A mechanism suggested for tackling climate change and warming has been the idea of using "Carbon Sinks" to soak up carbon dioxide. To aid in this, reforestation, or planting of new forests, have been suggested. This is a popular strategy for the logging industry and nations with large forests interests, such as Canada, the United States, various Latin American nations, and some Asian countries such as Indonesia.
While there may be some potential in this solution, it cannot be effective on its own. This is because it legitimizes continued destruction of old-growth and pristine forests which are rich ecosystem and have an established biodiversity base (albeit shrinking now) that naturally maintain the environment (at no cost!). Creating new forest areas would require the creation of entire ecosystems. It is also criticized for being a quick fix that doesn't tackle the root causes effectively and doesn't lead to, or promote actual emissions reduction.
"This may lead to a new form of colonialism. Forest-planting in Uganda and other poor countries must, firstly, aim to meet the needs of the country and the local people, not the needs of the 'international community.' If this can be combined, it's OK, but experience from similar initiatives show that local interests, local needs, and traditional land rights are easily pushed aside, and that land conflicts arise when outside commercial interests enter."
— Trygve Refsdal, advisor to the Ugandan forest authorities, quoted by Harald Eraker, CO2lonialism; Norwegian Tree Plantations, Carbon Credits and Land Conflicts in Uganda, NorWatch, April 2000
Environmentalists and others point out that the use of carbon sinks is a big loophole in the Kytoto Protocol; that if carbon sinks can be counted towards emissions reductions credit, then industrialized countries would be able to meet their commitments while reducing emissions by less than would otherwise be required. Because they are carbon sinks, it means that when forests burn or as vegetation naturally dies, they release more carbon too (because it is stored carbon). As the climate changes, it is possible that there may be more forest fires etc, releasing more carbon. (And then these sinks would become sources!)
Well managed soil can also soak up carbon emissions but this too has problems to do with land rights, local participation, measuring carbon content etc.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Effects of over-deforestation
Forests can provide a natural barrier to disasters such as over-flowing rivers. In China, authorities have admitted that excessive felling could have led to the worst case of flooding seen there in 1998. This has resulted in a ban on logging in eastern Tibet and an emphasis placed on re-forestation. Bangladesh has seen similar loss of forests and resulting floods too, for example.
The huge forest fires in the Amazon earlier in March, 1998 had already added a lot of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere, months before the "burning season".
The massive fires in Indonesia that caused enormous pollution and breathing-related illnesses even as far away as Singapore in 1998 and had still been causing problems at least into the middle of 1999. In East Kalimantan (formerly Borneo) the Dayak people who have had to endure these burning forests, believed to be started by large timber businesses, have seen an ecological disaster that has led to starvation and deaths, as reported by a documentary on the politics involved that were related to the environmental issues in that region. This shorter report from the International Development Research Center in Canada has some additional information as well.
Forests are vital parts of many ecosystems. Ensuring a healthy ecosystem that includes forests also means sustainable preservation of other species that dwell in forests. As part of a living system, forests rely on these various species, and the various species rely on forests. For more about the importance of such biodiversity, go to this web site's section on Biodiversity.
The huge forest fires in the Amazon earlier in March, 1998 had already added a lot of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere, months before the "burning season".
The massive fires in Indonesia that caused enormous pollution and breathing-related illnesses even as far away as Singapore in 1998 and had still been causing problems at least into the middle of 1999. In East Kalimantan (formerly Borneo) the Dayak people who have had to endure these burning forests, believed to be started by large timber businesses, have seen an ecological disaster that has led to starvation and deaths, as reported by a documentary on the politics involved that were related to the environmental issues in that region. This shorter report from the International Development Research Center in Canada has some additional information as well.
Forests are vital parts of many ecosystems. Ensuring a healthy ecosystem that includes forests also means sustainable preservation of other species that dwell in forests. As part of a living system, forests rely on these various species, and the various species rely on forests. For more about the importance of such biodiversity, go to this web site's section on Biodiversity.
Carbon Sinks, Forests and Climate Change
Eighty percent of the forests that originally covered the earth have been cleared, fragmented, or otherwise degraded.
— Forest Frontier Regions, World Resources Institute
Over the past 150 years, deforestation has contributed an estimated 30 percent of the atmospheric build-up of CO2. It is also a significant driving force behind the loss of genes, species, and critical ecosystem services. However, in the international policy arena, biodiversity loss and climate change have often moved in wholly unconnected domains.
— Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests, World Resources Institute, 1998
The world's forests and oceans are natural regulators of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere -- which is a greenhouse gas. While forests are regarded as sinks, meaning they absord carbon dioxide, it is hard to rely on forests to soak up increasing pollution, while forests are increasingly being cut down!
— Forest Frontier Regions, World Resources Institute
Over the past 150 years, deforestation has contributed an estimated 30 percent of the atmospheric build-up of CO2. It is also a significant driving force behind the loss of genes, species, and critical ecosystem services. However, in the international policy arena, biodiversity loss and climate change have often moved in wholly unconnected domains.
— Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests, World Resources Institute, 1998
The world's forests and oceans are natural regulators of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere -- which is a greenhouse gas. While forests are regarded as sinks, meaning they absord carbon dioxide, it is hard to rely on forests to soak up increasing pollution, while forests are increasingly being cut down!
Population and Climate Change
A “Malthusian” theory about the relationship between population growth and the environment suggests that as populations grow, they will strip their resources leading to famine, hunger and environmental degradation.
As detailed further in this site’s section on population, that is an oversimplification and has largely shown not to be true. Instead, it has been factors such as politics and economics (i.e. how we use our resources and for what purpose) that has determined environmental degradation or sustainability.
For example, the world’s wealthiest 20% (i.e. the rich countries) consume approximately 80% of the world’s resources, while the rest of humanity shares the other 20% of resource consumed, as noted in the consumption section of this web site.
In regards to climate change, countries with large populations such as China and India have not been the countries contributing greenhouse gases for the decades that has been required to trigger climate change, as noted further above.
While in total amounts their emissions might be high (China is second largest emitter after the United States, for example), per person, their emissions are significantly smaller as noted earlier.
The atmosphere of course doesn’t “care” so to speak, but from the perspective of international relations, this is important: As stated above, penalizing developing countries for the problem mostly caused by the rich countries is not seen as fair by the developing world and so they will understandably resist demands by Bush, Blair and others to meet the same types of targets as industrialized nations.
An additional concern however, is that as countries such as China, India and Brazil grow in prosperity, there will be large populations with purchasing power, consuming more goods and services, thus making more demands on the planet.
Indeed, many environmentalists have constantly noted that if such countries were to follow the style of development that the rich countries used and emulate them, then our planet may not be able to cope much longer.
Yet, as also noted in this site’s population section, researchers have found that depending on what variables you factor in, the planet can support an extremely large population, or an extremely small one. These ranges are ridiculously wide: from 2 billion to 147 billion people! Why such variance? It depends on how efficiently resources are used and for what purpose (i.e. economics).
There are concerns, however, that many developing countries are pursuing the same path to development that the current industrialized countries have, which involved many environmentally damaging practices. Ironically much of the advise and encouragement to follow this path comes from the western economic schools of thought. There is therefore an urgent need to focus on cleaner technologies and an alternative path to a more sustainable form of development.
Journalist Diplip Hiro captures this quite well, when interviewed by Amy Goodman for the radio/TV broadcast of the Democracy Now! show:
2 out of 5 human beings are Indians and Chinese … 2.4 billion people. Last year, China’s oil consumption went up by 15%. That means they’re doubling oil consumption every five years, quadrupling it every ten years. And … India … 8%.
… In the USA, there are 800 vehicles … for 1,000 American men, women and children. In India, there are 8 vehicles for 1,000 Indians, men, women and children. Now, suppose India progresses economically, and you change that figure from 8 to 18 or 80, can you imagine how much oil will be required? And that is something which one has to face up to.
… And at that time [that oil peaks in production and starts its decline, in] India and China, the demand will rise. So what will happen? The price of oil will go up to … $200 a barrel.
And, you see … the internal combustion engine, can be fueled by natural gas, by hydrogen cells and by solar panels. And that’s already happening. You know, Toyota actually has hundreds of cars running on hydrogen cells. They have supplies of them in Tokyo. And I would say in ten to fifteen years time, a high proportion of cars will be run by fuel other than petroleum product. And that is the only way we can actually save ourselves from a catastrophe, which will come if we go on the present path.
— Blood of the Earth: Dilip Hiro on the Battle for the World’s Vanishing Oil Resources, Democracy Now!, January 31, 2007
So, as Dilip Hiro has noted, the high populations of China and India may present a problem, but it is through the conscious decision on how to use resources that will be important to address these problems.
Researchers and commentators will often comment that “if we follow the present course” then there will be disaster ahead. To some extent there are already problems through global warming due to the slow response. Yet, rarely throughout history has the use of a resource remained constant. Many economists remind us that over time, more efficient and innovative ways emerge, so in there lies the hope that the present course will not be maintained. While some are overly optimistic that all the world’s problems will be solved because humanity always figures out an answer, many are usually wise to be cautious, given our violent histories.
Technology investment into alternatives is therefore also important. President Bush’s State of the Union address in January 2007 called for cleaner (or at least more efficient) fuel use, implying that technology and consumption patterns have a bearing on environmental issues.
The private sector as well as public has slowly been pouring more money into this, though many argue that far more could still be done, and that these alternative energy industries have not been given the kind of boost and support that the fossil fuel industry had. Hardly a month goes by without some news item of technology companies researching more efficient and innovative energy sources, or of large companies and local governments attempting some sort of initiative to cut down on wasteful energy consumption.
Interestingly, many developing countries, including China and Brazil in particular, have been making progress towards cleaner and more efficient technologies, resulting in many countries being able to reduce their emissions to some extent, as also detailed further in this site’s climate justice and equity section. As the “common but differentiated responsibilities” principles recognize, it will clearly be in the interests of developing countries to continue do these things (and more) as they face enormous consequences from climate change if they do not.
The economic, political and technology choices thus have a more important bearing on climate change than “over population.”
As detailed further in this site’s section on population, that is an oversimplification and has largely shown not to be true. Instead, it has been factors such as politics and economics (i.e. how we use our resources and for what purpose) that has determined environmental degradation or sustainability.
For example, the world’s wealthiest 20% (i.e. the rich countries) consume approximately 80% of the world’s resources, while the rest of humanity shares the other 20% of resource consumed, as noted in the consumption section of this web site.
In regards to climate change, countries with large populations such as China and India have not been the countries contributing greenhouse gases for the decades that has been required to trigger climate change, as noted further above.
While in total amounts their emissions might be high (China is second largest emitter after the United States, for example), per person, their emissions are significantly smaller as noted earlier.
The atmosphere of course doesn’t “care” so to speak, but from the perspective of international relations, this is important: As stated above, penalizing developing countries for the problem mostly caused by the rich countries is not seen as fair by the developing world and so they will understandably resist demands by Bush, Blair and others to meet the same types of targets as industrialized nations.
An additional concern however, is that as countries such as China, India and Brazil grow in prosperity, there will be large populations with purchasing power, consuming more goods and services, thus making more demands on the planet.
Indeed, many environmentalists have constantly noted that if such countries were to follow the style of development that the rich countries used and emulate them, then our planet may not be able to cope much longer.
Yet, as also noted in this site’s population section, researchers have found that depending on what variables you factor in, the planet can support an extremely large population, or an extremely small one. These ranges are ridiculously wide: from 2 billion to 147 billion people! Why such variance? It depends on how efficiently resources are used and for what purpose (i.e. economics).
There are concerns, however, that many developing countries are pursuing the same path to development that the current industrialized countries have, which involved many environmentally damaging practices. Ironically much of the advise and encouragement to follow this path comes from the western economic schools of thought. There is therefore an urgent need to focus on cleaner technologies and an alternative path to a more sustainable form of development.
Journalist Diplip Hiro captures this quite well, when interviewed by Amy Goodman for the radio/TV broadcast of the Democracy Now! show:
2 out of 5 human beings are Indians and Chinese … 2.4 billion people. Last year, China’s oil consumption went up by 15%. That means they’re doubling oil consumption every five years, quadrupling it every ten years. And … India … 8%.
… In the USA, there are 800 vehicles … for 1,000 American men, women and children. In India, there are 8 vehicles for 1,000 Indians, men, women and children. Now, suppose India progresses economically, and you change that figure from 8 to 18 or 80, can you imagine how much oil will be required? And that is something which one has to face up to.
… And at that time [that oil peaks in production and starts its decline, in] India and China, the demand will rise. So what will happen? The price of oil will go up to … $200 a barrel.
And, you see … the internal combustion engine, can be fueled by natural gas, by hydrogen cells and by solar panels. And that’s already happening. You know, Toyota actually has hundreds of cars running on hydrogen cells. They have supplies of them in Tokyo. And I would say in ten to fifteen years time, a high proportion of cars will be run by fuel other than petroleum product. And that is the only way we can actually save ourselves from a catastrophe, which will come if we go on the present path.
— Blood of the Earth: Dilip Hiro on the Battle for the World’s Vanishing Oil Resources, Democracy Now!, January 31, 2007
So, as Dilip Hiro has noted, the high populations of China and India may present a problem, but it is through the conscious decision on how to use resources that will be important to address these problems.
Researchers and commentators will often comment that “if we follow the present course” then there will be disaster ahead. To some extent there are already problems through global warming due to the slow response. Yet, rarely throughout history has the use of a resource remained constant. Many economists remind us that over time, more efficient and innovative ways emerge, so in there lies the hope that the present course will not be maintained. While some are overly optimistic that all the world’s problems will be solved because humanity always figures out an answer, many are usually wise to be cautious, given our violent histories.
Technology investment into alternatives is therefore also important. President Bush’s State of the Union address in January 2007 called for cleaner (or at least more efficient) fuel use, implying that technology and consumption patterns have a bearing on environmental issues.
The private sector as well as public has slowly been pouring more money into this, though many argue that far more could still be done, and that these alternative energy industries have not been given the kind of boost and support that the fossil fuel industry had. Hardly a month goes by without some news item of technology companies researching more efficient and innovative energy sources, or of large companies and local governments attempting some sort of initiative to cut down on wasteful energy consumption.
Interestingly, many developing countries, including China and Brazil in particular, have been making progress towards cleaner and more efficient technologies, resulting in many countries being able to reduce their emissions to some extent, as also detailed further in this site’s climate justice and equity section. As the “common but differentiated responsibilities” principles recognize, it will clearly be in the interests of developing countries to continue do these things (and more) as they face enormous consequences from climate change if they do not.
The economic, political and technology choices thus have a more important bearing on climate change than “over population.”
Warming happening more quickly than predicted
While those denying climate change are reducing in number and there appears to be more effort to try and tackle the problem, climate scientists are now fearing that climate change is happening far faster and is having much larger impacts than they ever imagined.
The Arctic plays an incredibly important role in the balance of the earth’s climate. Rapid changes to it can have knock-on effects to the rest of the planet. Some have described the Arctic as the canary in the coal mine, referring to how canary birds used to be taken deep down coal mines. If they died, it implied oxygen levels were low and signaled mine workers to get out.
that despite computer climate models predicting loss of Arctic sea ice by 2050 to 2080, some scientists fear it could be as soon as 2015. The BBC notes similar concerns by scientists, with one quoted as saying the sea ice is “so thin that you would have to have an exceptional sequence of cold winters and cold summers in order for it to rebuild.”
Another BBC article reports scientists now have unambiguous evidence that the warming in the Arctic is accelerating.
The Arctic reflects much sunlight back into space helping keep earth temperate. More melting will result in less reflection and even more heat being absorbed by the earth. A chain reaction could result, such as the Greenland ice sheet melting (which will actually increase sea levels, whereas the melting of Arctic ice will not because it is sea ice), possibly increasing the melting of permafrost in Siberia, which will release huge amounts of methane (as noted above), and rapidly change climate patterns, circulation patterns and jet streams, far quicker than what most of the environment could adapt to easily.
Older members of the indigenous Inuit people describe how weather patterns have shifted and changed in recent years, while they also face challenges to their way of life in the form of increased commercial interest in the arctic region.
For decades, scientists and environmentalists have warned that the way we are using Earth’s resources is not sustainable. Alternative technologies have been called for repeatedly, seemingly upon deaf ears (or, cynically, upon those who don’t want to make substantial changes as it challenges their bottom line and takes away from their current profits).
In the past, some companies and industries have pushed back on environmental programs in order to increase profits or to survive in a tough business world.
It has perhaps taken about a decade or so — and a severe enough global financial crisis that has hit the heart of this way of thinking — to change this mentality (in which time, more greenhouse gases have been emitted — inefficiently). Is that too late or will it be okay?
Economists talk of the price signal that is fundamental to capitalism; the ability for prices to indicate when a resource is becoming scarcer. At such a time, capitalism and the markets will mobilize automatically to address this by looking for ways to bring down costs. As a result, resources are supposedly infinite. For example, if energy costs go up, businesses will look for a way to minimize such costs for themselves, and it is in such a time that alternatives come about and/or existing resources last longer because they are used more efficiently. “Running out of resources” should therefore be averted.
However, it has long been argued that prices don’t truly reflect the full cost of things, so either the signal is incorrect, or comes too late. The price signal also implies the poorest often pay the heaviest costs. For example, commercially over-fishing a region may mean fish from that area becomes harder to catch and more expensive, possibly allowing that ecosystem time to recover (though that is not guaranteed, either). However, while commercial entities can exploit resources elsewhere, local fishermen will go out of business and the poorer will likely go hungry (as also detailed on this site’s section on biodiversity). This then has an impact on various local social, political and economic issues.
In addition to that, other related measurements, such as GNP are therefore flawed, and even reward unproductive or inefficient behavior (e.g. “Efficiently” producing unhealthy food — and the unhealthy consumer culture to go with it — may profit the food industry and a private health sector that has to deal with it, all of which require more use of resources. More examples are discussed on this site’s section on consumption and consumerism).
Our continued inefficient pumping of greenhouse gases into the environment without factoring the enormous cost as the climate already begins to change is perhaps an example where price signals may come too late, or at a time when there is already significant impact to many people. Resources that could be available more indefinitely, become finite because of our inability or unwillingness to change.
The Arctic plays an incredibly important role in the balance of the earth’s climate. Rapid changes to it can have knock-on effects to the rest of the planet. Some have described the Arctic as the canary in the coal mine, referring to how canary birds used to be taken deep down coal mines. If they died, it implied oxygen levels were low and signaled mine workers to get out.
that despite computer climate models predicting loss of Arctic sea ice by 2050 to 2080, some scientists fear it could be as soon as 2015. The BBC notes similar concerns by scientists, with one quoted as saying the sea ice is “so thin that you would have to have an exceptional sequence of cold winters and cold summers in order for it to rebuild.”
Another BBC article reports scientists now have unambiguous evidence that the warming in the Arctic is accelerating.
The Arctic reflects much sunlight back into space helping keep earth temperate. More melting will result in less reflection and even more heat being absorbed by the earth. A chain reaction could result, such as the Greenland ice sheet melting (which will actually increase sea levels, whereas the melting of Arctic ice will not because it is sea ice), possibly increasing the melting of permafrost in Siberia, which will release huge amounts of methane (as noted above), and rapidly change climate patterns, circulation patterns and jet streams, far quicker than what most of the environment could adapt to easily.
Older members of the indigenous Inuit people describe how weather patterns have shifted and changed in recent years, while they also face challenges to their way of life in the form of increased commercial interest in the arctic region.
For decades, scientists and environmentalists have warned that the way we are using Earth’s resources is not sustainable. Alternative technologies have been called for repeatedly, seemingly upon deaf ears (or, cynically, upon those who don’t want to make substantial changes as it challenges their bottom line and takes away from their current profits).
In the past, some companies and industries have pushed back on environmental programs in order to increase profits or to survive in a tough business world.
It has perhaps taken about a decade or so — and a severe enough global financial crisis that has hit the heart of this way of thinking — to change this mentality (in which time, more greenhouse gases have been emitted — inefficiently). Is that too late or will it be okay?
Economists talk of the price signal that is fundamental to capitalism; the ability for prices to indicate when a resource is becoming scarcer. At such a time, capitalism and the markets will mobilize automatically to address this by looking for ways to bring down costs. As a result, resources are supposedly infinite. For example, if energy costs go up, businesses will look for a way to minimize such costs for themselves, and it is in such a time that alternatives come about and/or existing resources last longer because they are used more efficiently. “Running out of resources” should therefore be averted.
However, it has long been argued that prices don’t truly reflect the full cost of things, so either the signal is incorrect, or comes too late. The price signal also implies the poorest often pay the heaviest costs. For example, commercially over-fishing a region may mean fish from that area becomes harder to catch and more expensive, possibly allowing that ecosystem time to recover (though that is not guaranteed, either). However, while commercial entities can exploit resources elsewhere, local fishermen will go out of business and the poorer will likely go hungry (as also detailed on this site’s section on biodiversity). This then has an impact on various local social, political and economic issues.
In addition to that, other related measurements, such as GNP are therefore flawed, and even reward unproductive or inefficient behavior (e.g. “Efficiently” producing unhealthy food — and the unhealthy consumer culture to go with it — may profit the food industry and a private health sector that has to deal with it, all of which require more use of resources. More examples are discussed on this site’s section on consumption and consumerism).
Our continued inefficient pumping of greenhouse gases into the environment without factoring the enormous cost as the climate already begins to change is perhaps an example where price signals may come too late, or at a time when there is already significant impact to many people. Resources that could be available more indefinitely, become finite because of our inability or unwillingness to change.
Many Sources Of Greenhouse Gases Being Discovered
Pollution from various industries, the burning of fossil fuels, methane from farm animals, forest destruction, rotting/dead vegetation etc have led to an increased number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And, as international trade in its current form continues to expand with little regard for the environment, the transportation alone, of goods is thought to considerably contribute to global warming via emissions from planes, ships and other transportation vehicles. (For more about trade and globalization in its current form and how it affects the environment, as well as other consequences, visit this web site’s section on Trade, Economy, & Related Issues.)
Even sulphur emitted from ships are thought to contribute a fair bit to climate change. (If you have registered at the journal, Nature, then you can see the report here.) In fact, sulphur based gas, originating from industry, discovered in 2000 is thought to be the most potent greenhouse gas measured to date. It is called trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3).
NewScientist.com reports (December 22, 2003) on a study that suggests soot particles may be worse than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. The soot particles also originate from industry, and during the industrial revolution, was quite common. While on the positive side there is less soot these days and perhaps easier to control if needed, alone, as one of the scientists of the study commented, “It does not change the need to slow down the growth rate of carbon dioxide and eventually stabilize the atmospheric amount.”
NewScientist.com and others have also reported (August 2005) that the world’s largest frozen peat bog is melting, and could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. An area the size of France and Germany combined has been melting in the last 4 years. In addition, “Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3°C in the last 40 years.”
A scientist explained a fear that if the bogs dry out as they warm, the methane will oxidise and escape into the air as carbon dioxide. But if the bogs remain wet, as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
Even sulphur emitted from ships are thought to contribute a fair bit to climate change. (If you have registered at the journal, Nature, then you can see the report here.) In fact, sulphur based gas, originating from industry, discovered in 2000 is thought to be the most potent greenhouse gas measured to date. It is called trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3).
NewScientist.com reports (December 22, 2003) on a study that suggests soot particles may be worse than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. The soot particles also originate from industry, and during the industrial revolution, was quite common. While on the positive side there is less soot these days and perhaps easier to control if needed, alone, as one of the scientists of the study commented, “It does not change the need to slow down the growth rate of carbon dioxide and eventually stabilize the atmospheric amount.”
NewScientist.com and others have also reported (August 2005) that the world’s largest frozen peat bog is melting, and could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. An area the size of France and Germany combined has been melting in the last 4 years. In addition, “Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3°C in the last 40 years.”
A scientist explained a fear that if the bogs dry out as they warm, the methane will oxidise and escape into the air as carbon dioxide. But if the bogs remain wet, as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
Many Sources Of Greenhouse Gases Being Discovered
Pollution from various industries, the burning of fossil fuels, methane from farm animals, forest destruction, rotting/dead vegetation etc have led to an increased number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And, as international trade in its current form continues to expand with little regard for the environment, the transportation alone, of goods is thought to considerably contribute to global warming via emissions from planes, ships and other transportation vehicles. (For more about trade and globalization in its current form and how it affects the environment, as well as other consequences, visit this web site’s section on Trade, Economy, & Related Issues.)
Even sulphur emitted from ships are thought to contribute a fair bit to climate change. (If you have registered at the journal, Nature, then you can see the report here.) In fact, sulphur based gas, originating from industry, discovered in 2000 is thought to be the most potent greenhouse gas measured to date. It is called trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3).
NewScientist.com reports (December 22, 2003) on a study that suggests soot particles may be worse than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. The soot particles also originate from industry, and during the industrial revolution, was quite common. While on the positive side there is less soot these days and perhaps easier to control if needed, alone, as one of the scientists of the study commented, “It does not change the need to slow down the growth rate of carbon dioxide and eventually stabilize the atmospheric amount.”
NewScientist.com and others have also reported (August 2005) that the world’s largest frozen peat bog is melting, and could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. An area the size of France and Germany combined has been melting in the last 4 years. In addition, “Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3°C in the last 40 years.”
A scientist explained a fear that if the bogs dry out as they warm, the methane will oxidise and escape into the air as carbon dioxide. But if the bogs remain wet, as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
Even sulphur emitted from ships are thought to contribute a fair bit to climate change. (If you have registered at the journal, Nature, then you can see the report here.) In fact, sulphur based gas, originating from industry, discovered in 2000 is thought to be the most potent greenhouse gas measured to date. It is called trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3).
NewScientist.com reports (December 22, 2003) on a study that suggests soot particles may be worse than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. The soot particles also originate from industry, and during the industrial revolution, was quite common. While on the positive side there is less soot these days and perhaps easier to control if needed, alone, as one of the scientists of the study commented, “It does not change the need to slow down the growth rate of carbon dioxide and eventually stabilize the atmospheric amount.”
NewScientist.com and others have also reported (August 2005) that the world’s largest frozen peat bog is melting, and could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. An area the size of France and Germany combined has been melting in the last 4 years. In addition, “Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3°C in the last 40 years.”
A scientist explained a fear that if the bogs dry out as they warm, the methane will oxidise and escape into the air as carbon dioxide. But if the bogs remain wet, as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
Many Sources Of Greenhouse Gases Being Discovered
Pollution from various industries, the burning of fossil fuels, methane from farm animals, forest destruction, rotting/dead vegetation etc have led to an increased number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And, as international trade in its current form continues to expand with little regard for the environment, the transportation alone, of goods is thought to considerably contribute to global warming via emissions from planes, ships and other transportation vehicles. (For more about trade and globalization in its current form and how it affects the environment, as well as other consequences, visit this web site’s section on Trade, Economy, & Related Issues.)
Even sulphur emitted from ships are thought to contribute a fair bit to climate change. (If you have registered at the journal, Nature, then you can see the report here.) In fact, sulphur based gas, originating from industry, discovered in 2000 is thought to be the most potent greenhouse gas measured to date. It is called trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3).
NewScientist.com reports (December 22, 2003) on a study that suggests soot particles may be worse than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. The soot particles also originate from industry, and during the industrial revolution, was quite common. While on the positive side there is less soot these days and perhaps easier to control if needed, alone, as one of the scientists of the study commented, “It does not change the need to slow down the growth rate of carbon dioxide and eventually stabilize the atmospheric amount.”
NewScientist.com and others have also reported (August 2005) that the world’s largest frozen peat bog is melting, and could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. An area the size of France and Germany combined has been melting in the last 4 years. In addition, “Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3°C in the last 40 years.”
A scientist explained a fear that if the bogs dry out as they warm, the methane will oxidise and escape into the air as carbon dioxide. But if the bogs remain wet, as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
Even sulphur emitted from ships are thought to contribute a fair bit to climate change. (If you have registered at the journal, Nature, then you can see the report here.) In fact, sulphur based gas, originating from industry, discovered in 2000 is thought to be the most potent greenhouse gas measured to date. It is called trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3).
NewScientist.com reports (December 22, 2003) on a study that suggests soot particles may be worse than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. The soot particles also originate from industry, and during the industrial revolution, was quite common. While on the positive side there is less soot these days and perhaps easier to control if needed, alone, as one of the scientists of the study commented, “It does not change the need to slow down the growth rate of carbon dioxide and eventually stabilize the atmospheric amount.”
NewScientist.com and others have also reported (August 2005) that the world’s largest frozen peat bog is melting, and could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. An area the size of France and Germany combined has been melting in the last 4 years. In addition, “Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3°C in the last 40 years.”
A scientist explained a fear that if the bogs dry out as they warm, the methane will oxidise and escape into the air as carbon dioxide. But if the bogs remain wet, as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
Skepticism on Global Warming or That it can be human-induced
For a very long time, something of contention and debate in the U.S. had been whether or not a lot of climate change has in fact been induced by human activities, while many scientists around the world, Europe especially, have been more convinced that this is the case.
In May 2002, the Bush Administration in the U.S. did admit a link between human activities and climate change. However, at the same time the administration has continued its controversial stance of maintaining that it will not participate in the international treaty to limit global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, due to economic priorities and concerns. (More about the Kyoto Protocol, U.S. and others’ actions/inactions is discussed in subsequent pages on this section.)
Throughout the 1990s, especially in the United States, but in other countries as well, those who would try and raise the importance of this issue, and suggest that we are perhaps over-consuming, or unsustainably using our resources etc, were faced with a lot of criticism and ridicule. The previous link is to an article by George Monbiot, writing in 1999. In 2004, he notes a similar issue, whereby media attempts at balance has led to “false balancing” where disproportionate time is given to more fringe scientists or those with less credibility or with additional agendas, without noting so, and thus gives the impression that there is more debate in the scientific community about whether or not climate change is an issue to be concerned about or not:
Picture a situation in which most of the media, despite the overwhelming weight of medical opinion, refused to accept that there was a connection between smoking and lung cancer. Imagine that every time new evidence emerged, they asked someone with no medical qualifications to write a piece dismissing the evidence and claiming that there was no consensus on the issue.
Imagine that the BBC, in the interests of “debate”, wheeled out one of the tiny number of scientists who says that smoking and cancer aren’t linked, or that giving up isn’t worth the trouble, every time the issue of cancer was raised.
Imagine that, as a result, next to nothing was done about the problem, to the delight of the tobacco industry and the detriment of millions of smokers. We would surely describe the newspapers and the BBC as grossly irresponsible.
Now stop imagining it, and take a look at what’s happening. The issue is not smoking, but climate change. The scientific consensus is just as robust, the misreporting just as widespread, the consequences even graver.
…
“The scientific community has reached a consensus,” the [U.K.] government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, told the House of Lords last month. “I do not believe that amongst the scientists there is a discussion as to whether global warming is due to anthropogenic effects.
“It is man-made and it is essentially [caused by] fossil fuel burning, increased methane production… and so on.” Sir David chose his words carefully. There is a discussion about whether global warming is due to anthropogenic (man-made) effects. But it is not—or is only seldom—taking place among scientists. It is taking place in the media, and it seems to consist of a competition to establish the outer reaches of imbecility.
…
But these [skeptics and illogical points against climate change] are rather less dangerous than the BBC, and its insistence on “balancing” its coverage of climate change. It appears to be incapable of running an item on the subject without inviting a sceptic to comment on it.
Usually this is either someone from a corporate-funded thinktank (who is, of course, never introduced as such) or the professional anti-environmentalist Philip Stott. Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists’ peer-reviewed work as the “lies” of ecofundamentalists.
This wouldn’t be so objectionable if the BBC made it clear that these people are not climatologists, and the overwhelming majority of qualified scientific opinion is against them. Instead, it leaves us with the impression that professional opinion is split down the middle. It’s a bit like continually bringing people on to the programme to suggest that there is no link between HIV and Aids.
What makes all this so dangerous is that it plays into the hands of corporate lobbyists. A recently leaked memo written by Frank Luntz, the US Republican and corporate strategist, warned that “The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general—and President Bush in particular—are most vulnerable… Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need… to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.”
— George Monbiot, Beware the fossil fools, The Guardian, April 27, 2004
In May 2002, the Bush Administration in the U.S. did admit a link between human activities and climate change. However, at the same time the administration has continued its controversial stance of maintaining that it will not participate in the international treaty to limit global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, due to economic priorities and concerns. (More about the Kyoto Protocol, U.S. and others’ actions/inactions is discussed in subsequent pages on this section.)
Throughout the 1990s, especially in the United States, but in other countries as well, those who would try and raise the importance of this issue, and suggest that we are perhaps over-consuming, or unsustainably using our resources etc, were faced with a lot of criticism and ridicule. The previous link is to an article by George Monbiot, writing in 1999. In 2004, he notes a similar issue, whereby media attempts at balance has led to “false balancing” where disproportionate time is given to more fringe scientists or those with less credibility or with additional agendas, without noting so, and thus gives the impression that there is more debate in the scientific community about whether or not climate change is an issue to be concerned about or not:
Picture a situation in which most of the media, despite the overwhelming weight of medical opinion, refused to accept that there was a connection between smoking and lung cancer. Imagine that every time new evidence emerged, they asked someone with no medical qualifications to write a piece dismissing the evidence and claiming that there was no consensus on the issue.
Imagine that the BBC, in the interests of “debate”, wheeled out one of the tiny number of scientists who says that smoking and cancer aren’t linked, or that giving up isn’t worth the trouble, every time the issue of cancer was raised.
Imagine that, as a result, next to nothing was done about the problem, to the delight of the tobacco industry and the detriment of millions of smokers. We would surely describe the newspapers and the BBC as grossly irresponsible.
Now stop imagining it, and take a look at what’s happening. The issue is not smoking, but climate change. The scientific consensus is just as robust, the misreporting just as widespread, the consequences even graver.
…
“The scientific community has reached a consensus,” the [U.K.] government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, told the House of Lords last month. “I do not believe that amongst the scientists there is a discussion as to whether global warming is due to anthropogenic effects.
“It is man-made and it is essentially [caused by] fossil fuel burning, increased methane production… and so on.” Sir David chose his words carefully. There is a discussion about whether global warming is due to anthropogenic (man-made) effects. But it is not—or is only seldom—taking place among scientists. It is taking place in the media, and it seems to consist of a competition to establish the outer reaches of imbecility.
…
But these [skeptics and illogical points against climate change] are rather less dangerous than the BBC, and its insistence on “balancing” its coverage of climate change. It appears to be incapable of running an item on the subject without inviting a sceptic to comment on it.
Usually this is either someone from a corporate-funded thinktank (who is, of course, never introduced as such) or the professional anti-environmentalist Philip Stott. Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists’ peer-reviewed work as the “lies” of ecofundamentalists.
This wouldn’t be so objectionable if the BBC made it clear that these people are not climatologists, and the overwhelming majority of qualified scientific opinion is against them. Instead, it leaves us with the impression that professional opinion is split down the middle. It’s a bit like continually bringing people on to the programme to suggest that there is no link between HIV and Aids.
What makes all this so dangerous is that it plays into the hands of corporate lobbyists. A recently leaked memo written by Frank Luntz, the US Republican and corporate strategist, warned that “The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general—and President Bush in particular—are most vulnerable… Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need… to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.”
— George Monbiot, Beware the fossil fools, The Guardian, April 27, 2004
Developing Countries Affected Most
It has been known for some time know that developing countries will be affected the most. Reasons vary from lacking resources to cope, compared to developed nations, immense poverty, regions that many developing countries are in happen to be the ones where severe weather will hit the most, small island nations area already seeing sea level rising, and so on.
German Watch published a Global Climate Risk Index in December 2009 that attempted to list the nations that would be affected the most from climate change based on extreme weather such as hurricanes and floods.
Between 1998 and 2007 they found these were the most affected nations:
-Honduras
-Bangladesh
-Nicaragua
-Dominican Republic
-Haiti
-Vietnam
-India
-Mozambique
-Venezuela
-Philippines
German Watch published a Global Climate Risk Index in December 2009 that attempted to list the nations that would be affected the most from climate change based on extreme weather such as hurricanes and floods.
Between 1998 and 2007 they found these were the most affected nations:
-Honduras
-Bangladesh
-Nicaragua
-Dominican Republic
-Haiti
-Vietnam
-India
-Mozambique
-Venezuela
-Philippines
Differences in Greenhouse Gas Emission Around the World
As the World Resources Institute highlights there is a huge contrast between developed/industrialized nations and poorer developing countries in greenhouse emissions, as well as the reasons for those emissions. For example:
In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the U.S. has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively (although their numbers will rise).
Annually, more than 60 percent of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20 percent of the world’s population resides.
Much of the growth in emissions in developing countries results from the provision of basic human needs for growing populations, while emissions in industrialized countries contribute to growth in a standard of living that is already far above that of the average person worldwide. This is exemplified by the large contrasts in per capita carbons emissions between industrialized and developing countries. Per capita emissions of carbon in the U.S. are over 20 times higher than India, 12 times higher than Brazil and seven times higher than China.
At the 1997 Kyoto Conference, industrialized countries were committed to an overall reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels for the period 2008—2012. (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 1990 report that a 60% reduction in emissions was needed…)
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is an organization — backed by the UN and various European governments — attempting to compile, build and make a compelling economics case for the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.
In a recent report, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers 2009, TEEB noted different types of carbon emissions as “colors of carbon”:
Brown carbon
Industrial emissions of greenhouse gases that affect the climate.
Green carbon
Carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems e.g. plant biomass, soils, wetlands and pasture and increasingly recognized as a key item for negotiation in the UNFCCC.
Blue carbon
Carbon bound in the world’s oceans. An estimated 55% of all carbon in living organisms is stored in mangroves, marshes, sea grasses, coral reefs and macro-algae.
Black carbon
Formed through incomplete combustion of fuels and may be significantly reduced if clean burning technologies are employed.
Where emphasis has been place in terms of the above has affected both climate change and mitigation efforts:
Past mitigation efforts concentrated on brown carbon, sometimes leading to land conversion for biofuel production which inadvertently increased emissions from green carbon. By halting the loss of green and blue carbon, the world could mitigate as much as 25% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with co-benefits for biodiversity, food security and livelihoods (IPCC 2007, Nellemann et al. 2009). This will only be possible if mitigation efforts accommodate all four carbon colors.
— The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers 2009
In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the U.S. has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively (although their numbers will rise).
Annually, more than 60 percent of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20 percent of the world’s population resides.
Much of the growth in emissions in developing countries results from the provision of basic human needs for growing populations, while emissions in industrialized countries contribute to growth in a standard of living that is already far above that of the average person worldwide. This is exemplified by the large contrasts in per capita carbons emissions between industrialized and developing countries. Per capita emissions of carbon in the U.S. are over 20 times higher than India, 12 times higher than Brazil and seven times higher than China.
At the 1997 Kyoto Conference, industrialized countries were committed to an overall reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels for the period 2008—2012. (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 1990 report that a 60% reduction in emissions was needed…)
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is an organization — backed by the UN and various European governments — attempting to compile, build and make a compelling economics case for the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.
In a recent report, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers 2009, TEEB noted different types of carbon emissions as “colors of carbon”:
Brown carbon
Industrial emissions of greenhouse gases that affect the climate.
Green carbon
Carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems e.g. plant biomass, soils, wetlands and pasture and increasingly recognized as a key item for negotiation in the UNFCCC.
Blue carbon
Carbon bound in the world’s oceans. An estimated 55% of all carbon in living organisms is stored in mangroves, marshes, sea grasses, coral reefs and macro-algae.
Black carbon
Formed through incomplete combustion of fuels and may be significantly reduced if clean burning technologies are employed.
Where emphasis has been place in terms of the above has affected both climate change and mitigation efforts:
Past mitigation efforts concentrated on brown carbon, sometimes leading to land conversion for biofuel production which inadvertently increased emissions from green carbon. By halting the loss of green and blue carbon, the world could mitigate as much as 25% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with co-benefits for biodiversity, food security and livelihoods (IPCC 2007, Nellemann et al. 2009). This will only be possible if mitigation efforts accommodate all four carbon colors.
— The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers 2009
Greenhouse gases and emissions resulting from human activity
Every few years, leading climate scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have released major, definitive reports detailing the progress in understanding climate change. From the outset they have recommended that there be emission reductions. This body is comprised of hundreds of climate scientists around the world.
At the beginning of January 2007, the IPCC’s fourth major report summarized that they were even more certain than before of human-induced climate change because of better scientific understanding:
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
… The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
— Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Summary for Policymakers , IPCC, February 5th, 2007 [emphasis is original]
Their definition of “very high confidence” and “very likely” is a 90% chance of being correct. (Their 2001 report claimed a 66% certainty.)
This report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated, according to the IPCC’s media advisory.
As Inter Press Service notes, although the IPCC has become the “gold standard” for global scientific collaboration, their reports are inherently conservative:
The IPCC operates under the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and does not fund any research itself. It collects, evaluates and synthesises scientific data. Any U.N. country can be a member of the IPCC and can challenge the findings in its reports. And consensus is required for every word in the “Summary for Policy Makers” section included in each report.
It’s an inherently conservative process, with oil-rich countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia always trying to tone down the conclusions and emphasise uncertainties and unknowns, said Weaver.
At the beginning of January 2007, the IPCC’s fourth major report summarized that they were even more certain than before of human-induced climate change because of better scientific understanding:
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
… The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
— Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Summary for Policymakers , IPCC, February 5th, 2007 [emphasis is original]
Their definition of “very high confidence” and “very likely” is a 90% chance of being correct. (Their 2001 report claimed a 66% certainty.)
This report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated, according to the IPCC’s media advisory.
As Inter Press Service notes, although the IPCC has become the “gold standard” for global scientific collaboration, their reports are inherently conservative:
The IPCC operates under the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and does not fund any research itself. It collects, evaluates and synthesises scientific data. Any U.N. country can be a member of the IPCC and can challenge the findings in its reports. And consensus is required for every word in the “Summary for Policy Makers” section included in each report.
It’s an inherently conservative process, with oil-rich countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia always trying to tone down the conclusions and emphasise uncertainties and unknowns, said Weaver.
Agriculture and livelihoods are already being affected
Failing agriculture in the future have long been predicted.
Food and Global Warming, ScienCentral, January 7, 2009
Looking to 2100, scientists who looked at projections of global warming’s impact on the average temperatures during the growing season fear that rising temperatures will have a significant impact upon crop yields, most noticeably in the tropics and sub tropics.
While warm weather can often be good for some crops, hotter than average temperatures for the entire season is often not good for plants.
This would affect at least half the world’s population that either live in the region or rely on food coming from that region.
Food and Global Warming, ScienCentral, January 7, 2009
Looking to 2100, scientists who looked at projections of global warming’s impact on the average temperatures during the growing season fear that rising temperatures will have a significant impact upon crop yields, most noticeably in the tropics and sub tropics.
While warm weather can often be good for some crops, hotter than average temperatures for the entire season is often not good for plants.
This would affect at least half the world’s population that either live in the region or rely on food coming from that region.
Increase in Pests and Disease
A report in the journal Science in June 2002 described the alarming increase in the outbreaks and epidemics of diseases throughout the land and ocean based wildlife due to climate changes.
One of the authors points out that, “Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems in a way that is making life better for infectious diseases.”
One of the authors points out that, “Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems in a way that is making life better for infectious diseases.”
Increasing ocean acidification
Although it has gained less mainstream media attention the effects of increasing greenhouse emissions, in particular carbon dioxide, on the oceans may well be significant.
Short overview of ocean acidification: Ocean Acidification, ABC World News Webcast, June 7, 2008
Scientists are finding that on the one hand oceans have been able to absorb some of the excess CO2 released by human activity. This has helped keep the planet cooler than it otherwise could have been had these gases remained in the atmosphere.
However, the additional CO2 being absorbed is also resulting in the acidification of the oceans (when CO2 reacts with water it produces a weak acid called carbonic acid, changing the sea water chemistry).
This change is also occurring rapidly, so some marine life may not have the chance to adapt. Some marine creatures are growing thinner shells or skeletons, for example. Some of these creatures play a crucial role in the food chain, and in ecosystem biodiversity.
Clay animation by school children: The other CO2 problem, March 23, 2009 (commissioned by EPOCA)
Some species may benefit from the extra carbon dioxide, and a few years ago scientists and organizations, such as the European Project on OCean Acidification, formed to try to understand and assess the impacts further.
One example of recent findings is a tiny sand grain-sized plankton responsible for the sequestration of 25–50% of the carbon the oceans absorb is affected by increasing ocean acidification. This tiny plankton plays a major role in keeping atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations at much lower levels than they would be otherwise so large effects on them could be quite serious.
Other related problems reported by the Inter Press Service include more oceanic dead zones (areas where there is too little oxygen in the sea to support life) and the decline of important coastal plants and forests, such as mangrove forests that play an important role in carbon absorption. This is on top of the already declining ocean biodiversity that has been happening for a few decades, now.
Short overview of ocean acidification: Ocean Acidification, ABC World News Webcast, June 7, 2008
Scientists are finding that on the one hand oceans have been able to absorb some of the excess CO2 released by human activity. This has helped keep the planet cooler than it otherwise could have been had these gases remained in the atmosphere.
However, the additional CO2 being absorbed is also resulting in the acidification of the oceans (when CO2 reacts with water it produces a weak acid called carbonic acid, changing the sea water chemistry).
This change is also occurring rapidly, so some marine life may not have the chance to adapt. Some marine creatures are growing thinner shells or skeletons, for example. Some of these creatures play a crucial role in the food chain, and in ecosystem biodiversity.
Clay animation by school children: The other CO2 problem, March 23, 2009 (commissioned by EPOCA)
Some species may benefit from the extra carbon dioxide, and a few years ago scientists and organizations, such as the European Project on OCean Acidification, formed to try to understand and assess the impacts further.
One example of recent findings is a tiny sand grain-sized plankton responsible for the sequestration of 25–50% of the carbon the oceans absorb is affected by increasing ocean acidification. This tiny plankton plays a major role in keeping atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations at much lower levels than they would be otherwise so large effects on them could be quite serious.
Other related problems reported by the Inter Press Service include more oceanic dead zones (areas where there is too little oxygen in the sea to support life) and the decline of important coastal plants and forests, such as mangrove forests that play an important role in carbon absorption. This is on top of the already declining ocean biodiversity that has been happening for a few decades, now.
Ecosystem Impacts
With global warming on the increase and species’ habitats on the decrease, the chances for various ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing.
Many studies have pointed out that the rates of extinction of animal and plant species, and the temperature changes around the world since the industrial revolution, have been significantly different to normal expectations.
An analysis of population trends, climate change, increasing pollution and emerging diseases found that 40 percent of deaths in the world could be attributed to environmental factors.
Jaan Suurkula, M.D. and chairman of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST), paints a dire picture, but notes that he is only citing observations and conclusions from established experts and institutions. Those observations and conclusions note that global warming will lead to the following situations, amongst others:
Rapid global heating according to a US National Academy of Science warning;
Dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions;
Ozone loss aggravated by global warming;
Ozone loss likely to aggravate global warming;
Warming of the oceans leads to increased green house gasses;
Permafrost thawing will aggravate global warming;
Oceanic changes observed that may aggravate the situation;
A vicious circle whereby each problem will exacerbate other problems which will feedback into each other;
Massive extinction of species will aggravate the environmental crisis;
Sudden collapse of biological and ecological systems may occur, but will have a very slow recovery;
While effective measures can decrease global warming and other problems the World community has repeatedly failed to establish cooperation.
The “vicious circle” Suurkula refers to is worth expanding. In his own words, but slightly reformatted:
The ongoing accumulation of greenhouse gasses causes increasing global warming.
This causes a more extensive destruction of ozone in the polar regions because of accentuated stratospheric cooling.
An increase of ozone destruction increases the UV-radiation that, combined with higher ocean temperature, causes a reduction of the gigantic carbon dioxide trapping mechanism of the oceanic phytoplankton biomass;
This accentuates the warming process.
When the warming has reached a certain level, it will release huge amounts of greenhouse gasses trapped in the permafrost.
This will enhance the global warming, and the polar destruction of ozone, and so on.
The observed decrease of the thermohaline circulation [the various streams that transport warm and cold waters around the world and therefore has an important stabilizing effect on world climate] further aggravates the situation.
This is a global self-reinforcing vicious circle accelerating the global warming.
Many studies have pointed out that the rates of extinction of animal and plant species, and the temperature changes around the world since the industrial revolution, have been significantly different to normal expectations.
An analysis of population trends, climate change, increasing pollution and emerging diseases found that 40 percent of deaths in the world could be attributed to environmental factors.
Jaan Suurkula, M.D. and chairman of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST), paints a dire picture, but notes that he is only citing observations and conclusions from established experts and institutions. Those observations and conclusions note that global warming will lead to the following situations, amongst others:
Rapid global heating according to a US National Academy of Science warning;
Dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions;
Ozone loss aggravated by global warming;
Ozone loss likely to aggravate global warming;
Warming of the oceans leads to increased green house gasses;
Permafrost thawing will aggravate global warming;
Oceanic changes observed that may aggravate the situation;
A vicious circle whereby each problem will exacerbate other problems which will feedback into each other;
Massive extinction of species will aggravate the environmental crisis;
Sudden collapse of biological and ecological systems may occur, but will have a very slow recovery;
While effective measures can decrease global warming and other problems the World community has repeatedly failed to establish cooperation.
The “vicious circle” Suurkula refers to is worth expanding. In his own words, but slightly reformatted:
The ongoing accumulation of greenhouse gasses causes increasing global warming.
This causes a more extensive destruction of ozone in the polar regions because of accentuated stratospheric cooling.
An increase of ozone destruction increases the UV-radiation that, combined with higher ocean temperature, causes a reduction of the gigantic carbon dioxide trapping mechanism of the oceanic phytoplankton biomass;
This accentuates the warming process.
When the warming has reached a certain level, it will release huge amounts of greenhouse gasses trapped in the permafrost.
This will enhance the global warming, and the polar destruction of ozone, and so on.
The observed decrease of the thermohaline circulation [the various streams that transport warm and cold waters around the world and therefore has an important stabilizing effect on world climate] further aggravates the situation.
This is a global self-reinforcing vicious circle accelerating the global warming.
Extreme Weather Patterns
Most scientists believe that the warming of the climate will lead to more extreme weather patterns such as:
More hurricanes and drought;
Longer spells of dry heat or intense rain (depending on where you are in the world);
Scientists have pointed out that Northern Europe could be severely affected with colder weather if climate change continues, as the arctic begins to melt and send fresher waters further south. It would effectively cut off the Gulf Stream that brings warmth from the Gulf of Mexico, keeping countries such as Britain warmer than expected;
In South Asia, the Himalayan glaciers could retreat causing water scarcity in the long run.
While many environmental groups have been warning about extreme weather conditions for a few years, the World Meteorological Organization announced in July 2003 that “Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase.”
The WMO also notes that “New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing.” (The WMO limits the definition of extreme events to high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts.) The U.K’s Independent newspaper described the WMO’s announcement as “unprecedented” and “astonishing” because it came from a respected United Nations organization not an environmental group!
Super-storms
Mentioned further above was the concern that more hurricanes could result. The link used was from the environmental organization WWF, written back in 1999. In August/September 2004 a wave of severe hurricanes left many Caribbean islands and parts of South Eastern United States devastated. In the Caribbean many lives were lost and there was immense damage to entire cities. In the U.S. many lives were lost as well, some of the most expensive damage resulted from the successive hurricanes.
In its wake, scientists have reiterated that such super-storms may be a sign of things to come. “Global warming may spawn more super-storms”, Inter Press Service (IPS) notes.
Interviewing a biological oceanography professor at Harvard University, IPS notes that the world’s oceans are approaching 27 degrees C or warmer during the summer. This increases the odds of major storms.
When water reaches such temperatures, more of it evaporates, priming hurricane or cyclone formation.
Once born, a hurricane needs only warm water to build and maintain its strength and intensity.
Furthermore, “as emissions of greenhouse gases continue to trap more and more of the sun’s energy, that energy has to be dissipated, resulting in stronger storms, more intense precipitation and higher winds.”
There is abundant evidence of an unprecedented number of severe weather events in the past decade, [professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University, James] McCarthy says. In 1998, Hurricane Mitch killed nearly 20,000 people in Central America, and more than 4,000 people died during disastrous flooding in China. Bangladesh suffered some of its worst floods ever the following year, as did Venezuela. Europe was hit with record floods in 2002, and then a record heat wave in 2003.
More recently, Brazil was struck by the first-ever recorded hurricane in the South Atlantic last March.
“Weather records are being set all the time now. We’re in an era of unprecedented extreme weather events,” McCarthy said.
Historical weather patterns are becoming less useful for predicting the future conditions because global warming is changing ocean and atmospheric conditions.
“In 30 to 50 years’ time, the Earth’s weather generating system will be entirely different,” he predicted.
— Stephen Leahy, Global Warming May Spawn More Super-Storms, Inter Press Service, September 20, 2004
More hurricanes and drought;
Longer spells of dry heat or intense rain (depending on where you are in the world);
Scientists have pointed out that Northern Europe could be severely affected with colder weather if climate change continues, as the arctic begins to melt and send fresher waters further south. It would effectively cut off the Gulf Stream that brings warmth from the Gulf of Mexico, keeping countries such as Britain warmer than expected;
In South Asia, the Himalayan glaciers could retreat causing water scarcity in the long run.
While many environmental groups have been warning about extreme weather conditions for a few years, the World Meteorological Organization announced in July 2003 that “Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase.”
The WMO also notes that “New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing.” (The WMO limits the definition of extreme events to high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts.) The U.K’s Independent newspaper described the WMO’s announcement as “unprecedented” and “astonishing” because it came from a respected United Nations organization not an environmental group!
Super-storms
Mentioned further above was the concern that more hurricanes could result. The link used was from the environmental organization WWF, written back in 1999. In August/September 2004 a wave of severe hurricanes left many Caribbean islands and parts of South Eastern United States devastated. In the Caribbean many lives were lost and there was immense damage to entire cities. In the U.S. many lives were lost as well, some of the most expensive damage resulted from the successive hurricanes.
In its wake, scientists have reiterated that such super-storms may be a sign of things to come. “Global warming may spawn more super-storms”, Inter Press Service (IPS) notes.
Interviewing a biological oceanography professor at Harvard University, IPS notes that the world’s oceans are approaching 27 degrees C or warmer during the summer. This increases the odds of major storms.
When water reaches such temperatures, more of it evaporates, priming hurricane or cyclone formation.
Once born, a hurricane needs only warm water to build and maintain its strength and intensity.
Furthermore, “as emissions of greenhouse gases continue to trap more and more of the sun’s energy, that energy has to be dissipated, resulting in stronger storms, more intense precipitation and higher winds.”
There is abundant evidence of an unprecedented number of severe weather events in the past decade, [professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University, James] McCarthy says. In 1998, Hurricane Mitch killed nearly 20,000 people in Central America, and more than 4,000 people died during disastrous flooding in China. Bangladesh suffered some of its worst floods ever the following year, as did Venezuela. Europe was hit with record floods in 2002, and then a record heat wave in 2003.
More recently, Brazil was struck by the first-ever recorded hurricane in the South Atlantic last March.
“Weather records are being set all the time now. We’re in an era of unprecedented extreme weather events,” McCarthy said.
Historical weather patterns are becoming less useful for predicting the future conditions because global warming is changing ocean and atmospheric conditions.
“In 30 to 50 years’ time, the Earth’s weather generating system will be entirely different,” he predicted.
— Stephen Leahy, Global Warming May Spawn More Super-Storms, Inter Press Service, September 20, 2004
Small average global temperature change can have a big impact
Climate scientists admit that the chances of the world keeping average global temperature at current levels are not going to be possible (humanity has done little to address things in the past couple of decades that these concerns have been known about).
So, now, there is hope that temperature rises can be minimized to an average 2°C increase (as an average, this means some regions may get higher temperatures and others, lower).
Even just a 2°C increase can have impacts around the world to biodiversity, agriculture, the oceans etc (detailed further below). But in the lead up to important global climate talks at the end of 2009, some delegates are skeptical that temperature rises can be contained to a 2°C rise (or C0 2 levels of 350 ppm ).
So, now, there is hope that temperature rises can be minimized to an average 2°C increase (as an average, this means some regions may get higher temperatures and others, lower).
Even just a 2°C increase can have impacts around the world to biodiversity, agriculture, the oceans etc (detailed further below). But in the lead up to important global climate talks at the end of 2009, some delegates are skeptical that temperature rises can be contained to a 2°C rise (or C0 2 levels of 350 ppm ).
The Greenhouse effect is natural. What do we have to do with it?
Many of these greenhouse gases are actually life-enabling, for without them, heat would escape back into space and the Earth’s average temperature would be a lot colder.
However, if the greenhouse effect becomes stronger, then more heat gets trapped than needed, and the Earth might become less habitable for humans, plants and animals.
Carbon dioxide, though not the most potent of greenhouse gases, is the most significant one. Human activity has caused an imbalance in the natural cycle of the greenhouse effect and related processes. NASA’s Earth Observatory is worth quoting the effect human activity is having on the natural carbon cycle, for example:
In addition to the natural fluxes of carbon through the Earth system, anthropogenic (human) activities, particularly fossil fuel burning and deforestation, are also releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
When we mine coal and extract oil from the Earth’s crust, and then burn these fossil fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, electricity, and manufacturing, we are effectively moving carbon more rapidly into the atmosphere than is being removed naturally through the sedimentation of carbon, ultimately causing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to increase.
Also, by clearing forests to support agriculture, we are transferring carbon from living biomass into the atmosphere (dry wood is about 50 percent carbon).
The result is that humans are adding ever-increasing amounts of extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they have been over the last half-million years or longer.
However, if the greenhouse effect becomes stronger, then more heat gets trapped than needed, and the Earth might become less habitable for humans, plants and animals.
Carbon dioxide, though not the most potent of greenhouse gases, is the most significant one. Human activity has caused an imbalance in the natural cycle of the greenhouse effect and related processes. NASA’s Earth Observatory is worth quoting the effect human activity is having on the natural carbon cycle, for example:
In addition to the natural fluxes of carbon through the Earth system, anthropogenic (human) activities, particularly fossil fuel burning and deforestation, are also releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
When we mine coal and extract oil from the Earth’s crust, and then burn these fossil fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, electricity, and manufacturing, we are effectively moving carbon more rapidly into the atmosphere than is being removed naturally through the sedimentation of carbon, ultimately causing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to increase.
Also, by clearing forests to support agriculture, we are transferring carbon from living biomass into the atmosphere (dry wood is about 50 percent carbon).
The result is that humans are adding ever-increasing amounts of extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they have been over the last half-million years or longer.
What is the Greenhouse Effect?
The term greenhouse is used in conjunction with the phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect.
-Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface;
-In turn, the earth radiates energy back into space;
-Some atmospheric gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse;
-These gases are therefore known as greenhouse gases;
-The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature on Earth as certain gases in the atmosphere trap energy.
-Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface;
-In turn, the earth radiates energy back into space;
-Some atmospheric gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse;
-These gases are therefore known as greenhouse gases;
-The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature on Earth as certain gases in the atmosphere trap energy.
Featured Global Warming Stories
While some would call global warming a theory, others would call it a proven set of facts. Opinions differ vehemently. Let us consider global warming to be both a premise that the environment of the world as we know it is slowly, but very surely increasing in overall air and water temperature, and a promise that if whatever is causing this trend is not interrupted or challenged life on earth will dynamically be affected.
The prevailing counter opinion is that all that is presently perceived to be global warming is simply the result of a normal climactic swing in the direction of increased temperature. Most proponents of this global warming ideology have definitive social and financial interests in these claims.
Global warming is real. It is not the result of a natural climatic adjustment. It is a quantifiable set of environmental results that are in addition to any normal changes in climate. That is why the effects of global warming have catastrophic potential. Global warming is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is the difference between a category three hurricane and a category four. Global warming is an imbalance of nature.The premise of global warming is that industrial growth coupled with non-structured methods we as humans use to sustain ourselves has created a situation where our planet is getting hotter by the minute.
The prevailing counter opinion is that all that is presently perceived to be global warming is simply the result of a normal climactic swing in the direction of increased temperature. Most proponents of this global warming ideology have definitive social and financial interests in these claims.
Global warming is real. It is not the result of a natural climatic adjustment. It is a quantifiable set of environmental results that are in addition to any normal changes in climate. That is why the effects of global warming have catastrophic potential. Global warming is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is the difference between a category three hurricane and a category four. Global warming is an imbalance of nature.The premise of global warming is that industrial growth coupled with non-structured methods we as humans use to sustain ourselves has created a situation where our planet is getting hotter by the minute.
Causes of Global Warming
Let us start our examination of Global warming with a study of its causes. Global warming is an overall state of existence that is the cumulative effect of hundreds of environmental factors. All of these join together in both a linear and random model to show global warming as a chain of events.Most modern attention to the problem of global warming began with discussion of depletion of the Earth’s Ozone layer. Ozone (O3) is a molecular form of Oxygen. The Ozone layer is a relatively thin strata of these molecules set in the lower portion of the Earth’s stratosphere.Depletion of the Earth’s Ozone layer has resulted in a large increase in Ultra Violet Radiation reaching the surface of the earth. Does this increase in UV rays equate to global warming? Not really. In fact most scientific opinion is that depletion of the Ozone layer results in cooling of both the stratosphere and troposphere. So why mention depletion of the Ozone layer as regards to global warming? Because it represents a needed balance between harmful radiation being allowed to reach the earth’s surface and our desire to stem the rapid increase in our air and water temperature.
All About Global Warming
Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate forever.
While many view the effects of global warming to be more substantial and more rapidly occurring than others do, the scientific consensus on climatic changes related to global warming is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 °C over the past 100 years. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other human activities, are believed to be the primary sources of the global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years.
Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have recently predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100. Changes resulting from global warming may include rising sea levels due to the melting of the polar ice caps, as well as an increase in occurrence and severity of storms and other severe weather events. For more information on global warming, including the long-term effects of global warming, the causes of global warming, the latest global warming news, and more, just select any global warming article or other interactive feature below.
While many view the effects of global warming to be more substantial and more rapidly occurring than others do, the scientific consensus on climatic changes related to global warming is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 °C over the past 100 years. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other human activities, are believed to be the primary sources of the global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years.
Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have recently predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100. Changes resulting from global warming may include rising sea levels due to the melting of the polar ice caps, as well as an increase in occurrence and severity of storms and other severe weather events. For more information on global warming, including the long-term effects of global warming, the causes of global warming, the latest global warming news, and more, just select any global warming article or other interactive feature below.
Obama's Climate Team Moves to Regulate Greenhouse Gases as Research Shows Global Warming Continues at High Rates
President Barack Obama's new Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson has moved to put CO2 and other greenhouse gases under regulation by the Clean Air Act. In one of the most anticipated early actions by the new Administration, the EPA issued a proposed finding on April 17 that these gases endanger human health and well-being. When made final, this will clear the way for regulation of vehicle exhaust, which is the source of about 30 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions.
This is one of the most visible of the climate actions springing from members of the President's new Cabinet, which includes leading scientists and informed diplomats. As they took their posts, working scientists announced in two international meetings that many factors in rapid global warming were getting worse or running at rates which only a few years ago were thought to be extreme.
Besides Jackson, who an was an experienced state environment leader before taking over at EPA, Obama appointed former EPA head Carol Browner to a new post of White House climate and energy chief; Nobel Prize winner Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy; Harvard professor John Holdren, who has been outspoken on the dangers of climate disruption, as Presidential science advisor; and acclaimed ocean scientist Jane Lubchenco as head of NOAA.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replaced George Bush's footdragging international climate negotiators with a team lead by Todd Stern. One of his first actions was to announce to international climate talks in Bonn that "the science is clear, and the threat is real. The facts on the ground are outstripping the worst case scenarios. The costs of inaction-or inadequate actions-are unacceptable." The Bonn talks are preliminary to crucial UN Climate Convention meetings in Copenhagen in December [[link: http://unfccc.int/2860.php]], at which nations have promised to agree to sharp limits on greenhouse gases, replacing the Kyoto Protocol. Many national issues and roadblocks remain, however, prime of which is the world recession which dominates other international meetings.
The EPA finding, although initially focused directly on vehicle emissions, will lead under the Clean Air Act to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, source of nearly half of American CO2. Congress is also proposing control of emissions using a cap and trade process familiar to many from previous Clean Air Act procedures to limit sulphur pollution from coal burning plants. A comprehensive climate and energy bill, drafted by Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, will be debated in the House this spring. Reactions to the proposed legislation are being posted by many business and environmental groups and will surely intensify as the bill is amended and moves toward a vote later this year.
The urgency of climate action is even greater now because some recent observations are at or beyond the highest projections of previous reports. Scientific studies updating the IPCC assessment of 2007 show that more CO2 is being put into the air than ever before. Rates of change of global mean temperature, sea level rise, ice sheet changes in Greenland and the edges of Antarctica, and ocean chemical changes are running at the highest projections of the 2007 IPCC. In February 2009 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Chris Field of the Carnegie Institute also reported that some major ways that the earth naturally absorbs CO2 were less efficient now, leaving more of the gas in the air. I heard him say that because of all this, we are "on a trajectory of climate... that has not been explored."
Not every indication of climate is changing this rapidly, but most scientists now predict a 5 degree F or more temperature increase and at least three feet of sea level rise before 2100 if things continue in this way. The changes documented in these website pages and my book occurred during a time of just over one degree of warming.
Every citizen of the world needs to be aware of rapid climate change:
1. Understand the problem, its causes and threats.2. Let your leaders know the facts and that you expect them to act.3. Do something today to reduce greenhouse gas output -- please Take Action
This is one of the most visible of the climate actions springing from members of the President's new Cabinet, which includes leading scientists and informed diplomats. As they took their posts, working scientists announced in two international meetings that many factors in rapid global warming were getting worse or running at rates which only a few years ago were thought to be extreme.
Besides Jackson, who an was an experienced state environment leader before taking over at EPA, Obama appointed former EPA head Carol Browner to a new post of White House climate and energy chief; Nobel Prize winner Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy; Harvard professor John Holdren, who has been outspoken on the dangers of climate disruption, as Presidential science advisor; and acclaimed ocean scientist Jane Lubchenco as head of NOAA.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replaced George Bush's footdragging international climate negotiators with a team lead by Todd Stern. One of his first actions was to announce to international climate talks in Bonn that "the science is clear, and the threat is real. The facts on the ground are outstripping the worst case scenarios. The costs of inaction-or inadequate actions-are unacceptable." The Bonn talks are preliminary to crucial UN Climate Convention meetings in Copenhagen in December [[link: http://unfccc.int/2860.php]], at which nations have promised to agree to sharp limits on greenhouse gases, replacing the Kyoto Protocol. Many national issues and roadblocks remain, however, prime of which is the world recession which dominates other international meetings.
The EPA finding, although initially focused directly on vehicle emissions, will lead under the Clean Air Act to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, source of nearly half of American CO2. Congress is also proposing control of emissions using a cap and trade process familiar to many from previous Clean Air Act procedures to limit sulphur pollution from coal burning plants. A comprehensive climate and energy bill, drafted by Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, will be debated in the House this spring. Reactions to the proposed legislation are being posted by many business and environmental groups and will surely intensify as the bill is amended and moves toward a vote later this year.
The urgency of climate action is even greater now because some recent observations are at or beyond the highest projections of previous reports. Scientific studies updating the IPCC assessment of 2007 show that more CO2 is being put into the air than ever before. Rates of change of global mean temperature, sea level rise, ice sheet changes in Greenland and the edges of Antarctica, and ocean chemical changes are running at the highest projections of the 2007 IPCC. In February 2009 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Chris Field of the Carnegie Institute also reported that some major ways that the earth naturally absorbs CO2 were less efficient now, leaving more of the gas in the air. I heard him say that because of all this, we are "on a trajectory of climate... that has not been explored."
Not every indication of climate is changing this rapidly, but most scientists now predict a 5 degree F or more temperature increase and at least three feet of sea level rise before 2100 if things continue in this way. The changes documented in these website pages and my book occurred during a time of just over one degree of warming.
Every citizen of the world needs to be aware of rapid climate change:
1. Understand the problem, its causes and threats.2. Let your leaders know the facts and that you expect them to act.3. Do something today to reduce greenhouse gas output -- please Take Action
Global climate change impacts in the United States are spelled out with renewed authority in a federal government report.
The report's key information has been well reported here and in Earth Under Fire and other books, but bears repeating in its straightforward language and up-to-date numbers.
Human activities have led to large increases in heat-trapping gases over the past century. The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. Global average temperature and sea level have increased, and precipitation patterns have changed.
Human “fingerprints” also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, plant and animal health and location, and Arctic sea ice.
Temperatures could rise by 2-3 degrees F or more than 11 degrees will depend on how we manage our energy use and emissions. Lower emissions of heat-trapping gases will delay the appearance of climate change impacts andlessen their magnitude.
Unless the rate of emissions is substantially reduced, impacts are expected to become increasingly severe for more people and places.
Human activities have led to large increases in heat-trapping gases over the past century. The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. Global average temperature and sea level have increased, and precipitation patterns have changed.
Human “fingerprints” also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, plant and animal health and location, and Arctic sea ice.
Temperatures could rise by 2-3 degrees F or more than 11 degrees will depend on how we manage our energy use and emissions. Lower emissions of heat-trapping gases will delay the appearance of climate change impacts andlessen their magnitude.
Unless the rate of emissions is substantially reduced, impacts are expected to become increasingly severe for more people and places.
President Obama reverses years of avoidance by the United States, and will promise a limit on greenhouse gases at the international climate talks in C
President Barack Obama will address the United Nations international climate change negotiations on 9 December, the first time a sitting president has appeared at this or similar meetings since President George H.W. Bush attended the Rio Conference in 1992. At that meeting, President Bush I signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which set into motion talks by the world's nations resulting in the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gases. At this year's meeting, the nations will try to agree on much steeper reductions in greeenhouse gases in the face of mounting dangerous climate change.
According to reports, President Obama will state a US goal “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. This is consistent with a bill passed by the House of Representatives last summer. However the U. S. Senate has just begun to address a climate and energy law, and there is huge opposition from rural, manufacturing and coal states. Rancorous debate, possibly weakening amendments and other delays are expected before the Senate actually passes a law. Then the House and Senate will have to agree to final wording and greenhouse reduction levels. The final law may not be passed until well into 2010. Many scientists and climate activists say that the changes proposed in Congress are not strong or fast enough to head off severe climate changes.
With much of the world waiting for the U.S. --- and China --- to state hard goals and fully engage in the international climate talks, the White House apparently hopes that Obama's appearance and statement of a goal will encourage a successful Copenhagen outcome.
According to reports, President Obama will state a US goal “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. This is consistent with a bill passed by the House of Representatives last summer. However the U. S. Senate has just begun to address a climate and energy law, and there is huge opposition from rural, manufacturing and coal states. Rancorous debate, possibly weakening amendments and other delays are expected before the Senate actually passes a law. Then the House and Senate will have to agree to final wording and greenhouse reduction levels. The final law may not be passed until well into 2010. Many scientists and climate activists say that the changes proposed in Congress are not strong or fast enough to head off severe climate changes.
With much of the world waiting for the U.S. --- and China --- to state hard goals and fully engage in the international climate talks, the White House apparently hopes that Obama's appearance and statement of a goal will encourage a successful Copenhagen outcome.
Leading scientists warn of surging climate change effects on eve of Copenhagen climate talks.
A group of respected international climate scientists, including those who lead previous studies reported on this website, have issued an update on climate science as of the end of November 2009. The report paints a dire picture of increased greenhouse emissions, heightened effects around the world, and the threat that the world could reach a point of disastrous change if there is no immediate action to limit greenhouse gases.
The major observations include:
Surging greenhouse gas emissions:
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding the amount of greenhouse gases which the scientists predict will cause severe and long-term harm to large parts of the earth and its people. Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of .34 degrees F (0.19ºC ) per decade. Even over the past ten years the trend continues to be one of warming.
Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.
Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990. Summertime melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of estimates based on past climate.
Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) that is 80% above past predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in water flowing into the ocean from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets By 2100, global sea-level increase may well exceed 1 meter.
Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (such as continental ice sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues as it is now throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change.
The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be slowed to avoid these limits, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a "decarbonized" global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to 80-95 percent below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
The limits and thresholds the scientists speak of is based on a level of 450 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere, which they say could result in an additional 2 degrees F global temperature increase. There is already 387 ppm of CO2 in the air, and even during the current recession the concentration of the gas has been rising by nearly 2 ppm per year. However, a growing number of scientists are declaring now that the tolerable level of warming and change really is much lower than 450 ppm, and that in fact we already exceed the point of danger. These scientists advocate stopping and reversing the atmospheric concentration back to 350 ppm. This number has become the focus of an international citizens' movement to influence policy and legislation on climate change.
The major observations include:
Surging greenhouse gas emissions:
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding the amount of greenhouse gases which the scientists predict will cause severe and long-term harm to large parts of the earth and its people. Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of .34 degrees F (0.19ºC ) per decade. Even over the past ten years the trend continues to be one of warming.
Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.
Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990. Summertime melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of estimates based on past climate.
Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) that is 80% above past predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in water flowing into the ocean from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets By 2100, global sea-level increase may well exceed 1 meter.
Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (such as continental ice sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues as it is now throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change.
The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be slowed to avoid these limits, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a "decarbonized" global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to 80-95 percent below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
The limits and thresholds the scientists speak of is based on a level of 450 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere, which they say could result in an additional 2 degrees F global temperature increase. There is already 387 ppm of CO2 in the air, and even during the current recession the concentration of the gas has been rising by nearly 2 ppm per year. However, a growing number of scientists are declaring now that the tolerable level of warming and change really is much lower than 450 ppm, and that in fact we already exceed the point of danger. These scientists advocate stopping and reversing the atmospheric concentration back to 350 ppm. This number has become the focus of an international citizens' movement to influence policy and legislation on climate change.
George Will: The Truth About Global Warming
In last week's NEWSWEEK, the cover story was a hymn to "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man." Beneath the story's headline ("The Evolution of an Eco-Prophet") was this subhead: "Al Gore's views on climate change are advancing as rapidly as the phenomenon itself." Which was rather rude because, if true, his views have not advanced for 11 years. (Click here to follow George F. Will)
There is much debate about the reasons for, and the importance of, the fact that global warming has not increased for that long. What we know is that computer models did not predict this. Which matters, a lot, because we are incessantly exhorted to wager trillions of dollars and diminished freedom on the proposition that computer models are correctly projecting catastrophic global warming. On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported some inconvenient data. Soon after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—it shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Thinking Man's Thinking Man—reported that global warming is "unequivocal," there came evidence that the planet's temperature is beginning to cool. "That," Ball writes, "has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect."
Models are no better or worse than their assumptions, and Ball notes how dicey these assumptions can be: "The effects of clouds, for example, are unclear. Depending on their shape and altitude, clouds can either trap heat, warming the earth, or reflect it, cooling the planet." It gets worse: "The way that greenhouse gases affect cloud formation—and how clouds in turn affect temperature—remains a subject of debate. Different models treat these factors differently."
Some scientists say the cooling is a product of what Ball calls "the enigmatic ocean currents." Others say that even if the cooling continues for several decades, as some scientists think it might, warming will resume.
To read the rest of this article on Newsweek.com
There is much debate about the reasons for, and the importance of, the fact that global warming has not increased for that long. What we know is that computer models did not predict this. Which matters, a lot, because we are incessantly exhorted to wager trillions of dollars and diminished freedom on the proposition that computer models are correctly projecting catastrophic global warming. On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported some inconvenient data. Soon after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—it shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Thinking Man's Thinking Man—reported that global warming is "unequivocal," there came evidence that the planet's temperature is beginning to cool. "That," Ball writes, "has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect."
Models are no better or worse than their assumptions, and Ball notes how dicey these assumptions can be: "The effects of clouds, for example, are unclear. Depending on their shape and altitude, clouds can either trap heat, warming the earth, or reflect it, cooling the planet." It gets worse: "The way that greenhouse gases affect cloud formation—and how clouds in turn affect temperature—remains a subject of debate. Different models treat these factors differently."
Some scientists say the cooling is a product of what Ball calls "the enigmatic ocean currents." Others say that even if the cooling continues for several decades, as some scientists think it might, warming will resume.
To read the rest of this article on Newsweek.com
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Solution Of Global Warming
1. Install a programmable thermostatProgrammable thermostats will automatically lower the heat or air conditioning at night and raise them again in the morning. They can save you $100 a year on your energy bill.
2. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summerAlmost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment.
3. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditionerCleaning a dirty air filter can save 350 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
4. Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchasesLook for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most energy efficient products available.
5. Do not leave appliances on standbyUse the "on/off" function on the machine itself. A TV set that's switched on for 3 hours a day (the average time Europeans spend watching TV) and in standby mode during the remaining 21 hours uses about 40% of its energy in standby mode.
6. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanketYou’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 50°C.
7. Move your fridge and freezerPlacing them next to the cooker or boiler consumes much more energy than if they were standing on their own. For example, if you put them in a hot cellar room where the room temperature is 30-35ºC, energy use is almost double and causes an extra 160kg of CO2 emissions for fridges per year and 320kg for freezers.
8. Defrost old fridges and freezers regularlyEven better is to replace them with newer models, which all have automatic defrost cycles and are generally up to two times more energy-efficient than their predecessors.
9. Don't let heat escape from your house over a long periodWhen airing your house, open the windows for only a few minutes. If you leave a small opening all day long, the energy needed to keep it warm inside during six cold months (10ºC or less outside temperature) would result in almost 1 ton of CO2 emissions.
10. Replace your old single-glazed windows with double-glazingThis requires a bit of upfront investment, but will halve the energy lost through windows and pay off in the long term. If you go for the best the market has to offer (wooden-framed double-glazed units with low-emission glass and filled with argon gas), you can even save more than 70% of the energy lost.
11. Get a home energy auditMany utilities offer free home energy audits to find where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. You can save up to 30% off your energy bill and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Energy Star can help you find an energy specialist.
12. Cover your pots while cookingDoing so can save a lot of the energy needed for preparing the dish. Even better are pressure cookers and steamers: they can save around 70%!
13. Use the washing machine or dishwasher only when they are fullIf you need to use it when it is half full, then use the half-load or economy setting. There is also no need to set the temperatures high. Nowadays detergents are so efficient that they get your clothes and dishes clean at low temperatures.
14. Take a shower instead of a bathA shower takes up to four times less energy than a bath. To maximize the energy saving, avoid power showers and use low-flow showerheads, which are cheap and provide the same comfort.
15. Use less hot waterIt takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.
16. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possibleYou can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year.
17. Insulate and weatherize your homeProperly insulating your walls and ceilings can save 25% of your home heating bill and 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Caulking and weather-stripping can save another 1,700 pounds per year. Energy Efficient has more information on how to better insulate your home.
18. Be sure you’re recycling at homeYou can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year by recycling half of the waste your household generates.
19. Recycle your organic wasteAround 3% of the greenhouse gas emissions through the methane is released by decomposing bio-degradable waste. By recycling organic waste or composting it if you have a garden, you can help eliminate this problem! Just make sure that you compost it properly, so it decomposes with sufficient oxygen, otherwise your compost will cause methane emissions and smell foul.
20. Buy intelligentlyOne bottle of 1.5l requires less energy and produces less waste than three bottles of 0.5l. As well, buy recycled paper products: it takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide.
21. Choose products that come with little packaging and buy refills when you canYou will also cut down on waste production and energy use... another help against global warming.
22. Reuse your shopping bagWhen shopping, it saves energy and waste to use a reusable bag instead of accepting a disposable one in each shop. Waste not only discharges CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, it can also pollute the air, groundwater and soil.
23. Reduce wasteMost products we buy cause greenhouse gas emissions in one or another way, e.g. during production and distribution. By taking your lunch in a reusable lunch box instead of a disposable one, you save the energy needed to produce new lunch boxes.
24. Plant a treeA single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership.
25. Switch to green powerIn many areas, you can switch to energy generated by clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar. In some of these, you can even get refunds by government if you choose to switch to a clean energy producer, and you can also earn money by selling the energy you produce and don't use for yourself.
26. Buy locally grown and produced foodsThe average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community.
27. Buy fresh foods instead of frozenFrozen food uses 10 times more energy to produce.
28. Seek out and support local farmers marketsThey reduce the amount of energy required to grow and transport the food to you by one fifth. Seek farmer’s markets in your area, and go for them.
29. Buy organic foods as much as possibleOrganic soils capture and store carbon dioxide at much higher levels than soils from conventional farms. If we grew all of our corn and soybeans organically, we’d remove 580 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!
30. Eat less meatMethane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath.
31. Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possibleAvoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year! Look for transit options in your area.
32. Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmatesSharing a ride with someone just 2 days a week will reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by 1,590 pounds a year. eRideShare.com runs a free service connecting north american commuters and travelers.
33. Don't leave an empty roof rack on your carThis can increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 10% due to wind resistance and the extra weight - removing it is a better idea.
34. Keep your car tuned upRegular maintenance helps improve fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. When just 1% of car owners properly maintain their cars, nearly a billion pounds of carbon dioxide are kept out of the atmosphere.
35. Drive carefully and do not waste fuelYou can reduce CO2 emissions by readjusting your driving style. Choose proper gears, do not abuse the gas pedal, use the engine brake instead of the pedal brake when possible and turn off your engine when your vehicle is motionless for more than one minute. By readjusting your driving style you can save money on both fuel and car mantainance.
36. Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflatedProper tire inflation can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Since every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, every increase in fuel efficiency makes a difference!
37. When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicleYou can save 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year if your new car gets only 3 miles per gallon more than your current one. You can get up to 60 miles per gallon with a hybrid! You can find information on fuel efficiency on FuelEconomy and on GreenCars websites.
38. Try car sharingNeed a car but don’t want to buy one? Community car sharing organizations provide access to a car and your membership fee covers gas, maintenance and insurance. Many companies – such as Flexcar - offer low emission or hybrid cars too! Also, see ZipCar.
39. Try telecommuting from homeTelecommuting can help you drastically reduce the number of miles you drive every week. For more information, check out the Telework Coalition.
40. Fly lessAir travel produces large amounts of emissions so reducing how much you fly by even one or two trips a year can reduce your emissions significantly. You can also offset your air travel carbon emissions by investingin renewable energy projects.
41. Encourage your school or business to reduce emissionsYou can extend your positive influence on global warming well beyond your home by actively encouraging other to take action.
42. Join the virtual marchThe Stop Global Warming Virtual March is a non-political effort to bring people concerned about global warming together in one place. Add your voice to the hundreds of thousands of other people urging action on this issue.
43. Encourage the switch to renewable energySuccessfully combating global warming requires a national transition to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. These technologies are ready to be deployed more widely but there are regulatory barriers impeding them. U.S. citizens, take action to break down those barriers with Vote Solar.
44. Protect and conserve forest worldwideForests play a critical role in global warming: they store carbon. When forests are burned or cut down, their stored carbon is release into the atmosphere - deforestation now accounts for about 20% of carbon dioxide emissions each year. Conservation International has more information on saving forests from global warming.
45. Consider the impact of your investmentsIf you invest your money, you should consider the impact that your investments and savings will have on global warming. Check out SocialInvest and Ceres to can learn more about how to ensure your money is being invested in companies, products and projects that address issues related to climate change.
46. Make your city coolCities and states around the country have taken action to stop global warming by passing innovative transportation and energy saving legislation. If you're in the U.S., join the cool cities list.
47. Tell Congress to actThe McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would set a firm limit on carbon dioxide emissions and then use free market incentives to lower costs, promote efficiency and spur innovation. Tell your representative to support it.
48. Make sure your voice is heard!Americans must have a stronger commitment from their government in order to stop global warming and implement solutions and such a commitment won’t come without a dramatic increase in citizen lobbying for new laws with teeth. Get the facts about U.S. politicians and candidates at Project Vote Smart and The League of Conservation Voters. Make sure your voice is heard by voting!
49. Share this list!Send this page via e-mail to your friends! Spread this list worldwide and help people doing their part: the more people you will manage to enlighten, the greater YOUR help to save the planet will be (but please take action on first person too)!
2. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summerAlmost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment.
3. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditionerCleaning a dirty air filter can save 350 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
4. Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchasesLook for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most energy efficient products available.
5. Do not leave appliances on standbyUse the "on/off" function on the machine itself. A TV set that's switched on for 3 hours a day (the average time Europeans spend watching TV) and in standby mode during the remaining 21 hours uses about 40% of its energy in standby mode.
6. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanketYou’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 50°C.
7. Move your fridge and freezerPlacing them next to the cooker or boiler consumes much more energy than if they were standing on their own. For example, if you put them in a hot cellar room where the room temperature is 30-35ºC, energy use is almost double and causes an extra 160kg of CO2 emissions for fridges per year and 320kg for freezers.
8. Defrost old fridges and freezers regularlyEven better is to replace them with newer models, which all have automatic defrost cycles and are generally up to two times more energy-efficient than their predecessors.
9. Don't let heat escape from your house over a long periodWhen airing your house, open the windows for only a few minutes. If you leave a small opening all day long, the energy needed to keep it warm inside during six cold months (10ºC or less outside temperature) would result in almost 1 ton of CO2 emissions.
10. Replace your old single-glazed windows with double-glazingThis requires a bit of upfront investment, but will halve the energy lost through windows and pay off in the long term. If you go for the best the market has to offer (wooden-framed double-glazed units with low-emission glass and filled with argon gas), you can even save more than 70% of the energy lost.
11. Get a home energy auditMany utilities offer free home energy audits to find where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. You can save up to 30% off your energy bill and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Energy Star can help you find an energy specialist.
12. Cover your pots while cookingDoing so can save a lot of the energy needed for preparing the dish. Even better are pressure cookers and steamers: they can save around 70%!
13. Use the washing machine or dishwasher only when they are fullIf you need to use it when it is half full, then use the half-load or economy setting. There is also no need to set the temperatures high. Nowadays detergents are so efficient that they get your clothes and dishes clean at low temperatures.
14. Take a shower instead of a bathA shower takes up to four times less energy than a bath. To maximize the energy saving, avoid power showers and use low-flow showerheads, which are cheap and provide the same comfort.
15. Use less hot waterIt takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.
16. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possibleYou can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year.
17. Insulate and weatherize your homeProperly insulating your walls and ceilings can save 25% of your home heating bill and 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Caulking and weather-stripping can save another 1,700 pounds per year. Energy Efficient has more information on how to better insulate your home.
18. Be sure you’re recycling at homeYou can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year by recycling half of the waste your household generates.
19. Recycle your organic wasteAround 3% of the greenhouse gas emissions through the methane is released by decomposing bio-degradable waste. By recycling organic waste or composting it if you have a garden, you can help eliminate this problem! Just make sure that you compost it properly, so it decomposes with sufficient oxygen, otherwise your compost will cause methane emissions and smell foul.
20. Buy intelligentlyOne bottle of 1.5l requires less energy and produces less waste than three bottles of 0.5l. As well, buy recycled paper products: it takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide.
21. Choose products that come with little packaging and buy refills when you canYou will also cut down on waste production and energy use... another help against global warming.
22. Reuse your shopping bagWhen shopping, it saves energy and waste to use a reusable bag instead of accepting a disposable one in each shop. Waste not only discharges CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, it can also pollute the air, groundwater and soil.
23. Reduce wasteMost products we buy cause greenhouse gas emissions in one or another way, e.g. during production and distribution. By taking your lunch in a reusable lunch box instead of a disposable one, you save the energy needed to produce new lunch boxes.
24. Plant a treeA single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership.
25. Switch to green powerIn many areas, you can switch to energy generated by clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar. In some of these, you can even get refunds by government if you choose to switch to a clean energy producer, and you can also earn money by selling the energy you produce and don't use for yourself.
26. Buy locally grown and produced foodsThe average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community.
27. Buy fresh foods instead of frozenFrozen food uses 10 times more energy to produce.
28. Seek out and support local farmers marketsThey reduce the amount of energy required to grow and transport the food to you by one fifth. Seek farmer’s markets in your area, and go for them.
29. Buy organic foods as much as possibleOrganic soils capture and store carbon dioxide at much higher levels than soils from conventional farms. If we grew all of our corn and soybeans organically, we’d remove 580 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!
30. Eat less meatMethane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath.
31. Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possibleAvoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year! Look for transit options in your area.
32. Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmatesSharing a ride with someone just 2 days a week will reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by 1,590 pounds a year. eRideShare.com runs a free service connecting north american commuters and travelers.
33. Don't leave an empty roof rack on your carThis can increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 10% due to wind resistance and the extra weight - removing it is a better idea.
34. Keep your car tuned upRegular maintenance helps improve fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. When just 1% of car owners properly maintain their cars, nearly a billion pounds of carbon dioxide are kept out of the atmosphere.
35. Drive carefully and do not waste fuelYou can reduce CO2 emissions by readjusting your driving style. Choose proper gears, do not abuse the gas pedal, use the engine brake instead of the pedal brake when possible and turn off your engine when your vehicle is motionless for more than one minute. By readjusting your driving style you can save money on both fuel and car mantainance.
36. Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflatedProper tire inflation can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Since every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, every increase in fuel efficiency makes a difference!
37. When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicleYou can save 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year if your new car gets only 3 miles per gallon more than your current one. You can get up to 60 miles per gallon with a hybrid! You can find information on fuel efficiency on FuelEconomy and on GreenCars websites.
38. Try car sharingNeed a car but don’t want to buy one? Community car sharing organizations provide access to a car and your membership fee covers gas, maintenance and insurance. Many companies – such as Flexcar - offer low emission or hybrid cars too! Also, see ZipCar.
39. Try telecommuting from homeTelecommuting can help you drastically reduce the number of miles you drive every week. For more information, check out the Telework Coalition.
40. Fly lessAir travel produces large amounts of emissions so reducing how much you fly by even one or two trips a year can reduce your emissions significantly. You can also offset your air travel carbon emissions by investingin renewable energy projects.
41. Encourage your school or business to reduce emissionsYou can extend your positive influence on global warming well beyond your home by actively encouraging other to take action.
42. Join the virtual marchThe Stop Global Warming Virtual March is a non-political effort to bring people concerned about global warming together in one place. Add your voice to the hundreds of thousands of other people urging action on this issue.
43. Encourage the switch to renewable energySuccessfully combating global warming requires a national transition to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. These technologies are ready to be deployed more widely but there are regulatory barriers impeding them. U.S. citizens, take action to break down those barriers with Vote Solar.
44. Protect and conserve forest worldwideForests play a critical role in global warming: they store carbon. When forests are burned or cut down, their stored carbon is release into the atmosphere - deforestation now accounts for about 20% of carbon dioxide emissions each year. Conservation International has more information on saving forests from global warming.
45. Consider the impact of your investmentsIf you invest your money, you should consider the impact that your investments and savings will have on global warming. Check out SocialInvest and Ceres to can learn more about how to ensure your money is being invested in companies, products and projects that address issues related to climate change.
46. Make your city coolCities and states around the country have taken action to stop global warming by passing innovative transportation and energy saving legislation. If you're in the U.S., join the cool cities list.
47. Tell Congress to actThe McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would set a firm limit on carbon dioxide emissions and then use free market incentives to lower costs, promote efficiency and spur innovation. Tell your representative to support it.
48. Make sure your voice is heard!Americans must have a stronger commitment from their government in order to stop global warming and implement solutions and such a commitment won’t come without a dramatic increase in citizen lobbying for new laws with teeth. Get the facts about U.S. politicians and candidates at Project Vote Smart and The League of Conservation Voters. Make sure your voice is heard by voting!
49. Share this list!Send this page via e-mail to your friends! Spread this list worldwide and help people doing their part: the more people you will manage to enlighten, the greater YOUR help to save the planet will be (but please take action on first person too)!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
