(NaturalNews) Dr. Jim Hansen, a NASA climatologist, announced in an interview with The Independent that the world is turning into a different planet due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
Hansen stated that the Earth's population has less than a decade to stop global warming from changing the world forever, and noted that the effects on the climate were already observable.
"We just cannot burn all the fossil fuels in the ground," he said. "If we do, we will end up with a different planet. I mean a planet with no ice in the Arctic, and a planet where warming is so large that it's going to have a large effect in terms of sea level rises and the extinction of species."
Hansen indicated that global warming is causing dangerous "positive feedbacks" in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, which can accelerate the rate of climate change. One such feedback is the receding sea ice, which subsequently increases Arctic temperatures because the amount of sunlight and heat reflected back into space is reduced. The melting ice also releases methane, which is 20 times more dangerous as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, Hansen said.
"If we go another 10 years, by 2015, at the current rate of growth of CO2 emissions, which is about 2 percent per year, the emissions in 2015 will be 35 percent larger than they were in 2000," he said. "But if we want to get on a scenario that keeps global temperature in the range that it's been in for the last million years, we would need to decrease the emissions by something of the order of 25 percent by the middle of the century, and by something like 75 percent by the end of the century."
According to Hansen, the current trend will eventually cause the collapse of ice sheets in Greenland and the west Antarctic, which would cause massive increases in sea levels over the next couple of decades. This is especially worrying, Hansen pointed out, since about 50 percent of the world's population lives within 15 miles of a coastline
"The last time it was 3 degrees (Celsius) warmer, sea levels were 25 meters higher, plus or minus 10 meters. You'd not get that in one century, but you could get several meters in one century," he said. "The problem is that once you get the process started and well on the way, it's impossible to prevent it. That's why we need to address the issue before it gets out of control."
Human beings are not the only species in jeopardy, Hansen noted, as some plant and animal species could be "pushed off the planet" by rising temperatures. If the temperatures continue to rise, isotherms -- lines of equal temperature -- will begin to travel toward the poles at about 31 miles per decade, while the average rate of species migration is only about 3.7 miles per decade.
"Those species at high latitudes have no place to go to," Hansen said. "Many of them will be in trouble."
Hansen was one of the first scientists to warn of the effects of climate change in testimony to Congress in 1988, and made headlines last year when he complained of Bush-appointed NASA public relations officers limiting his access to the media in order to prevent him from discussing global warming. White House officials denied the allegations, but while Hansen said he now feels able to speak out, he reported that other scientists still feel gagged.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Virgin Group CEO offers $25 million prize to solve global warming challenge
(NaturalNews) British billionaire Richard Branson revealed on Friday that he is offering $25 million to anyone who can create a technology that will clean out greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.
The news conference had Branson flanked by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and British ex-diplomat Crispin Tickell. The goal of the prize is to tackle one of man's greatest issues – global warming – by spurring development of new technology.
"Man created the problem and therefore man should solve the problem," Branson said of greenhouse gases at a news conference.
The prize will go to anyone who can remove one billion tons of greenhouse gas each year over the course of ten years. The winner will receive $5 million.
Gore, who made the global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", will be one of six judges for the contest, dubbed the Virgin Earth Challenge.
The move by Branson comes just five months after his announcement that he would commit $3 billion of Virgin's profits to fight global warming over the next 10 years.
At the news conference, Branson shrugged off the fact that his airlines, Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Express, are a part of the greenhouse gas problem. Removing an airline from the market won't remove the number of commercial planes in flight, he said, because other companies would take over that market share.
Airline emissions represent 3 percent of all contributors to greenhouse gases -- much less than automobiles -- but that 3 percent represents more than 370 million tons of CO2 a year. However, unlike the automotive industry's advances with hybrid cars, more efficient jet fuels are yet to be seen, Steve Rayner, a professor of science and civilization at Oxford University, told the New York Times.
"This project may hold particular appeal in the aviation industry as there really are no other viable, cleaner fuels in the pipeline," Rayner said. "I think that's why Branson has latched onto this."
Earth's atmosphere currently has 200 metric gigatons of carbon in it, accelerated by the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, said Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery via video link at the conference. The increase in greenhouse gases from factories and burning fossil fuels have changed the environment we live in – creating increased carbon concentrations by 100 parts per million in the air, and raised temperatures that correlate to rising sea levels, floods and storms.
"We are now facing a planetary emergency. The planet has a fever," Gore said at the news conference. "This is an initiative to stimulate someone to do something that no one knows how to do. This is right at the cutting edge."
The news conference had Branson flanked by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and British ex-diplomat Crispin Tickell. The goal of the prize is to tackle one of man's greatest issues – global warming – by spurring development of new technology.
"Man created the problem and therefore man should solve the problem," Branson said of greenhouse gases at a news conference.
The prize will go to anyone who can remove one billion tons of greenhouse gas each year over the course of ten years. The winner will receive $5 million.
Gore, who made the global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", will be one of six judges for the contest, dubbed the Virgin Earth Challenge.
The move by Branson comes just five months after his announcement that he would commit $3 billion of Virgin's profits to fight global warming over the next 10 years.
At the news conference, Branson shrugged off the fact that his airlines, Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Express, are a part of the greenhouse gas problem. Removing an airline from the market won't remove the number of commercial planes in flight, he said, because other companies would take over that market share.
Airline emissions represent 3 percent of all contributors to greenhouse gases -- much less than automobiles -- but that 3 percent represents more than 370 million tons of CO2 a year. However, unlike the automotive industry's advances with hybrid cars, more efficient jet fuels are yet to be seen, Steve Rayner, a professor of science and civilization at Oxford University, told the New York Times.
"This project may hold particular appeal in the aviation industry as there really are no other viable, cleaner fuels in the pipeline," Rayner said. "I think that's why Branson has latched onto this."
Earth's atmosphere currently has 200 metric gigatons of carbon in it, accelerated by the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, said Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery via video link at the conference. The increase in greenhouse gases from factories and burning fossil fuels have changed the environment we live in – creating increased carbon concentrations by 100 parts per million in the air, and raised temperatures that correlate to rising sea levels, floods and storms.
"We are now facing a planetary emergency. The planet has a fever," Gore said at the news conference. "This is an initiative to stimulate someone to do something that no one knows how to do. This is right at the cutting edge."
Coming global warming will cause climate zone migration, species extinction
(NaturalNews) By the year 2100, global warming likely will cause the extinction of numerous species by eliminating the climate zones in which they are able to live, according to study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy Of Sciences.Using data and scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, researchers predicted that global warming will cause currently existing climate zones to move further toward the poles. This will cause the elimination of the climate regions closest to the poles or near the tops of tropical mountains, including the tropical Andes, southeast Australia, the African rift mountains, the Angolan and Zambian Highlands, the South African Cape region, and parts of the Himalayas and Arctic."How do you conserve the biological diversity of these entire systems if the physical environment is changing and potentially disappearing?" said lead author John Williams.The researchers also predicted that the species least likely to be able to adapt or migrate along with their preferred climate zones are those currently living in relatively stable tropical and subtropical climates. This means that species diversity in Amazon and Indonesian rainforests is likely to plummet."One of the things that comes from our paper is that because the species that live in the tropics are adapted or have evolved for a reduced range of variability, it may be the two- to three-degree temperature change in the tropics may be more significant, say, than a five to eight-degree change in high latitudes," Williams said. To date, however, more attention has focused on global warming's impacts on the Arctic, which are being felt more quickly.The study also concluded that by 2100, climate zones will have changed over 12 to 39 percent of the Earth's land surface. These results came from using a scenario that presumes a continuation of current patterns of fossil fuel use and carbon emissions. Assuming continued industrial development in a less emissions-intensive pattern, the predicted change was over 4 to 20 percent of the planet's land surface.
Global Warming Versus Planet Poisoning
(NaturalNews) Al Gore recently won a Nobel Prize for his documentary on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Since then, there has been much debate over whether or not Mr. Gore deserved this accolade and thus rekindled the debate over global warming in general. This seems to be the point of the movie in the first place, to focus our attention on climate change and what we can do about it. Now if only someone equally famous would put together a documentary on how synthetic chemicals are killing us and the planet.The effects of carbon emissions from our insatiable appetite for energy may be melting the polar ice caps and endangering the polar bears, but perchlorate in our ground water is compromising the healthy function of the thyroid in both man and beast. Increasingly prescribed over the decades, synthetic hormones have also found their way into our lakes, streams and drinking water and already there are populations of frogs found with both male and female organs. Though banned more than 30 years ago, DDT can still be found in the breast milk of women all over the globe.Since the Second World War, over 80,000 new synthetic chemicals have been manufactured and released into our environment, with 1,500 new chemicals introduced every year. With this increase come all sorts of problems with adverse interactions and unknown synergistic effects. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to isolate any one chemical in the body to find harmful effects. We are all walking test tubes with hundreds of toxins interacting in our liver, fat stores and active blood stream.The medical research community continues to look for single smoking guns. A drug that cures cancer or a toxin that causes it. None of it is that simple. With research showing one out of three people in the U.S. will develop cancer in their lifetime, do we really think that global warming is our biggest concern? Yes, we should save energy and cut green house gases. But we should also quit poisoning ourselves and the planet. Eating healthy, fresh foods, cleaning with a little “elbow grease” instead of “Scrub Free”, and purchasing natural products will do more for us and the planet than any synthetic chemical or drug ever could.
Global warming battle goes local as city mayors launch green initiatives
(NaturalNews) Mayors from around the world presented plans to reduce their cities' greenhouse gas emissions at an international conference of mayors in New York City earlier this year. "Unfortunately, it has fallen to the mayors to do it because at the federal level in this country and other countries, they seem to be tied up," said Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York.At the conference, Bloomberg spoke about his 127-point plan to reduce New York's greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030. On the opposite side of the continent, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has promised to reduce that city's emissions by 35 percent in the same time frame. Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has committed to getting his city's residents to bring their carbon dioxide emissions back below 1990 levels within the next five years.In addition, 16 major U.S. cities have signed up for a plan that allows them to borrow money to increase the energy efficiency of their buildings, then to pay back those loans through the resulting energy savings.The local initiatives come in the face of a continuing unwillingness by the federal government to address the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. The United States has made its opposition clear to any international treaties that would compel it to reduce such emissions, including expansions to the Kyoto Protocol or discussions at the upcoming G-8 summit.Due to a recent Supreme Court ruling, however, President Bush signed an executive order on May 14 directing federal agencies to develop rules by the end of the year that would "cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles."For some, the end of the year is not nearly soon enough. California's attorney general, Jerry Brown, has asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow 12 states, including California, to enact their own rules sooner. The states want to require automakers to guarantee a 25 percent emissions reduction from all cars and light trucks and an 18 percent reduction from all SUVs beginning with the 2009 model year.
Global Warming to Hammer U.S. Northeast with Radical Weather, Warn Scientists
(NaturalNews) A recent report has enumerated the catastrophic changes that the northeastern United States can expect due to global warming, particularly if local and global greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed.The report, "Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast," was a joint project of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 50 scientists and economists. It looks at the likely outcomes of two different climate change scenarios, one assuming a continued increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the other assuming significantly lower emissions due to a shift to cleaner energy sources.The high-emissions scenario predicts an 8- to 12-degree Fahrenheit increase in winter temperatures and a 6- to 14-degree increase in summer temperatures, while the lower-emissions scenario predicts increases of 5 to 8 and 3 to 7 degrees, respectively. The global sea level is expected to rise 10 to 23 inches under the high-emissions scenario, and 7 to 14 under the lower one. By 2100, these increases will lead to New York City experiencing what are currently once-a-century floods every 10 years under the high-emissions scenario and twice a decade under the lower scenario.But in some measures, even lower emissions will make little difference. Coastal cities such as Boston are expected to experience formerly once-a-century floods once every two to four years by 2050 and once a year by 2100 under either scenario. Warming ocean temperatures will drive many fish and shellfish species north, leading to the disappearance of cod and lobster south of Cape Cod before 2100.The report concludes that while the Northeast has limited ability to reduce global emissions, a reduction of regional emissions to 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050 would be enough to bring emissions onto the level of the lower-emissions scenario used in the study.
Excess Ozone Chokes Plants, Accelerates Global Warming
(NaturalNews) The chemical known as ozone may be making a much more significant contribution to global warming than scientists had previously thought, according to a new study published in the journal Nature."Ozone could be twice as important as we previously thought as a driver of climate change," said study co-author Peter Cox.Ozone occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, but is produced in the lower atmosphere when sunlight strikes industrial pollutants such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides.Scientists have long known that ozone is a greenhouse gas, trapping radiation within the atmosphere and leading to rising global temperatures. But the new study suggests that ozone may have a much more significant climate impact by adversely affecting plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.According to the researchers, high concentrations of ozone and carbon dioxide damage plants' ability to engage in photosynthesis. This weakens the plants, causing their stomata (pores in the leaves) to close. In turn, this reduces that amount of carbon dioxide or ozone that the plants are able to absorb.Because of this complex interaction, scientists previously did not know how significant of an effect ozone pollution had on plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To answer the question, researchers designed two computer models to test how plants would be affected by ozone if they had either high or low sensitivity. They then used these models to estimate the predicted effect of ozone on plants' ability to filter out carbon dioxide using projected ozone levels from 1900 to 2100.Under the high-sensitivity model, plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was reduced by 23 percent. Even under the low-sensitivity model, it was reduced by 14 percent."Calculations of the efficiency of land ecosystems to take up carbon would be less efficient than we thought previously," Cox said. "The indirect effect is of a similar magnitude, or even larger, than the direct effect. Arguably, we have been looking in the wrong place for the key impacts of ozone."
The Impact of Global Warming on Coffee Plants and Beans
(NaturalNews) If you’ve taken notice to the sporadic ranges in coffee prices, it’s not because of greed amongst the growers. Read about the effects of global warming and how it is substantially impacting coffee crops around the world.The effects of global warming are widespread, impacting not only our daily atmospheric breathing-related abilities and quality of life in general, but also a great majority of agricultural industries including coffee bean crops. Erratic forces of nature, e.g. too much rainfall, then extreme dry spells as a direct consequence of deforestation and pollution, can very often produce a severe impact of global warming on coffee plants and beans. And based on these ever-changing, sometimes extreme climate and temperature changes, many of the major tropical coffee crop regions of the world which include Central America, Brazil, Africa and India are experiencing irretrievable losses.The Logistics of it AllA flourishing growth, hence triumphant harvesting of a coffee crop, depends greatly on not just rainfall in itself but more importantly, the timing and amount of it all. During the spring months of April and May, the plants need considerable rainfall to assist with the development of their flowering phase. But when the heavy rains come instead during the months prior to that stage, the coffee crop’s growth is stunted, thereby causing havoc on its entire developmental process. As the summer months of June and July approach, the plants need and thirst for yet further moisture. Then, as the seasons shift into the early autumn months of late August and September, coffee plants necessitate dryness so that the beans can harden and ripen. So a drought during this time frame is most beneficial. But when global warming steps in and the weather works in backward succession with the crop’s crucial necessities, creating heavy downpours when aridity is essential and vice versa, all that the farmers can do is stand by and watch as the fruits of their labor are destroyed.Dollars and CentsA Business Daily article published in November, 2007, states that coffee crop losses will not only create a necessity for increased pricing, but are also defeating the efforts of coffee farmers world-wide. Successes gained by sustaining their crops through strategic laboring and maneuvering within the constant greenhouse effects on their plants, are proving futile as nature consumes substantial percentages of their yield. And as a result, the monetary aspect trickles negatively into not only their livelihood, but that of the global consumer as well, because as is commonly known, when supply decreases, market prices rise.Possible Solutions in SightIn a tactical approach toward uncovering new methods and means as an attempt to elude the challenging weather patterns, agricultural experts in conjunction with coffee farmers are working toward developing new, stronger plants that will be able to combat the effects of global warming by utilization of their own resiliency. But only time will tell if this is effective as the world continues to strive toward creating a cleaner, safer environment for all life, including but not limited to, vegetation.
Cold Shoulder From the Arctic Seed Vault
(NaturalNews) Now, let me be the first to tell you that having a savings account is probably one of the best things you can do for yourself and your family. As a kid, I had a clay piggy bank, well I still have one, only it is a metal one which stops me from trying to break it open as much. You always want to make sure you have something saved for a rainy day. Or in this day and age, a Global warming day.Seems we are always being told to save things. Save dollars, time, and resources. And ever since Katrina, it is now our nation’s slogan. The Boy Scouts started a readiness program; "Be Prepaid" - I heard that everyday as a kid. Now our government is stepping up to the plate and letting us know that we should have all our ducks in a row. Just in case. You know earthquake, floods, terrorists... Oh yeah and Global Warming.That is the new kid on the block. Global warming, I guess our government officials may have tipped over to the other side about global warming. You may not remember this and if you don't, I will remind you. Our government only until recently stopped denouncing global warming. I read something recently that stated that Mr. Cheney said that there is not enough proof that humans created global warming... Hmmm... I call people like this who live in denial and have the arrogance to not take responsibility for what we have done to mother earth, I call them the "head in the cloud crowd", which is better than the other name I came up with. "The head up... never mind".Now, hang tight because this is going to get interesting. I saw a headline today that made me scratch my head, with both hands. Here is the headline: "Cooling to Begin at Arctic Seed Bank". The Norwegians, decided to build what they call the "Noah's ark of seeds. It is a concrete vault tucked deep somewhere around the North Pole. The idea is that they will collect seeds from all types of plants and store them in case of a natural or unnatural disaster. Unlike the other 1300 hundred or so, other seed vaults this one can withstand anything. Plus this vault can hold seeds for hundreds and thousands of years and will be open for new accounts early in 2008.Seems to me that maybe our government knew something more about global warming than they lead us to believe, you know, back when they did not think global warming existed. This little Frigidaire mini bar for seeds was thought up a few years ago before they joined the global warming bandwagon. Word has it that these seeds vaults were conceived back in the 80's. Well in any case, it seems we are getting with the environmental global game plan.Maybe the next thing our president could do is put his John Hancock on the Kyoto Protocol, unless we are afraid it might make the oil interest groups mad.Anyhow, here is what strikes me as odd. This $6-million vault costs over $125,000 a year to run it. It is to keep seeds well past any of our current existence, for what purpose? So, in 1000 years they can tell the story of the $6-million greenhouse that could have been feeding people during this time. At least when we made the $6-million man we got a TV show out of it. I don't totally object to this concept. But here is my plan:It is called - No more doomsday plans until we figure out how to take care of today's plan. That is where we fix all that is broken now, health care, Katrina, poverty, homelessness, Global warming; you know, tangible goals, don't go any farther than 10-20 years ahead. And when that is done, then we can put trillions of dollars into building human transporting machines or a pill that lets you live forever - cause who wants to live forever. And the doomsday vault: every 10 years change out the seeds. Use the seeds to grow back some of our over logged, fire burned out areas and that should keep us growing.Besides, why would you need to pay someone $120,000 a year to watch seeds? If you have ever had to lock up a cabin in the winter, "winterize", you just shut everything off, lock it up and come back in the spring. Is this $120,000 worker there to make sure the seeds don't grow? How do you stop that?
Global Cooling or Global Warming - Which Is It and How Can We Know?
(NaturalNews) There is huge disagreement in the scientific community about global warming. Researchers on either side have no trouble finding data to support their chosen theory. Recent climatic events highlight the importance of not over interpreting short-term data - temperature fluctuations either up or down. The environmental alarmists who have been overstating connections between extreme weather conditions and a man-made warming trend are on the opposite side of other researchers who are sounding the warning bell about global cooling. Both sides of the issue must be careful to avoid distortion of facts to support beliefs.The key to interpretation is long-term trends. To focus on a few years or months of climatic data and present any evidence of either cooling or warming as been called a waste of time and perhaps even a harmful distraction.Over the past year, informal evidence has begun to stack up supporting a global cooling trend. For example, recently Baghdad saw its first snowfall ever, China has recorded its coldest winter in 100 years, and North America has more snow cover this year than it has had in the last 50 years. Additionally, record low temperatures have been recorded in Texas, Florida, Minnesota, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greenland, South Africa, Greece, Argentina, and Chile, to name a few.Recently, supporters of a global cooling theory were boosted with the release of data from all four global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, GISS, UAH, and RSS). All agree that over the past year temperatures have dropped abruptly over the entire earth.The entire cooling amount ranges from 0.65C to 0.75C . This amount is significant enough to eliminate almost all of the warming recorded over the last 100 years. Most significant is the fact that this cooling occurred over one year. All four tracking outlets confirmed that this is the fastest temperature shift ever recorded, either up or down.It is important to note that this new data does not disprove the greenhouse emission theory; however, it does demonstrate that another more powerful driver may now be cooling the earth.Some researchers are linking the cooling to a reduction of solar activity. Solar activity has a much more significant effect on temperatures than man-made greenhouse emissions. Research has shown that solar activity occurs in regular cycles. The one expected to begin at this time has not begun, however. Sunspots have disappeared and all activity seems to be alarmingly quiet. The last time circumstances were similar to this was right before the beginning of the “Little Ice Age.” Some scientists now fear a similar sequence of events may be beginning.The Little Ice Age occurred roughly 400 years ago. During this period, global temperatures dropped alarmingly. New York Harbor froze solid and glaciers in Norway increased by 100 meters a year.Scientists on either side of the global cooling/warming debate have begun to agree on one thing. Long term data interpretation is the key to beginning to understand the climatic changes our earth may be experiencing.
Half the Amazon Rainforest to be Lost by 2030
(NaturalNews) Due to the effects of global warming and deforestation, more than half of the Amazon rainforest may be destroyed or severely damaged by the year 2030, according to a report released by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).The report, "Amazon's Vicious Cycles: Drought and Fire," concludes that 55 percent of the world's largest rainforest stands to be severely damaged from agriculture, drought, fire, logging and livestock ranching in the next 22 years. Another 4 percent may be damaged by reduced rainfall caused by global warming. This is anticipated to destroy up to 80 percent of wildlife habitat in the region.By 2100, the report adds, global warming may cause rainfall in the Amazon to drop by 20 percent and temperatures to increase by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). This combination will increase the occurrence of forest fires, further accelerating the pace of deforestation.The Amazon contains more than half of the planet's surviving rainforest and is a key stabilizer of global climate. The report notes that losing 60 percent of it would accelerate the pace of global warming, affecting rainfall as far away as India.WWF warned that the "point of no return" for the Amazon rainforest, from which ecological recovery will be impossible, is only 15-25 years in the future, much sooner than has previously been supposed."The Amazon is on a knife-edge," said WWF-UK forests head Beatrix Richards, "due to the dual threats of deforestation and climate change."She called for the countries discussing global climate change at an international conference in Bali to take the importance of forests into account."At the international negotiations currently underway in Bali, governments must agree a process which results in ambitious global emission reduction targets beyond the current phase of Kyoto," she said. "Crucially, this must include a strategy to reduce emissions from forests and help break the cycle of deforestation."
Human Race Faces "Oblivion" From Global Warming, Says UN Chief
(NaturalNews) United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has warned that without a comprehensive international agreement to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming, humanity faces "oblivion.""The world's scientists have spoken with one voice: the situation is grim and urgent action is needed," Ban said. "The situation is so desperately serious that any delay could push us past the tipping point, beyond which the ecological, financial and human costs would increase dramatically."We are at a crossroads: one path leads to a comprehensive climate change agreement, the other one to oblivion." Ban spoke upon arriving on the Indonesian island of Bali to help break the impasse over negotiations for a new climate treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Under Kyoto, 37 nations agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Those goals are not on track, in large part because of the United States' refusal to sign the treaty.The purpose of the Bali meetings was to include a far greater range of countries -- 190 were involved in the gathering -- and set a framework, called the "Bali Roadmap," for the next two years of negotiations, at which point a treaty is set to be finalized.The controversy during the meetings resulted largely from a disagreement between the European Union, which favored setting strict mandatory emissions reduction goals, and the United States, which opposed mentioning specific targets and favors only voluntary emissions reductions.The European Union pushed for the nations assembled to agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. This is the change that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said is necessary to avoid irreversible catastrophe.But the United States opposed including such numbers. Even a compromise on the wording, which would have mentioned the U.N. panel's recommendation but not committed the Bali nations to meeting that goal, was ultimately removed from the Bali Roadmap at the insistence of the United States.
Global Warming Could Severely Disrupt U.S. Oil Refineries, Warns Government Report
(NaturalNews) Weather changes caused by global warming could seriously disrupt the United States' ability to extract, refine and transport oil, according to a new government report. The study, conducted by climate change researchers at seven different Department of Energy labs, was the first to examine global warming's anticipated effects on the U.S. energy supply.
According to the report, global-warming-driven storms are likely to severely damage oil extracting, refining and producing infrastructure. This occurred in 2005, when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed more than 100 offshore oil drilling platforms and damaged nearly 600 oil and natural gas pipelines. The resulting drop in production led to record high fuel prices throughout the United States. Such damage will become more common as the planet warms further, the report warned.
"Increases in storm intensity could threaten further (energy supply) disruptions of the sorts experienced in 2005," it said.
Adding to the impact, rising sea levels due to melting polar ice are expected to destroy coastal energy infrastructure, everything from oil refineries and liquid natural gas terminals to the ports where coal is imported and exported.
"Rising sea levels could [also] lead to direct losses such as equipment damage from flooding or erosion or indirect effects such as the costs of raising vulnerable assets to higher levels or building future energy projects further inland, thus increasing transportation costs," the report said.Hydroelectricity production could be threatened in the West, the report said, because rivers there are fed by seasonal snowmelt that will cease once the snow stops returning every winter. But in regions where rivers are fed by rainwater, the report speculated, hydropower capacity might increase.
The report also noted that rising temperatures will lead to increased electricity demand, because electricity is nearly always used for cooling -- as opposed to gas, which is used only for heat.
Finally, the report noted that oil extracting capacity in Alaska might increase as polar ice melts and northern oceans become more navigable.
According to the report, global-warming-driven storms are likely to severely damage oil extracting, refining and producing infrastructure. This occurred in 2005, when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed more than 100 offshore oil drilling platforms and damaged nearly 600 oil and natural gas pipelines. The resulting drop in production led to record high fuel prices throughout the United States. Such damage will become more common as the planet warms further, the report warned.
"Increases in storm intensity could threaten further (energy supply) disruptions of the sorts experienced in 2005," it said.
Adding to the impact, rising sea levels due to melting polar ice are expected to destroy coastal energy infrastructure, everything from oil refineries and liquid natural gas terminals to the ports where coal is imported and exported.
"Rising sea levels could [also] lead to direct losses such as equipment damage from flooding or erosion or indirect effects such as the costs of raising vulnerable assets to higher levels or building future energy projects further inland, thus increasing transportation costs," the report said.Hydroelectricity production could be threatened in the West, the report said, because rivers there are fed by seasonal snowmelt that will cease once the snow stops returning every winter. But in regions where rivers are fed by rainwater, the report speculated, hydropower capacity might increase.
The report also noted that rising temperatures will lead to increased electricity demand, because electricity is nearly always used for cooling -- as opposed to gas, which is used only for heat.
Finally, the report noted that oil extracting capacity in Alaska might increase as polar ice melts and northern oceans become more navigable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)