Justmeans's blogshttp://www.justmeans.com/editorials/climatechange/5.htmlThu, 09 Feb 2012 23:31:04 GMThttp://www.justmeans.com en hourly 1http://www.justmeans.com/The-Global-500-Tackles-Climate-Change--Low-Carbon-Growth-Central-to-World-s-Largest-Companies/49873.htmlFri, 16 Sep 2011 18:45:37 GMTReynard Loki "Managing carbon emission and protecting the business from climate change impacts is fundamental to achieving sustainable and strong shareholder returns." -- Paul Simpson, CEO, Carbon Disclosure Project[1]If you've ever wondered what the world's largest publicly traded companies are thinking and doing about climate change, the Carbon Disclosure Project has a report for you. Since 2003, CDP, a UK-registered charity, has sent its annual questionnaire to the 500 largest companies by market capitali Read Full Article ]]> "Managing carbon emission and protecting the business from climate change impacts is fundamental to achieving sustainable and strong shareholder returns." -- Paul Simpson, CEO, Carbon Disclosure Project[1]If you've ever wondered what the world's largest publicly traded companies are thinking and doing about climate change, the Carbon Disclosure Project has a report for you. Since 2003, CDP, a UK-registered charity, has sent its annual questionnaire to the 500 largest companies by market capitalization listed on the FTSE Global Equity Index Series to produce the Global 500 Report, which analyzes the state of low carbon growth in the private sector. This year, they sent the questionnaire on behalf of 551 investors with USD 71 trillion in assets. On Wednesday, they published disclosures from 396 respondents in the 2011 edition of their Global 500 Report, entitled "Accelerating Low Carbon Growth."[2]CARBON DOWN, PROFITS UPOne of the most striking findings is how climate change has quickly moved towards the center of the discussion, with 68 percent of respondents saying that it is central to business strategy, compared with 48 percent last year, marking the first time that a majority of respondents said having this position.Other key findings include:Companies in the 2011 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) and Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) provide approximately double the average total return of the Global 500 between January 2005 and May 201165 percent (259) of respondents provide monetary incentives to staff for managing climate change issues, versus 49 percent (188) in 201059 percent of emissions reduction activities reported by Global 500 respondents have a payback period of three years or less and 41 percent of initiatives have paybacks of over three yearsWhile there isn't necessarily a causality, there is a correlation between carbon disclosure and better financial performance, which should incentivize other companies to step up to the plate. "Historical financial performance is being exposed by climate change as an outdated model to assess long term business profitability and growth, when you consider the much wider range of financial and non-financial risks associated with business today," said Alan McGill, a partner at PwC. "Today's investors have different information needs, which are leading to tougher verification regimes, more emphasis on executive and staffing responsibilities and incentives, and much more unforgiving examinations of the contribution of business to society."[3]LOOKING TO 2020: A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPWhile it's impossible to predict the next financial bubble that will burst or the next sudden shock to the market, most nations know what their 2020 carbon reduction targets are, many of which have been set in agreement with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as part of the Copenhagen Accord. The United States and Canada, for example, must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent , while the European Union has a 30 percent reduction goal.[4]And achieving these goals requires initiatives from both the public and private sectors. Governments must pursue low-carbon policies, carbon trading schemes, green investments and tax incentives for businesses to adapt to a low-carbon economy (LCE). The corporate world must continue to recognize the value that sustainability has for their current and future success, as more consumers, investors and fund managers look to socially responsible investing.PREDICTABILITY MEANS PROFITABILITY And that's why having a report such as the CDP's is so valuable, especially for the private sector, which is generally more focused on numbers than on the social impact discussions that fuel public policy. As UK Financial Services Authority chairman Lord Adair Turner notes, "The first step towards managing carbon emissions is to measure them because in business what gets measured gets managed."[5]"We need to emphasise the opportunities here," writes Alan Brown, group chief investment officer at Schroder Investment Management Limited, for the Guardian Professional Network. "Climate change is not only raising the temperature of the planet, it is also delivering the first predictable industrial revolution as trillions of dollars get spent on mitigation and adaptation. While there is no immediate direct translation from growth to profits, most of us, given a choice, would prefer to swim in the fast-flowing part of the river."[6] Scientists have known for a long time that reducing carbon emissions is better for the global climate. What is becoming abundantly clear is that the private sector is also seeing that low carbon growth is also an essential lever in achieving long-term shareholder value.###NOTES[1] https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/global500.aspx[2] https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-G500-2011-Report.pdf[3] https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/CDPNewsArticlePages/commercial-interests-driving-ghg-emissions-reduction-at-worlds-largest-companies.aspx[4] http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/items/5264.php[5] https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/Pages/overview.aspx[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/climate-change-low-carbon-economy-global-forumimage: A Honda Airwave fuel efficiency meter showing that this car requires a liter gas to run 18.1 kilometers (credit: Qurren, Wikimedia Commons)]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Imported-Goods-are-Hidden-to-Alter-Real-Carbon-Emission-Stats/48711.htmlTue, 26 Apr 2011 23:11:27 GMTciaran hogg Carbon emissions that are related to imported goods in many developing countries are on the increase according to two new studies. However, researchers have suggested that the amount of carbon emissions resulting from imported goods is not included on the official statistics and that this is misleading and obscuring the facts when it comes to carbon emissions.The National Academy of Sciences has already reported that 26% of global emissions come from trading goods and these are not included in t Read Full Article ]]> Carbon emissions that are related to imported goods in many developing countries are on the increase according to two new studies. However, researchers have suggested that the amount of carbon emissions resulting from imported goods is not included on the official statistics and that this is misleading and obscuring the facts when it comes to carbon emissions.The National Academy of Sciences has already reported that 26% of global emissions come from trading goods and these are not included in the statistics when it comes to calculating carbon emissions. Glenn Peters who works with the research group Cicero admitted that, "There is a degree of delusion about emissions cuts in developed nations. They are not really cuts at all if countries are simply buying in products they used to manufacture. We really need all countries to be developing and publishing the full extent of their emissions, whether they are produced domestically or outsourced through traded goods."However, Dr Peters admitted that producing the data in the research was the easy task, but how governments and scientists now acted was crucial."Publishing this sort of data is the first step. The next step - what to do about it - is more difficult. It raises questions about consumption patterns, and whether countries should consider border taxes on imports from countries with no controls on CO2 emissions though this is controversial and will be some way down the line," he said.The study concluded that the UK was increasing its carbon emissions rather than reducing its deficit as the government has claimed. This is due to the fact that the UK and many other developing countries only calculate carbon emissions that come from domestic sources and not imported ones.However, a government correspondence admitted that there were problems and outlined in a report that was found under the Freedom of Information Act that "While technological efficiency has improved the CO2 impacts of our products since 1992, the rise in UK consumption has outstripped the improvements achieved. The government needs to be cautious about over-claiming on its achievements in decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation."Yet, the British Government is reluctant to address the problem, despite being aware of the problem as they are the basis for international climate negotiations throughout the world. Guy Shrubsole, from the Public Interest Research Centre, said: "This is a cop-out. The figures aren't perfect but the problem has been recognized for several years and the calculations are getting better all the time. In the UK our emissions are up - not down.""Of course China needs to be part of a global climate agreement. But for a government which wants to be the greenest ever and is committed to data transparency it's essential that the British government publishes the best data available right away - and then figures out what to do about it," he added.Photo credit: Roke]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Climate-Politics--Canadian-Edition/48678.htmlTue, 26 Apr 2011 10:00:03 GMTBrian Kahn I've recently devoted more than a few words to describing Republicans' dishonesty about climate change. That's only sure to ramp up as the 2012 election approaches.But just to the north of the U.S., there's an election less than a week away. And whether you're a Canadian voting in the election, a U.S. citizen curious about what views are beyond our binary system, or someone that cares about climate change, how it all shakes out matters.A recent poll showed that Canadians on the whole are much mo Read Full Article ]]> I've recently devoted more than a few words to describing Republicans' dishonesty about climate change. That's only sure to ramp up as the 2012 election approaches.But just to the north of the U.S., there's an election less than a week away. And whether you're a Canadian voting in the election, a U.S. citizen curious about what views are beyond our binary system, or someone that cares about climate change, how it all shakes out matters.A recent poll showed that Canadians on the whole are much more accepting of climate change compared to Americans. But that doesn't mean their political parties place equal emphasis on taking steps to address it. Discover the climate change politics in our neighbor to the north.ConservativesHow would the Conservative Party in Canada stack up against Republicans in the U.S. when it comes to climate change? They'd seem downright liberal! Well, sort of.Canada's Conservative Party actually mentions climate change in their party platform six times. However, their platform is low on specific policies and successes.Why? Because what the Conservative Party doesn't want to remind Canadians of is how the Conservative-dominated Senate killed Canada's climate bill in November 2010. This is a bigger deal than many Americans might think because in Canada the Senate is appointed by the governor general based on advice from the Prime Minister, not elected by the people.Generally it rubber stamps whatever the House of Commons, which is elected, passes. In the case of the climate bill, though, Conservative Senators pulled a very sneaky maneuver to block the bill, already passed by the House, which would've required Canada to reduce emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. So not so liberal after all.LiberalsIs climate change an economic issue? That's how Liberals see it. In their platform, it's all about the loonies, baby.The Liberal platform points to a successful carbon tax in British Columbia as proof the economy won't crater if steps are taken to put a price on carbon. It also highlights four Canadian provinces that have partnered with seven U.S. states to start a regional cap and trade system by 2015.In addition, the platform also includes a number of economic incentives to reduce energy including credits for increasing efficiency, renewables and reducing usage.On the downside, they also talk about promoting clean tar sands. Let's be clear: clean tar sands are as real as the tooth fairy. But tar sands do make up an important piece of the Canadian economy so it makes sense that they have a place in the platform even if it is a pipe dream.National Democratic PartyThe National Democratic Party (NDP) is the most left-leaning of Canada's political parties. It was one of their Members of Parliament (or Congressmen in Americanspeak) who introduced the climate bill in the House of Commons that the Senate subsequently killed. Not surprisingly, the NDP platform advocates for those same emissions reductions.The NDP also promotes better public transit as one avenue to address climate change. It's a thought that doesn't show up much in the U.S. or international negotiations, but one well worth exploring.Bloc QuebecoisIs there a regional party that plays such a large role nationally anywhere else in the world? Not to my knowledge (but please feel free to chime in). Though the Bloc Quebecois never run candidates outside of Quebec, they're such a force in the province that they have a significant number of seats in the House so their position matters.Given their territorial leanings, it's not surprising that they prefer a territorial approach to climate change using a cap and trade system. They also have two other policy ideas to support consumers. One is a credit for people who buy cars that pollute less. The other is even more progressive: they propose carbon labeling for all products. Similar to nutrition labeling, the idea is to help consumers make informed choices.The three non-Conservative parties all offer some innovative policy solutions. However, will any win a majority to try and implement them? As of now, the answer appears to be no. While the NDP is making gains, they are unlikely to gain enough seats to become the majority.What seems most likely is Canada will continue to govern in a minority government. That means no party has a plurality of the seats in the House of Commons. While the party with the most seats holds nominally more control, all will ultimately have to work together to reach compromises.Given the gains of the NDP, though, it seems possible that if they joined forces with the Liberals, they would have enough seats to be a real force. That means even if Conservatives hold that nominal majority, they'll likely have to face the music (and will of the people) and work to make sure Canada is ready to fully address climate change.Special thanks to Cynthia Thomson, my Canadian colleague and French translator extraordinaire.Photo credit:palindrome6996/flickr]]>http://www.justmeans.com/New-Zealand-Companies-Crack-Down-on-Illegal-Timber/48665.htmlMon, 25 Apr 2011 19:09:11 GMTNick Engelfried Companies that illegally log tropical forests in Indonesia may in future find it harder to sell their product on the international market, as the most important group of New Zealand timber importers has vowed to quickly phase out purchasing wood from Indonesia that can't be verified as legally harvested. By September 1st of this year, members of the NZ Imported Tropical Timber Group will only buy Indonesian wood that can be verified as having been harvested legally. The move signals growing inte Read Full Article ]]> Companies that illegally log tropical forests in Indonesia may in future find it harder to sell their product on the international market, as the most important group of New Zealand timber importers has vowed to quickly phase out purchasing wood from Indonesia that can't be verified as legally harvested. By September 1st of this year, members of the NZ Imported Tropical Timber Group will only buy Indonesian wood that can be verified as having been harvested legally. The move signals growing international awareness of the fact that Indonesia's disappearing forests represent a valuable carbon sink and are a stronghold of planetary biodiversity.While countries like Brazil have brought deforestation within their borders to an all-time low, Indonesia continues to lose vast swaths of forest to the timber and palm oil-growing industries. Deforestation has made Indonesia a major carbon emitter, second only to the United States and China in terms of yearly greenhouse emissions. Deforestation also threatens countless plant and animal species unique to the archipelago nation, and timber and palm oil companies have been accused of usurping land from small farmers and spraying their plantations with pesticides that pollute the air and water. Yet forestry reform has been difficult in Indonesia, partly because much of the logging that goes on takes place illegally.Part of the problem is Indonesia still suffers from widespread government corruption left over from the regime of the dictator Suharto, who ruled the country with a fist of iron until the late 1990s. The current, democratically elected government has expressed a desire to bring deforestation under control. But new forest protection laws are almost impossible to enforce when existing laws aren't being followed and major companies are clearing forests illegally. Of course, just because timber was legally harvested is no guarantee it comes from a sustainable sourcebut making illegal logging unacceptable in the international community would be a first step toward protecting Indonesia's forests.Thus this month's announcement from the NZ Imported Tropical Timber Group, whose members provide 85-90% of New Zealand's imported tropical timber, is especially welcome. Though the group arrived at its new policy voluntarily, New Zealand's Green Party is urging the government to make a similar anti-illegal logging policy mandatory for all timber companies. Compared to some countries New Zealand is not exactly a giant player in the international timber marketbut it is located relatively close to Indonesia, making that country an important source of timber imports.A commitment from New Zealand's biggest timber importers to no longer buy illegal wood will strengthen the signal companies in Indonesia are getting, that illegal logging is not acceptable. A growing list of US and international companies have already taken steps to avoid products that contribute to deforestation in Indonesia. With the international community waking up, corporations that log tropical forests illegally may soon find there's no one who will buy their product.Photo credit: Walter Lim]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Forests-Ability-to-Absorb-Carbon-may-be-Better-Than-First-Thought/48526.htmlTue, 19 Apr 2011 12:05:49 GMTciaran hogg New research suggests that woodlands, forests and other terrestrial ecosystems are able to sequestrate up to 40% of the US's carbon emissions that is caused by burning fossil fuels. The study, which was carried out in the 48 lower states provides evidence that these ecosystems can absorb far more carbon than first thought as long as these regions are not subjected to droughts or other factors such as deforestation.The research, which was carried out by Dr. Jingfeng Xiao, a research assistant pro Read Full Article ]]> New research suggests that woodlands, forests and other terrestrial ecosystems are able to sequestrate up to 40% of the US's carbon emissions that is caused by burning fossil fuels. The study, which was carried out in the 48 lower states provides evidence that these ecosystems can absorb far more carbon than first thought as long as these regions are not subjected to droughts or other factors such as deforestation.The research, which was carried out by Dr. Jingfeng Xiao, a research assistant professor at the Complex Systems Research Center, Institute Study for Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire and Dr. Beverley Law who works with the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University and holds a science team chair at the AmeriFlux network concluded that droughts as seen in 2002 and 2006 can have a dramatic impact on how much carbon terrestrial ecosystems can sequestrate. The results carried out by scientists from 35 different institutions showed that during these drought years the capacity of ecosystems to sequestrate carbon was cut by 20%. The National Science Foundation and the US Department of Energy also agreed with the research teams findings."With this data it appears that our forests and other vegetation can sequester as much as 40 percent of the carbon emissions in the lower 48 states," said co-author of the study, Beverly Law."That's substantially higher than some previous estimates, which indicated these ecosystems could take up the equivalent of only about 30 percent of emissions or less. There's still some uncertainty in the data, but it does appear that the terrestrial carbon sink is higher than believed in earlier studies," Laws added.Laws admitted that more extreme weather conditions in the future could have a serious impact on the amount of carbon that terrestrial ecosystems could absorb. The co-author also highlighted the impact that extreme weather patterns had and the effect this had on the ability of ecosystems to absorb carbon, pointing to events such as Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and the Biscuit Fire in Oregon in 2002. This showed that forests could not sequestrate the same amount as seen in years where there were not as many serious natural impacts like drought, wildfires or hurricanes."With climate change, we may get more extreme or frequent weather events in the future than we had before. About half of the United States was affected by the major droughts in 2002 and 2006, which were unusually severe in their spatial extent and severity. And we're now learning that this can have significant effects on the amount of carbon sequestered in a given year," Laws said.The research was published in the journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology and the researchers behind the study believe that it provides the most accurate assessment of the US's carbon basin to date. "Our results show that U.S. ecosystems play an important role in slowing down the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The dominant sources of the recent interannual variation included extreme climate events (e.g., drought) and disturbances (e.g., wildfires, hurricanes)," the report concluded.Photo credit: Samulili]]>http://www.justmeans.com/New-Poll-Pits-Canadian-Against-American-Perceptions-of-Climate-Change/48430.htmlThu, 14 Apr 2011 11:02:37 GMTBrian Kahn America versus Canada might conjure up images of hockey. However, the Brookings Institution put out a new study that looks not at hockey but perceptions of climate change. The findings show that there are some key similarities and differences between the two countries' citizens.The report, released earlier this month, summarizes the results of polls taken in both countries. Overall, results shows Canadians are more accepting of the science of climate change than Americans by a long shot.The Resu Read Full Article ]]> America versus Canada might conjure up images of hockey. However, the Brookings Institution put out a new study that looks not at hockey but perceptions of climate change. The findings show that there are some key similarities and differences between the two countries' citizens.The report, released earlier this month, summarizes the results of polls taken in both countries. Overall, results shows Canadians are more accepting of the science of climate change than Americans by a long shot.The ResultsEighty percent of Canadians accept that the globe is warming while only 58 percent of Americans do. Conversely, the percent of Americans who don't believe the globe is warming is nearly double that of Canadians.In both countries, political affiliation plays a role in determining views on climate change. Conservatives were much less likely to accept the reality of a warming world. However, the differences are much more dramatic in the U.S. with Republicans significantly less likely to think climate change is occurring.What's interesting, though, is how liberals in each country compare. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats in the U.S. are on board with climate science. But in contrast, around 90 percent of the members of Canada's four more liberal parties* are. U.S. Democrats are actually more on par with Canada's Conservatives, 64 percent of whom accept the reality of climate change.Which of these groups is closest to the people who know the most about climate change i.e. climate scientists? It turns out liberal Canadians. A 2010 report showed that 98 percent of climate scientists accept the evidence that humans are causing climate change.So how do 42 percent of Americans manage to justify such a high level of disagreement with the experts? By believing scientists are overstating the case of climate change of course. Currently, about half of the American public believes scientists are masters of embellishment. In comparison, only about a third of Canadians subscribe to this view.All of this leads to some perhaps unsurprising answers on how much each group of citizens is willing to spend to mitigate climate change. Nearly 60 percent of Canadians were willing to pay up to $50 a month for cap and trade while only 18 percent of Americans were.So What?The survey is the first of its kind to do a cross-country comparison between the US and Canada. It reveals some pretty stark differences when it comes to accepting that climate change is happening. What might the cause for difference?I spoke with a colleague who is a citizen in both countries. Her take? The difference in media between each country is a major factor. In the US, opinion often passes as fact, particularly in the case of Fox News. In contrast, Canada recently decided not to let Fox News set up shop in part because in Canada there are pretty stringent laws about actually telling the truth if you're a news channel. Surprisingly, Fox didn't pass this litmus test.Unfortunately for the U.S., that means Americans are exposed to a lot more opinion about climate change than their Canadian counterparts. The result of this is clear in the poll results.The other big difference between the two countries is the role of special interest money. The influence of the billionaire Koch brothers in proliferating climate denial in the US has been well documented. They've recently set up shop in Canada, too, but they're far behind the curve in comparison to the work they've done in the US.This isn't to say that Canada is a bastion of progressive climate change action. Tar sands are being extracted at ever-increasing rates. Canada also owns the dismal title of biggest emitter per capita.And despite having an informed and willing citizenry, Canada shares an unfortunate similarity with the U.S.: a lack of political effort to address climate change. The Canadian Senate killed a climate bill last year under very contentious circumstances. Perhaps they were following the lead of the U.S. Senate, where a climate bill also died earlier last year.Canada also happens to be holding elections on May 2. Yet the leaders of all the parties have been distinctly quiet about addressing climate change. Ditto for Barack Obama in the U.S., who only mentioned climate change four times in his energy speech a few weeks ago.If there's one silver lining in this scenario, it's that young people in both countries care far more about climate change than older generations. As they become a larger part of the voting public, it will hopefully translate into a political system more proactive about climate change.*For American readers unfamiliar with Canada's political system, there are five major parties. Or four if you were watching the Leader's Debate last night (which is comparable to presidential debates in the US). For readers looking to better understand the Canadian political system, the Wikipedia page on Canadian politics is pretty solid. The Awl also recently published an interesting piece on the current state of Canadian politics and the recent string of minority governments.Photo credit: scazon/flickr]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Shale-may-be-More-Damaging-to-the-Climate-Than-Coal/48372.htmlTue, 12 Apr 2011 14:23:07 GMTciaran hogg Shale gas may be more significant in altering climate change than burning coal according to a new study that was carried out by US researchers under the guidance of Robert Haworth from Cornell University in Ithaca, US.Shale gas is obtained by a process known as fracking that many energy experts believed to have been a low carbon energy supply source and method. However, this latest study has revealed that the wells used in this process leak large quantities of methane that is one of the most sig Read Full Article ]]> Shale gas may be more significant in altering climate change than burning coal according to a new study that was carried out by US researchers under the guidance of Robert Haworth from Cornell University in Ithaca, US.Shale gas is obtained by a process known as fracking that many energy experts believed to have been a low carbon energy supply source and method. However, this latest study has revealed that the wells used in this process leak large quantities of methane that is one of the most significant greenhouse gas linked to climate change.According to Haworth and his team whom will publish the research in the journal Climate Change, "Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon, and is comparable over 100 years.""We have produced the first comprehensive analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas," lead author Howarth said.The Cornell University employee admitted that other options rather than continuing with shale gas should be looked at and that a move to eco friendly and renewable resources like wind and water was needed."We should not proceed to view shale gas as a 'transitional fuel' to be used over the next few decades to replace other fossil fuels, but rather work harder to move towards truly green renewable fuels as quickly as possible, such as wind and solar," he told BBC News.Howarth also criticised the role that the US industry played when it came to researching the impact that shale gas had on climate change."We have used the best available data [and] the conclusion is that shale gas may indeed be quite damaging to global warming, quite likely as bad or worse than coal. No-one knows for sure to what extent industry uses best practices; and unfortunately, at least in the US, industry does not want government or the public to know. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed rules that would require industry to report methane emissions, but several companies have sued the EPA to try to prevent such reporting," he said.Euan Nisbet, an expert geologist who is head of several methane monitoring and research programmes and works with the Royal Holloway, University of London, suggested the methane balance might be different between geological formations. "By trying to evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas extraction, Howarth and his team are asking important questions about this new bonanza. I suspect the debate on this will be long, and the answers will be different for each shale gas formation; but it is important that we tackle this debate."The geologist also admitted that the energy used in carrying shale was a further problem. "We also need to be very careful to account fully for the greenhouse footprint of conventional gas piped over long distances, for instance in the import of Asian gas to Europe, or Norwegian gas to the UK. The energy choices are not easy," he said.Photo credit: Rurhfisch]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Cloud-Whitening-Could-be-a-Black-Day-for-Global-Warming/48255.htmlWed, 06 Apr 2011 23:20:15 GMTciaran hogg A study unveiled at the European Geosciences Union has revealed that whitening clouds by using drops of sea water in order to reflect sun shine away from the Earth could be more harmful than helpful in preventing climate change and global warming.However, the study revealed that using drops of sea water that were not the right size would cause the opposite effect and lead to increasing global warming. Piers Foster who works with the University of Leeds and who is working on a project on geoengin Read Full Article ]]> A study unveiled at the European Geosciences Union has revealed that whitening clouds by using drops of sea water in order to reflect sun shine away from the Earth could be more harmful than helpful in preventing climate change and global warming.However, the study revealed that using drops of sea water that were not the right size would cause the opposite effect and lead to increasing global warming. Piers Foster who works with the University of Leeds and who is working on a project on geoengineering techniques said, "The trouble is that clouds are very complicated; as soon as you start manipulating them in one way, there are a lot of different interactions."Foster went on to mention that it would be difficult to adopt cloud whitening into practice unless a study could be simulated on a large scale."We need real-world data and we need modelling that tries to simulate clouds on more appropriate scales, and that means less than 100m or so, because if you look at a deck of stratocumulus it's not one big thing, it has pockets and cells and other features. Far more uncertain is the idea that you'd inject a particular drop size, because it won't stay that size for long. It will spread out, and that would be uncertain."The idea of using water to create denser clouds originated over two decades ago. Part of the proposals included placing air ships that could constantly spray clouds. However, with further studies it has come to light that specific amounts of water are needed in different regions and too much water could be problematic as Kari Altersjkaer of the University of Oslo told the BBC during the study, which was unveiled in Vienna.Altersjkaer admitted that South and Central America as well as western Africa would be the best places to introduce cloud whitening, but warned that unless the correct amount of salt water was dropped, cloud cover could be reduced rather than becoming whiter and more expansive. The report also revealed that 70 times more salt would be need to be carried in the region than originally thought."If the particles are too small, they will not brighten the clouds - instead they will influence particles that are already there, and there will be competition between them," she said. "Obviously the particle size is of crucial importance, not only for whether you get a positive or negative effect, but also whether particles can actually reach the clouds if they're too large, they just fall to the sea," added Altersjkaer.Professor Salter who is one of the leading experts in the field of energy and geosciences agreed that the amount of water and salt was crucial to the success of any initiative."I agree that the drop size has to be correct and that the correct value may vary according to local conditions. However, I am confident that we can control drop size by adjusting the frequency of an ultrasonic pressure wave which ejects drop from micro-nozzles etched in silicon. We can test this at very small scale in the lab," he said.Photo credit: GeographBot]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Climate-Change-Hampers-Tree-Growth--Says-New-Study/48207.htmlTue, 05 Apr 2011 10:01:48 GMTciaran hogg The National Science Foundation has released a study that suggests climate change is having an impact on tree growth and the ability of trees to produce seeds. The study, which was undertaken over an 18 year period and saw the examination of 27,000 trees, concluded that earlier Springs was one of the mitigating factors that was impacting on tree reproduction and growth.The study also revealed that elm, magnolia, beech and pine trees were some of the most prone to summer droughts, which was anoth Read Full Article ]]> The National Science Foundation has released a study that suggests climate change is having an impact on tree growth and the ability of trees to produce seeds. The study, which was undertaken over an 18 year period and saw the examination of 27,000 trees, concluded that earlier Springs was one of the mitigating factors that was impacting on tree reproduction and growth.The study also revealed that elm, magnolia, beech and pine trees were some of the most prone to summer droughts, which was another significant risk to trees and their life span. The scientists' findings could be important in understanding what type of trees will be under threat and why they are more susceptible than other varieties if climate change continues. It is also expected to give scientist and policy makers' important information when it comes to tackling the problem and finding a solution."By quantifying the effects and relative importance of competition [between species] and climate variables, including impacts on fecundity, over both time and space, the model we've developed addresses this need and can be used to guide planning," said James Clark who works with Duke University and is the leading author behind the study.The scientists who conducted the research used a unique bioinformatics analysis that quantified the effects of climate change on trees. Each tree was examined at least once every three years that provided over 280,000 tree years of data."In a sense, what we've done is an epidemiological study on trees to better understand how and why certain species, or demographics, are sensitive to variation and in what ways. As climate continues to change, we know forests will respond," said Clark."The problem is the models scientists have used to predict forest responses focus almost solely on spatial variation in tree species abundance and their distribution and density over a geographic range," Clark added.The study analyzed over 40 different tree types in the US in the south east, the southern Appalachians, the coastal plain and the Piedmont that were subjected to natural and experimental variations."That's where the new concept of climate and resource tracking of demographic rates comes in. Trees are much more sensitive to climate variation than can be interpreted from regional climate averages," said Clark.The study also looked at competition for space and sunlight and the impacts this had with other factors like drought and warmer seasons.According to Alan Tessier, who is the NSF's program director in the division of Environmental Biology, "This work demonstrates the limitations of current modeling approaches to predict which species are vulnerable to climate change and illustrates the importance of incorporating ecological factors such as species competition." The study will appear today in the science journal, Global Change Biology.Photo credit: Geagea]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Phytoplankton-Under-Threat-From-Climate-Change/48186.htmlMon, 04 Apr 2011 10:04:07 GMTciaran hogg Tiny planktonic plants known as phytoplankton that are of crucial importance to the Arctic ecosystem could be under threat because of climate change. Due to changes in temperature in the oceans around the Arctic, phytoplankton could find it more difficult to bloom.The result of this could have serious consequences for biodiversity in the region."Ice-edge phytoplankton blooms in the Arctic Ocean provide food for planktonic animals called zooplankton, which are in turn exploited by animals higher Read Full Article ]]> Tiny planktonic plants known as phytoplankton that are of crucial importance to the Arctic ecosystem could be under threat because of climate change. Due to changes in temperature in the oceans around the Arctic, phytoplankton could find it more difficult to bloom.The result of this could have serious consequences for biodiversity in the region."Ice-edge phytoplankton blooms in the Arctic Ocean provide food for planktonic animals called zooplankton, which are in turn exploited by animals higher up the food chain such as fish," explained Dr Andrew Yool, who a team member of the researchers from the UK's National Oceanography Centre that conducted the study on phytoplankton blooms.Phytoplankton blooms occur on the edge of the ice. When ice water melts and breaks up it forms a layer over the saltier and denser ocean water. This causes the water to stratify into columns and with seasonal sunshine this triggers the phytoplankton blooms that normally occur in bands along the receding edges of the ice.The Arctic has not been studied in detail, but satellite technology can be now used to monitor and view ice edge blooms at high spatial resolution over large areas from space. The SeaWiFs satellite, which was launched by NASA in 1997 looks at the discoloration in the oceans and this has given researches increased data and knowledge of planktonic blooms. "Our aim was to use satellite data to get a synoptic view of ice-edge blooms across the whole Arctic region. The bloom peak is most often located close to the ice edge. We observed blooms propagating in a wave-like fashion behind the receding ice edge over hundreds of kilometers and over several months, while others remained stationary. Our findings demonstrate strong biophysical linkage between bloom propagation and sea-ice melt back, which is independent of the actual direction of retreat," said Dr Yool.The research could prove to be significant in determining the prospects for the ecosystem in the Arctic and in predicting the likely outcome of continuous ice melting in the region, which could impact on phytoplankton and as a result other species. The blooms play an important role in the carbon cycle by drawing it down from the atmosphere and exporting it into the ocean. However, it is still unclear what large scale melting of the Arctic will do and how important blooms could be."It is quite possible that ongoing climate change will lead to ice-free summers in the Arctic within the next few decades. As the melt season becomes longer, ice-edge blooms may propagate over larger distances, stripping out surface nutrients as they go. However, whether the Arctic becomes more or less productive will ultimately depend on complex factors affecting ocean stratification and mixing, and thus the availability of nutrients in sunlit surface waters," said Dr Yool.Photo credit: Originalwana]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Ethiopia-Moves-Toward-Carbon-Neutrality/48181.htmlMon, 04 Apr 2011 07:00:26 GMTNick Engelfried As part of its latest program to reduce carbon emissions, the Ethiopian government announced last week that it plans to reforest fifteen million hectares of land by 2025. This reforestation effort, combined with a switch to clean energy sources like geothermal and hydropower, will allow the country to become carbon neutral within fourteen years. Officials believe that by preventing climate change Ethiopia will also be able to raise its citizens out of poverty, restore degraded land, and reduce t Read Full Article ]]> As part of its latest program to reduce carbon emissions, the Ethiopian government announced last week that it plans to reforest fifteen million hectares of land by 2025. This reforestation effort, combined with a switch to clean energy sources like geothermal and hydropower, will allow the country to become carbon neutral within fourteen years. Officials believe that by preventing climate change Ethiopia will also be able to raise its citizens out of poverty, restore degraded land, and reduce the amount of money it spends on imported fuels. If these efforts are successful, Ethiopia could serve as a model for other developing countries that want to improve their standard of living without increasing carbon emissions.It was last year that Ethiopia first announced its intention to become a carbon-neutral country by 2025. At present the nation's carbon footprint is negligible when compared to that of the United States, China, or other major polluters. However Ethiopia does rely on petroleum and other fossil fuels to meet part of its energy needs, importing most of that fuel from abroad. Every year it spends the equivalent of US $800 million on petroleum importsa figure that more then equals 90% of Ethiopia's profit from foreign trade. The decision to shift away from fossil fuels thus makes sense on economic as well as environmental grounds.Like most developing countries Ethiopia is intent on raising the standard of living for its citizens, but it plans to do so while reducing rather than increasing its dependence on fossil fuels. Already the country generates some electricity from geothermal and hydropower, but officials believe they have barely scraped the surface of Ethiopia's renewable energy potential. Geothermal resources along the Rift Valley could be ramped up to help meet Ethiopia's energy needsand meanwhile wind and solar energy are both ripe for development. To green its transportation sector Ethiopia is investing in biofuels, relying on drought-resistant crops that can thrive in its dry climate.Initiatives like Ethiopia's plan to reach carbon neutrality provide a much-needed antidote to the myth that poverty-stricken countries must rely on fossil fuels to grow their economies. Ethiopia, which is on the UN list of Least Developed Countries, faces as strong an imperative as any country in the world to reduce poverty within its borders. If it can achieve this goal while simultaneously cutting its carbon footprint, then other countries should be able to do the same thing.In fact it would make little sense for Ethiopia to try to improve its economic situation by burning more fossil fuels; like many poor countries it is not rich in fossil fuel resources of its own, so relying on coal or oil for growth would mean importing ever more of the stuff from abroad. That might work out well for companies like Arch Coal and Peabody Energy, which hope to ship millions of tons of US coal to customers in the developing world. But it is hardly a good way to improve Ethiopia's economy and self-sufficiency. For Ethiopia, as for so many other countries around the world, curbing carbon and reducing poverty will have to go hand in hand.Photo credit: Trees for the Future]]>http://www.justmeans.com/House-Republicans-and-the-Never-Ending-Stream-of-Climate-Nonsense/48026.htmlThu, 31 Mar 2011 15:08:43 GMTBrian Kahn Lately, Republicans in the House of Representatives have been derided for their attitudes for climate change here. This is not because of any political ill will but because of their ignorance that is absolutely appalling. It brings me no pleasure to write about people who earn $174,000 a year to be informed decision makers being anything but. But in the interest of shedding light on what goes on on Capitol Hill, here's the latest installment.Today the House Committee on Science, Space and Techno Read Full Article ]]> Lately, Republicans in the House of Representatives have been derided for their attitudes for climate change here. This is not because of any political ill will but because of their ignorance that is absolutely appalling. It brings me no pleasure to write about people who earn $174,000 a year to be informed decision makers being anything but. But in the interest of shedding light on what goes on on Capitol Hill, here's the latest installment.Today the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held climate science hearings. The committee brought together a panel to discuss what the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas regulations would mean to the economy and if they were even warranted.One of those scientists was Richard Muller, a physicist from the University of California-Berkeley. Climate deniers have often championed his work because of he's criticized of the temperature records used to show the globe is warming. He recently started reviewing the different temperature datasets, using new methods to pinpoint more exact temperature trends over land.He presented his preliminary findings at the hearing, and they probably weren't what Republican lawmakers were hoping for. They showed the datasets tightly correlated with each other. What's more, each one shows a distinct warming trend. In his testimony he said: "We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups ased on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought." (emphasis added)The datasets Muller tested include one from the Climate Research Unit, which was at the center of the Climategate non-controversy. Could Climategate finally be retired?Of course not. Despite the evidence, Republicans and one of their witnesses, State Climatologist of Alabama John Christy, repeatedly went back to Climategate throughout the hearing. It became so ridiculous that Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) at one point irately pointed out the seven reports that have exonerated the scientists, saying, "we have to get off of this."Unfortunately, Climategate is one of two major Republican talking points so we'll likely be subjected to it for quite awhile.The other big non-issue Republicans consistently brought up is a Time magazine cover from the 1970s with a headline about global cooling. Yes, one of the US's major political parties is using a magazine cover as proof climate scientists don't know what they're talking about. Unfortunately for Republicans, this claim is also patently false.Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the scientists that testified today, called this argument out. In the 1970s, there was no consensus on global cooling at all. Rather, the media built a story around a small set of scientists' work. A 2008 article published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society shows this in a crystal clear graph showing academic papers from 1965 to 1979 that predict warming, cooling, or neutral temperatures in the near future.But why let facts get in the way? Republicans cited it again and again. Rep. Morris Brooks (R-AL) even pulled up the cover image on his phone during the hearing.At least the voice of reason showed up at a few points in the hearing. Emanuel had the quote of the day. His work primarily focuses on hurricanes and climate change. During the hearing, he railed against politicians lionizing researchers like Christy: "politicians who make mascots out of mavericks are invariably engaging in advocacy."No Republican had a good answer, though Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) got sufficiently flustered about it. And the reason they had no good answers is that that's what the Republican argument against climate change has been reduced to: a few discredited talking points and a mascot who will preach the party line and conspiracy theories.The lasting irony of Emanuel pointing this out is his politics: he's a Republican. Unfortunately, his fellow Republicans in the room today didn't share his views or intellectual curiosity.Photo credit: Travis S./flickr]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Plant-Pores-Indicate-Growing-Carbon-Dioxide-Levels/48003.htmlThu, 31 Mar 2011 11:23:26 GMTciaran hogg Carbon dioxide levels have risen so much in the last 150 years thatplant pores, which plants effectively breathe through have decreased in size by up to 34%. As a result plants are restricted in the amount of water vapor that they release into the atmosphere.The study which was carried out by scientists from the Indiana University Bloomington and Utrecht University is set to be published in an issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the research suggests that the lack of Read Full Article ]]> Carbon dioxide levels have risen so much in the last 150 years thatplant pores, which plants effectively breathe through have decreased in size by up to 34%. As a result plants are restricted in the amount of water vapor that they release into the atmosphere.The study which was carried out by scientists from the Indiana University Bloomington and Utrecht University is set to be published in an issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the research suggests that the lack of moisture omitted from plant pores could have an effect on climate change and the environment.The same scientists suggested that if carbon dioxide was to double in quantity in the atmosphere, water released by the plant life would be dramatically reduced. The samples of plant life that were studied took place in Florida. The majority of plant life use pores known as stomata that are located on the underside of leaves, which are used to absorb carbon dioxide and release moisture. The plant uses the gas to produce sugar, which is in turn transferred into energy. As part of the process the plant transpires or releases water into the atmosphere. Transpiration also helps to keep the plant cool, which is crucial for plant life."The increase in carbon dioxide by about 100 parts per million has had a profound effect on the number of stomata and, to a lesser extent, the size of the stomata," said Research Scientist in Biology and Professor Emeritus in Geology, David Dilcher who is the co-author of the paper."Our analysis of that structural change shows there's been a huge reduction in the release of water to the atmosphere. The carbon cycle is important, but so is the water cycle. If transpiration decreases, there may be more moisture in the ground at first, but if there's less rainfall that may mean there's less moisture in the ground eventually. This is part of the hyrdrogeologic cycle. Land plants are a crucially important part of it," added Dilcher.The scientists admitted that there are many potential scenarios and developments that could arise if plant stomata and the moisture they release is reduced. "When plants transpire they cool. So the air around the plants that are transpirating less could be a bit warmer than they have been. But the hydrogeologic cycle is complex. It's hard to predict how changing one thing will affect other aspects. We would have to see how these things play out," said Dilcher.A drier atmosphere with less water could mean that less water will flow through Florida's watersheds and this could also occur in other areas around the globe. "Our first paper shows connection between temperature, transpiration, and stomata density. The second paper really is about applying what we know to the future, plant adaptation to rising CO2 is currently altering the hydrological cycle and climate and will continue to do so throughout this century," warned Dilcher.Photo Credit: Ayacop]]>http://www.justmeans.com/The-Winter-Wonderland-Could-be-a-Thing-of-the-Past/47880.htmlTue, 29 Mar 2011 13:50:16 GMTciaran hogg A NASA funded satellite study has revealed that ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic are melting three times faster than mountain glaciers and ice caps throughout the rest of the world. The research also suggested that climate change was contributing to rising sea levels at a much more rapid pace than forecasts are predicting.Research compiled over almost 20 years has revealed that in 2006 the ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes, which is enough Read Full Article ]]> A NASA funded satellite study has revealed that ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic are melting three times faster than mountain glaciers and ice caps throughout the rest of the world. The research also suggested that climate change was contributing to rising sea levels at a much more rapid pace than forecasts are predicting.Research compiled over almost 20 years has revealed that in 2006 the ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes, which is enough to raise sea levels by half an inch. Ice sheets, which are defined as sheets of ice larger than 50,000 square kilometers and are only found in Greenland and the Antarctic and are said to be decreasing in size at an alarming rate.Researchers found that over the 20 years, the ice sheets were losing an average mass of 36.3 gigatonnes each year, while ice caps had a comparable average yearly mass reduction that was three times smaller than that of ice sheets.The study, which was led by Eric Rignot, of the University of California, Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena is due to be published in this month's Geophysical Research Letters, which is a journal of the American Geophysical Union. "That ice sheets will dominate future sea level rise is not surprising. They hold a lot more ice mass than mountain glaciers. What is surprising is this increased contribution by the ice sheets is already happening. If present trends continue, sea level is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. Our study helps reduce uncertainties in near-term projections of sea level rise," said Rignot, who is the lead author of the study.The research team used almost two decades of NASA satellite measurement images with advanced models of atmospheric climate data to evaluate the speed at which the mass of ice sheets and ice caps were disappearing at.During the research, the team used two different techniques to review the data. Interferometric synthetic aperture radar data was taken from European, Japanese and Canadian satellites in order to measure the ice sheets and climate atmospheric models were taken from the University of Utrecht. The second technique was used by gathering NASA data from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites or GRACE satellites that tracked ice movements."These are two totally independent techniques, so it is a major achievement that the results agree so well. It demonstrates the tremendous progress that's being made in estimating how much ice the ice sheets are gaining and losing, and in analyzing Grace's time-variable gravity data." said Isabella Velicogna, the co-author, who also works with the University of California, Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.Photo Credit: Hgrobe]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Arctic-Ice-Cover-at-Near-Record-Low/47803.htmlMon, 28 Mar 2011 07:28:23 GMTNick Engelfried Findings from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado show maximum ice cover in the Arctic Ocean reached one of its lowest levels ever this winter, providing further evidence for climate change. Data collected so far suggests Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent on March 7th of this year, before it began shrinking as temperatures warmed. This is part of a natural annual cycle, in which sea ice in the Arctic builds up over the winter, reaches maximum size sometime Read Full Article ]]> Findings from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado show maximum ice cover in the Arctic Ocean reached one of its lowest levels ever this winter, providing further evidence for climate change. Data collected so far suggests Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent on March 7th of this year, before it began shrinking as temperatures warmed. This is part of a natural annual cycle, in which sea ice in the Arctic builds up over the winter, reaches maximum size sometime in February or March, and then gradually retreats over the spring and summer.What's been different in recent years is that ice cover throughout the course of the cycle has been growing less and less on average. This year's maximum ice cover tied with 2006 for the smallest ever recorded.This is consistent with the best projects of how rising levels of carbon emissions will affect the globe, and suggests climate change is occurring just as climate scientists have long predicted it would. As the Arctic melts, the reverberations will be felt all over the world, sometimes in counterintuitive ways. For example, climate scientists believe the exceptionally harsh winters experienced these past few years in the eastern United States are due partly to shifting wind patterns caused by a warming Arctic. Meanwhile melting ice cover contributes to rising sea levels.There will always be year to year fluctuations in weatherin the Arctic just like everywhere elseand not every year will set a new record for warm temperatures or reduced ice cover. However the overall pattern uncovered by scientists clearly shows sea ice is shrinking. The Snow and Ice Data Center has compared records going back to 1979 that show a shrinking trend in both winter and summer ice cover. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirm those findings.Last year in September, the month that marks the end of the melt season when Arctic ice cover is smallest, the Snow and Ice Data Center reported summer ice reached its third smallest extent ever. Only three times since satellite record keeping began has ice cover reached a low point less than 1.93 million miles. One of those times was in 2010, and all three have occurred in the last four years. Scientists predict this trend will continue, and by 2030 the Arctic could be completely ice-free in late summer.In the last thirty years satellite records and other technological advances have allowed scientists to monitor ice levels more accurately than ever before. Like the reams of temperature data collected from throughout the world by climate research centers, sea ice records allow us to track the effects of climate change and watch as global warming takes place. However the information is of little practical value if major economies don't take it as a warning to reduce their carbon emissions. The science of global warming and its implications for life on Earth is clear. Now world nations must act to minimize the damage.Photo credit: US Geologic Survey]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Earth-Hour--Still-Not-the-Right-Approach-to-Climate-Change-and-Development/47609.htmlThu, 24 Mar 2011 14:35:17 GMTBrian Kahn Last year, I wrote an article coming out against Earth Hour, pegging it as a regressive way of showing your support for climate change action. A year later, have my feelings changed about Earth Hour? Yes and no.First, the progress. Flipping through Twitter, I saw that World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the creator of Earth Hour, was asking people to retweet a message about the event. The message? That 1.3 billion people voluntarily took place in Earth Hour last year.That's an amazing number, if slightly Read Full Article ]]> Last year, I wrote an article coming out against Earth Hour, pegging it as a regressive way of showing your support for climate change action. A year later, have my feelings changed about Earth Hour? Yes and no.First, the progress. Flipping through Twitter, I saw that World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the creator of Earth Hour, was asking people to retweet a message about the event. The message? That 1.3 billion people voluntarily took place in Earth Hour last year.That's an amazing number, if slightly hard to fully quantify. (At this time, my email to WWF about the origins of the number remains unanswered.) The other numbers provided by WWF about Earth Hour are staggering as well: this year, 1551 monuments will be dimmed, and no less than 4616 cities are participating in some way across 128 countries.The other good news is that WWF is thinking beyond Earth Hour this year. Participating individuals and organizations are being encouraged to share their commitments to continue the good work they've started.For example, the Nepalese government has committed to ending logging in the Churia Hills to allow ecosystems and watersheds to recover. In Hawaii, Jen Metz, a conservation worker, has committed to living for a year without generating any trash. In Twitter message, she explained that she wanted to "change [her] personal habits when my island made plans to ship excess trash away."This momentum is good and a welcome change to previous Earth Hours, which provided relatively little guidance after the big event. If people believe their individual actions matter, they'll be more likely to follow through on them when it comes to climate change.Still, Earth Hour feels hollow. Why? Because for all the feel good vibes, it reeks of environmentalism delivered from a top down, developed world perspective.According to the Earth Hour website, one of the highlights of the event is that "people transcend race, religion, culture, society, generation and geography, switching off their lights in a global celebration of their commitment to protect the one thing that unites us all - the planet."Sounds nice in theory. But there's a poignant reality that contrasts quite sharply with the 1.3 billion participants of Earth Hour: the over 1.6 billion people who involuntarily participate in Earth Hour every day because they don't have access to electricity. But even those numbers pale in comparison to the 3 billion people who rely on traditional biomass such as wood for cooking, heating, and light according to the United Nations.If you care about the planet, then you have to care about the people you share it with. And Earth Hour is woefully blind to a huge portion of those people and the issues they live with every day.Let's start with biomass. People using biomass generally have limited choices for energy. But while access might be relatively easy, it comes with a price. In the big picture, burning wood drives climate change by releasing stored carbon dioxide as well as black carbon.Locally, the associated deforestation also degrades stream flow, increases the likelihood of landslides and causes desertification. In addition, it compromises human health with increased rates of asthma and other lung diseases likely in households that rely on biomass for energy.What's more, most of involuntary Earth Hour participants live in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa - two regions that will have to cope with a disproportionate amount of climate change impacts. They also have less capacity to respond to weather extremes than people in the developed world.To reduce the risk of the worst impacts of climate change, yes, the developed world needs to consume less dirty energy. Carbon dioxide emissions in the developed world dwarf biomass burning in the developing world. But at the same time, citizens in developing countries need energy to get out of poverty. They also need to insulate themselves from current climate fluctuations as much as future climate change.With that in mind, turning off the lights isn't a celebration; it's a very slow start to a problem that needs to be approached from multiple angles. One of the most important is access to electricity in developing countries, but in a smart fashion.With that in mind, I've decided to spend my Earth Hour helping bring light to rural Africa. Yes, my computer will be on and there's even a chance the compact fluorescent lights in my apartment will be glowing as I donate 15 to Solar Aid.They're a great organization that helps install individual and community solar projects in east and southern Africa. Their projects have far-ranging benefits from improving access to education for adults and children to increasing income in poor areas simply by allowing people to charge cell phones.Other organizations like them are growing. A friend recommended Power to the People, which does similar work in Latin America. I'd love to hear your suggestions about organizations working on bringing light to the world or helping insulate communities from climate as well as your plans for Earth Hour.Is Earth Hour evil? Absolutely not. But could the focus be shifted to approaching the issues of climate change and inequality from both sides of the problem so we actually have something to celebrate? Absolutely yes.Photo credit: syphlix/flickr, urbangarden/flickr]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Is-Japan-a-Global-Warming-Ticking-Time-Bomb/47591.htmlThu, 24 Mar 2011 10:01:31 GMTciaran hogg After the devastating earthquake in Japan, many people are questioning whether global warming was a factor behind the tragedy. Politicians, environmentalists and scientists appear to be divided on the subject, with a number of prominent figures claiming that the tsunami and earthquake in Japan was a result of climatic change and that the devastation caused by these natural phenomenon's could become far more frequent.Staffan Nilsson, President of the Economic and Social Committee is one of the mo Read Full Article ]]> After the devastating earthquake in Japan, many people are questioning whether global warming was a factor behind the tragedy. Politicians, environmentalists and scientists appear to be divided on the subject, with a number of prominent figures claiming that the tsunami and earthquake in Japan was a result of climatic change and that the devastation caused by these natural phenomenon's could become far more frequent.Staffan Nilsson, President of the Economic and Social Committee is one of the most prominent figures to suggest that climate change is responsible for the increasing number of environmental disasters. "Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do," he said.However, a number of other scientists have disagreed with Nilsson and many other environmental groups. Dan Weiss, Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, expressed his skepticism at the theory that global warming was responsible for the earthquake in Japan. "I am not a scientist, but I have never heard of a link between global warming and earthquakes," said Weiss.The majority of scientists do believe that global warming is having a significant impact on the environment. Yet, most experts in the field of environmental science have been wary in linking the tragedy in Japan to climate change. The earthquake has been described as a once in a thousand year event, but there is no concrete evidence to suggest that climate change was responsible for the earthquake and the tsunami which followed it."Global warming alarmists will exploit any natural disaster to promote their anti-fossil fuel agenda," said Tom Borelli of the Free Enterprise Project.Borelli added that climate change is a result of the "Global warming spin machine. First it's global warming, then it's climate change, now it's probably tectonic instability no doubt all caused by man," he said.The divide between fossil fuel lobbyists and environmental groups seems to be getting wider and it is likely that the debate over climate change and natural disasters will continue. However, there is no denying that most scientists agree that the increase in extreme weather patterns can be connected to manmade climate change.Whether, it can be connected to the earthquake in Japan is very debatable. The majority of scientists have suggested that this was a natural occurrence and that it cannot be linked to global warming and climatic change like other weather patterns can, such as glacial melting, flooding and heat waves that are evident throughout the world.Must credible scientists have concluded that these weather patterns can be linked to manmade climate change and have provided evidence to suggest that this is true. In the case of the earth quake in Japan there is very little evidence to suggest that climate change was responsible for the tragedy. However, the debate is likely to continue.Photo Credit: BotmultichillT]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Flood-Experience-Increases-Acceptance-of-and-Action-on-Climate-Change/47464.htmlTue, 22 Mar 2011 10:55:25 GMTBrian Kahn How would Noah of Biblical fame feel about climate change if he were around today? Would he see floods as an act of God or humans? New research from the United Kingdom suggests the latter.Researchers from the University of Nottingham and Cardiff University surveyed 1822 Britons for a study published in Nature Climate Change this week. They asked subjects about their acceptance of climate change and their willingness to act.The difference between the control group and the treatment group was that Read Full Article ]]> How would Noah of Biblical fame feel about climate change if he were around today? Would he see floods as an act of God or humans? New research from the United Kingdom suggests the latter.Researchers from the University of Nottingham and Cardiff University surveyed 1822 Britons for a study published in Nature Climate Change this week. They asked subjects about their acceptance of climate change and their willingness to act.The difference between the control group and the treatment group was that the latter had direct experience with floods. Of course climate change does not cause all floods. In the paper, the researchers state: "Climate change itself is not directly observable by individuals, it being a reference to average climate conditions over a long period of time rather than that observed on a daily or seasonal basis."But people do relate to extreme weather events. They serve as both markers in time (growing up in Boston, I can still remember reading about the tornado in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1995) and, as the research suggests, a way of shaping our perception of the world. These extreme events are likely to become more frequent as part of the effects of climate change. So are more people likely to accept the reality of climate change?Acts of Human Cause Human ActionsAccording to the findings, in short, yes. People exposed to floods were significantly more likely to accept the science of climate change.What's more, those people were also more likely to think that individual actions to reduce emissions can make a difference. Perhaps most significantly, they were also more likely to take action to reduce their own carbon footprint no matter how certain they were about the science of climate change.The idea that people will act if they believe they can make a difference might not surprise you if you've watched the news recently. In an accompanying essay Elke Weber of the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions notes recent actions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are driven in part by the belief that individual actors can overwhelm a system.This is the first study that links climate change, individuals and significant weather events, though. The most important finding shows that uncertainty isn't a barrier to action. In an accompanying Weber also writes:"Uncertainty about the existence of climate change or at least about whether it is man-made and hence controllable is one of the main arguments made by climate change sceptics against spending money to reduce emissions. Thus it is interesting that, for members of the British public, their motivation to reduce energy use does not seem to be related to their certainty that climate change is happening. Rather, it appears to be strongly influenced by whether they think their behaviour will be effective." (Emphasis added)The major downside of the study's results is that it seems to take extreme events to get people in this state of mind. Of course nobody wants more weather disasters as a means to get people to support emissions reductions.That means the onus falls on climate change communicators and organizations to reframe the issue to show that individual actions do matter and inspire actions before extreme events hit. Organizations like 350.org have already started to do this, using work days and art shows as a way to validate the benefits of individual actions. They do so by placing them in a larger global context. Using that context could have the same power as floods without the destructiveness. Perhaps they could be the next target for researchers.Photo credit: gothicnexus/flickr, amneziak/flickr]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Going-Green-for-Saint-Patrick-s-Day/47460.htmlTue, 22 Mar 2011 10:13:47 GMTciaran hogg A number of floats at numerous Saint Patrick Day parades aimed to highlight the growing problem of climate change and environmental sustainability. The festival is the biggest in the world and apart from celebrating Irish heritage and all things Irish, many parade participants and organizers are now using the event to highlight environmental politics.The festival is now celebrated in most major cities throughout out the world from Dublin to New York, from Montreal to Shanghai to Moscow and has b Read Full Article ]]> A number of floats at numerous Saint Patrick Day parades aimed to highlight the growing problem of climate change and environmental sustainability. The festival is the biggest in the world and apart from celebrating Irish heritage and all things Irish, many parade participants and organizers are now using the event to highlight environmental politics.The festival is now celebrated in most major cities throughout out the world from Dublin to New York, from Montreal to Shanghai to Moscow and has become an increasingly popular festival that has captured the imagination of organizers, participants and onlookers. All are looking to celebrate Saint Patrick's Day regardless of their nationality or culture.The stereotypical Saint Patrick's Day conjures up images of heavy drinking, excessive partying, fighting, green beer and Irish dancing, but these are outdated clichs that are no longer relevant when it comes to Saint Patrick's Day and the Saint Patrick's Day Parade.Across the world, many floats and participants in various parades have promoted changes in global warming policy. Many of the festivals have been built around the idea of sustainability and eco friendly materials and were used by the majority of parade organizers and participants in an effort to reduce the carbon footprint that the Saint Patrick's Day Parade inevitably causes.In Dublin, various floats with themes ranging from recycling, to water to climate change will be paraded, with the support of the organizers and environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and ECO-UNESCO. The participants and creators behind this will hope that this will highlight the growing problem of global warming and climate change that is starting to have an impact throughout the world.More and more politicians, celebrities and participants are going green for Saint Patrick's Day. In San Francisco, Mayor Lee arrived to last year's parade in a Ford Fusion Hybrid, having come from a tree planting event to emphasize his commitment to reducing San Francisco and the United States carbon footprint, which contributes to global warming and climate change. Similarly, in New York, members of the successful recycle, reuse and repurpose campaign marched in the parade to promote and highlight sustainability and recycling.This year, many organizations and environmental groups further promoted green living for Saint Patrick's Day. The event, which is promoted and broadcast throughout the world is significant in promoting awareness among people and highlighting the issues surrounding climate change, global warming, sustainability and the environment. Even celebrations as far flung as Shanghai in China and Perth in Australia have used the occasion to highlight and promote awareness on important environmental issues.From what was once a festival to celebrate all things Irish and Saint Patrick, it is now a global phenomenon that significantly contributes to helping and promoting environmental friendly policies. When it comes to a greener future, perhaps Irish eyes are smiling after all.Photo credit: Gage]]>http://www.justmeans.com/The-US-Chamber-Doesn-t-Speak-for-these-Businesses/47434.htmlMon, 21 Mar 2011 19:25:06 GMTNick Engelfried Probably no organization has spent as much money opposing efforts to stop climate change as the US Chamber of Commerce, a national lobbying group that represents many of the biggest and worst polluters in the United States. It might seem strange that the US Chamber would oppose steps to curb carbon emissions and stimulate investment in clean energy. After all, the goal of the Chamber is supposed to be to advocate for jobs and businesses, and the green energy revolution promises to usher in a wav Read Full Article ]]> Probably no organization has spent as much money opposing efforts to stop climate change as the US Chamber of Commerce, a national lobbying group that represents many of the biggest and worst polluters in the United States. It might seem strange that the US Chamber would oppose steps to curb carbon emissions and stimulate investment in clean energy. After all, the goal of the Chamber is supposed to be to advocate for jobs and businesses, and the green energy revolution promises to usher in a wave of economic opportunity in this country.However the Chamber's position makes more sense once you understand that the bulk of its funding comes from a very small but extremely powerful group of polluting industries. Recognizing the role the Chamber has played in blocking climate progress, the grassroots organization 350.org has launched a national effort to highlight the gap between US Chamber thinking and the small businesses it is supposed to be representing. In fact the US Chamber of Commerce does not represent the needs of small businesses owners, a majority of whom support taking action on climate change. Thus the name of 305.org's new campaign: "The US Chamber Does Not Speak for Me."350.org volunteers and staff are asking local business owners to distance themselves from the national Chamber of Commerce. In doing so they hope to show policymakers the US Chamber does not speak for small business and that delaying action on climate change is out of sync with what businesses want. So far 350.org has signed up almost 1,400 businesses and thirty-two local chambers of commerce (local chambers are not necessarily affiliated with the national US Chamber). Meanwhile businesses are already moving to start alternative organizations to the US Chamber. Organizations like the Green Chamber of Commerce and the US Green Chamber of Commerce are beginning to advocate national climate solutions based on renewable energy and creating thousands of green jobs.The US Chamber of Commerce is deeply entrenched in its old, polluting habits, and isn't likely to change its ways soon. Over the last couple years the Chamber helped prevent Congress passing any kind of national climate legislation. Now it is actively engaged in trying to weaken the Clean Air Act and stop existing laws from being used to protect public health from carbon emissions. The US Chamber of Commerce will probably go on derailing progress on climate change in any way it can, all the while sticking up for big coal and oil companies and other polluters.However as companies leave the US Chamber to protest their anti-climate lobbying, and small business owners and local chambers of commerce proclaim loudly and clearly that the US Chamber doesn't speak for them, the Chamber will have a harder time explaining why it continues advocating for the old, polluting economy. The important question to ask isn't whether the US Chamber of Commerce can be reformed. Rather, it's how long the US Chamber can stay relevant while refusing to stand up for the interests of thousands of small businesses?Photo credit: Nick Engelfried]]>