Effects of global warming
Global warming means increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses of the earth. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times during the 4.65 billion years of its history. At present, earth appears to be facing a rapid warming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from human activities.
The chief cause of this warming is thought to be the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, which releases carbon dioxide and other substances known as greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As the atmosphere becomes richer in these gases, it becomes a better insulator, retaining more of the heat provided to the planet by the sun.
Scientists use elaborate computer models of temperature, precipitation patterns, and atmosphere circulation to study global warming. Based on these models, they have made several predictions about how global warming will affect weather, sea levels, coastlines, agriculture, wildlife, and human health.
Weather
Some experts predict that an increase in global warming will result in unpredictable weather patterns, including storm surges in which the wind piles up water in low-lying areas. The curved arms of the New Waterway Storm Surge Barrier in the Netherlands protect Rotterdam and other inland cities from flooding during large storms in the North Sea.
Normally, the large, curved arms are retracted to allow ships from the North Sea to travel to ports along the New Waterway. When a dangerous storm is anticipated, the arms are swung out to block off the waterway and prevent large waves from pushing floodwaters inland.
Scientists predict that during global warming, the northern regions of the Northern Hemisphere will heat up more than other areas of the planet, northern and mountain glaciers will shrink, and less ice will float on northern oceans. Regions that now experience light winter snows may receive no snow at all.
In temperate mountains, snowlines will be higher and snow-packs will melt earlier. Growing seasons will be longer in some areas. Winter and nighttime temperatures will tend to rise more than summer and daytime ones.
The warmed world will be generally more humid as a result of more water evaporating from the oceans. Scientists are not sure whether a more humid atmosphere will encourage or discourage further warming. On the one hand, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and its increased presence should add to the insulating effect. On the other hand, more vapour in the atmosphere will produce more clouds, which reflect sunlight back into space, which should slow the warming process (see Water Cycle).
Greater humidity will increase rainfall, on average, about 1% for each Fahrenheit degree of warming. (Rainfall over the continents has already increased by about 1% in the last 100 years.) Storms are expected to be more frequent and more intense. However, water will also evaporate more rapidly from the soil, causing it to dry out faster between rains.
Some regions might actually become drier than before. Winds will blow harder and perhaps in different patterns. Hurricanes, which gain their force from the evaporation of water, are likely to be more severe. Against the background of warming, some very cold periods will still occur. Weather patterns are expected to be less predictable and more extreme.
Sea levels
An increase in global warming will likely result in a rise in sea levels, which could threaten many coastal areas around the world. Experts predict that parts of Bangladesh may become completely submerged if sea levels rise.
As the atmosphere warms, the surface layer of the ocean warms as well, expanding in volume and thus raising sea level. Warming will also melt much of the glacier ice, especially around Greenland, further swelling the sea. Sea levels worldwide rose 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 in) during the 20th century, and IPCC scientists predict a further rise of 9 to 88 cm (4 to 35 in) in the 21st century.
Sea-level changes will complicate life in many coastal regions. A 100-cm (40-in) rise could submerge 6% of the Netherlands, 17.5% of Bangladesh, and most or all of many islands. Erosion of cliffs, beaches, and dunes will increase. Storm surges, in which winds locally pile up water and raise the sea, will become more frequent and damaging. As the sea invades the mouths of rivers, flooding from runoff will also increase upstream.
Wealthier countries will spend huge amounts of money to protect their shorelines, while poor countries may simply evacuate low-lying coastal regions.
Even a modest rise in sea level will greatly change coastal ecosystems. A 50-cm (20-in) rise will submerge about half of the present coastal wetlands of the United States. New marshes will form in many places, but not where urban areas and developed landscapes block the way. This sea-level rise will cover much of the Florida Everglades.
Agriculture
A warmed globe will probably produce as much food as before, but not necessarily in the same places. Southern Canada, for example, may benefit from more rainfall and a longer growing season. At the same time, the semiarid tropical farmlands in some parts of Africa may become further impoverished.
Desert farm regions that bring in irrigation water from distant mountains may suffer if the winter snow-pack, which functions as a natural reservoir, melts before the peak growing months. Crops and woodlands may also be afflicted with more insects and plant diseases.
Animals and plants
Animals and plants will find it difficult to escape from or adjust to the effects of warming because humans occupy so much land. Under global warming, animals will tend to migrate toward the poles and up mountainsides toward higher elevations, and plants will shift their ranges, seeking new areas as old habitats grow too warm.
In many places, however, human development will prevent this shift. Species that find cities or farmlands blocking their way north or south may die out. Some types of forests, unable to propagate toward the poles fast enough, may disappear.
Human health
In a warmer world, scientists predict that more people will get sick or die from heat stress, due less to hotter days than to warmer nights (giving the sufferers less relief). Diseases now found in the tropics, transmitted by mosquitoes and other animal hosts, will widen their range as these animal hosts move into regions formerly too cold for them.
Today, 45% of the world's people live where a mosquito carrying the parasite that causes malaria might bite them; that percentage may increase to 60% if temperatures rise. Other tropical diseases may spread similarly, including dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Scientists also predict rising incidence of allergies and respiratory diseases as warmer air grows more charged with pollutants, mold spores, and pollens.
Md. Badsha Mia writes from the Dept. of Environmental Science and Resource Management, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Santosh, Tangail.
source-http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=39828
Friday, June 6, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Right Answer to Global Warming
The Right Answer to Global Warming
The Bush Administration may have struck out on their decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. But they hit a home run with their promise to veto what ever carbon cap bill comes out of the Senate’s debate on the Lieberman-Warner legislation. Heritage scholar Ben Lieberman summarizes the White House’s statement:
Not only did the White House threaten to veto this economy-damaging bill, but it spelled out all the right considerations that should remain central to any future debate over climate change.
Economic pain must be avoided – The last thing people struggling with $4.00 a gallon gasoline need is a new law like S. 3036 that would raise pump prices even further in the years ahead. Ditto electricity and natural gas prices, both of which would also be sharply impacted by the bill. And any measure that kills jobs, especially good paying manufacturing jobs, out to be a dealbreaker. The SAP states this in no uncertain terms.
The answer is technology not mandates – we need further research into means of producing the affordable energy the nation needs in ways that emit less carbon. S. 3036 puts the cart before the horse in that it demands emissions reductions before that technology is available. The administration’s technology-first approach is a good one.
The current hodgepodge of provisions potentially applicable to global warming needs to be rectified before a major bill is added – The President is right to mention the use (some might say misuse) of existing statutes like the Endangered Species Act and Clean Air Act as a way of regulating greenhouse gas emission. This should be dealt with before more climate measures are added.
The focus should be global not unilateral - Given sharp increases in emissions from China and other fast developing nations, the unilateral measures in S. 3036 would do little. Even assuming the worst of global warming, emissions would still go up, and the impact on the earth’s future temperature would likely be too small to even verify – quite remarkable given the multi-trillion dollar price tag.
The bill should not grossly expand the federal government – S. 3036 would create a new bureaucracy with the power to raise and distribute literally trillions of dollars in the revenues raised from energy users. It is as if global warming is being used as an excuse for a new round of big government.
source--http://blog.heritage.org/
The Bush Administration may have struck out on their decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. But they hit a home run with their promise to veto what ever carbon cap bill comes out of the Senate’s debate on the Lieberman-Warner legislation. Heritage scholar Ben Lieberman summarizes the White House’s statement:
Not only did the White House threaten to veto this economy-damaging bill, but it spelled out all the right considerations that should remain central to any future debate over climate change.
Economic pain must be avoided – The last thing people struggling with $4.00 a gallon gasoline need is a new law like S. 3036 that would raise pump prices even further in the years ahead. Ditto electricity and natural gas prices, both of which would also be sharply impacted by the bill. And any measure that kills jobs, especially good paying manufacturing jobs, out to be a dealbreaker. The SAP states this in no uncertain terms.
The answer is technology not mandates – we need further research into means of producing the affordable energy the nation needs in ways that emit less carbon. S. 3036 puts the cart before the horse in that it demands emissions reductions before that technology is available. The administration’s technology-first approach is a good one.
The current hodgepodge of provisions potentially applicable to global warming needs to be rectified before a major bill is added – The President is right to mention the use (some might say misuse) of existing statutes like the Endangered Species Act and Clean Air Act as a way of regulating greenhouse gas emission. This should be dealt with before more climate measures are added.
The focus should be global not unilateral - Given sharp increases in emissions from China and other fast developing nations, the unilateral measures in S. 3036 would do little. Even assuming the worst of global warming, emissions would still go up, and the impact on the earth’s future temperature would likely be too small to even verify – quite remarkable given the multi-trillion dollar price tag.
The bill should not grossly expand the federal government – S. 3036 would create a new bureaucracy with the power to raise and distribute literally trillions of dollars in the revenues raised from energy users. It is as if global warming is being used as an excuse for a new round of big government.
source--http://blog.heritage.org/
Global warming pot of gold - uh, but not for you
Global warming pot of gold - uh, but not for you
The Senate today begins yammering about the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, which thankfully isn’t likely to pass in an election year, but portends ill because all three leading presidential contenders endorse something similar.
Squabbling will mostly be over how to divide that pot of gold the bill will drain from U.S. industries - and by extenstion from you. We’re talking about $3.32 TRILLION between now and 2050. That’s how much the government stands to gain in dollars and cents, and someone to lose. Guess who.
And you thought this was about global warming, hm?
What is certain under this scheme (scam) is that this will enrich the government more than anything since the imposition of the income tax.
What’s just as certain is that you will be proportionately impoverished. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this is one huge redistribution of wealth scheme (uh, scam?).
What’s far, far less certain is what effect this will have on the so-called threat of global warming. Considering the fact that CO2 only theoretically has been linked to increasing temperatures, we suspect crippling industries by taxing them with this cap and trade nonsense and imposing countless Draconian regulations won’t budget the thermometer a degree one way or the other. But you can bet if temperatures go down they’ll claim credit and if temperatures go down they’ll say we haven’t done (taxed and controlled) enough.
source-http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/
The Senate today begins yammering about the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, which thankfully isn’t likely to pass in an election year, but portends ill because all three leading presidential contenders endorse something similar.
Squabbling will mostly be over how to divide that pot of gold the bill will drain from U.S. industries - and by extenstion from you. We’re talking about $3.32 TRILLION between now and 2050. That’s how much the government stands to gain in dollars and cents, and someone to lose. Guess who.
And you thought this was about global warming, hm?
What is certain under this scheme (scam) is that this will enrich the government more than anything since the imposition of the income tax.
What’s just as certain is that you will be proportionately impoverished. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this is one huge redistribution of wealth scheme (uh, scam?).
What’s far, far less certain is what effect this will have on the so-called threat of global warming. Considering the fact that CO2 only theoretically has been linked to increasing temperatures, we suspect crippling industries by taxing them with this cap and trade nonsense and imposing countless Draconian regulations won’t budget the thermometer a degree one way or the other. But you can bet if temperatures go down they’ll claim credit and if temperatures go down they’ll say we haven’t done (taxed and controlled) enough.
source-http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/
Global warming and and the struggle for freedom and prosperity
Global warming and and the struggle for freedom and prosperity
Today's must read article from Peter Ferrara at National Review Online:
Global warming has nothing to do with climate or science. What it is all about is the great, historic class struggle between working people and the ruling classes.
Global warming is a great excuse for a massive expansion of government power. That, not science, is why the overlords, from the New York Times to the United Nations to Al Gore, so heartily embrace it.
The U.N. thinks global warming is a perfect reason for the U.N. to be transformed into a world government. So how long do you think it took for the world-class bureaucrats at Turtle Bay to conclude that global warming was real and caused by humans?
Ferrara covers all the bases in his article. Be sure to RTWT.
source-http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/06/global-warming-and-and-struggle-for.html
Today's must read article from Peter Ferrara at National Review Online:
Global warming has nothing to do with climate or science. What it is all about is the great, historic class struggle between working people and the ruling classes.
Global warming is a great excuse for a massive expansion of government power. That, not science, is why the overlords, from the New York Times to the United Nations to Al Gore, so heartily embrace it.
The U.N. thinks global warming is a perfect reason for the U.N. to be transformed into a world government. So how long do you think it took for the world-class bureaucrats at Turtle Bay to conclude that global warming was real and caused by humans?
Ferrara covers all the bases in his article. Be sure to RTWT.
source-http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/06/global-warming-and-and-struggle-for.html
What global warming?
What global warming?
The Tribune editorial board showed its usual liberal bias in the editorial complaining about the effect of oil and gas drilling on tourism, hunting and the natural beauty of Utah ("Cost of drilling: Wells threaten tourism, hunting and natural beauty," Our View, May 25). I grew up in the Uintah Basin in the 1960s and '70s where we enjoyed wonderful hunting and fishing while the oil companies provided jobs harvesting needed resources.
I remember deer and antelope drinking out of the waste water drained from the mine where I worked. They didn't seem too affected by our efforts!
The editorial also made the mandatory slight against the Bush administration's hope for more drilling. Obviously, Congress has done nothing to cause fuel prices to rise, what with its stringent regulations and bureaucracy resisting any new refineries or the search for new resources. Likewise, I'm sure the editorial staff will never again hypocritically criticize fuel prices while they challenge those who try to supply the needed resource!
The Tribune supports green, global-warming hysteria, but a number of us don't buy your Al Gore-inspired baloney.
source-http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9457342
The Tribune editorial board showed its usual liberal bias in the editorial complaining about the effect of oil and gas drilling on tourism, hunting and the natural beauty of Utah ("Cost of drilling: Wells threaten tourism, hunting and natural beauty," Our View, May 25). I grew up in the Uintah Basin in the 1960s and '70s where we enjoyed wonderful hunting and fishing while the oil companies provided jobs harvesting needed resources.
I remember deer and antelope drinking out of the waste water drained from the mine where I worked. They didn't seem too affected by our efforts!
The editorial also made the mandatory slight against the Bush administration's hope for more drilling. Obviously, Congress has done nothing to cause fuel prices to rise, what with its stringent regulations and bureaucracy resisting any new refineries or the search for new resources. Likewise, I'm sure the editorial staff will never again hypocritically criticize fuel prices while they challenge those who try to supply the needed resource!
The Tribune supports green, global-warming hysteria, but a number of us don't buy your Al Gore-inspired baloney.
source-http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9457342
Get beyond global warming talk in Senate
Get beyond global warming talk in Senate
All it may amount to in the end is hot air, but the Senate still needs to engage seriously this week in its discussion of how this country can best counter global warming. At the very least, the Senate can set the stage for a needed presidential debate on the issue this fall.
If by some chance a global warming bill makes it all the way through Congress, President George W. Bush is likely to veto it. Nonetheless, Congress should explore the subject fully -- and the three senators still in the running as presidential candidates can take the opportunity to refine their positions.
Equally important, as the Senate and the candidates discuss the Lieberman-Warner bill, Americans can begin to wrestle with what the proposed solutions mean to them.
The chief mechanism to control warming gases would be a cap and trade system, which has already been tested and worked well to control the emissions that cause acid rain. But costs can vary widely, depending on how initial emissions credits are issued.
A federal auction of credits would raise the cost of electricity but simultaneously bring in money that can boost research, spur efficiency in homes and places like cities that otherwise cannot afford it, and cushion the blow of rising energy costs for many consumers. Handing out permits would keep the initial cost of energy lower and rely more on the marketplace to find solutions.
Michigan has a big stake, because it relies on coal for most of its power generation, as do many other states in this part of the country. Coal puts out more C0{-2} than other fuels, so any system will hit harder in coal-reliant areas. Congress must take special care not to disproportionately handicap Midwestern states that already are reeling from loss of manufacturing jobs.
Lawmakers must also ensure that any plan does not inadvertently increase the power companies' demand for other fuels, such as natural gas, because that would push home heating costs even higher.
Global warming deniers will continue to attack even the mildest efforts to cut back on fossil fuel use. But the risks involved in doing nothing -- including far lower levels in the Great Lakes -- have grown too great to ignore. And the talent that could be put toward innovative solutions has been sitting idle for too long.
source-http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080603/OPINION01/806030315/1069
All it may amount to in the end is hot air, but the Senate still needs to engage seriously this week in its discussion of how this country can best counter global warming. At the very least, the Senate can set the stage for a needed presidential debate on the issue this fall.
If by some chance a global warming bill makes it all the way through Congress, President George W. Bush is likely to veto it. Nonetheless, Congress should explore the subject fully -- and the three senators still in the running as presidential candidates can take the opportunity to refine their positions.
Equally important, as the Senate and the candidates discuss the Lieberman-Warner bill, Americans can begin to wrestle with what the proposed solutions mean to them.
The chief mechanism to control warming gases would be a cap and trade system, which has already been tested and worked well to control the emissions that cause acid rain. But costs can vary widely, depending on how initial emissions credits are issued.
A federal auction of credits would raise the cost of electricity but simultaneously bring in money that can boost research, spur efficiency in homes and places like cities that otherwise cannot afford it, and cushion the blow of rising energy costs for many consumers. Handing out permits would keep the initial cost of energy lower and rely more on the marketplace to find solutions.
Michigan has a big stake, because it relies on coal for most of its power generation, as do many other states in this part of the country. Coal puts out more C0{-2} than other fuels, so any system will hit harder in coal-reliant areas. Congress must take special care not to disproportionately handicap Midwestern states that already are reeling from loss of manufacturing jobs.
Lawmakers must also ensure that any plan does not inadvertently increase the power companies' demand for other fuels, such as natural gas, because that would push home heating costs even higher.
Global warming deniers will continue to attack even the mildest efforts to cut back on fossil fuel use. But the risks involved in doing nothing -- including far lower levels in the Great Lakes -- have grown too great to ignore. And the talent that could be put toward innovative solutions has been sitting idle for too long.
source-http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080603/OPINION01/806030315/1069
Slash Global Warming Gases Now Urge 1,700 Scientists, Economists
Slash Global Warming Gases Now Urge 1,700 Scientists, Economists
Hundreds of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists have issued a first-ever joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.
"Failure to act now is the most risky and most expensive thing we could do," warns statement co-author James McCarthy, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Issued just before the U.S. Senate begins debate on the Warner-Lieberman climate bill, the statement marks the first time U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.
The more than 1,700 signatories, compiled by Union of Concerned Scientists, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 National Academy of Science members, and more than 100 authors and editors of the 2007 climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who all shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
"Economists now join climate scientists in a unified call for action to address the causes of climate change," said McCarthy, a professor of biological oceanography in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University.
McCarthy served as co-chair for the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and lead author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
There is a strong consensus that we must do something about reducing the emissions that cause global warming," he said. "The debate right now is about how much we need to cut."
The statement proposes that the United States should reduce global warming pollution "on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050" and that the first step should be reductions of 15 to 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. It calls on the United States to set an example and bring nations together to meet the climate challenge.
"The fact that so many scientists and economists have spoken out and signed this letter should give policymakers the confidence that we can avert serious adverse climate impacts," McCarthy said.
The statement's co-authors include Mario Molina, co-recipient of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in discovering the threat to the Earth's ozone layer of chlorofluorocarbon gases, or CFCs, becoming the first and only Mexican citizen to ever receive a Nobel Prize for science.
"The United States worked with other nations to take on the ozone threat; so, too, must we lead the international effort to reduce heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change," said Molina, who now serves as professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the Center for Atmospheric Sciences in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego.
One of the co-authors is Geoff Heal, an economist at Columbia University's Business School. "Preventing dangerous climate change is a great investment. It will cost between one and two percent of GDP, and the benefits will be between 10 and 20 percent. That's a return of 10 to 1 - attractive even to a venture capitalist," said Heal.
The statement affirms the scientific evidence for global warming, saying, "the strength of the science on climate change" compelled the signers to warn policymakers of climate change's growing risks, including "sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, snowmelt, floods and disease, as well as increased plant and animal species extinctions."
Acting quickly to cut global warming pollution would be the most cost-effective way to limit climate change, the scientists and economists state. If the United States delays taking action, they say, future cuts would have to more drastic and would be much more expensive.
And those costs would come in addition to the increased cost of adapting to more climate change.
On the other hand, the scientists and economists advise, smart reduction strategies would allow the economy to grow, generate new domestic jobs, protect public health, and strengthen energy security.
"The consequences of global climate change constitute one of the most serious threats facing humanity," warned Jagadish Shukla, professor of earth sciences and global change and chair of the Climate Dynamics Program at George Mason University.
President of the Institute of Global Environment and Society, Shukla was a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007
"While the poor and the impoverished will suffer the most," said Shukla, "the potential for catastrophic climate change that can adversely affect the habitability of the entire planet is quite real."
source-http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-02-02.asp
Hundreds of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists have issued a first-ever joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.
"Failure to act now is the most risky and most expensive thing we could do," warns statement co-author James McCarthy, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Issued just before the U.S. Senate begins debate on the Warner-Lieberman climate bill, the statement marks the first time U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.
The more than 1,700 signatories, compiled by Union of Concerned Scientists, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 National Academy of Science members, and more than 100 authors and editors of the 2007 climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who all shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
"Economists now join climate scientists in a unified call for action to address the causes of climate change," said McCarthy, a professor of biological oceanography in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University.
McCarthy served as co-chair for the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and lead author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
There is a strong consensus that we must do something about reducing the emissions that cause global warming," he said. "The debate right now is about how much we need to cut."
The statement proposes that the United States should reduce global warming pollution "on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050" and that the first step should be reductions of 15 to 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. It calls on the United States to set an example and bring nations together to meet the climate challenge.
"The fact that so many scientists and economists have spoken out and signed this letter should give policymakers the confidence that we can avert serious adverse climate impacts," McCarthy said.
The statement's co-authors include Mario Molina, co-recipient of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in discovering the threat to the Earth's ozone layer of chlorofluorocarbon gases, or CFCs, becoming the first and only Mexican citizen to ever receive a Nobel Prize for science.
"The United States worked with other nations to take on the ozone threat; so, too, must we lead the international effort to reduce heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change," said Molina, who now serves as professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the Center for Atmospheric Sciences in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego.
One of the co-authors is Geoff Heal, an economist at Columbia University's Business School. "Preventing dangerous climate change is a great investment. It will cost between one and two percent of GDP, and the benefits will be between 10 and 20 percent. That's a return of 10 to 1 - attractive even to a venture capitalist," said Heal.
The statement affirms the scientific evidence for global warming, saying, "the strength of the science on climate change" compelled the signers to warn policymakers of climate change's growing risks, including "sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, snowmelt, floods and disease, as well as increased plant and animal species extinctions."
Acting quickly to cut global warming pollution would be the most cost-effective way to limit climate change, the scientists and economists state. If the United States delays taking action, they say, future cuts would have to more drastic and would be much more expensive.
And those costs would come in addition to the increased cost of adapting to more climate change.
On the other hand, the scientists and economists advise, smart reduction strategies would allow the economy to grow, generate new domestic jobs, protect public health, and strengthen energy security.
"The consequences of global climate change constitute one of the most serious threats facing humanity," warned Jagadish Shukla, professor of earth sciences and global change and chair of the Climate Dynamics Program at George Mason University.
President of the Institute of Global Environment and Society, Shukla was a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007
"While the poor and the impoverished will suffer the most," said Shukla, "the potential for catastrophic climate change that can adversely affect the habitability of the entire planet is quite real."
source-http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-02-02.asp
FOCUS ON GLOBAL WARMING
FOCUS ON GLOBAL WARMING
What senators are saying about the controversial legislation
Senators argued Monday as they voted to begin debate over far-reaching climate legislation that would require major emitters, such as coal-fired power plants, to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Here are excerpts from some of the speeches:
"Now, today you will hear from those who wish to kill this bill. Kill it, kill it as dead as they can. They say it's too complicated, that we should do nothing and we should continue the status quo. The status quo is devastating, my friends. The scientists have told us that." - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
"As summer driving season begins and oil prices remain at near-all-time records, it is simply incredible that the first measure debated in this session will not be a bill to lower energy bills, but a bill that will in fact substantially increase them." - Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M .
"It will not only deal with the problem of global warming, this bill is the energy independence, energy security act that America in its right mind should have adopted 30 years ago." - Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent-Conn., a chief sponsor of the bill
"The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if China and India do not institute similar plans to the same extent we do, as they have already told us they will not, this bill before us will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. That means $6.7 trillion in pain for American families and workers for no gain in global temperatures lowering." - Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo.
"Let's show the American public this institution can work and address a complicated subject and try and reach a common understanding. To do nothing is not an option." - Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a sponsor of the bill
"If the United States were to act unilaterally, manufacturing facilities will go overseas. They go to where the energy is, we know that. And that's where the energy regulations or emissions regulations are more lax. This results in more emissions in transporting the product back to the United States." - Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
Source: Chronicle staff report
What senators are saying about the controversial legislation
Senators argued Monday as they voted to begin debate over far-reaching climate legislation that would require major emitters, such as coal-fired power plants, to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Here are excerpts from some of the speeches:
"Now, today you will hear from those who wish to kill this bill. Kill it, kill it as dead as they can. They say it's too complicated, that we should do nothing and we should continue the status quo. The status quo is devastating, my friends. The scientists have told us that." - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
"As summer driving season begins and oil prices remain at near-all-time records, it is simply incredible that the first measure debated in this session will not be a bill to lower energy bills, but a bill that will in fact substantially increase them." - Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M .
"It will not only deal with the problem of global warming, this bill is the energy independence, energy security act that America in its right mind should have adopted 30 years ago." - Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent-Conn., a chief sponsor of the bill
"The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if China and India do not institute similar plans to the same extent we do, as they have already told us they will not, this bill before us will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. That means $6.7 trillion in pain for American families and workers for no gain in global temperatures lowering." - Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo.
"Let's show the American public this institution can work and address a complicated subject and try and reach a common understanding. To do nothing is not an option." - Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a sponsor of the bill
"If the United States were to act unilaterally, manufacturing facilities will go overseas. They go to where the energy is, we know that. And that's where the energy regulations or emissions regulations are more lax. This results in more emissions in transporting the product back to the United States." - Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
Source: Chronicle staff report
Anglican Bishop: Global Warming Skeptics = Child Rapist
Anglican Bishop: Global Warming Skeptics = Child Rapist
I’ve heard many things about how we’re ruining our planet, but this one takes the cake. I just read that Anglican Bishop Gordon Mursell has recently compared the people who don’t take action about the global warming issue to Josef Fritzl, an Austrian rapist and child abuser. Now, how in the world does this relate? There is no way that this can make sense. How can a non-tree hugger be compared to a pedophile?
Thank goodness he’s not comparing people like me (yes, I’ll admit it. I’m not gung-ho about this global warming issue) to rapists and child abusers. He is showing that there is a comparison between Fritzl’s attitude and mine-we are selfish, and only are concerned with ourselves. He believes that we are ruining the future for our children by not taking action about global warming.
I understand that Bishop Mursell is concerned about our well being, but I just happen to believe that global warming is a bunch of bologna. I believe that God created this world, and that he gave it to humans to take care of it, but I do not believe that we are in charge of destroying the earth. That’s God’s job. Not mine. While I fully believe that we do have an impact on this earth, we do not control it, or its outcome.
I believe that we need to be more concerned with the people on the planet rather than conserving energy. How about we focus on changing lives rather than changing gas-powered to water-powered? The world needs a Savior, not another person trying to tell them to save trees. God did give us this world to take care of it. But we should be more involved in taking care of our brothers and sisters in Christ. “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith. So that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” Philemon 6.
source-http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=129692
I’ve heard many things about how we’re ruining our planet, but this one takes the cake. I just read that Anglican Bishop Gordon Mursell has recently compared the people who don’t take action about the global warming issue to Josef Fritzl, an Austrian rapist and child abuser. Now, how in the world does this relate? There is no way that this can make sense. How can a non-tree hugger be compared to a pedophile?
Thank goodness he’s not comparing people like me (yes, I’ll admit it. I’m not gung-ho about this global warming issue) to rapists and child abusers. He is showing that there is a comparison between Fritzl’s attitude and mine-we are selfish, and only are concerned with ourselves. He believes that we are ruining the future for our children by not taking action about global warming.
I understand that Bishop Mursell is concerned about our well being, but I just happen to believe that global warming is a bunch of bologna. I believe that God created this world, and that he gave it to humans to take care of it, but I do not believe that we are in charge of destroying the earth. That’s God’s job. Not mine. While I fully believe that we do have an impact on this earth, we do not control it, or its outcome.
I believe that we need to be more concerned with the people on the planet rather than conserving energy. How about we focus on changing lives rather than changing gas-powered to water-powered? The world needs a Savior, not another person trying to tell them to save trees. God did give us this world to take care of it. But we should be more involved in taking care of our brothers and sisters in Christ. “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith. So that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” Philemon 6.
source-http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=129692
All three US candidates are strong on global warming: UN climate chief
All three US candidates are strong on global warming: UN climate chief
PARIS (AFP) — UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said on Tuesday the profiles of all three US presidential candidates pointed to a major change in US policies on global warming after George W. Bush leaves the White House next January.
Yvo de Boer, who is executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said he found the stances of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain "very encouraging."
"All three presidential candidates have recognised the importance of climate change; want to act on climate change; want to develop a strong domestic policy approach; seem to favour a policy approach that goes in the direction of a cap-and-trade regime which would mesh very well with the direction in which other industrialised countries want to go; and seem to favour an international approach to climate change," de Boer said in Paris.
"So, in other words, whoever wins the presidential elections, I think that we will see a pro-active, international, market-based approach to climate change in the United States, founded on solid domestic policy."
The United States is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases which stoke man-made global warming, although by some estimates it has been overtaken by China.
Under the Bush presidency, the United States walked away from the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol, saying its caps on emissions by industrial countries were too costly for the US economy and unfair as big developing countries do not have such constraints.
Under a bill put before the US Senate this week, the United States would set up its own cap-and-trade system, meaning that companies would be set a ceiling of carbon emissions, and those who are below it can sell the surplus to those who are above it.
The idea behind cap-and-trade is to provide a financial incentive to reduce carbon pollution.
De Boer, speaking at a climate conference hosted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), said it was a "very exciting week in Washington" but added "let's see" if the so-called Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law.
Bush has threatened to veto the bill "in its current form," saying it would impose six trillion dollars of new costs on the US economy.
Proponents, though, say the bill, in addition to reducing carbon emissions, would raise fuel efficiency and ease dependence on foreign energy imports.
source-http://afp.google.com/article/
PARIS (AFP) — UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said on Tuesday the profiles of all three US presidential candidates pointed to a major change in US policies on global warming after George W. Bush leaves the White House next January.
Yvo de Boer, who is executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said he found the stances of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain "very encouraging."
"All three presidential candidates have recognised the importance of climate change; want to act on climate change; want to develop a strong domestic policy approach; seem to favour a policy approach that goes in the direction of a cap-and-trade regime which would mesh very well with the direction in which other industrialised countries want to go; and seem to favour an international approach to climate change," de Boer said in Paris.
"So, in other words, whoever wins the presidential elections, I think that we will see a pro-active, international, market-based approach to climate change in the United States, founded on solid domestic policy."
The United States is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases which stoke man-made global warming, although by some estimates it has been overtaken by China.
Under the Bush presidency, the United States walked away from the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol, saying its caps on emissions by industrial countries were too costly for the US economy and unfair as big developing countries do not have such constraints.
Under a bill put before the US Senate this week, the United States would set up its own cap-and-trade system, meaning that companies would be set a ceiling of carbon emissions, and those who are below it can sell the surplus to those who are above it.
The idea behind cap-and-trade is to provide a financial incentive to reduce carbon pollution.
De Boer, speaking at a climate conference hosted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), said it was a "very exciting week in Washington" but added "let's see" if the so-called Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law.
Bush has threatened to veto the bill "in its current form," saying it would impose six trillion dollars of new costs on the US economy.
Proponents, though, say the bill, in addition to reducing carbon emissions, would raise fuel efficiency and ease dependence on foreign energy imports.
source-http://afp.google.com/article/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
