Ruth 的个人资料Save The Earth Blog照片日志列表更多 工具 帮助

Save The Earth Blog

Everything You Need To Know About Climate Change & What Can Be Done To Stop It
Websites for true and accurate news.
Global warming & Politics
第 1 张,共 1 张

An Inconvenient Truth

 

Scientists Report Further Shrinking of Arctic Ice

Scientists Report Further Shrinking of Arctic Ice

Area Is Close To All-Time Low

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603014.html?hpid=topnews

A polar bear swims recently in open water off the coast of Alaska. The shrinking sea ice increases the pressure on polar bears, who usually hunt on the ice.
A polar bear swims recently in open water off the coast of Alaska. The shrinking sea ice increases the pressure on polar bears, who usually hunt on the ice. (By Geoff York -- World Wildlife Fund)



Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 27, 2008; Page A03

Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second-lowest level since record-keeping began three decades ago, a group of international researchers determined yesterday, a revelation underscoring how rapidly climate change is transforming ecosystems in northern latitudes.

The extent of Arctic sea ice is now 2 million square miles below the long-term average for Aug. 26, according to the International Arctic Research Center and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency, a figure that is within 400,000 square miles of the all-time record low set in September 2007. This figure is already below the long-term average for September ice cover and because the ice traditionally reaches its minimum level in mid-September, researchers warned that a new low might be recorded within weeks.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which independently analyzes Arctic ice cover, will announce today that it has reached the same conclusion, based on a five-day mean of satellite measurements.

"If we continue to lose ice at this rate, we will best" the 2007 record, said Julienne Stroeve, an research scientist. "We're going to lose that ice, so we've got to understand what this means for the rest of us."

According to the data center's recent reports, the ice over the Chukchi Sea is "already showing patches of open water within the ice. Much of the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska is open and the Laptev Sea and East Siberian Sea have opened extensively in the past 13 days."

The shrinking sea ice is increasing the pressure on polar bears in the region: A recent federal aerial survey found nine polar bears swimming in Alaska's Chukchi Sea, with one at least 60 miles from shore.

Margaret Williams, who directs the World Wildlife Fund's Alaska office and traveled to Barrow, Alaska, last week to assess how sea ice decline is affecting polar bears, said that while these animals have swum in open ocean in the past, they are now traveling much longer distances.

"It is very unusual to see so many bears in the open water at one time during a short flight period," Williams said, noting that government scientists spotted the bears over a six-hour period. "It's very worrisome. It's what we had anticipated, but it's happening right before our eyes."

By comparison, federal scientists spotted a total of 12 polar bears swimming in the open ocean between 1987 and 2003. The federal government conducts the aerial surveys not to assess the status of polar bears in the region, but to determine whether bowhead whales in the Arctic will be affected by offshore oil development there.

Even if researchers spot polar bears swimming in distress, they cannot rescue them, as attempts to tranquilize the bears would cause them to drown. In May, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne listed polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, saying diminishing sea ice jeopardized their ability to survive in the foreseeable future, but he argued such a listing should not prompt the government to regulate greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

"We never get good news about the polar bears," said Melanie Duchin, a global warming campaigner for the advocacy group Greenpeace. "It's just yet another wake-up call in a long line of wake-up calls to politicians in this country that says, 'Hey, get your act together when it comes to global warming.' "

Researchers now estimate that summer sea ice in the Arctic is likely to disappear altogether by 2030, but Stroeve said the new satellite data suggest sea ice could vanish sooner than that.

Two weeks ago, the federal Climate Change Science Program released a "synthesis and assessment" report examining global warming in the Arctic and northern latitudes that suggests the region has already suffered ice loss of an "immense magnitude and unprecedented nature."

The report, which is open for public comment until Sept. 25, adds that the "current sea ice reduction . . . is progressing at a very fast rate that appears to have no analogs in the past" and that "sustained changes in sea-ice coverage may cause perhaps the largest temperature changes observed on the planet."

Stroeve said researchers anticipated this year's ice decline could rival last year's because so much of the Arctic's ice cover is one-year ice, which is thinner than ice that has built up over multiple years. This year, 73 percent of the Arctic Basin is composed of first-year ice, compared with 60 percent last year. In 1985, first-year ice made up 35 percent of the Arctic Basin.

"We knew we were vulnerable starting out, in terms of ice cover," she said.

Nick Sundt, the World Wildlife Fund's communications director for climate change, said the significance of this week's findings is not that a specific record is being set but that Artic sea ice cover is consistently declining.

"It's not what happens in an individual year, but what the trend is," Sundt said.

Arctic Ice: Going, Going...

 

Arctic Ice: Going, Going...

Seth Borenstein, Associated Press

  
Ice, Ice...Maybe
Ice, Ice...Maybe
 

June 30, 2008 -- There's a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer, which would be a first in recorded history, a leading ice scientist says.

The weather and ocean conditions in the next couple of weeks will determine how much of the sea ice will melt, and early signs are not good, said Mark Serreze. He's a senior researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colo.

The chances for a total meltdown at the pole are higher than ever because the layer of ice coating the sea is thinner than ever, he said.

"A large area at the North Pole and surrounding the North Pole is first-year ice," Serreze said. "That's the stuff that tends to melt out in the summer because it's thin."

Preliminary February and March data from a NASA satellite shows that the circle of ice surrounding the North Pole is "considerably thinner" than scientists have seen during the five years the satellite has been taking pictures, NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said Friday. He thinks there is slightly less than a 50-50 chance the North Pole will be ice-free.

Last year was a record year for ice melt all over the Arctic and the ice band surrounding the North Pole is even thinner now.

There is nothing scientifically significant about the North Pole, Serreze said. But there is a cultural and symbolic importance. It's home to Santa Claus, after all. Last August, the Northwest Passage was open to navigation for the first time in memory.

A more conservative ice scientist, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington, put the odds of a North Pole without ice closer to 1 in 4. Even that is far worse than climate models had predicted, which was 1 in 70 sometime in the next decade, she said.

But both she and Serreze agree it's just a matter of time.

Read more at http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/30/north-pole-melt.html


Global Warmiing Twenty Years Later: The Tipping Point Nears

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf

We're toast if we don't stop global warming

http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/global-warming-last-chance-or-were-toast/2008/06/24/1214073221343.html

June 24, 2008 - 2:52PM

Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist says the situation has got so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action.

James Hansen told US Congress today that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels.

He said Earth's atmosphere can stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide only for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.

"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."

Hansen brought global warming home to the public in June 1988 during a Washington heat wave, saying global warming was already here. To mark the anniversary, he testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, where he was called a prophet, and addressed a luncheon at the National Press Club, where he was called a hero.

To cut emissions, he said coal-fired power plants that do not capture carbon dioxide emissions should not be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030. That carbon capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost-efficient for power plants.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal is the chief cause of manmade greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth's atmosphere has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10 per cent higher: 386.7 parts per million.

Hansen said he would testify on behalf of British protesters against new coal-fired power plants. Protesters have chained themselves to gates and equipment at sites of several proposed coal plants in England.

"The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power plants," Hansen told the luncheon. "I'm not yet at the point of chaining myself, but we somehow have to draw attention to this."

Frank Maisano, a spokesman for many US utilities, including those trying to build new coal plants, said while Hansen has shown foresight as a scientist, his "stop them all approach is very simplistic" and shows that he is beyond his level of expertise.

The year of Hansen's original testimony was the world's hottest year on record. Since then, 14 years have been hotter, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it is too late to do anything about it. His answer: "There still is time to stop the worst, but not much time."

He told the AP before the luncheon: "We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes. The Arctic is the first tipping point, and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic would be free of sea ice in the summer.

A long-time global warming sceptic, Republican Senator James Inhofe, citing a recent poll, said in a statement, "Hansen, [former vice-president Al] Gore and the media have been trumpeting manmade climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it."

The response of Democrat Ed Markey, the committee chairman: "Dr Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognise him as a climate prophet."




Are Big Oil and Big Coal Climate Criminals

Are Big Oil and Big Coal Climate Criminals?

By Andrew C. Revkin

There were no climate-science bombshells from James E. Hansen on Monday on his trip to Capitol Hill at the invitation of some House Democrats, who wanted to commemorate his momentous global warming testimony 20 years earlier. On that front, he said everything he has been saying for years: unabated warming would erode the ice sheets, flood coastal cities and drive many species into extinction.

But there was a much discussed recommendation in both his oral presentation and a written statement he prepared beforehand: that the heads of oil and coal companies who knowingly delayed action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions were committing a crime. “These CEO’s, these captains of industry,” he said in the briefing, “in my opinion, if they don’t change their tactics they’re guilty of crimes against humanity and nature.” He made the point more strongly in a written statement summarizing his talk (posted below).

He has used strong words and imagery before to drive home points, including comparing cordons of coal cars heading to power plants to the death trains of the Holocaust (because of the mass extinctions foreseen by many biologists should warming go unabated).

Dr. Hansen’s allegations of criminality were already reverberating on the Web earlier in the day after Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators circulated excerpts from a story in the Guardian newspaper of Britain quoting Dr. Hansen on this point. . . .
CONTINUES AT http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/are-big-oil-and-big-coal-climate-criminals/

Extreme weather to increase with climate change

Extreme weather to increase with climate change

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jXqXnWulOVVpi1gZO44HR_L01uYAD91DALN8H

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID – 29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Droughts will get dryer, storms will get stormier and floods will get deeper with changing climate, a government research report said Thursday.

Events that have seemed relatively rare will become commonplace, said the latest report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, a joint effort of more than a dozen government agencies.

There has been an increase in the frequency of heavy downpours, especially over northern states, and these are likely to continue in the future, Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said in a briefing.

For example, Karl said, by the end of this century rainfall amounts expected to occur every 20 years could be taking place every five years.

Such an increase "can lead to the type of events that we are seeing in the Midwest," said Karl, though he did not directly link the current inundations to climate change.

But the report cautioned that preparing for weather than has been relatively common can leave people vulnerable as extreme events occur more and more.

"Moderate flood control measures on a river can stimulate development in a now 'safe' floodplain, only to see those new structures damaged when a very large flood occurs," the report said.

At the same time heavy rains increase, there'll be more droughts, especially in the Southwest, Karl said.

"When it rains, it rains harder and when it's not raining, it's warmer — there is more evaporation, and droughts can last longer," he explained.

The Southwestern drought that began in 1999 is beginning to rival some of the greatest droughts on record including those of the 1930s and 1950s, he added.

Gerald A. Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said there has been a trend toward increasing power in hurricanes since the 1970s in the Atlantic and western Pacific, a change that can be linked to rising sea surface temperatures.

There is a statistical connection between rising sea surface temperatures and hurricane activity, Meehl said, but linking changes in hurricanes to human actions will require more study.

More easily attributed to human impact, through release of greenhouse gases, is an overall increase in temperatures, he said.

It's not getting as cold at night as it did in earlier decades and there are fewer nights with frosts, a trend expected to continue into the future, Meehl said.

"A day so hot that it is experienced only once every 20 years would occur every three years by the middle of the century," under the mid-range projections of climate models, the report said.

Researchers can use computer models of climate to separate out cause and effect of this warming, he explained — looking at the effect of things like changes in solar radiation or volcanic eruptions — and the result is to attribute climate warming to the burning of fossil fuels.

Participating in the Climate Change Science Program are the Agency for International Development, Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, Department of State, Department of Transportation, U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution.

On the Net:

Climate change target is too low, say scientists

Climate change target is too low, say scientists

The target of halving global greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century is not enough to avoid the major impacts of climate change, scientists warned yesterday. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2045892/Climate-change-target-is-too-low,-say-scientists.html

Researchers said that the belief among political leaders that it was possible to find ways to fully avoid the serious threats of global warming was "false optimism".

The current food crisis, as a result of rising costs, rising demand and drought in food-producing regions, should serve as a "wake-up call" as to what the impacts of climate change could be, they said.

The forthcoming G8 summit and UN climate talks should be used as an opportunity to commit to even greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Both the G8 and climate scientists, including those involved in the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have issued calls for emissions to be cut to at least 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050.

But even if the world managed such cuts, considered the "most stringent achievable target", a billion people could be short of water, floods and storms could increase and large numbers of species become extinct, the scientists who led the IPCC's impacts assessment warned in Nature Reports Climate Change.

Tougher proposals – for an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – would be required substantially to reduce the harm caused by climate change, said the report's authors – Martin Parry, Jean Palutikof, Clair Hanson and the Met Office's Jason Lowe.

McCain Global Warming Plan: Laudable Goal but Fails to Reach It



McCain Global Warming Plan: Laudable Goal but Fails to Reach It

Statement of Sierra Club Executive Director, Carl Pope


Western Antarctic causes scientists most concern

Western Antarctic causes scientists most concern

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3628471.ece?token=null&offset=12

The dramatic destruction of an ice shelf is a mere side show compared to the potential of catastrophic melting elsewhere in Antarctica.

The Wilkins ice shelf covers more than 5,000 square miles, is up to 650 feet thick, took more than 1,000 years to form and is on the verge of melting in less than a decade.

Almost 200 square miles of the ice shelf in the Antarctic Peninsula shattered into thousands of ice bergs over the last month, mostly on February 28. The rest of the shelf is expected to disappear rapidly in response to rising global temperatures.

But while regarded as an impressive effect of global warming its impact on sea level rises is insignificant compared to those that scientists fear will be caused in the Western Antarctic.

Climate researchers consider the southern continent to have three distinct regions - the Antarctic Peninsula, the Western Antarctic and the Eastern Antarctic.

They are most worried about the Western Antarctic where the greatest volume of ice has been lost and where there is the potential for sudden, unpredictable and extensive melting leading to rapid sea rises.

Loss of ice shelves in the Peninsula is calculated to have little effect on sea levels because they already float in the water.

In the Western Antarctic, however, much of the ice shelf rests on rock so when it melts the water runs into the sea and can cause a rise in ocean levels.

Warmer ocean temperatures have taken a huge toll on the ice shelves in the Western Antarctic where ice is thinning at a rate of about 6-7 feet a year.

“The problem is the Western Antarctic is extremely unpredictable,” said Professor David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey.

“At current rates it’s contributing a fraction of a millimetre to sea level rises per year but the potential is there for an acceleration.”

He said that while the northern sections of the Antarctic Peninsula have undergone temperature rises of up to 3C in the last 50 years, the quantity of ice there is, by the standards of the rest of continent, small.

In the Eastern Antarctic, the biggest region, data is extremely limited and many of the trends identified by researchers are disputed.

It is thought to be stable, at least at present, though some researchers believe there are some signs of a slight overall rise in temperatures, particularly in coastal areas.

Conversely, measurements at the South Pole suggest that temperatures there have fallen in recent years and snowfall across the Eastern Antarctic is believed to have risen recently.

The loss of the Wilkins ice shelf is, nevertheless, a concern for researchers because it is further evidence of the changes global warming is wreaking on the natural world.

The rapidity with which it is being destroyed is the biggest surprise and while the coming winter is likely to delay its disappearance it is thought to be unlikely to last more than a handful of summers.

“I would be very surprised if there was much of the Wilkins ice shelf left after ten years,” said Professor Vaughan. “I would guess it will last a few seasons but it could be almost instantaneous.”

Warmer sea and air temperatures have eaten away at the ice shelf for at least a decade already - since 1998 an estimated 1,000 square miles have melted.

An ocean swell caused by a storm several thousand miles away, perhaps from the other end of the world, is believed to have been the “starw that broke the camel’s back” and caused widespread and sudden cracking that broke up a large section.

Research is now underway to establish when and where the likely storm took place.

Professor Doug MacAyeal, of the University of Chicago in the United States, previously carried out research which demonstrated an iceberg in the Antarctic was broken up by a storm off the Alaska coast. He is now heading an investigation to find out when and where a storm might have taken place to destroy the Wilkins ice shelf.

“Generally speaking a storm that could cause the break up is more likely to have taken place thousands of miles away than close by,” he said.

With a rise in the intensity of storms believed to be an effect of global warming he said it was possible that a storm which broke up the ice shelf was itself fueled by warmer temperatures.

MELTDOWN IN THE MOUNTAINS

Meltdown in the Mountains

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/33068

 Zurich/Nairobi, 16 March 2008 - The world's glaciers are continuing to melt away with the latest official figures showing record losses, the UN Environment  Programme (UNEP) announced today.

Data from close to 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges indicate that between the years 2004- 2005 and 2005-2006 the average rate of melting and thinning more than doubled.

 The findings come from the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS), a  centre based at the University of Zürich in Switzerland and that is supported by UNEP.

 

It has been tracking the fate of glaciers for over a century. Continuous data series of annual mass balance, expressed as thickness change, are available for 30 reference glaciers since 1980.

Prof. Dr. Wilfried Haeberli, Director of the Service said: "The latest figures are part of what appears to be an accelerating trend with no apparent end in sight".

The Service calculates thickening and thinning of glaciers in terms of 'water equivalent'. The estimates for the year 2006 indicate that further shrinking took place equal to around 1.4 metres of water equivalent compared to losses of half a metre in 2005.

"This continues the trend in accelerated ice loss during the past two and a half decades and brings the total loss since 1980 to more than 10.5 metres of water equivalent," said Professor Haberli. During 1980-1999, average loss rates had been 0.3 metres per year. Since the turn of the millennium, this rate had increased to about half a metre per year.

The record loss during these two decades — 0.7 metres in 1998 — has now been exceeded by three out of the past six years: 2003, 2004 and 2006.

On average, one metre water equivalent corresponds to 1.1 metres in ice thickness indicating a further shrinking in 2006 of 1.5 actual metres and since 1980 a total reduction in thickness of ice of just over 11.5 metres or almost 38 feet.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: "

"Millions if not billions of people depend directly or indirectly on these natural water storage facilities for drinking water, agriculture, industry and power generation during key parts of the year," said Mr Steiner.

"There are many canaries emerging in the climate change coal mine. The glaciers are perhaps among those making the most noise and it is absolutely essential that everyone sits up and takes notice," he said.

"To an important and significant extent that is already happening—indeed the elements of a Green Economy are already emerging from the more than $100 billion being invested in renewable energies to the responsible investment principles endorsed by 300 financial institutions with $13 trillion-worth of assets," said Mr Steiner.

"The litmus test will come in late 2009 at the climate convention meeting in Copenhagen. Here governments must agree on a decisive new emissions reduction and adaptation-focused regime. Otherwise, and like the glaciers, our room for man oeuvre and the opportunity to act may simply melt away," he added.

The WGMS findings also contain figures from around 100 glaciers, of which 30 form the core assessment, found in Antarctica, Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America and the Pacific.

Some of the most dramatic shrinking has taken place in Europe with Norway's Breidalblikkbrea glacier thinning by close to 3.1 metres (2.9 metre water equivalent) during 2006 compared with a thinning of 0.3 metres (0.28 metres water equivalent) in the year 2005.

Other dramatic shrinking has been registered at Austria's Grosser Goldbergkees glacier, 1.2 metres in 2006 versus 0.3 in 2005; France's Ossoue glacier, nearly 3 metres versus around 2.7 metres in 2005; Italy's Malavalle glacier 1.4 metres versus around 0.9 metres in 2005; Spain's Maladeta glacier, nearly 2 metres versus 1.6 metres in 2005; Sweden's Storglaciaeren glacier, 1.8 metres versus close to 0.080 metres in 2005 and Switzerland's Findelen glacier, 1.3 metres versus 0.22 metres in 2005.

Not all of the close to 100 glaciers monitored posted losses with some thickening during the same period including Chile's Echaurren Norte glacier while others, such as Bolivia's Chacaltaya glacier; Canada's Place glacier; India's Hamtah glacier and the Daniels and Yawning glaciers in the Untied States shrank less in 2006 than they did in 2005.

However, for the close to 30 reference glaciers only one (Echaurren Norte in Chile) thickened over the same period.

Ozone Rules Weakened at Bush's Behest

Ozone Rules Weakened at Bush's Behest
EPA Scrambles To Justify Action

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031304175.html

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2008; A01

The Environmental Protection Agency weakened one part of its new limits on smog-forming ozone after an unusual last-minute intervention by President Bush, according to documents released by the EPA.

EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents.

"It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA's expert scientific judgment," said John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The president's order prompted a scramble by administration officials to rewrite the regulations to avoid a conflict with past EPA statements on the harm caused by ozone.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement warned administration officials late Tuesday night that the rules contradicted the EPA's past submissions to the Supreme Court, according to sources familiar with the conversation. As a consequence, administration lawyers hustled to craft new legal justifications for the weakened standard.

The dispute involved one of two distinct parts of the EPA's ozone restrictions: the "public welfare" standard, which is designed to protect against long-term harm from high ozone levels. The other part is known as the "public health" standard, which sets a legal limit on how high ozone levels can be at any one time. The two standards were set at the same level Wednesday, but until Bush asked for a change, the EPA had planned to set the "public welfare" standard at a lower level.

The documents, which were released by the EPA late Wednesday night, provided insight into how White House officials helped shape the new air-quality rules that, by law, are supposed to be decided by the EPA administrator.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) questioned in a March 6 memo to the EPA why the second standard was needed. EPA officials answered in a letter that high ozone concentrations can cause "adverse effects on agricultural crops, trees in managed and unmanaged forests, and vegetation species growing in natural settings."

The preamble to the new regulations alluded to this tug of war, stating there was a "robust discussion within the Administration of these same strengths and weaknesses" in setting the secondary standard. The preamble went on to say that the decision to make the two ozone limits identical "reflects the view of the Administration as to the most appropriate secondary standard."

The effort to rewrite the language -- on the day the agency faced a statutory deadline -- forced EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson to postpone at the last moment a scheduled news conference to announce the new rules. It finally took place at 6 p.m., five hours later than planned.

Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government must reexamine every five years whether its ozone standards are adequate, and the rules that the EPA issued Wednesday will help determine the nation's air quality for at least a decade.

Ozone, which is formed when pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and other chemical compounds released by industry and motor vehicles are exposed to sunlight, is linked to an array of heart and respiratory illnesses.

The EPA set the allowable amount of ozone in the air at 75 parts per billion, a level stricter than the current limit but higher than what the scientific advisers had recommended.

Carol M. Browner, who served as EPA administrator under President Bill Clinton, also encountered objections from the OMB when she established new ozone standards in 1997. In that instance, the president backed the EPA over White House budget officials.

"We did not allow OMB to push us into a decision we were quite certain was outside the boundaries of the law," Browner said in an interview. The Clean Air Act, she added, creates "a moral and ethical commitment that we're going to let the science tell us what to do."

Asked for a comment yesterday, EPA spokesman Timothy Lyons said the agency had complied with the Clean Air Act. "The secondary standard we set is fully supported by both the law and the record, and it is the most protective eight-hour standard ever for ozone."

When asked about Clement's role, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "The White House sought legal advice from the Justice Department and made its decision based on that advice."

The EPA's documents suggest that senior officials and scientific advisers resisted the White House's position. Last year, the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee wrote -- using italics for emphasis -- that it unanimously supported the EPA staff's conclusion that "protection of managed agricultural crops and natural terrestrial ecosystems requires a secondary [ozone standard] that is substantially different from the primary ozone standard. . . ."

When the OMB's Susan E. Dudley urged the EPA to consider the effects of cutting ozone further on "economic values and on personal comfort and well-being," the EPA's Marcus Peacock responded in a March 7 memo: "EPA is not aware of any information that ozone has beneficial effects on economic values or on personal comfort and well being."

Lisa Heinzerling, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in the Clean Air Act, said Dudley's letter to the EPA represents "a misunderstanding of the statute, a misunderstanding of Supreme Court precedent and a misunderstanding of the science as the expert agency understands it."

White House Played Role in Smog Rule

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400540.html?tid=informbox

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Friday, March 14, 2008; 4:14 PM

WASHINGTON -- The head of the Environmental Protection Agency rejected suggestions on Friday that the White House forced him to weaken a key part of its new smog requirement after intervention by President Bush.

"I made the decision," EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson declared, saying he wanted to "set the record straight" on the issue.

Documents and e-mails that EPA provided as part of the record on the smog regulation, issued on Wednesday, showed that Bush became personally involved in settling differences between the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget over a part of the smog rule.

The documents show a disagreement between EPA and the OMB, which reviews regulations, on the amount of protection from ozone, or smog, that should be afforded wildlife, farmlands, parks and open spaces.

EPA officials had wanted to make the so-called "public welfare" or "secondary" standard stronger than the human health standard, a position also taken by environmentalists and health experts. But the White House insisted on making both standards identical, according to the documents. The issue went to Bush, who sided with his budget office.

At the conclusion of a conference call with reporters Friday on a new EPA rule to curb pollution from ships and trains, Johnson said he wanted to "set the record straight" on the issue.

"Invoking of the executive order (from the White House) did not deal with the stringency" of the public welfare standard, only "the form" it was to take, said Johnson. "I made the decision on the stringency."

The EPA on Wednesday issued a rule that tightened the smog requirements for human health, reducing the allowable concentrations of ozone, or smog, in the air from 80 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion for air to be deemed healthy. The public welfare standard was set at about the same level, though calculated differently.

The White House defended Bush's action.

"This is not a weakening of regs (regulations) or standards," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday. "But it was an effort to make the standards consistent. There's no question we have an interest in how federal regs impact communities."

Fratto said the new standards are the "most stringent smog standards in history" and that communities will have a hard time meeting them. He described the area where Bush intervened as 'a technical matter' and said he acted on the advice of the Justice Department.

The White House's involvement was first reported by The Washington Post.

Susan Dudley, head of OMB's Information and Regulatory Affairs, alluded to Bush's involvement in a last-minute memo to EPA chief Johnson.

"The president has concluded that consistent with administration policy, added protection should be afford to public welfare by strengthening the secondary ozone standard and setting it to be identical to the new primary standard," she wrote. It should not be weaker or stronger than the human health standard, the OMB insisted.

Although the memo was dated Thursday, it was faxed to the EPA on Wednesday, hours before the agency announced the rule. Parts of the memo were included in the rule's preamble posted on the EPA Web site.

"Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private advocacy group. "It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference."

Dudley, in a March 6 memo, had questioned the EPA's justification for having a stronger smog requirement for public welfare than for human health.

The "public welfare" _ or secondary _ standard is fashioned in a way to protect against long-term harm to the environment. The limits on ozone under this standard are likely to have more impact on rural areas than urban centers.

Environmentalists and ecologists have argued that the standard should be more stringent than the human health ozone standard.

Last year the EPA staff and a scientific advisory panel on clean air concluded that protection of forests, agricultural lands and the ecosystem requires a "substantially different" ozone standard from the one for protecting human health.

In recent weeks the Agriculture Department has weighed in against making the public welfare ozone standard tougher. The department expressed concerns about the impact additional pollution controls might have on agriculture and development of biofuels, especially ethanol.

The department made its concerns known to OMB. EPA officials said the need was clear for a different standard for public welfare and that drifting ozone pollution has been found to cause "adverse effects" on agricultural crops, forests and vegetation.

Antarctica Ice Loss Faster Than Ten Years Ago

Antarctica Ice Loss Faster Than Ten Years Ago

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080114-antarctica-melting.html

January 14, 2008

The western part of Antarctica is shedding ice much faster today than it was just ten years ago, according to new satellite measurements.

The measurements, which surveyed the coasts of nearly the entire continent, suggest that climate models underestimate how quickly Antarctica responds to ongoing global warming, said study co-author Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol in England.

Many past studies have tried to estimate how much ice Antarctica is losing.

But the new study is the first to show that this loss is accelerating, at least in western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, the researchers say.

As to whether Antarctica will lose or gain ice as global warming proceeds, the measurements disagree with existing climate models that suggest "[the ice sheet] is going to get bigger because of increased snowfall with warming temperatures," Bamber said.

"We don't see that. We see the ice sheet losing mass," he said. "So there's a bit of a paradigm shift in what the ice sheet has done recently and what it could do in the future."

Scientists are concerned the melting ice will contribute to a dangerous sea level rise.

See the whole story at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080114-antarctica-melting_2.html

CO2 output must cease altogether, studies warn

Studies: CO2 output must cease altogether
Research points to years of warming even with ambitious emission cuts
By Juliet Eilperin
The Washington Post
updated 1:35 a.m. ET, Mon., March. 10, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/

McCain's Big Zero

Sierra Club
Explore, Enjoy and Protect the Planet
RAW: Uncooked Truth, Beyond Belief

 

Issue #245
February 22, 2008
McCain's Big Zero
Josh Dorner

We were shocked -- but definitely not awed -- by Senator McCain's decision two weeks ago to dodge a crucial vote on the future of clean energy in America.   Remember, his choice to stay parked on the tarmac at Dulles (while his two planemates, Senators Lieberman and Graham, dashed to the Capitol in time to vote) doomed the measure to fail by just a single vote.

It was, however, awesome that thousands of Sierra Club e-activists took the phones and called McCain's office to register their discontent with the Arizona senator's no-show act.  In fact, so many called that his phone system was down intermittently for days.  Not awesome: McCain's office lying to our members about how he voted.

Yesterday we got an even bigger reminder of John McCain's Not Awesome status when it comes to crucial votes on the environment.  He received a big fat ZERO from the League of Conservation Voters on their 2007 National Environmental Scorecard. 

Turns out his recent attendance problem is no exception, just merely the most recent example of a consistent pattern of refusing to stand up and be counted when the environment is on the line.  In fact, out of 535 Members of Congress, John McCain is the only one who chose to miss every single key environmental vote last year. 

And here's the kicker -- at least two Members who DIED during the term outscored McCain.  That's right my friends, without any Weekend at Bernie's-style shenanigans John McCain was outdone by dead people. 

Unhappy with McCain's Not Awesome score? Why don't you join us and write a letter to editor sharing your thoughts!

Lying, Just by Another Name

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 Sierra Club

Explore, Enjoy and Protect the Planet

RAW: Uncooked Truth, Beyond Belief

Issue #241
January 25, 2008
Lying, Just by Another Name
Josh Dorner

Truthiness appeared to be the watchword of the day on Capitol Hill yesterday, as a parade of officials appeared at Congressional hearings to defend the Bush administration’s failed global warming policies. 

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson was summoned to appear before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to explain exactly why -- for the record and while under oath no less -- he chose to overrule the unanimous opinion of EPA's professional staff in denying that waiver California and some 17 states need to move forward with their landmark global warming emissions standards for cars.

Johnson of course had refused to attend an earlier hearing in California and last Friday EPA exerted bizarre claims of executive privilege in refusing to turn over documents the Senate. It seems someone at EPA failed Symbolism 101 at Hacks State U, as they justified their refusal to turn over the documents by citing a case about the most notorious cover-up of all time (pdf): United States v. Nixon. Apparently EPA believes that the public shouldn’t be able to see "pre-decisional documents" arguing for approval of the waiver because then they might be confused about why it was later denied. Gee, do you think so Captain Obvious!? Oh, and apparently EPA is also holding back because it's worried losing the lawsuit brought by the states and enviros if they get hold of the documents (i.e. the truth). And, yes, that is in fact the very same lawsuit the agency's own lawyers warned Johnson would be "almost certain" and that EPA would "likely lose" if it denied the waiver.

Boxer started the hearing with a bit of theatrics, showing the pile of white redacting tape her committee staff had had to remove from the documents EPA supplied -- documents they were only allowed to hand copy while EPA staffers literally stood over their shoulders. Johnson put on a good show of his own. Despite being reminded repeatedly by several senators that he was under oath, he stood by his claim that even though he cited the energy bill as the reason for denying the waiver in the press teleconference announcing the waiver decision, that the timing was somehow really just one big coincidence. The questioning got so heated I'm pretty sure Johnson was sorry that he hadn't taken advantage of Hillary Clinton's absence from the hearing to borrow her famed asbestos pantsuit

Not be outdone, James Connaughton, the administration's top environmental official (and, faithful to the Bush administration's high standards of integrity, a former top lobbyist for polluters), appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and claimed that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 -- called "the most anti-environmental piece of legislation signed into law in recent memory" by the League of Conservation Voters -- was really a "climate bill," but just by another name. Funny that, we call it a piece of crap, but by another name.

This follows on several other pieces of anti-environmental mutton dressed up as lamb by the Bush administration. That hit parade includes the Healthy Forests Initiative -- a logging bill by a different name -- and the Clear Skies Initiative -- a gutting of the Clean Air Act by another name.

George W. Bush: greenest president ever!*

*just by another name

Sierra Club | 85 Second St., San Francisco, CA 94105 | sierraclub.org | w.watch@sierraclub.org

 


U.N. climate chief warns of 'frightening' possibility of significant melt

Watch poles, U.N. climate chief warns-Previous reports didn't factor in 'frightening' possibility of significant melt

 

The Associated Press
updated 4:38 p.m. ET, Tues., Jan. 8, 2008

OSLO, Norway - The next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should deal with the "frightening" possibility that both Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets start melting at the same time, the chief U.N. climate scientist said Tuesday.

The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with U.S. activist and politician Al Gore, has released four climate assessment reports already, including summaries for policy makers that are approved by government representatives.

Though there are no firm plans for a fifth report, the panel is still inviting scientists to submit material on glaciers in both the far north and south, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

"My hope is in the next report, if there is one, will be able to provide much better information on the possibility of these two large bodies of ice possibly melting, in what seems what seems like a frightening situation," Pachauri said during a visit to Oslo.

Pachauri is set to visit Antarctica next week with a Norwegian delegation, after being invited during his December visit to Norway to accept the Nobel prize with Gore.

He said evidence of climate change was most apparent at the world's poles, especially in the Arctic, where the climate panel says the melting of the vast glaciers of Greenland could cause a 13-foot rise in sea levels in coming centuries.

Less is known, he said, about the impact of global warming at the Earth's opposite pole — on the vast West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a wasteland of ice and snow roughly the size of Texas.

"Unless you go to these places, you just don't get a feeling for the reality," Pachauri said. "You can read as much as you want on these subjects but it doesn't really enter your system, you don't really appreciate the enormity of what you have."

If ice sheets at both poles begin melting simultaneously, the results could be extreme, he said.

"Both Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are huge bodies of ice and snow which are sitting on land. If through a process of melting they collapse and are submerged in the sea then we really are talking about sea level rises of several meters (yards)," he said.

Pachauri and Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's delegation planned to visit Norway's Troll research base in Antarctica, and return on Jan. 21.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22560311/



© 2008 MSNBC.com

China reels from worst drought in a decade

From: Reuters
Published December 21, 2007 01:35 AM

China reels from worst drought in a decade

BEIJING (Reuters) - China is suffering its worst drought in a decade, which has left millions of people short of drinking water and has shrunk reservoirs and rivers, state media said on Friday.

Hardest hit are large swathes of the usually humid south, where water levels on several major rivers have plunged to historic lows in recent months.

"The drought is the most serious of the decade and is affecting almost the whole country," the China Daily quoted Zhang Jiatuan, an official from the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters, as saying.

The surface area of the country's largest fresh water lake, Poyang, in the southern province of Jiangxi, had fallen to a record 50 sq km (19 sq miles) from several thousand sq km at its peak, the newspaper said.

More than 760,000 residents faced drinking water shortages in the rice-growing province.

A Jiangxi official news portal showed pictures of children playing on bare beds of the Gan river, Poyang's main tributary hit by serious boat traffic jams due to the shallow water.

Similar congestion has also occurred on the Xiang river in neighboring Hunan province and authorities have had to release water from behind the massive Three Gorges Dam to ease cargo ship stranding downstream on the Yangtze River, China's longest.

The southwestern region of Guangxi has been hit by its worst drought since 1951, with over a million people suffering from drinking water shortages.

About 400,000 hectares (1,545 sq miles) of crops have been damaged by drought this year, leading to total grain losses of 37.4 million metric tonnes, the China Daily said, adding the consecutive droughts over past years had compounded the situation.

Drought and floods are perennial problems in China, whose meteorologists have complained about the increased extreme weather and partly blamed it on global climate change.

About 30 million Chinese in the countryside and more than 20 million in urban areas face drinking water shortages every year despite huge government investment to address the problem, the China Daily said.

(Reporting by Guo Shipeng; Editing by Nick Macfie)

RAW:EPA Waives Clean Cars Goodbye

__________________________________________________

Sierra Club
Explore, Enjoy and Protect the Planet

RAW: Uncooked Truth, Beyond Belief

Issue #238
December 21, 2007
EPA Waives Clean Cars Goodbye
Josh Dorner

Note: This will be the last RAW of 2007, we will return on January 4. Happy Holidays!

The Bush Administration sure knows how to ruin a good party. On Wednesday morning, President Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a whole pack of Congressmen gathered at the Energy Department to enjoy a brief moment of peace between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and sing Kumbaya over the energy bill. Then, in a classic bit of Washington high theatre, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson swooped in like the Grinch and stole our Green Christmas by denying California the waiver it (along with at least 16 other states) needs to move forward with its landmark global warming emissions standards for cars.  

In an evening press conference called with little more than half an hour's notice, Johnson explained that California's need to deal with global warming did not meet the "extraordinary and compelling" circumstances spelled out in the Clean Air Act and that the energy bill's compromise CAFE provision was the administration's "comprehensive" response to global warming emissions from vehicles, thank you very much. While this decision has long been expected, it was particularly galling that the energy bill, with its ink barely dry, was used as the pretext for denying the waiver.

The reaction of state officials and politicians ranged from "disappointing," "absurd," "indefensible," "a mockery of the law," to "disgraceful." But at least someone was happy. The auto industry -- fresh off yet another stinging loss in the courts just last week -- issued a glowing press statement commending EPA. California, the Sierra Club, and others of course immediately pledged to take EPA to court over the decision.

While EPA may have thought that its hastily-called, Wednesday-evening-before-Christmas presser would be enough to bury the news, they were badly mistaken. For one, the Washington Post obtained internal EPA documents that demonstrate that Johnson denied the waiver over the "unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs." Indeed, the EPA's own lawyers predicted they would lose in court if it denied the waiver and would almost certainly beat back an auto industry lawsuit if it approved it.

Looks like Johnson's got some 'splainin' to do. Luckily, it appears he will have no shortage of venues in which to explain exactly why he overruled his staff and participated in a possibly illegal lobbying campaign against the waiver orchestrated by the White House and the Department of Transportation. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, whose requests for meetings with Johnson over the past two weeks went unanswered, has pledged to bring him before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. Similarly, Congress' Maestro of Oversight, Rep. Henry Waxman -- also of California -- expressed his outrage in a statement and indicated his own Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be delving into the process behind the denial. 

As our lawyer who's been fighting this in the courts all year said, these guys are 0-4 and they are about to go 0-5.

 




Sierra Club | 85 Second St., San Francisco, CA 94105 | sierraclub.org | w.watch@sierraclub.org

China's glaciers to melt quickly: survey



Global warming causing China's glaciers to melt quickly: survey

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2cIXH_jqzBAi1HLp7YF8lvuhbZg

BEIJING (AFP) — Global warming has caused some of China's glaciers -- a source for many of Asia's greatest rivers -- to have melted by more than 18 percent over the past five years, state media reported Friday.

A survey of nearly 20,000 square kilometres (8,000 square miles) of China's glaciers showed they were on average 7.4 percent smaller than five years ago, Caijing magazine said, citing a government-funded survey.

A glacier along the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra River on the Tibetan plateau had shrunk by more than 18 percent, the survey found.

Two other glacial areas in China's far northwest Xinjiang region had also melted by more than 18 percent.

"Global warming is causing grave loss to glaciers and it has become a burning need to monitor changes of glacial reserves," the researchers from the China Academy of Sciences said as they released their findings.

The survey, covering roughly one third of China's glaciers, was conducted to trace the impacts of global warming.

China's glaciers, in the west of the country, feed many of Asia's greatest rivers, including the Yangtze, Mekong, Yellow and Ganges, as well as the Brahmaputra.

In the past four decades, China's glaciers shrank by 3,248 square kilometres, or 5.5 percent since the 1960s, according to previous studies published in the state-run press.

One of China's top glaciologists, Yao Tangdong, warned last year of an "ecological catastrophe" in Tibet because of global warming.

He said most glaciers in the region could melt away by 2100.

We’ve Been Suckered Again by the US. So Far the Bali Deal Is Worse than Kyoto

America will keep on wrecking climate talks as long as those with vested interests in oil and gas fund its political system

by George Monbiot

“After 11 days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could even lead to emission increases. The highly compromised political deal is largely attributable to the position of the United States, which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests. The failure to reach agreement led to the talks spilling over into an all-night session.”

These are extracts from a press release by Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was published on December 11 - I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert Arnold Gore.

The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore’s team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement.

Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts. The western nations could buy “hot air” from the former Soviet Union. Because the cuts were made against emissions in 1990, and because industry in that bloc had subsequently collapsed, the former Soviet Union countries would pass well below the bar. Gore’s scam allowed them to sell the gases they weren’t producing to other nations. He also insisted that rich nations could buy nominal cuts from poor ones. Entrepreneurs in India and China have made billions by building factories whose primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases, so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay to clean them up.

The result of this sabotage is that the market for low-carbon technologies has remained moribund. Without an assured high value for carbon cuts, without any certainty that government policies will be sustained, companies have continued to invest in the safe commercial prospects offered by fossil fuels rather than gamble on a market without an obvious floor.

By ensuring that the rich nations would not make real cuts, Gore also guaranteed that the poor ones scoffed when we asked them to do as we don’t. When George Bush announced, in 2001, that he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, the world cursed and stamped its foot. But his intransigence affected only the US. Gore’s team ruined it for everyone.

The destructive power of the American delegation is not the only thing that hasn’t changed. After the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the then British environment secretary, John Prescott, announced: “This is a truly historic deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding cuts in their emissions.” Ten years later, the current environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that “this is an historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time ever, all the world’s nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous climate change.” Do these people have a chip inserted?

In both cases, the US demanded terms that appeared impossible for the other nations to accept. Before Kyoto, the other negotiators flatly rejected Gore’s proposals for emissions trading. So his team threatened to sink the talks. The other nations capitulated, but the US still held out on technicalities until the very last moment, when it suddenly appeared to concede. In 1997 and in 2007 it got the best of both worlds: it wrecked the treaty and was praised for saving it.

Hilary Benn is an idiot. Our diplomats are suckers. American negotiators have pulled the same trick twice, and for the second time our governments have fallen for it.

There are still two years to go, but so far the new agreement is even worse than the Kyoto protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A new set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend and strengthen the worst of Gore’s trading scams, the clean development mechanism. Benn and the other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as the train leaves the station at last, having failed to notice that it is travelling in the wrong direction.

Although Gore does a better job of governing now he is out of office, he was no George Bush. He wanted a strong, binding and meaningful protocol, but American politics had made it impossible. In July 1997, the Senate had voted 95-0 to sink any treaty which failed to treat developing countries in the same way as it treated the rich ones. Though they knew this was impossible for developing countries to accept, all the Democrats lined up with all the Republicans. The Clinton administration had proposed a compromise: instead of binding commitments for the developing nations, Gore would demand emissions trading. But even when he succeeded, he announced that “we will not submit this agreement for ratification [in the Senate] until key developing nations participate”. Clinton could thus avoid an unwinnable war.

So why, regardless of the character of its leaders, does the US act this way? Because, like several other modern democracies, it is subject to two great corrupting forces. I have written before about the role of the corporate media - particularly in the US - in downplaying the threat of climate change and demonising anyone who tries to address it. I won’t bore you with it again, except to remark that at 3pm eastern standard time on Saturday, there were 20 news items on the front page of the Fox News website. The climate deal came 20th, after “Bikini-wearing stewardesses sell calendar for charity” and “Florida store sells ‘Santa Hates You’ T-shirt”.

Let us consider instead the other great source of corruption: campaign finance. The Senate rejects effective action on climate change because its members are bought and bound by the companies that stand to lose. When you study the tables showing who gives what to whom, you are struck by two things.

One is the quantity. Since 1990, the energy and natural resources sector - mostly coal, oil, gas, logging and agribusiness - has given $418m to federal politicians in the US. Transport companies have given $355m. The other is the width: the undiscriminating nature of this munificence. The big polluters favour the Republicans, but most of them also fund Democrats. During the 2000 presidential campaign, oil and gas companies lavished money on Bush, but they also gave Gore $142,000, while transport companies gave him $347,000. The whole US political system is in hock to people who put their profits ahead of the biosphere.

So don’t believe all this nonsense about waiting for the next president to sort it out. This is a much bigger problem than George Bush. Yes, he is viscerally opposed to tackling climate change. But viscera don’t have much to do with it. Until the American people confront their political funding system, their politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.

George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper.

© 2007 The Guardian

Seas could rise twice as high as predicted: study



/top_stories/article/27485

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The world's sea levels could rise twice as high this century as U.N. climate scientists have predicted, according to researchers who looked at what happened more than 100,000 years ago, the last time Earth got this hot.

Experts working on the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have suggested a maximum 21st century sea level rise -- a key effect of global climate change -- of about 32 inches.

But researchers said in a study appearing on Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience that the maximum could be twice that, or 64 inches.

They made the estimate by looking at the so-called interglacial period, some 124,000 to 119,000 years ago, when Earth's climate was warmer than it is now due to a different configuration of the planet's orbit around the sun.

That was the last time sea levels reached up to 20 feet (6 meters) above where they are now, fueled by the melting of the ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica.

The researchers say their study is the first robust documentation of how quickly sea levels rose to that level.

"Until now, there have been no data that sufficiently constrain the full rate of past sea level rises above the present level," lead author Eelco Rohling of Britain's National Oceanography Centre said in a statement.

Rohling and his colleagues found an average sea level rise of 64 inches each century during the interglacial period.

Back then, Greenland was 5.4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than now -- which is similar to the warming period expected in the next 50 to 100 years, Rohling said.

Current models of ice sheet activity do not predict rates of change this large, but they do not include many of the dynamic processes already being observed by glaciologists, the statement said.

 
Everything You Need To Know About Climate Change
Magazines & periodicals with articles on global warming.
Movies & television shows about global warming and the environment
Thanks for visiting!
请稍候...
很抱歉,您输入的评论太长。请缩短您的评论。
您没有输入任何内容,请重试。
很抱歉,我们当前无法添加您的评论。请稍后重试。
若要添加评论,需要您的家长授予您相应权限。请求权限
您的家长禁用了评论功能。
很抱歉,我们当前无法删除您的评论。请稍后重试。
您已超过了一天之内允许提供的评论数上限。请在 24 小时后重试。
因为我们的系统表明您可能在向其他用户提供垃圾评论,您的帐户已禁用了评论功能。如果您认为我们错误地禁用了您的帐户,请联系 Windows Live 支持部门
完成下面的安全检查,您提供评论的过程才能完成。
您在安全检查中键入的字符必须与图片或音频中的字符一致。