Academy study reaffirms climate change, but guess what? We have to change consumer habits to save energy

(Image of Earth from Flickr NASA and Woodleywonderworks)


The planet is warming and human activities are the main cause, reaffirms a trilogy of reports, “America’s Climate Choices,” released last week by the National Academy of Sciences.

With business as usual the Earth’s temperature will rise between 2-11.4 degrees F by 2100, the Academy said. And sea levels could rise up to 6.5 feet, considerably higher than previous estimates.

Generally confirming the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Climate Change Panel, which deniers have tried to sully in recent months, the Academy calls for the following steps, which will be very difficult but technically possible:

• Reduce the demand for goods and services needing energy (this is the tough one, requiring changes in consumer behavior).
• Move to low- and zero-carbon energy sources.
• Capture carbon from the atmosphere, with forest and soil, but also with some kind of carbon “scrubber.”
• Improve energy efficiency.

What we need to do now
In the short range, to accomplish these longer-range goals, we must:

• Set an economy-wide price on carbon.
• Invest in and incentivise new technologies.
• Exert U.S. leadership for the rest of the world.
• Have a flexible attitude toward innovation by states, localities and regions.
• Pay attention to greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.

The reports were requested in 2008 by Congress, which also asked for recommendations on how to solve the climate problem. The study calls for a closer link between research and decision-making.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) applauded the study and said it would help passage of his climate bill, the American Power Act. The two dovetail nicely, with the marked exception that there’s not enough in the bill to curb deforestation.

Download summaries of the three reports at americasclimatechoices.org
.

(Sources: National Academy of Sciences, Wall Street Journal.)

Aldermen, enviro groups fight uphill battle for Chicago ordinance to curb emissions at Fisk, Crawford coal plants

(Photo of Fisk Power Plant and proximity to Chicago Loop from Flickr and photographer Steven Vance)

Two old coal-fired power plants, spewing pollution in densely populated Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago, are the subject of a city ordinance introduced last week by five progressive aldermen.

You might expect the aldermen from those neighborhoods, Danny Soliz (25th Ward) and Ricardo Muñoz (22nd Ward), to be co-sponsors since the health of constituents is at stake, but they aren’t. Muñoz says he’s worried about jobs and development in the neighborhood if the plants shut down. The owner, Midwest Generation, has contributed to his election campaigns and to community groups, but he told WBEZ in December that didn’t affect his judgment about the city regulating the plants.

The two power plants, Fisk and Crawford, belch thousands of tons of soot and millions of tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Pollution from these two plants contributed to an estimated 2,800 asthma attacks, 550 emergency-room visits and 41 deaths, according to a 2001 Harvard School of Public Health study.

It’s not just the immediate neighborhoods that are affected. Fisk is within 2 miles of Soldier Field, Cellular Field and the University of Illinois. Chicago is the only large city with 2 coal-fired power plants inside city limits. They affect air quality for everyone.

What's in the ordinance?
The Clean Power Ordinance, introduced by Ald. Joe Moore (49th Ward), would requires the plants to cut particulates by 90% and CO2 to 120.36 lbs./million BTU of heat input, within 2-4 years. For particulates they could add scrubbers, for CO2 they could convert to natural gas.

The fine would be $5,000-$10,000 per violation, with violations measured by the hour for particulate matter and by the day for CO2.

Midwest Gen says in its defense that it has cleaned up mercury emissions 60% since buying the plants in 1999 and plans to take additional steps to reduce pollution.

The plants produce local jobs but not local electricity. The power from these plants is sold on the wholesale market. Little of it goes to Illinois, and none to Chicago.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of a Clean Power Ordinance. Back in 2003 it was on the ballot as a non-binding referendum. People in the immediate neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for its passage. But nothing happened.

Mayor Daley – despite his commitment to reduce greenhouse gases 25% from 1990 levels by 2020 – has maintained it’s not the city’s role to regulate the plants.

Federal and state action
Last year the Justice Department filed suit against Midwest Generation on behalf of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the EPA for illegal emission of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. It did so following the threat of a suit by five environmental and public health organization. And the state worked out an agreement for Midwest Generation to install scrubbers at Fisk by 2015 and Crawford 2018, respectively, or shut down the plants.

But that’s too long to wait, Moore and several other alderman, believe. Their ordinance would speed up compliance by several years and adds greenhouse gases to the mix.

Groups supporting the ordinance include the Respiratory Health Assn., Environmental Law and Policy Center, Eco-Justice Collaborative, Environment Illinois, Loyola University, Natural Resources Defense Council and Pilsen Environmental Rights & Reform Org. (Complete list at chicagocleanpower.org)

With the mayor and two most affected aldermen in likely opposition, the ordinance has a steep uphill climb. It needs a groundswell of supporters talking up their aldermen to have a chance.

A lobby-training session is planned for 6 p.m. Tuesday, April 20, at the Sierra Club’s offices, 70 E. Lake St. Contact arfarf13@sbcglobal.net for details.

(Sources: Chicago Clean Power Coalition, NBC Chicago Ward Room blog, Progress Illinois, Chicago Reader, WBEZ)

Climate skeptics misread new global warming study

(Image from Flickr and photographer azrainman)

Oboy. The climate skeptics are having a field day with two studies released last week that suggest scientists don’t know all the factors involved in global warming. The contrarian blogospere is especially excited about research, published in Nature Geoscience, that concluded carbon dioxide only accounted for half of the extreme warming that occurred 55 million years ago. The sceptics’ conclusion? Science models showing warming related to CO2 are all wet. Ergo, we can stop worrying about throwing up all that greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels.

That’s not the way the researchers saw it.

About 55 million years ago, they found, the Earth’s temperature rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius (9 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit) over a period of about 10,000 years. (If you're a Creationist, I guess you can stop reading here.) Based on seabed borings, scientists from Rice University, the University of Hawaii and U Cal Santa Barbara said things were already pretty hot when it all started (there was no surface ice) and they speculate some event, like methane deposits bubbling up from warm seabeds, caused a 70% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over 10,000 years. (Most hydrate methane turns into CO2.)

If only half the temperature increase can be explained by carbon dioxide release, what caused the rest of it? No one's sure but authors of the study said it could involve feedback loops. And they say the unexplained causes don't mean we can stop worrying about climate change. Rather, future global warming could be worse than we thought, because feedback loops caused by melting tundra, changing ocean currents, and water absorbing more sunlight than ice may have caused more warming then than today’s models would explain. (BTW, the UN’s IPPC report on future climate change left out feedback loops because we don’t understand them well enough, though they realized the melting of Greenland, for example, could have a profound effect.)

Forecasts likely underestimate warming
In commentary published along with the study, scientist David Beerling of Sheffield University, UK, said climate forecasts “could be severely underestimating the extent of the problem that lies in store for humanity as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.”

An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees the study suggests warming is potentially worse than previously believed.

So don’t let anyone tell you this study throws the global warming theory out the window. More likely we don’t know the half of it.

Looking at warming on a scale we can relate to, say the lifetime of our grandchildren, predictions of catastrophic warming in this century still hold – and may be a lot worse than forecast.

Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 in the atmosphere has grown from 280 parts per million to 390 ppm or about 40%. C02 in the atmosphere could grow more than 70% in just a century (not 10,000 years) this time, one study author said.

Sunspots and flares
Another theory for changing temperatures on Earth has been the influence of activity on the sun. A second newly published study, in the Journal of Science, links the two together for the first time, but concludes the cyclical activity is similar to that of El Niño and La Niña, in warming the Pacific, but has only about half as much impact on the temperature as El Niño. The differences in the 11-year cycles are “very small,” relative to the sun’s total energy and are short-term cyclical rather than a long-term trend. The study was done by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

(Sources: Reuters PlanetArk, Reuters blog, Science Daily, Nature Geoscience, Union of Concerned Scientists, ClimateWire)

Amazon rainforest destruction surges

(Photo of logs on the Amazon River from Flickr and photographer P.C. Loadletter)

News Update: Illegal logging increased 228% in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest in August, compared with the same month a year ago, according to the country’s National Institute for Space Research, which monitors deforestation by satellite. This after three years of declining deforestation. Officials blame upcoming elections, with mayors allowing illegal logging in the hope of winning votes. Another cause is the increase in global food prices, which spurs clearing of land to raise cattle and grow soy for export. Deforestation is a major source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Sources: New York Times/AP, Greenwire)

Unregulated ships spew greenhouse gases into atmosphere and untreated waste into ocean

(Photo of Chinese freighter from Flickr and photographer fusionpanda/David Grant)

Weekly Angst: When I was on an idyllic cruise in French Polynesia eight years ago, I was astounded at how clear the water was. I’d never seen anything like it. Imagine my dismay to learn our ship was dumping all kinds of waste in the water, befouling this pristine sea. Cruise ships continue to use the ocean as a dumping ground and that’s a huge problem addressed by Friends of the Earth in its latest magazine (see summary below).

But there’s another problem – one I wasn’t aware of in 2000 when I marveled at the clear waters off Bora Bora and Moorea.

Ships help cause global warming.

Shipping worldwide released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide last year, according to the International Maritime Organization. That’s equivalent to the CO2 given off by 205 million cars (more than all the cars in the U.S.).

Shipping emits 3% of all CO2 emissions. If it were a country, it would rank No. 6, between Japan and Germany.

With world trade expanding, shipping has grown about 5% a year for the past 3 decades and is likely to continue to do so, according to a new report by Oceana , an international advocacy group. Ships carry 90% of all trade, with more than 90,000 vessels plying the seas, the report says.

Ships don’t just release carbon dioxide, they also spew black carbon (soot), nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide, all of which add to climate change. The emissions are especially damaging to the fast-warming Arctic, and problems will likely accelerate as the Northwest Passage opens up to more shipping. Soot, for example, absorbs sunlight and can speed the melting of snow and ice.

No regulations
With virtually no regulation, ships are using the cheapest and dirtiest kind of fuel and doing little to become more efficient. Some quick and easy fixes could help the situation, says the Oceana report.

Switching from the worst fuel available, residual oil, to marine diesel or marine gas oil, could reduce CO2 and nitrogen oxides about 5%, particulate matter 63% and nitrous oxide 91%, the report says. Better fuel would also allow for placement of emission controls that would further reduce GHG.

Just slowing down could make a big difference. Ships burn fuel based on speed rather than weight, so cutting back 10% on speed would save 23% in fuel emissions, the report says.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have financial incentives for reducing speeds within 20 nautical miles of the ports and are getting 80% compliance. With 100% compliance they figure they could cut particulates (including black carbon) in half and reduce nitrogen oxides 37%.

Ships also could cut off their diesel engines when in port and hook up to power lines on shore to furnish electricity.

The industry also could work on more efficient designs for both the vessels and their engines, the report says.

And there is now some experimentation with adding sails or kites to capture wind power on the high seas. That could provide a carbon-free energy boost.

Oceana calls for the EPA to regulate ship emissions within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and the International Maritime Organization to regulate worldwide shipping, because of the substantial impact ships have on climate change.

A coalition of states, environmental groups, government agencies and New York City has served notice to the EPA that it plans to sue the agency for failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions coming from ships and airplanes. The action follows petitions last October and December that were ignored.

Earthjustice will represent the coalition in the lawsuit against the EPA. Coalition members include Oceana, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biodiversity, the states of Connecticut and New Jersey, the California Air Resources Board, the California Southern Coast Air Quality Management District and the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Other cruise ship problems
In addition to emitting heat-trapping gases, the world’s cruise ships are using the oceans as dumping grounds. As long as they are 3 miles offshore they can and do dump raw sewage directly in the water. When you flush on a ship, that’s where it goes. Within 3 miles they are supposed to use a rudimentary treatment device, but there is little monitoring. They also dump wastewater from sinks, showers, galleys and laundries; oily bilge water; and hazard waste from dry-cleaning and photo processing as well as batteries, paints and fluorescent lights.

How much waste do cruise ships discharge? According to Friends of the Earth, a large ship in one week generates approximately:
• 210,000 gallons of blackwater (human waste)
• 1 million gallons of graywater (showers, galleys, etc.)
• 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water
• More than 130 gallons of hazardous waste.

If that outrages you and you want to take action to help get this dumping under control, call your reps in Washington and tell them to support the Clean Cruise Ship Act of 2008 (more likely to pass in 2009), spearheaded by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.)

Somehow, it’s easier to get exorcised over the dumping – something we can see – than greenhouse gases, which we can’t see. But they’re both a problem for our planet, our oceans, and ultimately ourselves.
(Sources: Greenwire, E&E News PM, Oceana, Friends of the Earth)

Deforestation: inevitable as population surges?

(Photo of deforestation in Brazil from Flickr and photographer [cas]/Sotto)

Weekly Angst: World population growth, up from 6 billion to 9 billion (that’s 50%) in the first half of this century will likely lead to cutting down forests to provide more food, fuel and timber, two new reports say. The Rights and Resources Initiative, a global coalition of environmental and conservation NGOs (non-governmental organizations) expects land the size of 12 Germanys will to be cleared between now and 2030.

“Arguably we are on the verge of the last great global land grab,” said Andy White, co-author of one of the reports, called “Seeing People Through the Trees.” And this is going to cause conflict, as well as global warming.

Governments still own most of the forests, said the second report, “From Exclusion to Ownership,” but have been unable to prevent industrial incursions. In Brazil, soy and sugar cane for biofuels are likely to take another 247 million acres from the Amazon rainforest by 2020.

There are several problems intersecting here.

Population growth and economics
First is the rapid and relentless growth of population on the Earth. In 1950 the population stood at just 2.5 billion. By 2000 it was 6 billion, more than double. This week it is 6.7 billion and by 2050, the UN estimates, the number will reach close to 9 billion (8.9B if you want to be exact).

So not only are developing countries trying to lift their people out of poverty with their own industrial revolutions, but there are increasingly more people to lift. More food, more fuel, more plastics, more cars and more electricity will be needed. (China, by the way, points out that without its one-child policy its population would be far bigger than it is.)

Then there’s the difficulty of maintaining forest in its natural state when money is to be made from clearing it to plant crops, grow cattle and sell timber. Most of the forest likely to be cleared is in developing countries, the reports said.

The Amazon rainforest
The Amazon rainforest is a case in point. The largest in the world, it is often called “the lungs of the world” because it consumes CO2 and produces 20% of the Earth’s oxygen. It contains 1/10 of the carbon dioxide stored in land ecosystems on the planet.

After 3 years of declining deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (due to enforcement and the low price of soybeans), the tide turned last summer, and an estimated 1,096 square miles were lost in May alone.

Brazil is No. 4 in emission of greenhouse gases, not because of fossil fuel plants, but mainly (70%) because of deforestation.

Brazilian officials, under world scrutiny, say outsiders, including NGOs, are grabbing their land, stealing medicinal plants, spying and logging illegally. They say they fear the outside world is after their considerable resources.

Other forests at risk
The Amazon isn’t the only place forest is disappearing. Parts of Asia are losing more than 10,000 square miles of forest every year.

And Canada is logging its boreal forests (mainly evergreens) at such a rate that, combined with permafrost melt, it could produce a “carbon bomb,” according to Greenpeace. A report by the University of Toronto, “Turning up the Heat,” said a 1993 study showed Canada’s large swath of boreal forests stored 186 billion metric tons of carbon (27 times what the world emits from fossil fuels in a year), two-thirds of it stored in the soil. When trees are destroyed, not only is carbon released from them, but also from the soil that is exposed.

The province of Ontario last week promised to preserve 55 million acres, or at least half, of its pristine boreal forests from future development, keeping it as an undisturbed ecosystem and carbon sink. What about the other half? Chainsaw massacre?

More research, more regulation
The interaction between forests and climate change is complex. Droughts can damage forests and so can wildfires and pests brought on by warmer temperatures. The Amazon is threatened by increasingly frequent droughts. A Smithsonian research study going on now on an island in the Panama Canal suggests that as temperatures rise, trees slow their growth and absorb less CO2. There also is the issue that trees, as they get old, reach a point where they don’t take in as much carbon.

Clearly there needs to be more research, and a worldwide agreement to save or replace the forests we have – and not lose more. World officials meeting in Bali last December agreed credits should be given for saving rainforest, a step in the right direction. The details need to be worked out between now and 2012, when a post-Kyoto agreement would begin. And likely the wealthy nations are going to have to pony up.
(Sources: Thomson Reuters, PlanetArk, Greenwire, ClimateWire, State of the Planet 2006-2007, U.S. Census Bureau)

Trash talk: Zero waste would end landfills, incinerators and help curb GHG emissions

(Photo of trash in landfill from Flickr and photographer Zen/Zen Sutherland)

Weekly Angst: When you first started recycling, maybe 2 decades ago, little did you know one of the benefits would be to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that threaten catastrophic climate change. Now you have an additional reason to reduce, reuse, recycle -- and compost.

We are drowning in trash and, despite recycling, it’s adding at least 7% to emissions that cause global warming. Incinerators and landfills both emit GHG. And worse than that, every item that is destroyed needs to be replaced – which means more emissions from extraction, processing, manufacturing and transportation.

The Sierra Club’s new report Stop Trashing the Climate recommends phasing out all municipal waste incinerators and building no new incinerators or landfills.

The report sets a goal of zero waste by 2040, which could be accomplished by reducing consumption, recycling most products, re-using paper, plastic, glass and many other materials, and composting food and lawn scraps. Zero waste would reduce greenhouse gas emissions the same as if 20% of our coal-fired power plants were closed down. Under the Urban Environmental Accords, 103 mayors worldwide have agreed to send no waste to incinerators or landfills by 2040. More than 2 dozen American cities or states have a zero waste goal.

Too much consumption
The term “consumer” – if you’ve thought about it – is related to “consume” which means “use up.” And that’s exactly what we consumers are doing. Using up the world’s natural resources at a record pace.

The United States, with just 5% of the world’s population, is using up 30% of the world’s resources, producing 30% of the waste and emitting 22% of the planet’s greenhouse gases.

Think about what would happen if the rest of the world caught up with us on consumption. We’d need several planets to supply everyone. What we’re going to have to do is scale back so our consumption isn’t so far out of line with everyone else’s.

Manufacturers will have to take responsibility for producing less waste, especially the products and packaging that make up more than 72% of our trash.

Reuse, recycle and compost
Americans destroy nearly 170 million tons of paper, metals, plastics food scraps, etc., a years, and we have the ability to reuse, recycle or compost 90% of what we waste. Composting avoids significant methane emissions and increases carbon storage in soil to improve plant growth.

The damage landfills do
In addition to destruction of goods and using up of natural resources, landfills are the largest anthropogenic (human-caused) source of methane, which is 75% more potent a heat-trapping gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Although some landfills capture methane to use for power, only 20% is captured, and non-recycled organic materials should instead be composted or anaerobically digested, the report said.

The damage incinerators do
Incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per megawatt hour than coal, gas or oil power plants. They produce CO2 and nitrous oxide, which is 300 times more potent than CO2. Many require fossil fuels to operate.

Other recommendations
• Implement federal, state and municipal zero waste targets.
• Levy a per-ton surcharge for taking waste to incinerators or landfills, as many European countries do.
• End “renewable energy” subsidies for landfills and incinerators.
• Charge by volume and weight for trash collection.
• Regulate paper packaging and junk mail and significantly increase paper recycling.

Toronto’s solution
The city of Toronto removes about 1/3 of its garbage before it can get to a landfill. It goes to a plant where microscopic bugs digest garbage and turn it into compost. The Toronto plant has a system that can separate out plastic bags, batteries, bones and other non-biodegradable objects in a huge tank that spins to break the bags and let them float to the top, then separates out hard and heavy objects, which do go to a landfill.

What remains is methane and compost. The latter is given free to residents to enrich soil or taken to city parks and gardens.

The plant, which processes 50,000 tons of organic waste (double what was originally expected) handles trash from a half-million single-family homes, with another half-million apartments expected online soon. There are plans to build another composting plant by 2010, which will capture and use the methane for power, and then to expand and retrofit the current plant by 2012.

Toronto’s goal is to divert 75% of its waste from landfills by 2010. The city also has a significant recycling program.

One of the features that helps its popularity is the ability of the bugs to gobble up the odors usually emitted by such a program.

Many European cities have organic composting plants, but in North America Toronto is the only one doing it on this scale. Other cities starting more slowly are San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Oakland and Alameda County, Calif.

These cities have shown what can be done. Now we just need the will to do it.

(Sources: Sierra Club’s “Stop Trashing The Planet,” Greenwire.)

China’s CO2 emissions 14% higher than U.S. in 2007

(Photo of coal stored in Beijing power plant from Flickr and photographer kafka4prez/JJ W)

News Update 1: China emitted 14% more carbon dioxide last year that the U.S., according to a Dutch report published last week. China, which passed up the U.S. in 2006, saw its emissions rise 8% year over year, while those in the U.S. grew 1.8%. China’s emissions came mostly from burning of fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas; its electricity is 80% coal-fired. China was responsible for 24% of new CO2 emissions, compared with 21% from the U.S., 12% from the EU’s 15 oldest countries, 8% from India and 6% from Russia. The U.S. still ranks highest in per-capita emissions however – with the typical American's carbon footprint 19.4 metric tons. Russia is next with 11.8 tons, followed by the EU 8.6, China 5.1 and India 1.8. The study did not include carbon emissions from deforestation. (Source: Greenwire)

Renewable energy use here down 1% last year due to dought, carbon dioxide emissions grew

(Photo of hydroelectric waterfall from Flickr and photographer grendelkhan.)

News Update 1: Consumption of renewable energy in the U.S, slipped slightly in 2007 because lack of rain cut hydroelectric power 14%. Drought is predicted to be a continuing problem because of climate change. Other forms of renewable energy were up, according to a report from the Energy Information Administration. Wind rose 21% and biomass 7% (mostly because of ethanol). Overall renewables were down 1%, following several years of growth. Sources of energy in 2007 were:
• renewables 7%
• petroleum 40%
• natural gas 23%
• coal 22%
• nuclear 8%
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. grew 1.6%, according to the EIA, with all the growth attributed to residential and commercial buildings. Since 1990 C02 growth in the U.S. was nearly 20%. Nations that signed the Kyoto treaty (not us) were committed to cutting C02 5% from 1990 levels.
(Source: E&E News PM, Greenwire)

San Francisco Bay Area imposes carbon fee

(Photo of Bay Area from Flickr and photographer brothergrimm/Matthew Grimm.)

News Update 2: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District imposed a carbon fee on refiners, cement plants, gas stations and other stationary sources, despite vociferous opposition from the oil industry, which will be hardest hit. The fee of 4.4 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalents applies to a 9-county area in Northern California, around San Francisco. The district said the rule is based on the need to cut emissions expressed in the California climate law, A.B.32. (Source: E&E PM, Mercury News.)

Ocean acidity from greenhouse gases speeding up much faster than expected

(Photo of California coast from Flickr and photographer Alykat/Alyson Hurt.)

News Update 3: Greenhouse gas emissions have caused surface water in the ocean off the West Coast to acidify far faster than anticipated, according to a new study published in Science. Some areas have reached acidity levels not expected until 50-100 years from now. The oceans have absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere in the past 150 years, and acidity has grown 30%, researchers said. This could damage shellfish, corals and ultimately be disastrous for fish. While much of climate change involves warming temperatures, ocean acidity is another direct result of greenhouse gases, just as warming is. (Source: E&E News PM)

Massive new study links global warming to physical, biological changes on planet

(Photo of Alps from Flickr and Philippe Tarboureich.)

News Update: An international team of scientists has affirmed and expanded on last year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report by linking human activity and rising temperatures to physical and biological changes observed on Earth over the past 30 years. “The human footprint on the planet is clear,” said one of the authors, Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The study, published in Nature, matched changes like melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, warming lakes and rivers, longer growing seasons, earlier migration and breeding of birds, movement of heat-intolerant species up mountains, and changes in fish communities. They point to a few specifics, by continent: 89 flower species blooming earlier in Europe, melting glaciers in the Alps and in Patagonia, changes in the freeze depth of permafrost in Russia, and a 50% decline in the Emperor penguin on the Antarctic peninsula. Temperature was far more a factor than land use, pollution and population, according to the 30,000 data sets studied. In a second study published in Nature, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was found to be 28% higher than at any time in 800,000 years, according to gas bubbles in ice in Antarctic -- and methane was 124% higher. Both add carbon to the atmosphere. (Sources: E&E News PM, The Daily Green, Planet Ark.)

Methane, a greenhouse gas, rises ‘sharply’ for the first time in a decade; CO2 is up too

(Photo of Arctic marshes and tundra from Flickr and photographer Royal Olive/G. Oliviera)

News Update: Methane in the atmosphere rose last year for the first time since 1998, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which monitors such things. Methane is a concern because it’s 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas, though there’s much less of it in the atmosphere. The increase last year was 27 million tons. NOAA speculated that it’s probably coming from the economic boom in Asia and from wetlands uncovered by melting ice in the Arctic and also in the tropics. The main worry about methane is that thawing permafrost in the Arctic will release huge amounts of it. NOAA also announced that CO2 rose 2.4 parts per million last year, to 385 ppm. That compares with 280 until the mid-19th century. A safe level is between 350-450 ppm, depending on who you ask. In the ’60s the annual increase was 1 ppm, in the ‘80s 1.5 ppm, and since 2000 about 2 ppm each year. So last year’s jump may show it’s going to another level. CO2, we know, comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. For more, and a chart of recent annual CO2 growth, see Science Daily.)

North Atlantic absorbing only half the CO2 it did in the ‘90s, spurring global warming fears

(Photo of Atlantic Ocean from Flickr and Desi Zavatta Musolino)

News Update: The North Atlantic Ocean, one of the world’s major carbon sinks, is absorbing less carbon dioxide, a project funded by the European Union revealed last week. Three years of research show the ocean is sopping up only half as much CO2 as it did in the last decade. The amount fluctuates, however, so it’s hard to be sure to what extent the trend will continue. Oceans normally soak up about one-quarter of the carbon emissions released into the air, so a sharp decline would accelerate GHG in the atmosphere and global warming. Scientists speculate whether the cause is carbon over-saturation or shifting weather patterns. Whatever the cause, they said we can solve the problem by reducing GHG emissions 75%. “We must act now,” said project leader Christoph Heinze. (Source: PlanetArk.)

Low Carbon Diet book can help individuals join in fight against global warming

Weekly Angst: You know how hard it is to lose 5 or 10 pounds. How would you like to lose 2 1/2 tons? That’s the minimum amount we American energy hogs can lose in 30 days, with help from the Low Carbon Diet Book, to start doing our part to stop global warming.

The average American household is responsible for releasing 55,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Germans emit only half that amount (27000 lbs.) and Swedes just half that amount (13,000 lbs.), according to the book, written by David Gershon and published by the Empowerment Institute. In many U.S. communities, 85% of carbon emissions come from residences, so together we really can make a difference.

In fact, it’s going to be essential for Americans to cut their personal energy use, so why not start now? It can be contagious.

Support group
This diet offers support, like Weight Watchers, where 6-8 or more dieters can lose together and be accountable to one another.

It’s pretty easy. The workbook tells you how many pounds of CO2 you can lose for each of many actions. Then you can choose and check off what you’ve lost.

One ton (2,000 lbs.) can be lost, for example, by:
* replacing 4 light bulbs with CFLs (condensed fluorescents) – 600 lbs.
* washing your clothes in warm or cold water instead of hot – 600 lbs.
* reducing use of your dishwasher by 1 time a week by loading it up more – 175 lbs.
* turning your thermostat down 2 degrees in winter and up 2 degrees in summer – 500 lbs.
* installing one low-flow shower head – 250 lbs.

Of course if you are reading this blog you may already be doing all these things. The book has many other actions you can take, like timing your showers to keep them under 5 minutes, unplugging electronics when they’re not in use, and eating one less meal of meat a week .

Giant steps
And if you’ve already been really good about taking all the easy steps, you can try some of these larger ones:
• Call your electric company and say you want to buy only green power. Many of them can accommodate you.
• Get an energy audit from your utility company to see where you can save and set up a 3-year plan to invest in energy-efficient appliances, new windows and improved insulation. (If your refrigerator is 10 years old, you can save 500 lbs. a year by getting a new one.)

Spread the word
Or you can get your workplace, your community or club or organization to join the cause. The Empowerment Institute says it has helped more than 250,000 people reduce their carbon footprint by 25%.

The Institute trains Low Carbon Diet leaders to facilitate small groups, or eco-teams, which meet in “cafes” 4 times over 4-6 weeks. You can sign up for the next free online training session on May 1, at 9 p.m. EST, and then start leading your own groups.

In Chicago, the Nuclear Energy Information Service is training leaders to run small groups, with a goal of 250,000 households by Dec. 31. The next training meeting they’ve scheduled is this Tuesday, April 8, at 3411 W. Diversey, #19, from 6:30-9 p.m. RSVP to neis@neis.org. I know leaders who are planning cafes in the Hyde Park and Rogers Park neighborhoods, and there are probably others in Chicago, as elsewhere around the country.

To buy the book and learn more about how you can participate, go to the Empowerment Institute Web site. Wherever you are, you can be part of the solution.


One household tip from The Daily Green is to avoid buying plastic shower curtains or liners – for a number of environmental and health reasons.

Tar sands oil disaster for planet

A top Canadian official has asked the U.S. to go slow in plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What’s THAT about?

It’s about the Alberta tar sands, and the desire to keep us buying their synthetic oil made by a filthy, messy process that:
• destroys thousands of miles of pristine forests and wetlands
• releases 3 times the carbon dioxide into the air as conventional oil
• digs up 2-4 tons of earth to produce each barrel of oil
• burns enough natural gas each day to heat a million homes
• takes 3 barrels of water from the shrinking Athabasca River for each barrel of oil
• generates 2 barrels of toxic waste for each barrel of oil, stored in holding lagoons so big they can be seen from space
• leaves the land spoiled instead of reclaiming it
• smells like rotten eggs.

Matthew Simmons, author of “Twilight in the Desert” calls the process “atrocious.” Al Gore says it’s “truly nuts.”

The tars sands are Canada’s fastest growing GHG emissions source and one reason it’s not meeting its Kyoto targets.

Show me the money
Why would anyone make such a mess to produce oil? Money, that’s why. Tar sands became economically viable in 2003. Investors are piling on ($52 billion with much more expected), and the Canadian government stands to make $51 billion in taxes by 2020, while Alberta province will get $44 billion. Not surprising they haven’t done an impact assessment.

And we’re the enabler because we’re buying almost all their exports, to the tune of $73 billion a year. Why? To reduce our reliance on Middle East oil. Canada is now our biggest supplier, at 16% of our total. They want to sell us much more, and together the countries plan to increase production 5-fold.

To make matters worse, refiners here at home are trying to expand to refine the stuff and build pipelines to bring it in. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have fought permits in several states, including Ill., Ind. (remember the row with Chicago over the Whiting plant?), Michigan, Ohio and Wis.

The basics
Tars sands, re-branded “oil sands” by the industry, is also found in Venezuela. About 20% is near the surface and mined in open pits by giant equipment. The remainder is far underground and recovered by injecting steam into the earth to melt the tar (or bitumen) so it’s thin enough to pump up. Then impurities are removed in an energy-intensive process. The Canadian government wants to replace the natural gas that powers the operation with 20 nuclear reactors.

Alberta is sitting on the second largest reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. It is producing 1.25 million barrels a day from its tar sands, an amount expected to triple by 2016. China, another likely market, has invested in two companies there.

But tars sands are not the only source of “unconventional” or synthetic oil. Oil shale and coal-to-liquid are other means to make a dirtier form of oil that produces more GHG and could tear up OUR landscape.

Why even mess with this stuff, when there are cleaner forms of energy like wind, solar, geothermal and cellulosic ethanol. We should be investing in those, as well as cutting waste and driving electric cars. But we’d better get busy. Because tar sands are clearly on a tear.

Note: "Highway to Hell" is a compelling account of work at the large Ft. McMurray tar sands in northern Alberta in OnEarth magazine online.
For more on tar sands, see Climate Progress

(Sources: Washington Post, OnEarth, PlanetArk, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Watch Institute, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Tar Sands Watch/Cleveland Plain Dealer and Oil Sands Truth)

(Photo of the Alberta tar sands courtesy of Flickr and photographer Gord McKenna)