World at Risk

Wacky Weater is Deadly Global Heating

2007-01-20T23:37:00.000+01:00

Sometimes someone comes along and puts something so succinctly that there's not mure more to add and no better way to say it. Those are my exact feelings concerning this article by Dr. Glen Barry, published on Climateark.org:

Thursday 11 January 2007
As of 2007, the Earth System has already undergone profound global change, of which global heating is the most immediately evident profound impact. It is getting hot, and it is happening fast. Many leading scientists tell us we have 10 years at most given current trends before climate change becomes irreversible and dangerous, beyond the generally accepted rise of 2 degrees Celsius considered adaptable (we are about 1/3 the way there).

Yet the chortling television weather people tell us the unprecedented wave of global mild weather - really a lack of winter in many parts - is not climate change. We are encouraged to take advantage of our good fortune and get out there and play golf. At what point will abrupt climate change and deterioration of the Earth System's life giving biosphere be recognized as a global ecological emergency, and responded to as such? And will it then be too late to limit damages, or even to survive?

Global warming is not a slow, gentle, pleasant rise in temperatures to be savored. It is an abrupt fundamental breakdown in the Earth System's climate sub-system that threatens the Earth's, humanity's and your family's ability to live. It is not enough to blame the weather on El Ninño, which itself can be and is exacerbated by climate change. As climate change continues, unabated by systematic policy responses, and "wacky weather" becomes more prevalent, we can expect immediately budding trees to die from later frosts, agriculture to struggle to define growing seasons, pest insects to multiply, and ecosystems to deteriorate and die.

The ability of individuals, communities and nations to deny the obvious is amazing. People do not like hearing that their consumptive, wasteful lifestyle is destroying God's creation. For most, our addiction to lethargic comfort is so great, our ignorance of ecology and our total dependence upon a healthy biosphere so complete - and our psychological inability to grasp that humanity has overrun the biosphere, becoming the dominant force in nature so absolute - that we do nothing, as the greatest avertable disaster to ever face civilizations looms, increasingly recognized but not nearly sufficiently addressed.

Humanity is deeply within the Anthropocene Era, whereby our presence is the greatest force shaping the biosphere. We are witnessing the jarring collapse of the Earth's most recent climate equilibrium, and depending upon how much climate forcing occurs from continued emissions, there are no guarantees what the next climate will look like or if it will even be regularized within a decent time period. And the longer-term results will be calamitous - extreme weather including super storms, floods and droughts, massive crop failures, vegetation die-back over whole regions, a proliferation of tropical diseases, rising seas destroying cities, a massive refugee crisis, and a general breakdown of anything resembling dependable climatic patterns.

Don't believe me? Walk outside right now - see or feel anything different? Are the trees blooming in the middle of winter as they are in Washington, DC, and New York? Is there a lack of snow as in Minnesota and Europe, while other areas like Colorado get dumped upon? Are the rains failing as with Australia's "Big Dry?" So much of the global ecological system's processes and patterns that provide the life-giving context for human civilization have been lost and changed, and it continues to intensify. Essentially, no natural processes are assured as a very different Planet emerges: climate patterns, water supplies, ocean fisheries, soil fertility, terrestrial ecosystem energy and nutrient cycling are all in doubt.

Many rightly do what they can individually, but are discouraged by the fact that many necessary changes like widespread public transportation, caps on emissions, and universal adoption of a low-carbon energy economy require societal changes beyond an individual's immediate grasp. Goddamn it, snap out of it! I want to shake every climate denier and ambivalent Earth slayer, slapping them in the face to awake them from their slumberous death march. We are witnessing a human-caused disintegration of ancient climatic cycles, with anthropogenic emissions forcing the global climate beyond what has always been a high level of variability.

We must get past the ingrained illusion that humanity has not become a planetary ecological force. And that the changes we are witnessing in a single lifetime are good. As the ecologically ignorant chortle, pleased to be outside in winter in short sleeves, perhaps they should consider how global heating will impact their water, food and shelter requirements for life - to say nothing of the economy and their prospects for employment.

How deeply and sadly we are in denial regarding the consequences of the abrupt climate changes we are witnessing. The life-giving biosphere is in tatters and near collapse because of you and me and everyone. We are witnessing the logical conclusion of deforesting 80 percent of the world's natural ecosystems while working on the rest, breeding and increasing in numbers recklessly, using fossil fuel energy wastefully, and believing our lifestyles and consumption are independent of the Earth.

Massively reducing emissions must become this next greatest-generation's central call to duty. Dramatically and rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions must become the central organizing principle of governments, business and individuals. Contracting rich nations' carbon emissions, while allowing materially poor nations to converge with the rich's level of emissions, is the only way forward that is both equitable and likely to be successful. We need contests, and publicity for best practices, and technology sharing, and a rejection of coal, and emission caps, and global carbon trading, population control, huge renewable energy subsidies and so much more.

Only massive public and political pressure - now - can save the Earth and all her species. The recent vote in the US was a repudiation of oil industry governance. Now it is up to Democrats to stop pandering on gas prices and propose a progressive, workable carbon tax; ratify Kyoto and meaningfully rejoin international climate talks; launch an "Apollo project" supporting renewable energy; and generally, for the US to get on the ball and rejoin the league of civilized nations that are working on climate solutions.

I exhort all who read this to break the denial that the current "wacky weather" is natural; it is more, much more; the start of a systematic collapse of being as we know it. And I ask that you help other non-ecologically attuned people grasp what their way of life is doing to creation - risking ridicule as an acolyte of ecological truth. Take responsibility personally, and become involved in the great climate change/ecological sustainability movements that are set to rock this world - bringing forth the necessary societal changes. Time is short, but solutions exist. Save the climate, save the Earth, save yourself and your posterity. Get active, organize, agitate, protest and above all else reduce your carbon!

Thirsty Australia in grip of worst drought on record

2007-01-16T23:17:00.000+01:00

Down Under, lake beds are dry and just flushing a toilet can feel vaguely scandalous, the Tribune's Laurie Goering reports:

By Laurie Goering, Tribune foreign correspondent recently on assignment in Australia
Published January 16, 2007

WOY WOY, Australia -- The name of this little seacoast town means "much water" in the language of its former aboriginal residents. But water--at least fresh water--is in short supply these days in Woy Woy, a resort village an hour and a half north of Sydney.

With a nearly countrywide drought now in its fifth year, reservoirs along Australia's central eastern coast are down to 14 percent of capacity, and restrictions on water use are getting tough.

Summer vacationers have arrived to find beachside showers turned off, and the lawns of rental houses are crispy brown because of a ban on watering . Local authorities have handed out four-minute shower timers and low-flow shower heads to every household, and most people now shower with an array of buckets underfoot to catch the precious "gray" water, the only thing that can be used to wet gardens or wash cars.

Just flushing a toilet these days feels vaguely scandalous.

"WATER RESTRICTIONS APPLY," warns a full-page ad in the local newspaper, urging visitors to brush their teeth with the water off and wipe rather than rinse the sand off their feet and their surfboards after visits to the beach.

Australia has long been the driest continent, and droughts are anything but unusual. But the one under way is the worst in the country's short 114-year history of record-keeping and, some authorities believe, the worst in a thousand years.

In parts of rural Australia, emaciated cattle and sheep have been turned out to forage on what's left of dried-up crops. As supplies of irrigation water dry up and legions of farmers haul their animals off to the slaughterhouse, prices for mutton have fallen by 50 percent and harvests of key crops like wheat, barley and canola are expected to fall 60 percent this year, according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Debt-strapped farmers are committing suicide at the rate of four a day in the nation, according to Beyond Blue, an Australian organization that deals with depression issues.

In parched Melbourne, where the once verdant hills are now a consistent baked yellow, officials started this month issuing on-the-spot fines of up to $335 to flagrant car washers, swimming-pool fillers or anyone else showing "obvious disregard" for water restrictions. The worst offenders see their water pressure temporarily cut from 10 gallons a minute down to a trickling half-gallon a minute.

The past resurfaces

In South Australia province, the ground is so dry that the soil is contracting and sucking moisture out of homes enough to crack nearly half of those surveyed by an architectural service. And across southern Australia, drying lakes and ponds are slowly revealing a wealth of long submerged relics, from houses once drowned by man-made dams to rusty guns tossed away by fleeing criminals. Police are dutifully collecting the weapons and taking a new look at old crime files.

Water levels in Lake Corangamite, in southeast Australia, have dropped so much that authorities were astonished last year to spot a missing World War II plane in the lake bed.

Whether Australia's big dry is a result of climate change is a matter of debate. Barrie Hunt, a researcher with the government's science agency, insists that over the past 10,000 years, Australia has seen at least eight long droughts like this one. And El Nino, a cyclical change of Pacific currents now going on near South America, regularly brings Australia dry spells.

But the scale of the current drought has pushed Australians to begin making plans for what many believe is a permanently drier future. In Sydney, the government is offering rebates of up to $700 to homeowners who install rainwater-catching tanks and plans to build a $1 billion desalination plant to turn seawater into drinking water if dam levels continue to drop. In perpetually parched southeast Queensland, voters will decide in March whether to begin allowing their purified sewage to be added back into the drinking water supply.

Even the politicians in Canberra, Australia's capital, are feeling the pressure. For the first time, the heated pool at Parliament was shut for a month over the holidays and lawmakers are slowly agreeing to cut off sprinklers that have kept Capitol lawns lush while the rest of Canberra bakes.

1 green spot left

The only green spot may soon be the foreign embassy lawns. Afraid of provoking what the government water spokesman calls a "diplomatic incident," the foreigners, so far, haven't been asked to roll up their hoses.

White Substance Covering Ground

2007-01-04T17:49:00.000+01:00

I watched the nine o'clock news last night (remember those old days when you only got news twice a day on TV?). One of the segments was a reporter and cameraman roaming the streets of our capital Oslo, reporting on a thin layer of some white substance that was covering the ground. It turned out to be what we used to call snow. "Hurry out if you want to see it", the reporter said.

It didn't last long. A few hours, and it was gone again. Only the joke remains.

This is Norway. We're supposed to be covered in white from South to North, East to West at this time of year. But all we get is rain, rain, rain without end. The low pressure systems are queued up from here to Newfoundland, as they have been all fall and winter so far.

The statistics from the meterological office tells us that in December, all weather stations throughout our country reported temperatures above or well above the normal. Lindesnes got a new record for the monthly middle temperature, 8.2 C. That is 5.3 above normal. It is also a new record for Norway, the former being 7.0 C and set in 1924.

More importantly, 2006 is the warmest year on record for Norway, 1.8 C above normal. However, as predicted by global climate models, the Northern parts are warming much faster. The new record for the island of Svalbard is nothing short of spectacular: At -1.7 C, the mean temperature is a whopping 5 C above normal. The previous record was -3 C, set as recently as 2005.

These are only dry numbers, of course. But what we are seeing now is that a relatively small difference makes a huge difference - for instance in the white substance that should have been covering the ground, but isn't.

The Polar Bear

2006-12-27T10:22:00.000+01:00

The US government is considering putting the polar bear on the list of endangered animals. While that is a fine measure, the really interesting thing is the reason behind it, which is loss of habitat due to global warming.

Up until now, the Bush administration has offered only denial and stonewalling whenever global warming has been adressed. Thus, any admission that there is in fact a problem is a step forward. Moreover, the case of the polar bear is of special interest because its habitat encompasses large areas that are promising, but yet largely unexplored by the oil industry. Listing the polar bear as endangered would rule out such exploration inside its habitats.

If this does indeed happen - the process is said to take approximately year of "careful consideration" - it would be an interesting step forward for the world's largest polluter. While it would be much too late to redeem the Bush administration on its miserable track record on environmental issues, it would be a welcome sign none the less that maybe the reality of global warming is even starting to sink in with US conservatives.

Arctic Meltdown. Here. Now.

2006-12-18T20:13:00.000+01:00

I remember hearing in the early 90s that in a couple of hundred years, the North pole could be ice-free during the summer. It didn't worry me a bit.

A few years later, it could happen in a century. Not much difference, I thought. I'll still be dead, and I'm not planning any trips up there anyways. (I didn't have any children back then, you see. Kind of changes...everything.)

Then it seems that just after I heard mention of 50 years, we're down to a measly 34. Right-o, all the ice gone in 34 short summers. I'm counting on still hanging around long enough to see all those polar bears drowned, all those seals with no place to breed. That whole huge Northern refrigerator gone, and in its place open, dark, heat-absorbing water. You don't need to be a climate scientist to understand that this will have some major consequences, and that few of them will be good. If you need a tipping point illustrated, all of the arctic ice gone should do the trick nicely.

Al Gore, speaking at a climate conference with 15.000 scientists earlier this month and urging them to speak out more publicly, said: "If we allow it to go, it won't come back on any time scale relevant to the human species."

What, me worry? Oh yes. Very much so.

The Future Revisited

2006-12-10T23:02:00.000+01:00

It just does not stop.

In a way remarkably like the movie "Groundhog Day", every day is just the same. It rains, it pours, it drizzles. What it does not do, is stop. I cannot remember the last day it did not rain. It must have been weeks and weeks ago.

This is not a tropic zone in the middle of the rainy season. It's the West coast of Norway. Normally, we should have seen some snow by now, even down here by the sea. There should have been clear, frosty nights, stars peering down from a clear, black sky. But the gulf stream waters coming up from the Caribbean are reported to be 2-3 degrees Celsius above normal this year, and this apparently has some rather comprehensive implications for our local climate. Mostly, it means an unusually warm autumn and winter - approximately 6 C above the normal daily average so far in December - and a rate of precipitation way above the norm.

Tonight is even worse than what we've seen lately. A huge low has drifted in from Iceland and is causing stormy weather (also literally) along a large portion of the Norwegian coast. Rainfall over the next 24 hours is forecast to exceed 100 mm in places. That is enough, even here, to cause local flooding, earthslides and traffic accidents.

This too shall pass. It will dry up eventually. What gives me pause for thought is that these are exactly the kind of conditions that are forecast for our part of the world in the near future, 20/50/100 years from now. Sure, the summers will get warmer and just a little wetter, but the winters will get warmer still and a lot wetter. And let me tell you: That is a very, very depressing thought.

Still, we are the lucky ones. The forecast changes are comparatively minor here to many other areas, which are or will soon become prone to flooding, drought (or both, which is not uncommon), heatwaves, hurricanes, etc. Plus, we are even in position to consider moving pretty much anywhere, given the necessary amount of commitment, motivation and planning.

Yet, where would we go? We are facing a global problem (or challenge, if you prefer), and it is abundantly clear that no place on our little blue dot in space is immune.

Skiing Season Postponed

2006-12-05T23:18:00.000+01:00

Being a Norwegian, I'm born with skis on my feet. That may be a slight exaggeration, but like most of my countrymen and -women, I started skiing at a very early age. And though I've never won a medal and am certainly never going to, I do know my way downhill - as well as the more exotic art of cross country skiing.

Problem is, there's no snow. Not here in the Stavanger area, but being on the west coast, warmed by the gulf current coming up from the Caribbean, that is only slightly unusual. However, there's no snow up the mountains either, where there most definitely should be by now. Nor in the eastern part of the country, where all the ski lifts are standing idle long past the start of season. Even up in the northern part of the country, where foreigners visitors often expect to see the polar bears roam the streets (a common misconception!), the ground is still bare. That is pretty much unheard of.

Then again, there's no snow in the alps either. Looking up our favourite ski resort of St. Anton, high in the Austrian alps, the story is the same. The season has been postponed. Currently until Dec 8, but with temperatures forecast between 10 and 6 C beyond that date, I'm gessing that will not hold either. [Dec 11 update: It did not. The opening is now postponed indefinitely, with the zero degree C altitude necessary for snow expected to move beyond 3200 meters by midweek. St. Anton is at 1300 meters and the highest point in the area, Valluga, at 2811.)

There are vast sums invested in modern ski resorts, and they no longer have to rely on precipitation for snow: They can make their own. But not at these temperatures. So every day the warm weather keeps on, the tourist industry in St. Anton and countless other places will suffer a substantial financial loss. A side effect: Ski events and competitions (very popular with us Europeans and the regular soccer replacement on TV during the winter) are cancelled and/or moved to other locations - pretty much anywhere with a snow cover, however minimal.

The snow will arrive eventually, of course. The ski resorts will recoup some of their losses. But the long awaited start of this season has been a dire warning of things to come.

Following Up: Australian Drought

2006-12-01T22:08:00.000+01:00

I had a posting about the Australian drought recently. Now I just found an article about the unprecedented scope of the problem: It affects more than 50% of the country's agricultural area.

As you will remember, Australia is one of two developed nations who have not ratified the Kyoto protocol (the US is the other).

Here goes:

More Than Half Australia's Farmland Drought-Stricken, Government Says
The Associated Press

Canberra, Australia - More than half of Australia's farm and ranch land is now drought-stricken and an additional 10,000 farmers are eligible for special federal relief, the government said Tuesday.

Acting Prime Minister Mark Vaile said the area eligible for special drought relief has been increased to more than half the nation's farmland, up from a third, as its worst drought in a century bites deeper.

"We are in uncharted waters, if you like, as far as this drought is concerned," Vaile told reporters.

Further government measures could be needed, he said.

"I don't know that we've seen this much of Australia's land mass covered by drought in the past, and it requires a significant response," said Vaile, standing in for Prime Minister John Howard, who is on an overseas trip.

The cost of additional drought aid in interest rate subsidies and farmer welfare payments under so-called exceptional circumstances could be 560 million Australian dollars (US$424 million; €338 million), Vaile said.

"This will take the area of Australia's agricultural land that is now covered by exceptional circumstances support to beyond 50 percent," Vaile said.

Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran said the number of farmers eligible for the emergency support had increased by 10,000 to 72,000.

The new money builds on A$350 million (US$263 million; €210 million) announced by Howard last week in extra government handouts for farmers hit hardest by the drought.

Much of Australia's farming and ranching belt in the south and southeast has been in the grip of a severe drought for up to five years, with rainfall levels far below average, causing problems especially for grain crops such as wheat and barley.

Many officials blame global warming, and some warn that land that has been fertile for hundreds of years may have an uncertain future.

Something Fishy Going On

2006-11-21T23:50:00.000+01:00

Pardon the pun, because this is not laughing matter. By the year 2048, which I by the way fully intend to see, the only available seafood may be artificially flavored soya sticks. How's that for a grim outlook?

Here's the beef: As of 2003, the last year for which the UN has statistical data, the populations of 29% of all species of fish currently being commercially exploited had collapsed. A collapse implies that there has been more than a 90% decline from historical highs.

The reason, of course, is overfishing. Current and past. Especially damaging is the practice of bottom trawling.

A recent study publised in the journal Science estimates that if the current trends continue, unraveling marine ecosystems will lead to a collapse in all commercial species by the middle of this century. The marine deserts that are already becoming more and more prevalent will have spread to cover the globe.

This disaster can still be prevented. But that calls for drastic measures now. Better regulation of commercial fishing for one. And an immediate ban on bottom trawling.

English Wine and the Contrarians

2006-11-20T23:47:00.000+01:00

"Contrarians", for the benefit of this blog as well as commonly used in the global warming debate, are those who claim either that 1) there is currently no trend towards a warmer global climate, and 2) even if there were, it would not be due to human impact.

Short on scientific evidence, contrarians are currently rapidly declining in number and increasingly clasping at straws. One in particular concerns, of all things, the conditions for winemaking in England.

It is well known that wine was made in England in medival times. Arguably, it wasn't up to the standards of its French counterpart, but it certainly allowed the necessary degree of drunkenness in times long gone.

The contrarian argument goes like this: The climate was warm enough for growing grapes in medival times, but it is not today. Thus, the English climate is not getting warmer, and by extrapolation, neither is the world's.

There are two main problems with this line of thought. Firstly, there is no doubt that there have been climate changes in the past, and that there have been warmer periods than we are experiencing today. That is not our concern today: The unprecedented rate of increase and its linking to human activity is.

Secondly, they should have bothered to check the actual number of winemakers in England. According the the Domesday Book (1087), there may have been as many as 52 wineyards at that time. In 1977, however, there were 124, more than any time in the previous millenium.

Currently, there are more than 400. And counting.

The Bumbling Leader

2006-11-16T23:11:00.000+01:00

No, not president Bush this time.

Back in the early 80's, former premier minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, led the UN's World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Normally referred to as the Brundtland commission, its 1987 report "Our Common Future" was the first to put emphasis on the term "sustainable development", defined as:

"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

The choice of Ms Brundtland as leader mirrored the general perception of Norway as a leader in environmental issues (to the degree that the world has a view on this tiny but wealthy country on the fringe of Europe), a role that the country also took great pride in.

While there might have been a grain of truth in this some 20 years ago, sadly this is no longer the case. Norway is one of the world's largest oil and gas producers, thus contributing heavily to the emission of greenhouse gases. Energy consumption is high both in the general population and in subsidised industries such as aluminium production. Yet the emphasis is not on energy saving, but on development of new energy sources.

Having already exhausted most of the potential for clean hydro energy, Norwegian leaders are now opting for natural gas steam plants. Sadly, this will be developed without the technology of CO2 capturing (at least up until 2014), vastly increasing the country's climate gas pollution during a time where the emphasis should of course be on sharp reduction and research into clean energy sources. For one, Norway with its long, wild and rugged coastline is perfectly suited to benefit from wind power.

Despite this, Norway's weak and inexperienced minister of the environment had the audacity during the current UN meeting to call for a 20-30% decrease in climate gas pollution from other countries before the year 2020 - knowing full well that Norway is on the opposite track and with CO2 reduction seemingly very low on the national agenda.

It is a sad, sad development in the country of Ms Brundtland. A country once set to lead the way that chose not to.

The Cost of Cronyism

2006-11-13T23:28:00.000+01:00

Putting US president Bush and the environment in one sentence is in itself oxymoronic, of course. You can't blame some environmentalist in thinking that the best way of dealing with him is to wait until the whole sorry mess is over in two year's time.

While that is understandable, it means wasting time the world can ill afford, as his policies in the meantime with respect to good ol' mother nature range from ineffective via stupid to downright disastrous.

All done in good humor, of course. For instance, here is how you render your own Interior Department completely ineffective: Appoint your cronies at the top level, and have them ignore or ridicule the scientific advice they are given by their staff. It is an approach often used by Bush, and an article in the Washington Post demonstrates its effectiveness. After placing Julie MacDonald, a civil engineer, as deputy assistant secretary of the interior for fish and wildlife and parks, the rate of new additions to the list of endangered species in the US has declined from 59 per year under Bush the elder and 64 per year under Clinton to a measly 10 per year.

Of course, fewer species are not being threatened now than before. It is very well known and researched that the opposite is true. So protecting fewer species from extinction cannot be anything but a political decision: Weighing the cost of protection versus the cost to the economy and "development", and having the environment come up short - as usual under this administration.

With the democrats now in majority in both houses, they have their say in who is appointed to various positions. How about the power of removal, in this case of Ms MacDonald?

Lest We Forget I: Australian Drought

2006-11-12T22:49:00.000+01:00

It's just the way media works: Some issues are hot, some are not. As global warming is, you guessed it, a global issue, chances are that some isolated effects are going to get a lot of the media attention. Currently, that would be ice melt, be it glacial, arctic or antarctic.

While there are certainly very good reasons to worry about this, let's pick something else entirely. Let's talk about the Australian drought.

Australia is one of two industrialized nations that have not subscribed to the Kyoto protocol (the US being the other). Public awareness on climate issues has been low, but is on the rise. One thing that should definitely concern them within their own borders is the persisting drought. Or rather: The climate change on the Australian continent.

So what is going on? In brief and from the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology:

"Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1°C with an increase in the frequency of heatwaves and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days. Rainfall patterns have also changed - the northwest has seen an increase in rainfall over the last 50 years while much of eastern Australia and the far southwest have experienced a decline."

2005 was the hottest year on record in Australia. But for many years, the continent has suffered deforestation and desertification as a result of less rainfall over large areas. This of course means trouble for the agriculture sector, to the degree that vast areas are no longer productive.

A side effect is raging wildfires, which again releases vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And with the good soil and forests gone, the land can no longer handle large the occasional large amount of rainfall when (or if) it arrives, resulting in floods. It is a vicious circle with no end in sight, but realizing that there is a problem is a necessary first step.

The Environment Loses California Election

2006-11-08T11:31:00.000+01:00

California is viewed and projects itself as the most progressive state in the US on environment issues. For one, they are imposing vehicle mileage restrictions that, while still lagging behind the EU and Japan, are stricter than the rest of the US. And even though the Gov himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a Republican, he is a centrist and certainly greener than his party - even to the point of acquiring a Hummer powered by hydrogen! Oxymoronic, of course...but that is still much better than simply moronic, which would be a suitable description for the Bush environmental policy - or lack thereof.

This considered, it is sad to see that the "Funds for Alternative Energy" initiative has lost on the ballot by a margin of approximately 55 to 45%. This program was to generate 4 billion dollars for reducing fuel consumption by research and development in alternative energy sources. It would do this by taxing the oil industry.

While this is by and large a minor issue, the sad point is that even in the most progressive US state - supposedly - the voters are still not ready to back such initiatives. While this will surely change with time as the climate threat becomes (even more) obvious, the question is whether this will happen soon enough.

Fixed That Hole, Didn't We?

2006-11-07T22:20:00.000+01:00

Remember the hole in the ozon layer? It was a hot topic in the 80s and early 90s. But then we stopped using those CFC gases and the hole disappeared. Right?

Unfortunately, no. Or it did in a sense: It disappeared from the news. In the real world, however, the hole in the ozon layer has recently set an ominous double record: It has never been larger in area, nor deeper.

By "deep", the scientists describe how thin the layer actually is within the hole, as there is never absolutely no ozon left. The hole is described as the area where the ozon layer is less than 50% of its normal depth. For those scientifically inclined, the new records are 10.6 million square miles and 1.2 DU of depth. For perspective, that is an area somewhat larger than North America, and the average non-hole depth would be 125 DU.

The chlorofluorocarbons that are causing the hole were used in industry for refrigeration purposes, among other things. Released into the atmosphere they break down to chlorine, which is reponsible for the destruction of the ozon layer which, when in place, protects us from the sun's dangerous ultraviolet radiation. When these rays instead reach the Earths surface, they cause, among other things, cancer and blindness in both man and animals.

Though we now release very little CFCs into the atmosphere, they unfortunately stay active for a very long time; typcially more than 40 years. Because of that, the hole in ozon layer may still increase for 5-10 years, before it is expected to start to regenerate and hopefully be fully restored by the year 2065.

The hole in the ozon layer is of course a much smaller problem than the larger issue of global climate change. But it carries a lesson: What we don't know about how we pollute our world can kill us, and even if we react soon enough and with sufficient resolve, fixing the problem can take a very long time.

Better safe than sorry, then. Unfortunately, as of yet, we are neither.

UN Meeting in Nairobi on Climate Change

2006-11-06T20:52:00.000+01:00

The UN has gathered 189 countries for a climate change conference in Nairobi. Special emphasis this year will be on the developing countries and especially Africa. Why? Because while their emissions of climate gases are much smaller than those of industrial countries in general and especially the US, they will apparently bear the brunt of the early onset of climate change.

A case in point: Terrible droughts have already plagued the African continent, destroying crops and livelihoods. Lake Chad, the main (and frequently only) source of fresh water for approximately 20 million people, has shrunk from 26,000 km2 in the 1960s to less than 1,500 km2 today, and is likely to dry up completely during this century.

Moreover, several large cities and coastal areas that are now home to 70 million inhabitants are likely to be inundated before 2080. The rising sea level pose a severe threat to cities such as Cape Town in South Africa, Lagos in Nigeria and Alexandria in Egypt - among others.

Notably missing from the discussions is the US, which, being the world's largest polluter par excellence, of course are set to face problems of their own: Rather than considering rebuilding New Orleans, which is situated below sea level already, one may start to worry about the future of the low-lying state of Florida...

Greenland Meltdown: 101 Gigatons/Year

2006-11-03T00:03:00.000+01:00

It has been known for some time that the ice covering Greenland - a layer up to 3000 meters thick - is melting around its coastal edges. But at the same time, it has been building inland due to relatively heavy snowfall during winters.

Up until now, there has been much uncertainty about the rate and even direction of change in the total ice mass. But a study from NASA using satellites to measure the gravity pull of the ice (and thus its total mass) has now shown that the net average loss of ice during the years 2003 - 2005 is 101 gigatons. For those unfamiliar with gigatons: 1 gigaton equals a billion metric tons. A metric ton equals 1,000 kilos, or 2.205 pounds. So in layman terms, as one liter of fresh ice water weighs 1 kilo, we are talking about 101,000,000,000,000 liters melting from the Greenland ice and flowing off into the North Atlantic. Annually.

Why does it matter? Mainly because 1) it points to the Greenland ice sheet melting at an increasing rate, which is an expected effect of global warming, and 2) as this ice is lodged on land its melting into the sea will make the sea level rise.

How much ice is there on Greenland? Enough to raise sea levels world wide by 7 meters (21 feet).

You, a Climate Newbie?

2006-11-02T19:40:00.000+01:00

I'll come clean right off the bat. I'm not a real climate scientist. In fact, I'm not even a fake one. I'm a friggin economist and small business manager. So why give me your time of day?

Well, whether you do or whether you don't, that is up to you. I'm kinda hoping you do, and here's why: Climate scientist already know what's going on with global warming. But if each and every one of them stopped contributing to the greenhouse gases this moment (that would entail respiratory arrest, among other things) it wouldn't mean a fart in a whirlpool. We are about 6.5 billion human inhabitants on this little blue dot in the universe. 6.49 billion of us know too little about our climate, how it is changing and why. It is what we do that will ultimately matter. Currently, the biggest problem is not lack of facts, but lack of public awareness of the facts - and that is the part where we can all contribute.

But of course, you may need to educate yourself first. Consider yourself lucky, because this is truly some fascinating stuff! Sort of the mother of all horror stories, even if you stay away from the sensationalist headlines and dubious doomesday prophets (which you should).

A great place to begin is Al Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth". At the time of this posting, it is still running in some theaters - but of course you'll want your own copy on DVD. And while you are at it, get the book as well, as it has a lot of background material not included in the movie. Both are very "viewer/reader friendly" and will take very little effort to absorb. Most likely, you'll have a swell time with those chills running up your spine. I know I did. Hopefully, it will also leave you much better informed. And motivated.

Of course, there are any number of Web sites out there to help you understand the issues of global warming. I have posted some of those that I consider the best and most reliable in the links section of this blog. Now, go explore! :-)

All Doom and Gloom?

2006-11-01T22:59:00.000+01:00

Starting this blog requires some motivation, of course. First, there is the certainty that climate change is for real, and that it is the most important problem facing our world today. If you do not believe this to be a fact, I'm more than willing to convince you, but suggest that you first have a go at the carefully selected links provided here. Given an open mind, you will soon find that the evidence of global warming is overwhelming and hardly in contention among the scientific community - albeit the media portrayal gives a different impression.

But second, there is the belief that humanity can cope with this problem also, even though it is arguably the toughest challenge yet in our history - and that this will hinge on each and every one of us going our bit. Making informed choices. Adapting. Rising to the challenge. I'll try and do my part, though I'm sure I won't find it easy. Will you do yours?