Showing posts with label Colin Coyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colin Coyle. Show all posts
Friday, May 6, 2011
Global Warming Hits Canada's Remotest Arctic Lands
RESOLUTE BAY, Nunavut - Even in one of the remotest, coldest and most inhospitable parts of Canada's High Arctic, you cannot escape the signs of global warming.
Polar bears hang around on land longer than they used to, waiting for ice to freeze. The eternal night which blankets the region for three months is less dark, thanks to warmer air reflecting more sunlight from the south. Animal species that the local Inuit aboriginal population had never heard of are now appearing.
"Last year someone saw a mosquito," said a bemused Paul Attagootak, a hunter living in the hamlet of Resolute Bay some 2,100 miles northwest of Ottawa and 555 miles north of the Arctic Circle.
"Things getting warmer is not good for the animals, which are our food. We still eat them. We worry about them," he told Reuters as temperatures hovered around zero degrees Fahrenheit (minus 18 degrees Celsius) well above the seasonal average.
The entire life of the Inuit -- formerly called Eskimos -- is based on the cold. A rapid increase in temperatures could be cataclysmic as prey disappears and ice becomes treacherous.
PERMAFROST CRUMBLES
In recent years there have been drastic signs of climate change in the southern part of Canada's Arctic, where melting ice in Hudson Bay threatens the survival of local polar bears.
Buildings in the port town of Tuktoyaktuk -- on the Arctic Ocean, close to Canada's northern border with Alaska -- are crumbling into the sea as the permafrost dissolves. Remote aboriginal communities are in distress because winter ice roads, needed to truck in supplies, are turning to water.
And now there are signs of change in Resolute Bay, where 250 people live in Canada's second-most northerly town.
"The most striking thing is that the wind doesn't bite any more. It used to take pieces of skin off you," said Wayne Davidson, who runs the local weather monitoring station and has lived in Resolute Bay since 1985.
"The weather here was brutal, probably the coldest, meanest toughest cold weather you could find," he said. But, he said, there have been enormous changes in the temperature. The mean temperature in March was minus 13.4 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 25.2 degrees Celsius) compared with the average of minus 24.2 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 31.2 degrees Celsius) from 1947 to 1991.
"All months are warmer by between 3 and 6 degrees (Celsius). This is beyond the usual variations," said Davidson. "We're in a total transition ... it's a one-way street right now."
U.S. scientists said in September that the Arctic ice was now the smallest it had been for a century, driven by rising temperatures that many experts believe is linked to emissions of greenhouse gases by humans.
Experts say the Arctic is warming more quickly than the rest of the planet because as the dark ground and seas are exposed by the sun's rays, they absorb heat faster than reflective snow and ice.
POLAR BEARS
For the inhabitants of Resolute Bay, this can have dangerous consequences, since the local polar bears have to bide their time on land before they can walk out onto the ice.
"There is quite a lot of change in the bears' behavior. They hang around a lot longer than they usually have," said Tabitha Mullin, a local conservation officer.
"Once in a while they'll kill the dogs tied up by the beach," she said.
For now, the polar bear population in the High Arctic numbers more than 10,000 and is still relatively healthy.
"A lot of time you see mothers with two cubs (the norm). Very rarely do you see them with just one cub," said Mullin, forced indoors by a blizzard which cut visibility to two yards (meters) and closed down the hamlet.
The warmer temperatures mean there is increased moisture in the air, which results in more frequent storms.
"We're seeing more snowfall, not just blowing snow. In the olden days it might rain just once during the summer. Now it happens all the time. It's awful," said Mullin.
In December the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), which represents all northern aboriginals, launched a legal petition against the United States, claiming that its greenhouse gas emissions harmed Inuit human rights. Washington pulled out of the Kyoto accord on climate change in 2001.
Some predict the Arctic waterways could be ice free in summer as early as 2015, which would severely curb the ability of the Inuit to hunt.
"We're an adaptable people but adaptation has its limitations," ICC chair Sheila Watt-Clouthier told Reuters, saying the Inuit would continue urging the world to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
"We're not going to be powerless victims over this issue of climate change ... Science is indicating that we still have about a 10- to 15-year window of opportunity," she said.
The U.S. administration has shifted its position and now agrees that human activity worsens climate change.
This still leaves a few experts who say the gradual warming of the Earth is caused mostly by natural cycles and that human activities have a moderate impact at best.
Far from the war of words down south, the inhabitants of the High Arctic ponder another mystery. Many people say the air is noticeably brighter in the sunless winter months.
Davidson says this is because a blanket of warmer air higher up is acting as a conduit for the light from the south.
"If it keeps on being this warm, the world will change completely," he said.
"When I hear people say there is no such thing as global warming, I find them totally appalling."
Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
The blogosphere is abuzz with the news that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is reverting to a cool phase. Hot on the heels of this bombshell, a new climate model predicts a cooling North Atlantic Ocean will slow down global warming. This has led to speculation that man-made global warming is no match for natural cycles or even that Pacific Decadal Oscillation is responsible for most of the climate change over the past century including the warming since the mid-70's.
Figure 1: Monthly values for PDO index: 1900 to May 2006. Figure source: Climate Impacts Group
So the first lesson of PDOs is that while we talk about a 20 to 30 year period, it is not very clear cut at all. In fact, an analysis of the frequency of the events does not produce much in the way of a firm period. Incidentally back in 1999 it was predicted that we were entering a cool phase.
The second lesson of PDOs is that while we talk about warm phases and cool phases these are more names than physical descriptions. As seen in Figure 2, a cool phase PDO is associated with cool sea surface temperatures along the Pacific coast of North America, but the center of the North Pacific ocean is still quite warm. Consequently it would appear that there is nothing fundamental about a PDO that would cause significant changes to global temperatures.
Figure 2: PDO warm phase (left) and cool phase (right). Image courtesy of JISAO.
Nevertheless, climate is always full of surprises and to be complete we should look at how the PDO's change of phase coincide with a change in climate trends? In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase as global warming began. In 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase as temperatures cool mid-century. In 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase around the same time as the modern global warming period. Is PDO the smoking gun?
Figure 3: Monthly PDO index (blue) versus monthly global land ocean temperature anomanly (red). Smoothed data and trend lines are added.
While PDO does have some degree of correlation with short term variations in global temperature, the striking feature of Figure 3 is the contrast in trends between PDO and global temperature. Obviously the PDO as an oscillation between positive and negative values shows no long term trend. In contrast, temperature displays a long term warming trend. When the PDO last switched to a cool phase, global temperatures were about 0.4C cooler than currently.
The long term warming trend indicates the total energy in the Earth's climate system is increasing. This is due to an energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than is going out (Hansen 2005). Various factors affect the Earth's energy balance. A brightening sun increases inbound energy. Atmospheric aerosols reflect sunlight, decreasing inbound energy. Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing longwave radiation, reducing the amount of outgoing energy.
The total energy imbalance is expressed as net forcing, the sum of all the various forcings (eg - solar, aerosols, greenhouse gases, etc). Figure 4 compares net forcing to global temperature over the 20th century:
Figure 4: Net forcing (Blue - NASA GISS) versus global land ocean temperature anomaly (Red - GISS Temp).
When all forcings are included, net forcing shows good correlation with global temperatures. There is no single smoking gun. As our climate continues to absorb more energy than it emits, we can expect the long term warming trend to continue with short term fluctuations superimposed. This is the point of Keenlyside 2008 and is echoed by the Hadley Centre who predicted internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years (Smith 2007).
Both predictions come from climate models seeking to incorporate ocean dynamics (I'm surprised noone has coined the term GCM 2.0 yet). These new models predict that while warming will slow over the next few years due to internal variability, the warming trend will resume in the long term.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html
What is Pacific Decadal Oscillation?
The PDO is a climate phenomena found primarily in the North Pacific (as opposed to El Niño which affects mostly the tropical Pacific). It has two phases that it typically alternates between; usually staying in one phase for a significant period of time (as little as 10 and as much as 40 years). However, it's not uncommon for these long periods to be broken by intervals when it switches phases for anything between 1 and 5 years. The phases of the PDO have been called warm phases (positive values) or cool phases (negative values).Figure 1: Monthly values for PDO index: 1900 to May 2006. Figure source: Climate Impacts Group
So the first lesson of PDOs is that while we talk about a 20 to 30 year period, it is not very clear cut at all. In fact, an analysis of the frequency of the events does not produce much in the way of a firm period. Incidentally back in 1999 it was predicted that we were entering a cool phase.
The second lesson of PDOs is that while we talk about warm phases and cool phases these are more names than physical descriptions. As seen in Figure 2, a cool phase PDO is associated with cool sea surface temperatures along the Pacific coast of North America, but the center of the North Pacific ocean is still quite warm. Consequently it would appear that there is nothing fundamental about a PDO that would cause significant changes to global temperatures.
Figure 2: PDO warm phase (left) and cool phase (right). Image courtesy of JISAO.
Nevertheless, climate is always full of surprises and to be complete we should look at how the PDO's change of phase coincide with a change in climate trends? In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase as global warming began. In 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase as temperatures cool mid-century. In 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase around the same time as the modern global warming period. Is PDO the smoking gun?
Figure 3: Monthly PDO index (blue) versus monthly global land ocean temperature anomanly (red). Smoothed data and trend lines are added.
While PDO does have some degree of correlation with short term variations in global temperature, the striking feature of Figure 3 is the contrast in trends between PDO and global temperature. Obviously the PDO as an oscillation between positive and negative values shows no long term trend. In contrast, temperature displays a long term warming trend. When the PDO last switched to a cool phase, global temperatures were about 0.4C cooler than currently.
The long term warming trend indicates the total energy in the Earth's climate system is increasing. This is due to an energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than is going out (Hansen 2005). Various factors affect the Earth's energy balance. A brightening sun increases inbound energy. Atmospheric aerosols reflect sunlight, decreasing inbound energy. Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing longwave radiation, reducing the amount of outgoing energy.
The total energy imbalance is expressed as net forcing, the sum of all the various forcings (eg - solar, aerosols, greenhouse gases, etc). Figure 4 compares net forcing to global temperature over the 20th century:
Figure 4: Net forcing (Blue - NASA GISS) versus global land ocean temperature anomaly (Red - GISS Temp).
When all forcings are included, net forcing shows good correlation with global temperatures. There is no single smoking gun. As our climate continues to absorb more energy than it emits, we can expect the long term warming trend to continue with short term fluctuations superimposed. This is the point of Keenlyside 2008 and is echoed by the Hadley Centre who predicted internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years (Smith 2007).
Both predictions come from climate models seeking to incorporate ocean dynamics (I'm surprised noone has coined the term GCM 2.0 yet). These new models predict that while warming will slow over the next few years due to internal variability, the warming trend will resume in the long term.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html
Sahara Shrinking
The southern Saharan desert is in retreat, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.Yes, it is a bit dated, from back in 2002. But, if George Bush’s TANG records from back in the early 70′s are relevant, why not a 4 year old study?
Burkina Faso, one of the West African countries devastated by drought and advancing deserts 20 years ago, is growing so much greener than families who fled to wetter coastal regions are starting to go home.
New research confirming this remarkable environmental turnaround is to be presented to Burkina Faso’s ministers and international aid agencies in November. And it is not just Burkina Faso.
New Scientist has learned that a separate analysis of satellite images completed this summer reveals that dunes are retreating right across the Sahel region on the southern edge of the Sahara desert. Vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching from Mauritania on the shores of the Atlantic to Eritrea 6000 kilometres away on the Red Sea coast.
Nor is it just a short-term trend. Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid-1980s, though has gone largely unnoticed. Only now is the evidence being pieced together.
Is this proof that global warming is not really happening, and that the Earth is actually getting cooler? Not according to the Guardian:
Global warming could significantly increase rainfall in Saharan Africa within a few decades, potentially ending the severe droughts that have devastated the region, a new study suggests.Huh? So it is global warming that is increasing the rainfall that is causing the Sahara to retreat? This is the problem with the scientific research into climate change. Theories abound. Which one is correct?
The discovery was made by climate experts at the Royal Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, the Netherlands, who used a computer model to predict changes in the Sahel region – a wide belt stretching from the Atlantic to the horn of Africa that includes Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti.
Global warming will heat the land more than the sea, leading to changes in air pressure and weather. When the Netherlands team simulated this effect and combined it with warming caused by the expected rises in greenhouse gas emissions between 1980 and 2080, they found Sahel rainfall in the July to September period jumped 1-2mm a day.
Some scientists suspected that global warming might increase rainfall in the region, causing the so-called greening of the Sahara, but these are the biggest predicted increases so far.
I am not a big fan of computer models when applied to weather. They cannot accurately tell us what a hurricane will do, nor what the weather the next 10 days will be exactly. So, how am I to believe what the Guardian reported? I will not discount it out of hand, but, more evidence is needed.
Can We Save the World by 2015?
If international leaders were as united as the scientific community on climate change, warming might be a thing of the past. This year the UN's Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a series of reports that laid to rest any doubts that global warming is real — and outlined the frightening consequences of continued inaction. At the release of the IPCC's final summary last month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon — who has made climate change a top priority of his administration — laid out the threat in stark terms. "The world's scientists have spoken clearly, and with one voice," he said. "I expect the world's policymakers to act the same."
Unfortunately, the global political community is a long way from speaking with one voice on anything, and climate change is no exception. We'll know for sure next week, when environment and energy ministers from around the world meet on the Indonesian island of Bali, for the UN's climate change conference. The summit has been held nearly every year since 1992, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) — the document that has since guided international work on global warming — was hammered out. It was at the 1997 conference, held in Japan, that the Kyoto Protocol was passed, but since then, there's been little progress, thanks in no small part to President George W. Bush's determined foot dragging on climate change.
But with the Kyoto set to go into effect in 2008, this year's talks in Bali will be the most important international environmental negotiations in over a decade. The Kyoto Protocol — which requires developed nations who have ratified the deal to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of about 5% below 1990 levels by 2012 — expires in just five years. Given how long international treaties take to be developed and ratified, the world needs to begin immediately at Bali the process of preparing a successor to Kyoto to be ready by the end of 2012 — otherwise, we'll be faced with a global vacuum at the very moment when greenhouse emissions must begin falling in order to avoid dangerous climate change. "It's really critical to get negotiations formally started," says David Doniger, the policy director of the Natural Resource Defense Council's climate center. "We're almost at the point of no return. If we don't turn these emission trends down soon, we're cooked."
The good news is that the White House is seemingly the only place green hasn't gone mainstream. Just last week, 150 top global corporations — including General Electric, Johnson & Johnson and Shell — endorsed a petition calling for mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, a business position unthinkable just a year ago. Australia — a Kyoto holdout, like the U.S. — just elected a new Prime Minister with a strong environmental record who says he'll ratify the Protocol. States and cities in the U.S. have taken their own steps on climate change in the absence of action from the White House, and Congress is finally ready to step in; representatives just hammered out the details of a bill raising automobile fuel economy standards to 35 mpg. "The tenor seems to be different this time," says Jennifer Haverkamp, international counsel for Environmental Defense. "There is a building sense that enough time has been wasted and it is time to act."
One major dispute could trip up progress at Bali, however. Under Kyoto, only developed countries were required to make mandatory cuts in their carbon emissions; developing nations like China and India had no such demands. The U.S. has long maintained that it won't sign onto a new deal unless the developing countries are included in a more substantive way — a position unlikely to change even when the occupant of the White House does. Beijing and New Delhi both argue that the vast majority of historical carbon emissions came from the developed nations (CO2 stays in the air for up to 200 years), so action should come from the rich first — a contention arguably supported by the UNFCCC itself, which calls for "common but differentiated responsibilities" between nations on climate change. But the reality is that the bulk of future CO2 emissions will come from rapidly growing developing nations, and a climate deal that gave them a free pass would be useless. "We need a process that opens the door for negotiations for all economies," says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
None of this will actually be decided at Bali. Despite the fact that we are rapidly running out of time to cap carbon emissions — the head of the IPCC has said the world has until 2015 at the latest — Bali is just the beginning of the beginning, not the end. As Claussen points out, a successful summit would be one that, counterintuitively, leaves much undecided — while attaching a firm deadline to the end of negotiations, with 2010 as the latest possible date. With the Bush Administration nearing lame duck status, a 2010 deadline would give a new U.S. Administration time — though not much time — to enter the process and hopefully take a leading position. That extra time might also allow China or India to soften their negotiating tactics, and perhaps accept lesser limitations, such as mandatory targets in energy efficiency or renewable power use. The best contribution President Bush can make for the Bali process is to continue doing what he has done best on climate change: nothing.
The whole process can seem frustratingly slow, considering how dire the threat of climate change is — as if we were convening a town hall meeting to decide to put out a fire that is already raging. "Getting 185 countries around a negotiating table is a difficult way to run the world," says Andrew Deutz, who heads the Nature Conservancy's International Institutions and Agreements team. "But the advantage of the UN process is that it's about the process. It can continue to evolve." That's already begun to happen in recent years, as consensus on global warming has grown in every corner of the world, as businesses have turned to alternative power and governments have begun to set their own caps on carbon. But we're in a race and we're already behind. If we can't get off to a good start at Bali, we may never catch up.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1689985,00.html
Unfortunately, the global political community is a long way from speaking with one voice on anything, and climate change is no exception. We'll know for sure next week, when environment and energy ministers from around the world meet on the Indonesian island of Bali, for the UN's climate change conference. The summit has been held nearly every year since 1992, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) — the document that has since guided international work on global warming — was hammered out. It was at the 1997 conference, held in Japan, that the Kyoto Protocol was passed, but since then, there's been little progress, thanks in no small part to President George W. Bush's determined foot dragging on climate change.
But with the Kyoto set to go into effect in 2008, this year's talks in Bali will be the most important international environmental negotiations in over a decade. The Kyoto Protocol — which requires developed nations who have ratified the deal to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of about 5% below 1990 levels by 2012 — expires in just five years. Given how long international treaties take to be developed and ratified, the world needs to begin immediately at Bali the process of preparing a successor to Kyoto to be ready by the end of 2012 — otherwise, we'll be faced with a global vacuum at the very moment when greenhouse emissions must begin falling in order to avoid dangerous climate change. "It's really critical to get negotiations formally started," says David Doniger, the policy director of the Natural Resource Defense Council's climate center. "We're almost at the point of no return. If we don't turn these emission trends down soon, we're cooked."
The good news is that the White House is seemingly the only place green hasn't gone mainstream. Just last week, 150 top global corporations — including General Electric, Johnson & Johnson and Shell — endorsed a petition calling for mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, a business position unthinkable just a year ago. Australia — a Kyoto holdout, like the U.S. — just elected a new Prime Minister with a strong environmental record who says he'll ratify the Protocol. States and cities in the U.S. have taken their own steps on climate change in the absence of action from the White House, and Congress is finally ready to step in; representatives just hammered out the details of a bill raising automobile fuel economy standards to 35 mpg. "The tenor seems to be different this time," says Jennifer Haverkamp, international counsel for Environmental Defense. "There is a building sense that enough time has been wasted and it is time to act."
One major dispute could trip up progress at Bali, however. Under Kyoto, only developed countries were required to make mandatory cuts in their carbon emissions; developing nations like China and India had no such demands. The U.S. has long maintained that it won't sign onto a new deal unless the developing countries are included in a more substantive way — a position unlikely to change even when the occupant of the White House does. Beijing and New Delhi both argue that the vast majority of historical carbon emissions came from the developed nations (CO2 stays in the air for up to 200 years), so action should come from the rich first — a contention arguably supported by the UNFCCC itself, which calls for "common but differentiated responsibilities" between nations on climate change. But the reality is that the bulk of future CO2 emissions will come from rapidly growing developing nations, and a climate deal that gave them a free pass would be useless. "We need a process that opens the door for negotiations for all economies," says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
None of this will actually be decided at Bali. Despite the fact that we are rapidly running out of time to cap carbon emissions — the head of the IPCC has said the world has until 2015 at the latest — Bali is just the beginning of the beginning, not the end. As Claussen points out, a successful summit would be one that, counterintuitively, leaves much undecided — while attaching a firm deadline to the end of negotiations, with 2010 as the latest possible date. With the Bush Administration nearing lame duck status, a 2010 deadline would give a new U.S. Administration time — though not much time — to enter the process and hopefully take a leading position. That extra time might also allow China or India to soften their negotiating tactics, and perhaps accept lesser limitations, such as mandatory targets in energy efficiency or renewable power use. The best contribution President Bush can make for the Bali process is to continue doing what he has done best on climate change: nothing.
The whole process can seem frustratingly slow, considering how dire the threat of climate change is — as if we were convening a town hall meeting to decide to put out a fire that is already raging. "Getting 185 countries around a negotiating table is a difficult way to run the world," says Andrew Deutz, who heads the Nature Conservancy's International Institutions and Agreements team. "But the advantage of the UN process is that it's about the process. It can continue to evolve." That's already begun to happen in recent years, as consensus on global warming has grown in every corner of the world, as businesses have turned to alternative power and governments have begun to set their own caps on carbon. But we're in a race and we're already behind. If we can't get off to a good start at Bali, we may never catch up.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1689985,00.html
Italy, Switzerland change border due to Global Warming
ONCE frontiers were changed by armies. Now the job is done by global warming. Italy and Switzerland are preparing to make—or rather to recognise—alterations to the border that runs through the Monte Rosa massif of the Alps. Despite what romantically minded locals may say, the name of the massif has nothing to with the pink blush its peaks acquire at sunset. It comes from a dialect word meaning glacier.
The massif has nine glaciers. In several places the line between the two countries is set at the watershed. Because of global warming, the glaciers have shrunk, so the watershed has shifted, “in some places by as much as ten metres”, says General Carlo Colella of Italy’s Military Geographic Institute in Florence. In January, after four years of work by the general and his staff, Silvio Berlusconi’s cabinet approved a change in the frontier.
The line was first drawn in 1861 and enshrined in a convention 80 years later. The biggest change since came in the 1970s, when a stream that marked the border was diverted to allow construction of the Lugano-Como motorway. The two countries agreed a compensatory exchange of territory. The next Italian-Swiss agreement will be the second of three made necessary by the shrinking Alpine glaciers. Italy has already concluded a deal with Austria and plans to make another with France.
Recognising that global warming will make any line based on the watershed of a glacier temporary, the understanding with Austria has for the first time introduced the concept of a movable border. Experts from both sides will be empowered to alter it at regular intervals. Until, presumably, the glaciers disappear altogether.
http://www.economist.com/node/13496212
The massif has nine glaciers. In several places the line between the two countries is set at the watershed. Because of global warming, the glaciers have shrunk, so the watershed has shifted, “in some places by as much as ten metres”, says General Carlo Colella of Italy’s Military Geographic Institute in Florence. In January, after four years of work by the general and his staff, Silvio Berlusconi’s cabinet approved a change in the frontier.
The line was first drawn in 1861 and enshrined in a convention 80 years later. The biggest change since came in the 1970s, when a stream that marked the border was diverted to allow construction of the Lugano-Como motorway. The two countries agreed a compensatory exchange of territory. The next Italian-Swiss agreement will be the second of three made necessary by the shrinking Alpine glaciers. Italy has already concluded a deal with Austria and plans to make another with France.
Recognising that global warming will make any line based on the watershed of a glacier temporary, the understanding with Austria has for the first time introduced the concept of a movable border. Experts from both sides will be empowered to alter it at regular intervals. Until, presumably, the glaciers disappear altogether.
http://www.economist.com/node/13496212
The Howling Wilderness of Carbon Credits
One of central causes of the financial meltdown was the lack of transparency in the complex derivatives, like bundled mortgages and credit default swaps. Advocates of global warming would have us to believe that they can construct a transparent carbon emissions trading scheme that will provide market incentives to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
At the center of this trading scheme is the idea of a carbon credit, which is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one ton of carbon or carbon dioxide equivalent. Think of a carbon credit as property in a free market economy -- Ayn Rand, meet Global Warming.
Excessive Carbon emissions (like smoke from a steel mill or a coal fired power plant) can, in theory, be offset by buying carbon credits. But the calculations involved will make bundled mortgage derivatives look like second-grade arithmetic, and, as Terry Macalister reported in the Guardian on 4 Feb 2011, carbon credits are very vulnerable to fraud and theft, so traders are wary of them, to say the least [emphasis added]:
Note particularly Marshall's comment about leaving it to Wall Street to hijack the "commons asset which we call the atmosphere." The economic problem of any commons raises all sorts of squishy intellectual problems, because it is fundamentally about a question of moral values, not property values -- it deals with values we profess to uphold and expect others to uphold.
It is ironic indeed that the assault on the "commons" by carbon credits is being spearheaded by those advocating policies to reduce global warming. These people profess to be protectors of the environment. Yet the seminal article on the moral character of the problems in dealing with a commons, i.e., The Tragedy of the Commons, was written by the respected environmentalist Garrett Harding and appeared in Science in 1968. In fact, Hardin's brilliant essay became one of the most important sources of intellectual pressure that led to the emergence of a institutionalized environmental protection movement, with the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970!
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/the-howling-wilderness-of-carbon-credits/70817/
At the center of this trading scheme is the idea of a carbon credit, which is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one ton of carbon or carbon dioxide equivalent. Think of a carbon credit as property in a free market economy -- Ayn Rand, meet Global Warming.
Excessive Carbon emissions (like smoke from a steel mill or a coal fired power plant) can, in theory, be offset by buying carbon credits. But the calculations involved will make bundled mortgage derivatives look like second-grade arithmetic, and, as Terry Macalister reported in the Guardian on 4 Feb 2011, carbon credits are very vulnerable to fraud and theft, so traders are wary of them, to say the least [emphasis added]:
Attempts to end the chaos inside Europe's emissions trading scheme (ETS) stumbled today when the market reopened, only for minimal trading to take place.I asked my good friend Marshall Auerback, an expert on the machinations of Wall Street who has degrees in philosophy and law, if he could elaborate on this vulnerability. He responded as follows:
Traders were said to be worried that business could remain polluted by the theft of carbon credits in Austria and elsewhere that forced a shutdown of the scheme on 19 January, at the estimated cost of £90m in lost business.
The European commission has called on national carbon registries to beef up their IT security systems, but has upset traders by declining to publicly reveal the minimum standards now required.
The ETS is seen as a vital tool in the fight against climate change and the fraud is a setback to attempts to sell the cap-and-trade scheme to the US, Australia and elsewhere. ....[cont.]
And here's another story, which should make one VERY wary. The person who developed the credit default swap, Blythe Masters from JP Morgan, is also behind the creation of this carbon capture program. Leave it to Wall Street to find a way to extract an economic rent from pollution!
The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) amounts to nothing more than a privatisation of the commons asset which we call the atmosphere. The ETS would create private property relations over public space. In Europe, it's been a colossal failure. The EU introduced what was known as the Clean Development Mechanism, which was an offset system allowing polluters in Europe to invest in emissions-reduction infrastructure in poor and developing countries and then use the "offsets" to avoid undertaking more costly emission reductions in Europe.
There is ample evidence of the projects having disastrous effects in poor countries and regions. There has been very little technology transfer from the rich to poor countries. The projects undertaken have often brought civic leaders in poor countries into conflict with land-holders with the latter enduring significant reductions in their capacity to feed themselves. Payola is rife!
This article in the Sunday Times (September 13, 2009) said:
The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world's largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors.
SGS UK had its accreditation suspended last week after it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the carbon-trading scheme, or even that they were qualified to do so.
It is clear that emissions have not gone down much if at all yet prices of carbon-heavy goods and services have gone up. Yes: profits have gone up among the big polluters. The big winners have been the heavy polluters and the hedge funds (at least prior to the crisis) while the losers have been consumers, the environment, and poor communities.
Market-based systems are insensitive to equity issues. Fortunately, we'll never get this introduced here in the U.S., because it constitutes an attack on the Appalachian coal regions and Obama has already lost West Virginia and probably Ohio. If he were to try this stuff, he might well lose Pennsylvania in 2012, and he'll be a one-termer."
Note particularly Marshall's comment about leaving it to Wall Street to hijack the "commons asset which we call the atmosphere." The economic problem of any commons raises all sorts of squishy intellectual problems, because it is fundamentally about a question of moral values, not property values -- it deals with values we profess to uphold and expect others to uphold.
It is ironic indeed that the assault on the "commons" by carbon credits is being spearheaded by those advocating policies to reduce global warming. These people profess to be protectors of the environment. Yet the seminal article on the moral character of the problems in dealing with a commons, i.e., The Tragedy of the Commons, was written by the respected environmentalist Garrett Harding and appeared in Science in 1968. In fact, Hardin's brilliant essay became one of the most important sources of intellectual pressure that led to the emergence of a institutionalized environmental protection movement, with the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970!
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/the-howling-wilderness-of-carbon-credits/70817/
Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm
A Sydney carbon credits company thought to have been running some of the world's biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.
Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Club's world-first ''green race day'' carbon neutral.
But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across south-east Asia do not seem to exist.
The global network of investors and carbon offset certifiers supposed to be brokering deals with foreign presidents and the World Bank can be traced to a modest office in a shopping village in Westleigh, staffed by shift2neutral's founder, Brett Goldsworthy.
Mr Goldsworthy insists every certificate for carbon offsets he issues has value and represents a real reduction in greenhouse emissions somewhere in the world. That is what he has told puzzled investors and companies who have unwittingly sought to reduce their carbon footprint.
But when pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he was unable to provide even one.
''I just don't have that information in front of me right now - there are all sorts of projects, it is all legit, I just am not in a position to tell you what they are at short notice,'' said Mr Goldsworthy, who had been provided with written questions 24 hours before.
''There was a waste-to-energy plant in Korea, it would have been in about 2008. I don't have a name for you right now, but given time I can get all the information.''
He said none of his clients had ever raised concerns about where his carbon credits were coming from. But the Herald has spoken to many former investors and businesses who have dealt with shift2neutral.
''I realised there was something strange about Brett when we were negotiating with the tribes in the Philippines and he said he had a boatload of commandos waiting offshore in case he needed a 'hot extraction','' said Robert Hick, who invested in shift2neutral.
The deal, supposedly to preserve $1 billion worth of tribal jungle in Mindanao with financial support from the World
Bank, fell through. Mr Hick is still waiting to see a return.
Mr Goldsworthy, who is in a dispute with Mr Hick, claims delicate negotiations with the president of the Philippines are still under way. He said an arrest warrant had been issued for Mr Hick. But court papers make it clear there is no warrant for Mr Hick.
Redd monitor, a website that examines global implementation of the UN's reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation program, said shift 2neutral is not generating any carbon credits.
''If these deals were genuine, shift2neutral would be one of the biggest companies in the REDD world,'' said a spokesman, Chris Lang. ''Yet he seems to be a one-man band running his company from an office over a shopping centre in a suburb of Sydney.
''Mr Goldsworthy has no experience whatsoever in carrying out forest conservation projects in the tropics.
''In fact he has provided no details about how he intends to reduce deforestation in the areas where he has projects. Vic Vidal, chairman of the Tribal Coalition of Mindanao, points out the destruction of the forests continued regardless of what shift2neutral was doing.''
The Sydney Turf Club - now the Australian Turf Club - said shift2neutral provided carbon credits to offset its ''Green Day at the Gardens'' at Rosehill racecourse in January 2009.
''STC used the carbon credits it received to offset the carbon emissions deemed necessary to produce the day, thus allowing the event to be certified as carbon neutral," the then chief executive, Michael Kenny, said.
The Australian PGA Championship was alerted to problems with its carbon neutral events when contacted this week by the Herald. It confirmed carbon emissions from the 2008 and 2009 championships were offset by certificates from shift2neutral.
Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Club's world-first ''green race day'' carbon neutral.
But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across south-east Asia do not seem to exist.
Mr Goldsworthy insists every certificate for carbon offsets he issues has value and represents a real reduction in greenhouse emissions somewhere in the world. That is what he has told puzzled investors and companies who have unwittingly sought to reduce their carbon footprint.
But when pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he was unable to provide even one.
''I just don't have that information in front of me right now - there are all sorts of projects, it is all legit, I just am not in a position to tell you what they are at short notice,'' said Mr Goldsworthy, who had been provided with written questions 24 hours before.
''There was a waste-to-energy plant in Korea, it would have been in about 2008. I don't have a name for you right now, but given time I can get all the information.''
He said none of his clients had ever raised concerns about where his carbon credits were coming from. But the Herald has spoken to many former investors and businesses who have dealt with shift2neutral.
''I realised there was something strange about Brett when we were negotiating with the tribes in the Philippines and he said he had a boatload of commandos waiting offshore in case he needed a 'hot extraction','' said Robert Hick, who invested in shift2neutral.
The deal, supposedly to preserve $1 billion worth of tribal jungle in Mindanao with financial support from the World
Bank, fell through. Mr Hick is still waiting to see a return.
Mr Goldsworthy, who is in a dispute with Mr Hick, claims delicate negotiations with the president of the Philippines are still under way. He said an arrest warrant had been issued for Mr Hick. But court papers make it clear there is no warrant for Mr Hick.
Redd monitor, a website that examines global implementation of the UN's reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation program, said shift 2neutral is not generating any carbon credits.
''If these deals were genuine, shift2neutral would be one of the biggest companies in the REDD world,'' said a spokesman, Chris Lang. ''Yet he seems to be a one-man band running his company from an office over a shopping centre in a suburb of Sydney.
''Mr Goldsworthy has no experience whatsoever in carrying out forest conservation projects in the tropics.
''In fact he has provided no details about how he intends to reduce deforestation in the areas where he has projects. Vic Vidal, chairman of the Tribal Coalition of Mindanao, points out the destruction of the forests continued regardless of what shift2neutral was doing.''
The Sydney Turf Club - now the Australian Turf Club - said shift2neutral provided carbon credits to offset its ''Green Day at the Gardens'' at Rosehill racecourse in January 2009.
''STC used the carbon credits it received to offset the carbon emissions deemed necessary to produce the day, thus allowing the event to be certified as carbon neutral," the then chief executive, Michael Kenny, said.
The Australian PGA Championship was alerted to problems with its carbon neutral events when contacted this week by the Herald. It confirmed carbon emissions from the 2008 and 2009 championships were offset by certificates from shift2neutral.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
More Travel More Problems
Have $200,000 to spend on a seat into space? You may want to re-think the expenditure given a new study in Geophysical Research Letters that shows space tourism will likely aggravate global climate change. Using sophisticated modeling, the researchers found that the biggest impact of a rise in space tourism on global temperatures won't be due to carbon emissions, but black carbon, often in the form of soot.
Produced from the incomplete combustion of burning fossil fuels or biomass, black carbon in the atmosphere absorbs sunlight and emits it as heat. When produced on terra firma, say from burning forests or diesel, black carbon particles stays in the atmosphere for a few days or weeks. However soot particles emitted from space rockets would have a longer-term impact, since they remains in the stratosphere for years.
"Rockets are the only direct source of human-produced compounds above about 14 miles [22.5 kilometers] and so it is important to understand how their exhaust affects the atmosphere," said Martin Ross of The Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, California and the study's lead author.
"The response of the climate system to a relatively small input of black carbon is surprising, and our results show particular climate system sensitivity to the type of particles that rockets emit," adds co-author Michael Mills of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
Found:
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/41924
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Greenland Ice Sheet Safer
The threat of the Greenland ice sheet slipping ever faster into the sea because of warmer summers has been ruled out by a scientific study.
Until now, it was thought that increased melting could lubricate the ice sheet, causing it to sink ever faster into the sea. The issue was a key unknown in the landmark 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which pinned the blame for climate change firmly on greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
However, the impact of rising sea temperatures on melting ice sheets is still uncertain, meaning it remains difficult to put an upper limit on potential sea level rises. Understanding the risk is crucial because about 70% of the world's population live in coastal regions, which host many of the world's biggest cities, such as London, New York and Bangkok.
"The Greenland ice sheet is safer than we thought," said Professor Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds, who led the research published tomorrow in Nature.
Shepherd's team used satellite imagery to track the progress of the west Greenland ice sheet as it slipped towards the sea each summer, over five years.
Researchers had feared that more melting from the surface of the ice in hotter years would in turn provide more meltwater for a slippery film at the sheet's base. More melting would mean more slippage and a greater rise in the sea level.
But they discovered that, above a certain threshold, the slipping began to slow. On-the-ground studies and work done on alpine glaciers suggest that higher volumes of meltwater form distinct channels under the ice, draining the water more efficiently and reducing the formation of a lubricating film.
The Greenland ice sheet studied by Shepherd's team is up to 1,000m (3,280ft) thick. If the entire ice sheet melted, sea levels would rise by a catastrophic seven metres, but this is likely to take 3,000 years if warm air blowing over the ice is the only way in which the ice melts.
Shepherd said most of the Greenland ice cap was on land and not in contact with the sea, unlike the west Antarctic ice sheet. That ice sheet contains enough water to push up sea level by six metres if it all melted.
He said the next scientific question to answer was whether warmer oceans would erode the edges of ice caps, causing them to fall rapidly into the ocean. "The real threat now is from the oceans melting the west Antarctic ice sheet, which is 3km-4km thick, of which 1km-2km is below sea level."
Shepherd said his work was helping to reduce uncertainties about the consequences of climate change. Asked if he thought his work suggested the wider risks of global warming could be discounted, he said: "Not at all."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
CDM No Yankee
The global, environmentally-conscious production company CDM or Clean Development Mechanism is a pivotal figure in producing progressive and sustainable building and energy practices around the world. They work on every populated continent and have some kind of major development operation on all of them. There is a curious blank spot in North America though. It seems the United States and Canada have been hesitant to endorse any kind of serious involvement with CDM.
As you can see from the graphic, Asia and Eurasia have been the most enthusiastic groups of nations to implement the technological solutions CDM has to offer. South America has dozens of major operations underway, ranging in size from small to very large. These operations range from Methane recovery in Brazil (AWMS Methane Recovery Project BR06-S-29, Sao Paulo, Brazil), to the Santa Cruz Hydroelectric Power Plant in Peru. In Africa CDM is responsible for Hydroelectric (3090: Felou Regional Hydropower. Large 188282) project and Wind Power Plants, as well as runoff plants to protect rivers (, and operations that convert coal and oil burning plants to natural gas burning plants without affecting the lifetime of the plant itself (Rosslyn Brewery Fuel- Switching Project ).
I use these examples because they range from developed and populated areas to very rural and agricultural areas. The point is that it isn't even a question of affordability, it just isn't popular in the U.S. to admit having made mistakes by admitting they need to be fixed.
Perhaps it is fitting that other parts of the world are leading the way in this. It would be nice to see the U.S. peer-pressured into cleaning up it's own act for once. For all of the military leverage this nation exercises, we aren't very good about cleaning up messes abroad or here at home. That people go without clean water is already unthinkable. To think that people go without clean water in the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen in unconscionable. With widespread and increasing drought in the American Southwest, flammable taps in Colorado, and what is left of Louisiana's coastline, it should be clear that we can use all the technology we can get our hands on. But we don't.
This is not to say that CDM doesn't do any work in these countries. In the US CDM has played a big part in helping communities in New Jersey and Florida, cleans up asbestos in Montana, 'cleans and greens' California, provided chemical runoff solutions at an airport in Pittsburgh, and the list goes on. CDM is a player here, but the United States just isn't this player's home court.
An interactive map of the image above can be found at:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/MapApp/index.html
Monday, March 21, 2011
Trade and Cap a Memory
The closing this week of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which was envisioned to be the key player in the
trillion-dollar "cap and trade" market, was the final nail in the coffin of the Obama administration's effort to
pass the controversial program meant to combat global warming.
"It is dead for the foreseeable future," said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and the
Environment with the Competitive Energy Institute, which had fought the measure.
That assessment was echoed by environmentalists as well.
"Economy-wide cap and trade died of what amounts to natural causes in Washington," said Fred Krupp,
president of the Environmental Defense Fund, which had supported the plan.
The CCX was set up in 2000 in anticipation of the United States joining Europe and other countries
around the world to create a market that would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Under the
system, factories, utilities and other businesses would be given an emissions target. Those that emitted
less fewer regulated gases than their target could sell the "excess" to someone who was above target.
Each year, the target figures would be reset lower.
The Exchange was the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economist and professor at Northwestern
University, and it was modeled after a successful program that was launched in 1990 and helped control
acid rain in the Midwest. It was initially funded by a $1.1 million grant from the Joyce Foundation of
Chicago, and President Obama was a board member at the time.
After the Democrats won the White House
Congress would quickly approve the program. And it almost happened.
The House of Representatives passed a bill proposed by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California
and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, which would have made cap and trade law. But the Senate couldn't
muster the votes, and everything went downhill from there.
"When those that voted for the measure in 2009 went home on July 4th after the vote, they met
widespread outrage among their constituents," said Nick Loris, an analyst with Heritage Foundation.
Conservatives renamed the idea "cap and tax," and they began an assault on the program.
In the last week, following the Nov. 2 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, the slide
became an avalanche. Investors in CCX, including Sandor and former Vice President Al Gore
Sale records show that Sandor cleared more than $90 million for his 16 percent stake in the company.
Meanwhile, the White House
has dropped all references to cap and trade from its web site; and, unlike the heralded climate summit in
Copenhagen last year, a 10-day meeting in Mexico beginning Nov. 29 on the next steps to battle global
warming has not even mentioned publicly by the administration.
"The pieces of the puzzle just kept breaking off," Loris said. "And Obama has given up on it.”
But both Loris and Ebell say that isn't necessarily cause for celebrating.
"I would like to have a party and say we won, but the truth is were are still in the middle of it," Ebell said.
"The problem is now that the administration changed strategy and is using existing laws and regulations,
like the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and EPA regulations to implement its agenda. And
unlike the cap and trade effort, it is much harder to get the public excited about rule changes."
"Obama will try a piecemeal approach," Loris said. "And they have a much better chance of becoming
law than cap and trade ever did.”
Republicans in the new Congress, for their part, will try to pass a law "to stop all regulation of
greenhouse gases using existing legal authority," Ebell said. "And we are pretty sure we can get 60
votes in the Senate on it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)