The U.S. House of Representatives passed the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act, the most important environmental and energy legislation in our nation's history.
The bill that emerged from the House has the fundamental structure we need to significantly reduce carbon pollution while growing the economy. It puts strong cap on emissions and reorients our energy market to make low-carbon power the goal. It ensures that utility rates will stay affordable and a competitive playing field for U.S. companies.
The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate, and Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to ratchet up pressure on the 100-seat chamber.
"My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth."
Preparing for Climate Change: In an editorial, it argues that the U.S. government must start acting now if the United States is to successfully adapt to the challenge posed by inevitable changes in the global climate. It says that developing new agricultural practices in the United States is the best way it can help the world.
First, the report offers this warning: "As a result of human activity, the average temperature of Earth will soon leave the less-than-1 degree Celsius range that it has maintained for more than 10,000 years." The US climate "is no longer stable, but will continue to change in new and often surprising ways," it adds. It calls for deeper research into how specific regions will be affected and on ways to lessen or adapt to changes.
Though federal leadership will be "essential," the report does not recommend a central agency to deal with the effort. It suggests a need to support existing governments in adapting to climate change.
The president is right to want to cut emissions. The alternative, allowing climate change to take its course, would be far more damaging to America and the world. The economic impact of rising sea levels, reduced crop yields, fiercer storms and many other doleful consequences would be devastating.
But fighting climate change will be costly. It will involve swapping cheap but dirty fuels for cleaner but dearer ones, as Congress intends, as well as building lots of expensive new power plants to replace older, more polluting ones. That in turn will lead to higher electricity and fuel prices. Despite the president's airy talk of green jobs, cutting emissions, by almost all calculations, will increase costs for most businesses and families. Those extra costs must be kept to a minimum.
Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, argues that those who view global warming in entirely negative terms are neglecting the benefits that warmer weather could have on people's health around the globe. By viewing the problem in this way, the writer argues, governments can make sounder policy choices.
This was the message delivered to a conference in Copenhagen this week by Alistair Hunt, a researcher at Bath University. "I am trying to bring home the impact of climate change to everyone," he said.
It is true, as Hunt noted, that the 2003 heatwave claimed 2,000 lives in Britain; that human-caused warming will increase global temperatures by about 2.6 degrees Celsius on average; and that high temperatures cause heat strokes, heart attacks and other illnesses, which hit the elderly and chronically ill the hardest. But low temperatures also kill. The old, infirm, homeless and very young are at the highest risk of hypothermia, heart attacks, strokes and illnesses caused or exacerbated by the cold.
Winter regularly takes many more lives than any heatwave: 25,000 to 50,000 people each year die in Britain from excess cold.
Climate change will not be taken seriously until the media highlights its significance, say researchers at the University of Liverpool.
Dr. Neil Gavin, from the School of Politics and Communication Studies, believes the way the media handles issues like climate change shapes the public's perception of its importance. Limited coverage is unlikely to convince readers that climate change is a serious problem that warrants immediate and decisive action.
Researchers found that the total number of articles on climate change printed over three years was fewer than one month's worth of articles featuring health issues. The articles offered mixed messages about the seriousness and imminence of problems facing the environment.
Dr. Gavin explains: "Our research suggests that the media is not treating these issues with the seriousness that scientists would say they deserve. The research company lpsos-MORI found that 50% of people think the jury is still out on the causes of global warming. The limited amount of media coverage - which tends to be restricted to the broadsheets - means that this statistic is unlikely to alter in the short-term."
Even CNN has been criticized for their coverage on climate change.
Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider's comments come after American television channel, Cable News Network (CNN) laid off their entire science and environment reporting teams. The climate researcher and policy analyst, who wrote chapter 19 in the intergovernmental report, blasted media bosses at a symposium at the Annual Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago on last week.
Prof. Schneider lambasted media chiefs, saying: "business managers of media organizations, you are screwing up your responsibility by firing science and environment reporters who are frankly the only ones competent to do this."
"Science is not politics. You can't just get two opposing viewpoints and think you've done due diligence. You've got to cover the multiple views and the relative credibility of each view," he continued.
On February 15, a report by Chris Field, of the Carnegie Institution and a former member of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, warned that greenhouse gases have accumulated more rapidly in the atmosphere between 2000 and 2007 than anticipated.
Three weeks before that, a study by Susan Solomon, the senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."
Australia has been suffering its worst heat wave on record, the first time temperatures exceeded 110 degrees Fahrenheit for three days running. It's been so hot that on Thursday, the low at Melbourne airport was 87 degrees F.
Melbourne is the capital of Victoria state, where three rural towns were under threat from wildfires spreading quickly in the furnace-like conditions, Country Fire Authority deputy chief fire officer Geoff Conway said.
Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, is regarded as highly vulnerable. A study by the country's blue-chip Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation identified its ecosystems as "potentially the most fragile" on earth in the face of the threat.
But it's not just Australia who has to be worried.
Extreme drought is likely to increase from under 3% of the globe today to 30% by 2100 -- areas affected by severe drought could see a five-fold increase from 8% to 40%.
Experts worry that Australia, which emits more carbon dioxide per head than any nation on earth, may also be the first to implode under the impact of climate change.
Even with recent record rains and tropical cyclones, harvests and livestock are suffering; and so is their economy.
The presence of such high concentrations of greenhouse gases is altering the Earth's climate, raising temperatures and impacting on the landscape.
A recent Reuters article shows that rising sea levels are eroding Sydney beaches. By 2050 there is a risk portions of the beach will disappear altogether. The beaches in danger are those which are very low-lying and they are up against higher landforms behind them, they will become narrower.
The coastline will move inward. What is now currently a vegetated dune may become the beach. An expected recession of the coastline of a sandy beach of about one meter for every centimeter rise in sea level.
This article came about after a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) study, commissioned by the Department of Climate Change. The reports showed an overall impact of global change "will pose some very significant risks to the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture in Australia". The worries are that in 50 years times the Sydney shoreline in Australia will be in so much disarray the city will become unsustainable.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed that human activity has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide - in 2007 at its highest level for 650,000 years.
The collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in the Antarctic has been confirmed as a consequence of warming in the Southern Ocean.
Three years after tackling the divisive issue of evolution in an exhibition on Charles Darwin, the American Museum of Natural History in New York is mounting a show called "Climate Change: The Threat to Life and A New Energy Future."
A U.N. climate panel, comprising hundreds of scientists and policymakers, found last year with 90 percent certainty that climate change is spurred by human activities, specifically the burning of fossil fuels that release climate-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Some people remain skeptical that human activity is responsible. Among them is Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who cast doubt on the cause of global warming during a debate this month.
The fact is, human activity emits 29 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year from the burning of fossil fuels. And scientists estimate that every person in the world burns, on average, the equivalent of three tons of coal every year.
Curator Edmond Mathez said that when he proposed the exhibition a few years ago, he was frustrated that public awareness did not match the alarm felt by scientists.
"The news media was presenting climate change as a controversial issue, which is complete nonsense, it's not (controversial)," Mathez told Reuters on Tuesday at a preview of the exhibition that opens on Saturday and runs in New York through August 2009.
"I'm sure there are some people that will condemn it out of hand," Mathez said of the exhibition. "What's important to me as a scientist is my colleagues will walk through here and say we did it correctly, that we present the issue objectively."
Exhibits include interactive displays for visitors to pledge to make changes in their behavior, such as buying low-energy light bulbs, recycling waste or bicycling to work.
The exhibition is set to travel to Spain, Denmark, Mexico and Abu Dhabi.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the United States has produced 1,150 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels, compared to China's 310 billion tons.
William Chandler is a leading expert on energy and climate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Here is a summary of William Chandler's report:
The United States and China seemingly remain locked in a climate suicide pact, each arguing the other is the reason for inaction. U.S.-China climate cooperation is urgently needed to avert climate disaster. The current situation of the energy sectors in the United States and China offers a solution. China and the United States can set and cooperate to achieve national goals and implement enforceable measures. If this U.S.– China policy experiment works, China and the United States could develop packages of policies and measures, test them for efficacy, correct them, and share them with other countries.
One of the more interesting points in this report is in regards to how much funding is actually being put out for cleaner energy. "Official funding for clean energy cooperation between the countries amounts to only about $1 million a year. The private U.S. Energy Foundation provides twenty times more, but even this level of funding is far below the need." Of course we don't need to guess where our countries money is going, because everyone knows billions of dollars are being spent on the senseless war in Iraq. But, again, who am I to say anything...?
You should definitely check out the preview trailer of the show because even though we are constantly hearing the same thing about our environment this report is still extremely profound.
Hosted by Anderson Cooper, Jeff Corwin, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta, it is a two-part, four-hour special with breathtaking images and some startling numbers – along the lines of "We lose 7,000 square miles of rainforest each year…roughly the size of the state of New Jersey".
"Every day, more than 70 species vanish from the planet, and the number of endangered animals and organisms grows each year." I don't know about you but that is alarming and shocking to me. I know the rules of survival of the fittest and evolution but still...70 species a day!?
In discussing the earth's population..."The earth's population has risen from 2.9 billion people to more than 6.6 billion over the past 50 years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau." With more people there is even more of a need for more efficiency. This means we need to research other means of resources for energy. It also means we should stop developing ginormous mansion size single family homes they are just not necessary. People have lived in more economical spaces before and they can do it again.
The show will air tonight and tomorrow night at 9 p.m. on CNN.
President George Bush: "The age of clean energy requires transforming the way we produce electricity. Electric power plants that burn coal are the world's leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions. The world's supply of coal is secure and abundant. And our challenge is take advantage of it while maintaining our commitment to the environment. One promising solution is advanced clean coal technology. The future of this technology will allow us to trap and store carbon emissions and air pollutants produced by burning coal. Since 2001 the United States has invested more than $2.5 billion to research and develop clean coal. And in partnership with other nations and the private sector we're moving closer to a historic achievement -- producing energy from the world's first zero-emissions coal-fired plant.
We also need to take advantage of clean safe nuclear power. Nuclear power is the one existing source of energy that can generate massive amounts of electricity without causing any air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Without the world's 439 nuclear power plants, there would be nearly 2 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year. And by expanding the use of nuclear power, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions even more."
He is such a *^%(&*@)! It's like he is seasoning soup the way he throws words like energy, emissions and technology around. He doesn't have a clue what he is talking about and it is absolutely frustrating!
President George Bush: "We will harness the power of technology. There is a way forward that will enable us to grow our economies and protect the environment, and that's called technology. We'll meet our energy needs. We'll be good stewards of this environment. Achieving these goals will require a sustained effort over many decades. This problem isn't going to be solved overnight."
He is the most redundant speaker I have ever heard! Not to mention it sounds like he stole lines from every "green" promoting commercial on the air today!
Again courtesy of Hippyshopper, there is a story about "Lights Out London." On June 2nd from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. many people participated in switching out their lights and other non-essential appliances for an hour, in a "symbolic stance against climate change."
The Lights Out London website claims, "An estimated 2 million light bulbs went out around the capital, saving roughly 750 MWh of electricity in just one hour – enough to run 3,000 televisions for a year."
I think it is just so cool that something that big went down. That so many people saw a need to ban together and show their support for making a change in the environment. This is proof that people can make a difference, even if only one light bulb at a time. =o)
