Showing posts with label Climate change. Show all posts

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Climate question & answer service ready for journalists’ questions

AGU Release No. 10–38
10 November 2010
For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON—Climate scientist-members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have organized a Climate Q&A Service to provide timely scientific answers to journalists reporting on climate.
Approximately 700 Ph.D.-level climate scientists, who represent the diversity of climate science-related disciplines, have volunteered to receive and respond to questions via a shared e-mail in-box. Teams of up to10 scientists at a time have signed up for shifts from Monday to Friday, 8AM–4PM (Pacific Time).
Scientist-volunteers in AGU's Climate Q&A Service will field questions about climate science (not policy) that are e-mailed to questions@agu.emailcenterpro.com, an e-mail box set up specifically for the project. Responses to questions will be returned in a timely fashion with regard for journalists' deadlines. Answers will reflect the responding scientists’ research and views. They do not represent official positions of the AGU, the world's largest organization of Earth and space scientists.
The service is an extended pilot project and will operate from today through at least the third week of January. This project is building off the success of last year's 10-day pilot program that coincided with the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Last year, 54 climate science inquiries were received from 27 media outlets, including Newsweek, National Public Radio, and the UK Sunday Times. This year's extended pilot will run for a significantly longer period and will seek increased visibility and use by journalists. AGU will collect data on requests and responses and solicit feedback from participants in order to evaluate the service.
If you have climate science questions, please e-mail them to questions@agu.emailcenterpro.com. For more information about the service, visit and bookmark the project's mobile-device-friendly website. From there, you can download a free widget for submitting questions to the service, which can be easily embedded on a web page.
AGU is a not-for-profit, professional, scientific organization with more than 58,000 members in over 135 countries. The organization advances the Earth and space sciences through its scholarly publications, conferences, and outreach programs. AGU is accessible on the Web. The Climate Q&A Service email box operates on a platform provided by Palo Alto Software of Eugene, Oregon.

2010-38.shtml

How to stop global warming - even if you don't believe in it

In the global-warming debate, scientists are, admirably, still trying to save the day. Last week, the American Geophysical Union announced plans to mobilize about 700 climate scientists in an effort to improve the accuracy of media coverage and public understanding of their field. Separately, a smaller group of scientists organized by John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota said it was putting together a "rapid response team" to bring accurate climate science to public debates.
On the face of it, such efforts certainly make sense. The scientists hope, not unreasonably, to bring more attention to the climate-change crisis. More crucially, they seek to halt the slide in public opinion on the issue, with recent polls finding Americans' belief in the evidence for global warming on the decline, along with their view of the need for immediate action to slow climate change. And it's true that science education, when done well, may help accomplish these goals.
But will it lead to meaningful policy? Or will this latest round of efforts instead result in another spate of news stories about scary end-of-the-world scenarios, another series of debates over whether global-warming science is a hoax and more wasted time - time we don't have?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202800.html

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Leaking underground CO2 storage could contaminate drinking water

Leaking underground CO2 storage could contaminate drinking water
Leaks from carbon dioxide injected deep underground to help fight climate change could bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the surface, driving up levels of contaminants in the water tenfold or more in some places, according to a study by Duke University scientists. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-leaking-underground-co2-storage-contaminate.html

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Biofuels Fallacy: Why Burning Plants Instead of Fossil Fuels Won't Save the Climate The quest to replace black fuels with green fuels is just another resource and land grab by big corporations.

Biofuels Fallacy: Why Burning Plants Instead of Fossil Fuels Won't Save the Climate

The quest to replace black fuels with green fuels is just another resource and land grab by big corporations. READ MORE

Jeff Conant: You and your colleagues at ETC Group are strong advocates of taking what I would call a reasoned approach to the deployment of new technologies; you're best known for having led the charge for a global ban on the infamous Terminator Seed, and you've just had a tremendous victory by winning a global moratorium on geoengineering experiments (see last week's piece on AlterNet). Now, you're releasing a report on another impending technological concern: synthetic biology.

Jim Thomas: The report is called "The New Biomassters: Synthetic Biology and the Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods." It's an exposé and argument against the new "bioeconomy" most OECD countries are now promoting as the next (supposedly "green") wave of industrial production -- switching from fossil fuels to biological material (biomass) as the key feedstock of the economy. As such, it encompasses biofuels, burning biomass for electricity, and using biomass for chemicals, plastics and other materials formerly sourced from petroleum. More at:

http://www.alternet.org/story/148736/biofuels_fallacy%3A_why_burning_plants_instead_of_fossil_fuels_won%27t_save_the_climate

Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel: study

European plans to promote biofuels will drive farmers to convert 69,000 square km of wild land into fields and plantatons, depriving the poor of food and accelerating climate change, a report warned on Monday.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biofuel-worse-for-climate-than-foss

Monday, November 8, 2010

Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics

The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Sign of the Times: Hearings on “Scientific Fraud” of Global Warming Expected FireDogLake

So the Republicans run and win a campaign in a treacherous economic environment, when people are desperate for something tangible to improve their situation in life. And the Republicans will start that new era by putting science on trial.

Fresh off a dramatic victory in which it retook the House leadership, the Republican Party intends to hold major hearings probing the supposed “scientific fraud” behind global climate change.
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder related the news in a little-noticed article Wednesday morning.
The effort is a likely attempt to out-step the White House on energy policy moving forward. Legislation on energy and climate change reform, one of President Barack Obama campaign promises, has yet to materialize, though Obama’s EPA recently classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Holding hearings would please the Republicans’ conservative base, which increasingly doubts the scientific basis for global warming — especially human-induced global warming — and provide a reflection of the new GOP’s tenor.

What this Scopes Monkey trial for climate change won’t do is create one new job or improve one life in America. Well, maybe some climate denier whose new book could get a bump.
If show trials are really the answer the GOP thinks they have to the question of how to govern the country, this House majority could be a blip. More at:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/03/sign-of-the-times-hearings-on-scientific-fraud-of-global-warming-expected/

Monday, October 25, 2010

Changes in energy R&D needed to combat climate change

A new assessment of future scenarios that limit the extent of global warming cautions that unless current imbalances in R&D portfolios for the development of new, efficient, and clean energy technologies are redressed, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets are unlikely to be met, or met only at considerable costs.More at: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-energy-combat-climate.html

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Scotland could benefit from new nuclear stations south of the Border

Scottish official criticizes SNP's anti-nuclear policy
The Scottish National Party's policy against the construction of nuclear plants prevents Scotland from generating highly skilled jobs and doesn't take into account climate change, said Lewis Macdonald, Scottish Labor's shadow energy minister. "Even the Scottish Government's own Council of Economic Advisers [has] warned it is wrong to rule out nuclear energy," he said. The Scotsman (Edinburgh)

U.K. Proposes Eight More Sites as Suitable to Build Nuclear-Energy Plants

U.K. recommends 8 sites for new nuclear plants
The U.K. identified eight potential locations for new reactors and wouldn't rule out the possibility of shared financial risks with companies planning to construct the facilities. "There will be no public subsidy for new nuclear power," said Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne. Bloomberg

Monday, October 18, 2010

Without cap-and-trade, here's what's needed By Dana Milbank

There is a hole in the Democrats' plan to fight global warming. A .270-caliber hole, to be specific.
"I'll take dead aim at the cap-and-trade bill, because it's bad for West Virginia," Gov. Joe Manchin, the Democratic candidate for Senate, says in an ad put out last week. To demonstrate, he pops what appears to be a .270 cartridge in his Remington 700, then shoots a bull's-eye through a piece of paper reading "Senate of the United States" and "Cap and Trade Bill."
If you look closely, you can see that the bullet tears through the word "jobs" in the sentence "to create clean energy jobs."
This was unsporting of Manchin. The bill was dead before he shot it. If it couldn't pass with 60 Democrats in the Senate, it surely isn't going to pass in the next two years.
But Manchin's shot should ring in his fellow Democrats' ears, warning them that it is time to come up with an alternative to regulating carbon, a Plan B for climate change. I suggest they try smoke and mirrors -- literally.
Scientists are already pondering the use of smoke (sulfur dioxide injected into the stratosphere) and mirrors (installing reflectors made of metal or lunar glass a million miles from Earth) to cool the planet. It's time for policymakers to get serious about these and other "geoengineering" proposals to cool the Earth and remove excess carbon. More at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/15/AR2010101504205.html

Friday, October 15, 2010

World Bank energy chief aims to speed clean power

(Reuters) - Even before he became the World Bank's clean energy chief, Daniel Kammen had a lustrous list of accomplishments: professor of energy, public policy and nuclear engineering at the University of California-Berkeley, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory and Energy and Climate Fellow for the Western Hemisphere.
So why take on the formidable dual tasks of seeing that the world's poor get better access to energy while curbing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change?
"We need to make a clean energy transition and we need to do it in a way that is inclusive and supportive of the poor, and not for the wealthy first and the poor second," Kammen told the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit on Tuesday. More at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B68520101012

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Obama reshapes administration for a fresh strategy

President Obama Said to Be Moving Toward Executive Action on Energy

New White House appointments were said to target enabling President Obama to achieve goals, including climate issues, by executive action, rather than through legislation, the Los Angeles Times reported. An administration official, who requested anonymity, was quoted as saying: "The ambition is to get a reasonable start" on regulatory changes.

The Times wrote: "One area of likely administration action is climate change. Legislation curbing emissions that cause global warming is stalled in Congress. Such efforts have a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next decade. The Obama administration does not think it can achieve the same reductions through regulation alone." However, added the Times, EPA "is determined to use its regulatory power under the Clean Air Act to begin lowering emissions, in the absence of congressional action."

Los Angeles Times, Oct. 6.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

US Military Needs to Get Off Oil by 2040: Report by Matthew McDermott

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/u-s-military-needs-to-get-off-oil-by-2040.php

photo: John Martinez Pavliga via flickr
The United States military must entirely get off oil by 2040 if it wants to reduce operational vulnerabilities, reduce costs, stop new security risks caused by climate change and avoid the coming peak oil supply crunch. That's the word from the Center For a New American Security, whose Fueling the Future Force report details the hows and whys of the situation.
afghan convoy attacked photo

DVIDSHUB via flickr
Petroleum is 77% of Military Energy Supply
Report authors Christine Parthemore and Dr. John Nagl say, "Reducing dependency on petroleum will help ensure the long-term ability of the military to carry out its assigned missions. Moving beyond petroleum will allow DoD to lead in the development of innovative technologies that can benefit the nation more broadly, while signaling to the world that the United States has an innovative and adaptable force."
How big is that dependency? Currently US forces rely on petroleum for 77.2% of all energy needs, with "other electric" sources coming in second at 11.4% and natural gas coming at 8.4%.
In Thirty Years Oil Will Be Hard to Come By
Why the 2040 timeframe? The report lays it out (emphasis is mine):

This 30-year timeframe reflects market indicators pointing towards both higher demand for petroleum and increasing international competition to acquire it. Moreover, the geology and economics of producing petroleum will ensure that the market grows tight long before petroleum reserves are depleted. Some estimates indicate that the current global reserve-to-production ratio--how fast the world will produce all currently known recoverable petroleum reserves at the current rate of production--is less than 50 years. Thus, given projected supply and demand, we cannot assume that oil will remain affordable or that supplies will be available to the United States reliably three decades hence. Ensuring that DOD can operation on non-petroleum fuels 30 years from today is a conservation hedge against prevailing economic, political and environmental trends, conditions and constraints.

In other words, 30 years from now there odds aren't good that there will be petroleum to fuel anything with much consistency or at minimum with any level of affordability. This echoes recently revealed reports that the German military is pretty freaked out about the prospect of peak oil as well.
Oil Price Rises Cost Military Millions, Dependency Creates Security Risks
As for costs of continued military oil dependence, the report notes that for every dollar increase in the price of petroleum an additional $130 million is added to the Department of Defense's operating costs.
The report itself outlines a twelve-point plan to transition the military off oil--which is frankly all pretty ordinary stuff for regular TreeHugger readers--as well as some of the security issues of continued oil dependency (Iran and Venezuela get further leverage over US) and logistical challenges (currently purchased vehicles require petroleum and have a long service life).
Read more: Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era [PDF]
soldier at dusk photo

photo: US Army via flickr
How Much Less Energy Needed, If We Didn't Have to Secure Oil?
Though it sounds somewhat cynical, I ask this quite practically: I wonder what how much the US military's energy demand and required size would be if part of its (not loudly or fully stated) mission weren't positioning itself around the world to secure the very energy supplies which are going to be relatively soon depleted? It's not like the military's purpose ceases to exist absent having to secure oil supplies, not by a long shot, but surely its size and fuel demand would be reduced.
TH NOTE: In a previous version of this article the names of the report authors were incorrectly stated. This has been corrected.
Like this? Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.
More on Oil:
Minus Oil: Energized Ideas For Surpassing Petroleum
The German Military is Freaked Out by Prospect of Peak Oil
After Oil, The Extreme Risk of Biofuel Dependency

Friday, September 17, 2010

White House: Global Warming Out, 'Global Climate Disruption' In

Obama Science Advisor Airs New Term: Global Climate Disruption

White House science adviser John Holdren called the term global warming a "dangerous misnomer" and urged adoption of the term "global climate disruption" in its stead to better reflect the complexity of the phenomenon, Fox News reported. Republican pollster Adam Geller was quoted as saying: "They're trying to come up with more politically palatable ways to sell some of this stuff," in the face of waning public interest in legislation to regulate emissions.

Fox News, Sept. 16.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Study: Worst CO2 emissions are yet to come

image credit: kleineolive (Wikimedia Commons)

Future fossil fuel infrastructure set to be built between now and 2060 will have the strongest effect on climate change, according to a report in the journal Science.
The global demand for energy is quickly rising, while political agreements and regulations to curb the resultant rise in greenhouse gas emissions have so far failed.
A new study from scientists in the US and Canada has calculated that most of the ‘key’ impacts of climate change could be avoided if no further CO2 power plants were built and that the real risks come from fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure which has yet to be built.
While previous policies have largely focused on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, a tactic that has so far not produced their desired results, the new study stresses the need for alternative sources of energy and technological innovation.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

UN official lauds China for climate change role

The United Nations' climate chief has hailed China's efforts to improve the prospects of a climate summit in Mexico later this year by hosting a crucial round of talks in Tianjin next month.

Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

"Hosting the negotiations in Tianjin, the last formal stop before Cancun is an important gesture by China," Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), told China Daily.

Figueres, who was appointed to the post in May, finalized preparations for the Oct 4-9 meeting in the northern port city of Tianjin during a visit to Beijing last week.

Vice-Premier Li Keqiang said China would work with other countries and the UN to push sustainable development when he met Figueres on Friday.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The US Power Sector is Changing -- Even Without a Climate Bill

Now that the climate bill is in hibernation, it would be easy to despair that the US power sector will resume its tradition of burning high-polluting coal to sell increasing amounts of electricity.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Turning Away From Coal Utilities are increasingly looking to natural gas to generate electricity

Turning Away From Coal

Utilities are increasingly looking to natural gas to generate electricity

By REBECCA SMITH

Power companies are increasingly switching to natural gas to fuel their electricity plants, driven by low prices and forecasts of vast supplies for years to come.
While the trend started in the late 1990s, the momentum is accelerating and comes at the expense of coal. Some utilities are closing coal-fired plants; others are converting them to run on gas.
The switch is occurring globally and is getting a push from regulators who want to limit emissions that contribute to climate change, haze and health problems such as respiratory illness. Though efforts in Congress to pass legislation attaching a price to carbon emissions appear stalled for now, utilities still anticipate eventual carbon restrictions. The Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, recently announced a 20-year development plan that emphasizes nuclear and gas, and includes fewer coal units.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Policy Responses to Global Warming

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate...

Image via Wikipedia

Policy Responses to Global Warming

(July 2010)

The human enhancement of global warming is seen as a worldwide problem and policy responses have accordingly had an international basis.
The principal focus has been on reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Arguably, nuclear power is the single most significant means of limiting the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations while enabling access to abundant electricity.

Emissions of greenhouse gases have a global impact, unlike some other forms of pollution. Whether they are emitted in Asia, Africa, Europe, or the Americas, they rapidly disperse evenly across the globe. This is one reason why efforts to tackle global warming have been addressed through international collaboration and agreement.
The principal forum for international climate change action has been the United Nations, which has led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. However, more recently other international approaches have been put in place, the Asia Pacific Partnership and agreements under the G8, starting with their 2005 meeting in Gleneagles, UK.

Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Related articles

Related articles

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Related articles

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Related articles

Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel: study

Related articles

Monday, November 8, 2010

The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Related articles

Friday, November 5, 2010

Related articles

Monday, October 25, 2010

Related articles

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Related articles

Related articles

Monday, October 18, 2010

Friday, October 15, 2010

Related articles

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Friday, September 17, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The US Power Sector is Changing -- Even Without a Climate Bill

Related articles by Zemanta

Monday, September 13, 2010

Turning Away From Coal

Utilities are increasingly looking to natural gas to generate electricity

By REBECCA SMITH

Related articles by Zemanta

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Policy Responses to Global Warming

Related articles by Zemanta