Showing posts with label sea level. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sea level. Show all posts
12/10/2009
12/01/2009
More on Climate Change, BBC
New head for Australia opposition
Australia's opposition elects climate change sceptic Tony Abbott as new leader, dealing a blow to PM Kevin Rudd's carbon trading plans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8387653.stm
Antarctic to feed major sea rise
Melting Antarctic ice is likely to contribute to a sea level rise of about 1.4m by 2100, says a major review of climate change on the continent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm
Australia's opposition elects climate change sceptic Tony Abbott as new leader, dealing a blow to PM Kevin Rudd's carbon trading plans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8387653.stm
Antarctic to feed major sea rise
Melting Antarctic ice is likely to contribute to a sea level rise of about 1.4m by 2100, says a major review of climate change on the continent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm
6/29/2009
Betraying the Planet
Betraying the Planet
By PAUL KRUGMAN
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.
In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.
In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
1/20/2008
Mediterranean Rising
Warning on rising Med Sea levels
Levels in the Mediterranean Sea are rising rapidly, with potentially serious effects in coastal areas, a study finds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/science/nature/7197379.stm
Levels in the Mediterranean Sea are rising rapidly, with potentially serious effects in coastal areas, a study finds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/science/nature/7197379.stm
11/18/2007
Conservation Insider Bulletin from Dan Besse, Nov. 16
Conservation Insider Bulletin
Published weekly for the Conservation Council of North Carolina
Conservation News to Peruse & Use
Editor: Dan Besse, earthvote@ccnccpac.org
November 16, 2007
Environmental issues received attention this week from the presidential campaign trail to the annual gathering of the nation's cities. Details follow in this week's CIB:
--Local Government Watch: Padgett to Head National Transportation Panel; Sea Level Rise Declared "Disastrous" Potential Threat
--Campaign Watch: Presidential Forum Will Focus on Energy & Climate; LCV Invites Nominations for "Dirty Dozen"
--Washington Watch: Duke Fights Global Warming Legislation
--Education & Resources: More Muddy Waters
Local Government Watch: Padgett to Head National Transportation Panel; Sea Level Rise Declared "Disastrous" Potential Threat
(Editor's Note: CIB is arriving a day late this week because the editor was in New Orleans participating in the meeting from which the notes below were taken. Mostly work, but we did spend a couple of hours monitoring environmental conditions in the French Quarter...)
The National League of Cities met for its annual conference this week in a city still recovering from one of this century's greatest U.S. environmental disasters. More than 3,000 local elected officials from around the nation met to consider new policy matters and review lessons from the uneven progress of ongoing recovery efforts in New Orleans. Environmental issues were prominent on the week's agendas.
Padgett to Head National Transportation Panel: Wilmington, NC, City Council Member Laura Padgett will take over as chair of the National League of Cities' Transportation Infrastructure and Services (TIS) Steering Committee. Padgett is regarded as an environmental quality advocate in Wilmington, and transportation policy has emerged as a leading environmental quality issue both in North Carolina and nationwide. (The two areas are inextricably linked in air quality, energy usage, green space, urban sprawl, and climate change issues.) The TIS Steering Committee, advised by the TIS Policy and Advocacy Committee, formulates transportation policy recommendations for the National League of Cities (NLC). The NLC, in turn, speaks on behalf of its more than 1,600 member cities in national policy work. Padgett's new role will provide enhanced opportunities for national attention to transportation/environmental issues relevant to North Carolina.
At this week's NLC meeting, a transit-policy workshop also featured Charlotte as its case example of the connection between transportation decisions and land use development patterns.
Sea Level Rise Declared "Disastrous" Potential Threat: The NLC's other major environment-related policy body is its Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy and Advocacy Committee (EENR). Among the issues taken up by the EENR this week were sustainability, energy, and water quality. Fittingly, in view of its meeting location, the body adopted a resolution warning of the potential "disastrous" effects of sea level rise related to global warming on American coastal cities. In the course of adopting that resolution, the committee also agreed to take up the issue of long-term drought as a key matter for additional study and work. (As was discussed before the committee, reduced precipitation and more severe droughts are among the projected impacts from climate change for some U.S. regions. The current severe drought in the southeastern U.S. may be a mere precursor of things to come if climate change is not brought under control.)
Campaign Watch: Presidential Forum Will Focus on Energy & Climate; LCV Invites Nominations for "Dirty Dozen"
Presidential Forum Will Focus on Energy & Climate: The national League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (LCVEF) has helped put together an inaugural "Presidential Forum on Global Warming and America's Energy Future" on Saturday, November 17. The event is being webcast live, and will no doubt be available to review on a recorded basis after the event. See www.lcv.org for more information.
LCV Invites Nominations for "Dirty Dozen": Every two years, the national League of Conservation Voters (LCV) constructs a list of the 12 (or so) worst members of Congress on environmental issues, who are up for re-election and vulnerable to a change. In 2006, LCV education campaigns helped to defeat nine of the 13 designated "dirty" members of Congress, including N.C.'s own unlamented former Representative Charles Taylor. Now, LCV is inviting environmental advocates nationwide to nominate candidates for inclusion in the 2008 Dirty Dozen. To make your suggestion, go to http://action.lcv.org/ct/R1qNks11dXlb/. More info on the LCV Dirty Dozen campaign is available at www.lcv.org.
Washington Watch: Duke Fights Global Warming Legislation
Duke Energy is fighting against the leading Congressional proposal for action on the issue of climate change. The Lieberman-Warner bill creating a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions has bipartisan support and recently received a favorable report from a key Congressional subcommittee. Duke opposes the bill, says its spokesman, because the bill doesn't give coal-dependent utilities like itself enough of a break in the establishment of caps and credits. The utility's opposition to the Lieberman-Warner legislation is at odds with its loudly trumpeted support for effective national controls on carbon emissions.
According to the Charlotte Observer (11/16/07), Duke is among the nation's largest emitters of carbon dioxide and its third-largest user of coal. Duke generates 52 percent of its Carolinas power from coal, and 98 percent of its Midwestern territories power from coal.
Education & Resources: More Muddy Waters
The Neuse River Foundation (NRF) reports that its "Muddy Water Watch" meeting on training citizens how to take part in monitoring pollution from construction sites was a success. About 40 people participated in the November 13 session in Raleigh. NRF says it will hold a second "orientation session" on the program on December 18, and the official training sessions will begin January 22. More information is available at www.muddywaterwatch.org.
That's our report for this week.
Published weekly for the Conservation Council of North Carolina
Conservation News to Peruse & Use
Editor: Dan Besse, earthvote@ccnccpac.org
November 16, 2007
Environmental issues received attention this week from the presidential campaign trail to the annual gathering of the nation's cities. Details follow in this week's CIB:
--Local Government Watch: Padgett to Head National Transportation Panel; Sea Level Rise Declared "Disastrous" Potential Threat
--Campaign Watch: Presidential Forum Will Focus on Energy & Climate; LCV Invites Nominations for "Dirty Dozen"
--Washington Watch: Duke Fights Global Warming Legislation
--Education & Resources: More Muddy Waters
Local Government Watch: Padgett to Head National Transportation Panel; Sea Level Rise Declared "Disastrous" Potential Threat
(Editor's Note: CIB is arriving a day late this week because the editor was in New Orleans participating in the meeting from which the notes below were taken. Mostly work, but we did spend a couple of hours monitoring environmental conditions in the French Quarter...)
The National League of Cities met for its annual conference this week in a city still recovering from one of this century's greatest U.S. environmental disasters. More than 3,000 local elected officials from around the nation met to consider new policy matters and review lessons from the uneven progress of ongoing recovery efforts in New Orleans. Environmental issues were prominent on the week's agendas.
Padgett to Head National Transportation Panel: Wilmington, NC, City Council Member Laura Padgett will take over as chair of the National League of Cities' Transportation Infrastructure and Services (TIS) Steering Committee. Padgett is regarded as an environmental quality advocate in Wilmington, and transportation policy has emerged as a leading environmental quality issue both in North Carolina and nationwide. (The two areas are inextricably linked in air quality, energy usage, green space, urban sprawl, and climate change issues.) The TIS Steering Committee, advised by the TIS Policy and Advocacy Committee, formulates transportation policy recommendations for the National League of Cities (NLC). The NLC, in turn, speaks on behalf of its more than 1,600 member cities in national policy work. Padgett's new role will provide enhanced opportunities for national attention to transportation/environmental issues relevant to North Carolina.
At this week's NLC meeting, a transit-policy workshop also featured Charlotte as its case example of the connection between transportation decisions and land use development patterns.
Sea Level Rise Declared "Disastrous" Potential Threat: The NLC's other major environment-related policy body is its Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy and Advocacy Committee (EENR). Among the issues taken up by the EENR this week were sustainability, energy, and water quality. Fittingly, in view of its meeting location, the body adopted a resolution warning of the potential "disastrous" effects of sea level rise related to global warming on American coastal cities. In the course of adopting that resolution, the committee also agreed to take up the issue of long-term drought as a key matter for additional study and work. (As was discussed before the committee, reduced precipitation and more severe droughts are among the projected impacts from climate change for some U.S. regions. The current severe drought in the southeastern U.S. may be a mere precursor of things to come if climate change is not brought under control.)
Campaign Watch: Presidential Forum Will Focus on Energy & Climate; LCV Invites Nominations for "Dirty Dozen"
Presidential Forum Will Focus on Energy & Climate: The national League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (LCVEF) has helped put together an inaugural "Presidential Forum on Global Warming and America's Energy Future" on Saturday, November 17. The event is being webcast live, and will no doubt be available to review on a recorded basis after the event. See www.lcv.org for more information.
LCV Invites Nominations for "Dirty Dozen": Every two years, the national League of Conservation Voters (LCV) constructs a list of the 12 (or so) worst members of Congress on environmental issues, who are up for re-election and vulnerable to a change. In 2006, LCV education campaigns helped to defeat nine of the 13 designated "dirty" members of Congress, including N.C.'s own unlamented former Representative Charles Taylor. Now, LCV is inviting environmental advocates nationwide to nominate candidates for inclusion in the 2008 Dirty Dozen. To make your suggestion, go to http://action.lcv.org/ct/R1qNks11dXlb/. More info on the LCV Dirty Dozen campaign is available at www.lcv.org.
Washington Watch: Duke Fights Global Warming Legislation
Duke Energy is fighting against the leading Congressional proposal for action on the issue of climate change. The Lieberman-Warner bill creating a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions has bipartisan support and recently received a favorable report from a key Congressional subcommittee. Duke opposes the bill, says its spokesman, because the bill doesn't give coal-dependent utilities like itself enough of a break in the establishment of caps and credits. The utility's opposition to the Lieberman-Warner legislation is at odds with its loudly trumpeted support for effective national controls on carbon emissions.
According to the Charlotte Observer (11/16/07), Duke is among the nation's largest emitters of carbon dioxide and its third-largest user of coal. Duke generates 52 percent of its Carolinas power from coal, and 98 percent of its Midwestern territories power from coal.
Education & Resources: More Muddy Waters
The Neuse River Foundation (NRF) reports that its "Muddy Water Watch" meeting on training citizens how to take part in monitoring pollution from construction sites was a success. About 40 people participated in the November 13 session in Raleigh. NRF says it will hold a second "orientation session" on the program on December 18, and the official training sessions will begin January 22. More information is available at www.muddywaterwatch.org.
That's our report for this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)