threaten our offshore oil and gas industry, an industry that has provided good-paying jobs to hundreds of thousands of workers in South Louisiana for generations."
API's Gerard said, "There is time to get this right. As the bill moves to the full House, we ask lawmakers to look at all the consequences of the bill, consider the implications on ordinary Americans at a time of economic hardship, and come up with an equitable plan that will address global climate change and improve, not weaken, our nation's energy and economic security.
Paris mayor: Time for change in urban lifestyle
"In the world's large cities, it's time to change the way we travel, consume and generate our energy," Mayor Bertrand Delanoe told colleagues and officials from 70 countries gathered at a meeting on climate change in Copenhagen (Michael von Bülow)
Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe on Tuesday urged big cities to help stop global warming by acting to change the lifestyle of urban dwellers."In the world's large cities, it's time to change the way we travel, consume and generate our energy," Delanoe told 700 mayors, local officials, and other delegates from 70 countries gathered at a three-day meeting on climate change in Copenhagen, the city that hosts the UN climate conference (COP15) in December.Delanoe welcomed several cities' efforts already under way, noting that in the Danish capital a third of the citizens get around on bikes and another third use public transport only.He also praised San Francisco for its bio-fuel program that uses recycled cooking oil, and Melbourne's rapidly developing green rail network.
17 percent renewable energy – and on the way up
The proportion of renewable energy in Denmark is to be increased to 20 percent in 2011. In 2020 the proportion is expected to be 30 percent.
In 2007 just under 17 percent of the total energy consumption in Denmark came from renewable sources of energy. The most obvious source is the many wind turbines to be seen in the Danish countryside. 30 percent of the Danish electricity supply is based on renewable energy, and wind power contributes 20 percent. The many small wind turbines that can be seen today have, however, in many ways had their day. Denmark has just under 5,300 wind turbines, but the 250 biggest supply more than 20 percent of the total wind power in Denmark. In the future we will see fewer but larger wind turbines, with many of them being located in offshore wind turbine parks, where they can produce more and are less visible.
The largest part of the Danish production of renewable energy comes, however, from the burning of biomass, including biodegradable waste. When combined with the effective exploitation of fuel in Combined Heating and Power (CHP) plants – which produce both heat and electricity from the same fuel – biomass contributes around ten percent of the total Danish energy consumption.
In February 2008 the parties in the Danish parliament entered into a broad-based agreement concerning Denmark's future energy policy. The agreement means that the proportion of renewable energy is to be increased to 20 percent in 2011. In 2020 the proportion is expected to be 30 percent – the EU target is 20 percent. (Photo: Jørgen Schytte/Scanpix)
In 2007 just under 17 percent of the total energy consumption in Denmark came from renewable sources of energy. The most obvious source is the many wind turbines to be seen in the Danish countryside. 30 percent of the Danish electricity supply is based on renewable energy, and wind power contributes 20 percent. The many small wind turbines that can be seen today have, however, in many ways had their day. Denmark has just under 5,300 wind turbines, but the 250 biggest supply more than 20 percent of the total wind power in Denmark. In the future we will see fewer but larger wind turbines, with many of them being located in offshore wind turbine parks, where they can produce more and are less visible.
The largest part of the Danish production of renewable energy comes, however, from the burning of biomass, including biodegradable waste. When combined with the effective exploitation of fuel in Combined Heating and Power (CHP) plants – which produce both heat and electricity from the same fuel – biomass contributes around ten percent of the total Danish energy consumption.
In February 2008 the parties in the Danish parliament entered into a broad-based agreement concerning Denmark's future energy policy. The agreement means that the proportion of renewable energy is to be increased to 20 percent in 2011. In 2020 the proportion is expected to be 30 percent – the EU target is 20 percent. (Photo: Jørgen Schytte/Scanpix)
A working laboratory for energy technologies
Energy efficiency in Denmark has been created by a range of new technologies, and today, this can serve as an example of how one can create a high level of growth without a corresponding increase in greenhouse gas emissions. (Ministry of Climate and Energy of Denmark)
Maybe number eight does not sound like all that much, but there are reasons to look more closely at the Danish example. A top placement among the world's most energy-efficient and climate-friendly economies has been achieved despite the fact that Denmark does not have any hydroelectric power resources worth mentioning, nor the large forest areas that typically form the basis for a large part of a country's production of renewable energy. Neither does Denmark use nuclear power, which is a large source of CO2-free energy in other countries in the same group.Energy efficiency in Denmark has been created by a range of new technologies and solutions, and this can today serve as an example of how one can create a high level of growth without a corresponding increase in energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions.
The means to achieve this has partly been a strong political focus on energy policy. Denmark was one of the first countries to set out detailed plans for developing the energy sector back in the 1970s. Added to this has been the strong commitment of the Danish business sector to developing – and using – energy-efficient solutions. The windmill industry is the best-known example of this, but there is much more. A common-sense approach to energy-efficient measures such as insulating houses and cost savings in production has gone hand in hand with high-tech solutions for the whole society. For example there is an electricity supply system that can handle the fact that windmills supply, in periods, more than 100 per cent of the energy required, and in other periods supply nothing at all. And it can do this in a competitive manner.
The last factor is the strong focus on energy saving and a secure energy supply, which has been the case since the oil crises in the 1970s. In 1985 the Danish parliament (Folketinget) rejected nuclear power and opted to focus on new, sustainable sources of energy. Denmark in 2009 is in many ways a dynamic, working laboratory for the meeting of new energy technologies and old common sense in its relationship with nature. (Photo: Eva Rosenqvist/Scanpix)
What consequences can we expect, and what can we do?
Many of the effects of global warming have been well-documented. It is the precise extent that is difficult to predict.,
Predicting the consequences of global warming is one of the really difficult tasks for the world's climate researchers. First, because the natural processes that cause precipitation, storms, increases in sea level and other expected effects of global warming are dependent on many different factors. Second, because it is difficult to predict the size of the emissions of greenhouse gases in the coming decades, as this is determined to a great extent by political decisions and technological breakthroughs.
Many of the effects of global warming have been well-documented, and observations from real life are very much consistent with earlier predictions. It is the precise extent that is difficult to predict. Among the effects that can be predicted are:
More drought and more flooding:
When the weather gets warmer, evaporation from both land and sea increases. This can cause drought in areas of the world where the increased evaporation is not compensated for by more precipitation. The extra water vapour in the atmosphere has to fall again as extra precipitation, which can cause flooding other places in the world.
Less ice and snow:
Glaciers the world over are shrinking rapidly at present. The trend is for the ice to melt faster than estimated in the IPCC's latest report. In areas that are dependent on melt water from mountain areas, this can cause drought and a lack of drinking water. According to the IPCC, up to a sixth of the world's population lives in areas that will be affected by this.
More extreme weather incidents:
The warmer climate will most probably cause more heatwaves, more cases of violent rainfall and also possibly an increase in the number and/or severity of storms.
Rising sea level:
The sea level rises for two reasons. Partly because of the melting ice and snow, and partly because of the thermic expansion of the sea. Thermic expansion takes a long time, but even an increase in temperature of two degrees celsius is expected in time to cause a rise in the water level of almost a metre.
In order to get an idea of the extent of the consequences, researchers typically work with scenarios that show various possible developments. (Photo: Scanpix/Reuters)
Global warming as the worst science fiction
The evil that ABC did in broadcasting Earth 2100 will live on long after them. By presenting a fictional account of future global warming, they will make it far more difficult to do what we do need to do to combat global warming.
The greenhouse effect is real. CO2 does push up temperatures. Global warming has been occurring since about 1880 (although it has taken a breather lately, with no warming since 2002). But when ABC paints a scary picture of temperatures rising six degrees by 2070 and sea level rises of 3-7 meters, it is about as real as Battlefield Earth. In fact, last night's show would have been improved by John Travolta...
Scientists now think that global warming is going on holiday, perhapsfor as long as 30 years. It will come back, they say, and we still need to act to minimize it, mitigate its effects and adapt to its consequences. But when people realise (as they are realising now) that temperatures are not going to climb every year, they are not going to remember what sober scientists say. They are going to think of Earth 2100 and other scare stories about catastrophe, and realise that they were lies. They will then completely tune out science and it will be impossible to even do the sensible things we can and should do.
Earth 2100 predicts a temperature rise of 6 degrees Celsius by 2070. The UN's IPCC predicts between 2 and 4 degrees by 2100. Earth 2100 predicts sea level rise of 3 to 7 meters by 2070. The IPCC predicts about 1 and a half feet by 2100. "The new report says rises could range from 18 cm to 59 cm." Earth 2100 predicts melting of the Greenland ice cover. The IPCC says that they don't think that will happen, but if it does it will take over three thousand years.
The real crime is that the second half of the show, which shows how we can avert the worst of climate change, is quite good. But ABC made it less possible that we will reach the consensus we need to bring this more hopeful scenario to pass. I love science fiction--but not when it's presented as fact. When the public turns its back on climate change, as is already beginning to happen, Earth 2100 will bear its share of responsibility. To see what scientists are really thinking, and how FEMA is preparing to deal with climate change, click here for our follow-up story.
Scientists and FEMA prepare for the effects of global warming (Earth 2100 the reality)
I know a man. He does not wish to be named, but he worked for years at a national scientific government agency involved with both weather and climate--one of those agencies that don't make a nice acronym.
He worked with a lot of climate scientists, many of whose names we would recognise. This man has offered to share the concerns they have repeatedly expressed in private conversations. It should go without saying that, since I am not at liberty to divulge his identity, that I trust this man and what he tells me.
Scientists are staying up nights worrying about global warming Anyone who watched Earth 2100 last night will recognise some of what follows—these are essentially the sources used or referred to in the making of that program.
"I talked with two widely-known senior current publishing climate scientists at different times in different places within the last year. Both are from different national scientific parent organizations funded by the United States government. I have known both for many years. After I shared my concerns with them about the slow actions currently being taken on climate change, both responded with their own personal, private fears.
Both stated that they personally felt that unless we humans take much stronger action than we are now doing to curb atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions that they fear that fast-moving climate change effects (that we are seeing now) could result in social and economic disintegration in the United States resulting in martial law within our lifetimes. Both were concerned about the desertification of the American Southwest and the current probable continued moving of storm tracks out of the United States toward the poles. They both mentioned semi-permanent high pressure areas moving into the drying areas. Both were concerned about rapidly rising sea levels that could eventually result in US coastal city evacuations such as New York and Washington DC. Another concern of both was hundreds of millions of climate refugees flooding the US from recently uninhabitable areas from fire, rising sea levels and desertification south and east of us. Both stated that they personally thought that there was just barely time left to act. Both also mentioned the changing chemistry in the oceans (known more publicly as "ocean acidification" as carbon dioxide enters the oceans and turns into carbonic acid). This can result in weakening the base of the oceanic food chain, plankton and corals. Yet another concern was a possible billion or more people "mass dying " in Africa from climate-change induced drought resulting in world-wide epidemics hitting the United States. All these events or some of them together combined with a hurricane (hurricanes) like Katrina could overwhelm the United States infrastructure resulting in never-before seen conditions in the United States.
During discussions, recent refereed published scientific studies stating urgency were referred to: Solomon et al. PNAS, 2009. ,Allen et. al., Nature 2009. Meinshausen et al., Nature, 2009. Hansen J, et al.,Proc. Natl. Acad.,2007. Ramanathan, Feng,Proc Natl Acad Sci., 2008. Schellnhuber, Proc Natl Acad Sci., 2009. "Time to act", Nature,2009. Monastersky et al., Nature, 2009. Parry et al. Nature, 2009. Washington et al.,Geophys. Res. Lett., 2009. Schneider, Nature, 2009. Patz et al., Nature, 2009. Romm, Nature, 2008. Sokolov, Prinn, et al., Journal of Climate, 2009.
One scientist mentioned that there was in their opinion a measurable chance that because of melting permafrost concerns, we could go far above the highest IPCC warming projections. They said that you take out insurance on much lower risks then that.
I also met with two hydrologists from a national government agency at different times and different places over the years. Both personally stated to me their personal fears of possible mass future population evacuations out of the American Southwest due to low-water conditions caused by climate change unless sharp action was taken to immediately reduce human carbon dioxide emissions. Both also thought that time just barely remained to take action.
None of the above mentioned scientists is either Stephen Schneider or James Hansen. None of the above, including, James Hansen to the best of my knowledge has or would ever mention publicly their personal fears of global warming-induced martial law in the United States. These are the private fears of some of the most-experienced publishing senior climate change scientists in the United States. Again, all the above privately expressed their opinions that there is just barely time left to act."
FEMA is preparing for the worst
It's not just scientists talking among themselves about worst-case scenarios. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been speaking about it for a long time. Here are excerpts from "How can emergency managers address our warming climate? Relying on the basics – an essay " By Bob Freitag, Director of the Institute for Hazards Mitigation Planning and Research.
"What is the risk? To determine risk we'll need a definition that will work for climate change and there are definitions. Let's use the one at the root of our emergency management profession. One that was developed during WWI and that I used in the 1970s while working with the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA), in a program we called the "Hazard Identification Capability Assessment/Multi-Year Development Plan or HICAMYDP (which we pronounced "Hic-a-ma-dip"). Here risk is a function of the hazard (the science of change), vulnerability (impact, consequence) and capabilities (available tools and approaches).
Beginning with the hazard, we need to address global warming for what it is, a unique hazard and not within the context of other hazards and certainly as a secondary hazard to flooding, coastal hazards, landslides. In Alaska, the State Department of Homeland Security references "Permafrost Hazards". This euphemism is counter productive and not only masks the problem but clouds the search for risk reduction measures. It points your risk analysis in the wrong direction.
Looking at global warming within the context of flooding, for instance, will mask such secondary hazards as drought. In the Northwest the Cascade Mountains are not very high and global warming is melting the few remaining glaciers, reducing snow fall and snow accumulation. These impacts are increasing winter discharges and reducing summer flows. With our well drained soils, the lack of summer moisture may be our most significant consequence of climate change.
We can reduce risk by addressing the hazard of climate change and as emergency managers we need to support the reduction of greenhouse gases, and in the case of the Northwest support approaches that keep water in the watershed longer such as forests, wet gardens, wetlands….
However, as emergency managers, we are not scientists or engineers and our experience lies more in reducing vulnerabilities than in altering the characteristics of the hazard. We have extensive experience in reducing the consequences of hazards. We have bought flood prone homes, reduced the number of unreinforced masonry structures and isolated hazardous wastes. We emergency managers can similarly help our communities live with this new change.
The Four Phases of Emergency Management -Mitigate and where you cannot mitigate prepare, respond and recover. There are four phases of emergency management and there are risk reduction opportunities in each.
On December 26th 2004, the most damaging recorded Tsunami decimated the coast lines of many Indian Ocean countries. Thousands of structures were destroyed. We are emergency managers and as emergency managers we saw this disaster through our unique lenses and recognized opportunities to mitigate and rebuild on higher ground not only to address future tsunamis but also to address a secondary hazard of global warming – sea level rise.
Exercises We have the capabilities to reduce risk, maybe not by addressing the change agency, but by focusing on identifying and reducing the adverse impacts. Since we became a profession, we have relied on exercises to develop and test approaches, and to raise difficult questions. To begin your risk reduction process; consider inviting your local university to develop a climate change scenario for your community. Invite community stakeholders and run a table top exercise. The objective of the exercise might be for stakeholders to identify adverse impacts and mitigation measures. Depending on our exercise objectives, we usually phase exercises around the event, such as the day before the event (testing preparedness), the day of the event (testing response objectives, and after the event (recovery).
However with global warming the event has begun so you might phase the exercise in 15 year increments and have your university scientists phase their scenario accordingly. You might post the after-action report on a Community sponsored web site. And solicit comments.
In closing, Climate change does not need to be a political football. The evidence is all-around us and we have the capabilities, expertise and experience to reduce this risk.
And, funding may be available. A good argument could be made to use FEMA pre-disaster Mitigation Funds, or even DHS Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants to fund Climate change driven exercises. And if you don't see a connection between national security and climate change read National Security at the Threat of Climate Change (SecurityAndClimate.cna.org)"
Japanese public wants strong action
As the Japanese government is about to choose between various carbon scenarios, a poll shows a clear majority for the option most protective of the world's climate.
A survey commissioned by the global conservation organization WWF and other international organizations shows a clear support in the Japanese public for strong action against climate change. By mid-June, the government is due to pick one of six policy scenarios for 2020, ranging from a four percent rise in carbon dioxide emission above a 1990 baseline to a 25 percent cut.
According to the survey, 63 percent of the voters favor the 25 percent reduction scenario.
"The world is watching Japan. The public do want strong targets," comments Masako Konishi of WWF.
The survey also asked whether the respondents believed strong emission targets would strengthen or worsen the country's economy. 61 percent felt strong targets would help the economy.
The respondent group included 976 people. The survey was carried out by US-based Greenberg Quinlan Rosner in May this year. (Photo: Scanpix/AFP)
COP15 – the crucial conference
The ambition of the Danish government is that the COP15 conference in Copenhagen will result in an ambitious global agreement incorporating all the countries of the world.
Ministry of Climate and Energy of Denmark
At the time of the adoption of the Bali Action Plan, the Danish, Polish and Indonesian governments agreed to strive to ensure that the COP15 conference in Copenhagen in 2009 would be absolutely crucial for the work of the next many years towards a better climate. The background to this decision was partly the increased focus on quick action in the latest report from the IPCC. It was also partly an acknowledgement of the fact that 2009 represents more or less the last chance to achieve an agreement, if this agreement is to be approved and ratified in time for it to come into force after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
The UNFCCC’s history shows that countries can quickly move forward together, but also that they risk coming to a standstill because of internal disagreement. The ambition of the Danish government is that the COP15 conference in Copenhagen will result in an ambitious global agreement incorporating all the countries of the world.
Developments in the world since the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 show that a new agreement is needed. China has replaced the USA as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and the price of oil has soared. This is a reminder of the fact that fossil fuels do not merely pollute; they are also a source of energy whose reserves are constantly being reduced. The aim of the Danish government is to achieve an agreement that both reduces the total quantity of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and is supported by as many countries as possible. (Photo: Scanpix/AFP)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)