Hurricane!

Waste Management is creating electricity from rotting garbage at 100 of its landfills, and plans more such projects. This is a double win, as the methane gas produced by the garbage has a 21 times worse greenhouse gas effect than carbon dioxide. But now it can be captured to create energy rather than being emitted into the atmosphere.

’m using this as an example of the kind of armchair analysis I would love to see more consumers and voters do on their own when faced with any buying or voting decision that has significant energy and/or environmental implications. Does this candidate’s claim make sense? How much money can I save by adjusting my thermostat a couple of degree or car pooling? How much CO2 can I avoid by signing up for 100% green electricity?

The big question is where do you draw the line and say that this company is carbon neutral/negative and this one is not when they all rely heavily on carbon positive support?

Of course, no one knows what’ll happen to the suburbs we have now. Will they become the slums of the future? At least one expert in the film predicts a scarier scenario where we may not even have time to build new ‘hoods with new urbanist design principles; we may just need to salvage what we have left in the face of global climate change.

Yet another hot button topic these days is climate change and the environment. On the surface, you wouldn't think that this should be a conservative vs. liberal topic. After all, climate change is either happening or it isn't. And yet this is an issue that divides conservatives from liberals as much as any other.

Use GoLoco to make carpooling a whole lot easier, and do your part to reduce CO2 emissions and lessen traffic congestion.

Installation artist Spencer Tunick and Greenpeace Switzerland present a living sculpture: hundreds of naked people symbolise the vulnerability of the glaciers under climate change.

However, China is preparing for climate change induced disasters and plans 24 hour response with food and water for any emergency. Too bad the US isn’t doing the same.

Wyse announced its EarthSmart Computing Initiative, promoting thin clients as a way of reducing environmental impact. Every 10 PCs replaced by thin clients and appropriate server infrastructure can reduce CO2 emissions by one ton per year.

Smart Car, a car that offers maximum comfort, agility, safety, ecology and driving fun. A pioneering vehicle concept that is one of the best with its low CO2 emission figures.

And so it goes with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Let me suggest a moderately long article by Freeman Dyson as an intro to the kind of thinking that I once thought of as typical of the scientific mind engaging in speculation but which–alas!–is little seen in such areas as a discussion of AGW.

Something to ponder tonight - driving a car might be better for the planet in regards to “Global Warming” than walking. From the Times of London.

Are Live Earth’s ambitious really so low? Where is the fire, and the anger, and the leadership? The theory is that these bite sized simple first steps encourage and empower further actions. All the evidence – and there is plenty of it- is that this will not work. No mass movement or widespread social change has ever been inspired by napkins. It is mendacious to suggest that the low carbon economy can be created by these tiny measures. And dangerous too, because it encourages people to undervalue the seriousness of the issue or to adopt minimal tokenistic behaviours.

Dingell’s proposals are a good first step, but I, and many others in the 15th district, would be happier if they more closely approximated Henry Waxman’s proposed Safe Climate Act, which has been praised by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the League of Conservation Voters, and several other groups that seem to comprehend the serious threat of global warming. The truth of the matter is that we don’t have time for a lot of steps. We need this first one to be significant…

The article points out the fact that not only is this a great way to save money, but it also helps to decrease the power demand and the possibility of blackouts. Another benefit of the ice cooling system is its ecological impact. According to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, using the system means less pollution: it’s “equal to taking 223 cars off the streets or planting 1.9 million acres of trees to absorb carbon dioxide from electrical use for a year.”

This is mighty powerful stuff, but to me, this does not sound like a man who is considering a run for the presidency. If Gore were running, he would have avoided advocating a 90 percent reduction in the US's CO2 emissions, he would not have attempted to shoulder the burden of CO2 reduction on developed countries, and he would have avoided anything the Right could label (predictably) as "alarmist."

There’s gold in them rising sea-levels, apparently. Texas law firms — dare we call it double-dipping if they are also working for the energy industry that owns the mess? — are building out climate change practice groups.

Found a news article talking about Google giving grants 'to drive toward a plug-in revolution'. They gave a total of $1,000,000. They are also converting their fleet over to plug in hybrids and have a website that compares two Toyota Prius Hybrids Vs two that have been converted to plug in hybrids. You can compare them here. You can drill down to the vehicle and the individual trip. Quite cool and it should nicely demonstrate the savings both in money and in CO2.

The final thing I would mention is your point about increasing carbon footprint. I’m very sorry, Dad, but you are not the right person to criticize me about this. Sure I increase my carbon footprint by skydiving, but if you want to criticize me for that, then you should also criticize me for flying to Australia and Malaysia (one round trip from Boston to Sydney releases as much CO2 as driving a car for a couple of years.) You should also consider that

At last some thorough analysis on how Peak Oil links in with global warming - go here for the entry-site (HT Energy Bulletin).

John Doerr shares his fears about our current direction with respect to climate change.

The best and most natural solution to global warming has always been the idea of "sequestration" — storing carbon where it can’t do harm, vs. in the atmosphere. And that’s been going on naturally for a billion years before we lit our first camp fire. Plants take water and CO2 from the environment and use sunlight to create the sugars we depend on. They later burn those sugars (just as we do) for energy, putting some of that same carbon back into the air.

Our original thoughts proved to be correct: If we were to have a sustained growth of trees in the future for lumber and firewood and animal habitat then we had to take personal responsibility for the growth of the forest. It was up to us. Our lives are built in and sustained in much the same way. Stopping global warming and climate change has to be handled in much the same way. If we wait for governments to make changes we are not long for this planet... better to take the responsibility for your own actions.

New analysis of the latest ExxonMobil funding reports reveals that in spite of recent public statements to the contrary, the company continues to bankroll organizations that misrepresent the science and urgency of global warming.

Climate projections show that the Maldives could disappear by the end of the century as a result of rising sea levels because of global warming.

Zerofootprint.net is a go green site dedicated to lowering the carbon footprint of individuals all over the world. They offer a wide range of ways to help visitors to implement their goals for going green. But what we found the most interesting was the “Zerofootprint Carbon Calculator“, which is a cool tool in determining how many tonnes of carbon you produce each year.

We were talking about global warming and the impacts of global warming 25 years ago but nobody was listening. 15 years ago they said we were full of it, 10 years ago we were all a bunch of commies who were trying to stop world corporations from making money. Nobody really listened and all of a sudden everybody’s like, ‘my god! What’s happening here!? Why didn’t somebody tell us about this!?

I saw Stephen Lewis speak and David Suzuki speak, and they both highly recommended the same book: Heat, by George Monbiot. So I read it, and it's changed how I look at the solution to climate change.

I posted earlier about an Australian website hosting company going carbon neutral. I just read that Yahoo intends to do so as well this year.

The Supreme Court, the finest judicial minds in the nation, supposedly, have demanded the EPA supply them with a negative proof. Negative proof, of course, is a logical fallacy. In this case, the EPA is being asked to prove that it is impossible that ’greenhouse gasses’ contribute to climate change. Since proving something is impossible is, well, impossible, that makes it fairly difficult.

But here’s the thing. Your house consumes a whole lot more energy and produces a whole lot more CO2 each year than even driving a hummer to work every day. More energy is consumed each day by homes than by shops, offices or other buildings such as schools or hospitals.

That to me is the most damaging myth. The reason I believe that is that while we are ignoring global warming other countries are recognizing the problems, coming up with solutions and making the money.

MIT also reports that neither China nor India, two countries which are agressively pushing new coal-fired powered plants, are likely to take any actions without the United States moving to curtain carbon emissions first. Eventually, carbon capture from coal burning will be crucial for both China and India if climate change is to be addressed.

Misconception 3 Global warming is linked to ozone depletion: This is only tangentally true. While they are both caused by pollution, they are caused by different types of pollution. Ozone depletion is mainly caused by CFC production and other reactive chemicals, whereas global warming is caused by heat trapping gasses such as CO2 and CH4 (carbon dioxide and methane for the chemically challenged).

Listening to some program about how global warming doesn’t exist. I’m not sure whether I care really - surely it can’t be wise to continue the way we are going using everything up, whether we are making the world warmer or not? So glad that I have Tim to talk to - I just bumbled my way through a sentence that was meant to mean “just because the climate is always changing doesn’t mean we aren’t having an effect”. Hm, not sure that makes much more sense written down. I don’t seem to be overly coherent tonight.

Of course the argument regarding “global warming” is settled. So what is the National Geographic doing printing information which could lead some of the eco-religious faithful away from the flock? Perhaps they have not yet gotten Al Gore’s memo to cease further discussion of reasons other than human industrial activity to account for global warming.

It has been reported that Gore is putting in solar panels at his mansion and other such greening has been going on, but let’s be honest–Gore has been making this argument for more than 20 years (Barnett says he’s been making it for 6 years. If you count Earth in the Balance as well as previous presentations he’s made, you’ll find it is much more than 6). If he’s known about global warming and the harm to the environment from CO2 and from greenhouse gases, one has to wonder why he didn’t put more effort into greening his own life sooner.

AP is boasting about how global warming and El Niño made for the warmest January ever last month.

I don’t believe the world is spiraling towards a cataclysmic end in the next hundred years as Al Gore would believe. I think the Doomsday Vault (a vault that contains every seed to every plant known to man), while a good idea, is just another element adding to the hysteria that is “global warming”. I am not a meteorologist or a climate expert, but after reviewing many of the editorials and television specials produced by the opposing sides of the debate, I am under the firm belief that the Earth is an ever changing ecosystem and that many scientists are basing their “findings” on the short-term rather than the long-term.

The Wall Street Journal reports that new research into melting glaciers and the Antarctic ice cap came to late to make it into the IPCC report. According to the Journal (subscrition required):

2. It takes 10 trees to process the CO2 that a human being produces, if you haven’t planted a tree you’re using some other person’s trees. So go plant a tree.

From the nation that called its anti-ballistic weapon system, “Star Wars”, comes a predictable response to global warming: reflective dust & giant space mirrors.

The additional coal plants would add 30,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, over 115 million tons of carbon dioxide, and nearly 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury each year, according to the Texas Cities for Clean Air Coalition.

Anyway, his email got me thinking. Planes are great for travel but horrible for the environment. Our love affair with intercontinental flights is having a massive impact on the environment and global warming. We no longer go 4 hours up the road for the weekend. Instead, we go to another country and occasionally another continent. The UK long weekend is not spent in Bath or Edinburgh anymore. It's spent in France or Spain. A quick plane trip to Mexico from just about any US city is almost as easy as drive down the coast - our carbon footprints (the measure we have on the environment by carbon dioxide) are getting bigger and bigger.

In a Human Events Online article, Walter Williams exposes the agenda of the global warming liars:

We also talked last night about how focusing on the enormity of the problem is often not helpful. I think I am generally pessimistic about the chances of our society curbing our carbon dioxide emissions in time. I think we can save the planet, but I think that it’s unlikely that we will do so before natural disasters kill millions of people. However, I hope to keep the mood of my blog entries more optimistic because I don’t think it’s quite time to throw in the towel.

You can still have your CD’s, and be carbon-neutral if you buy used copies. Although not as effective as buying digital music, it effectively halves the resource use by allowing at least 2 people to enjoy, or discard the physical manifestation of the record instead of the usual one. It also helps fuel a cottage industry for retired sound guys and radio dj’s.

To demonstrate that climate change is happening, some Vermonters went inner tubing in a river in January. As one who has spent considerable time in Vermont during the winter, I can say this is beyond unusual.

The business world is gearing up to ‘go green’. Although still being beaten into shape, California’s September ruling to engage in a mandatory carbon cap, amongst other U.S. movements, is causing many businesses to rethink their environmental position and get ready to join the expected new carbon economy.

Climate change, he says repeatedly and in a number of different ways, is the greatest moral issue of our day. For Gore and producers Laurie David and company, Sin & Evil = Global Warming & Bad Policies. Anyone who denies this is morally depraved.

And so when I first read Elizabeth Kolbert’s series of articles on climate change in the “New Yorker” in 2005 I was captivated. Field Notes on a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change is a compilation and expansion of those articles. It is the only climate book I have ever been inspired to buy — all the others seemed to rehash things I knew already, but there was something about the way Kolbert writes on climate — at once scientifically compelling and personal. And frightening. Of the many hundreds of articles I have read about climate change, Kolbert’s are the best.

Climate change is real, it’s accepted as a fact by a the majority of climate scientists.

It is now being thought that forest fires are not all bad. Some new research indicates that forest fires may actually reduce global warming. Previously, it was thought that forest fires would increase global warming because they released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

By 2015 almost all countries have stablised their emissions, but it is the introduction of the parallel carbon economy that year that begins rapid change. Everyone is allocated carbon currency giving them the right to a certain level of emissions and purchases of carbon-causing products and services require both money and carbon credits. The market in carbon credits explodes and vast fortunes are made as economists grapple to understand the dynamics involved.

Micro CHP’s are also good in an environmentally friendly manner. They reduce the amount of electricity which needs to be generated by power stations, which are quite wasteful still. They also reduce the transportation cost required, although the National Grid will still need to be in place, so this is negligible. But the big saving would come if enough people had Micro CHP boilers in their homes - it’s estimated that 13 million Micro CHP’s would produce the same amount of electricity as Britain’s nuclear power stations - so these could then be closed down. Micro CHP’s also help to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions by an average of 20% per household. Although gas would be required to power these beauties, their efficiency would reduce gas usage, and there is a hydrogen fuel cell version currently available which could finally make it possible for you to have a self sufficient house which might not even have to have any external power supplies - although this is a little way off in the future.

Speaking on An Inconvenient Truth we finally got around to seeing it on Sunday afternoon. If you have not seen it do so. Personally I found it a great movie and I think Al Gore put together a great presentation that should appeal to a vast majority of people. The movie gets you thinking, “what am I personally doing to help the environment?” There also a blog, and a great ad on You Tube:-

Stern’s report is seen as the original major stab to quantify the fiscal cost of climate change — and the primary chief gift to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than a scientist.

The Stern Review published today in the UK is a must read for anyone with a future. For mere mortals and all those climate change deniers who have been sooo quiet since Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth came out, the Summary of Conclusions might be more than enough reading on the subject. It is a primer and call to arms for all of humanity to get serious or pay a deadly price - in our lifetimes. It still pays homage to the god of perpetual growth, but recognises that the god of growth is dead unless we do something about it. Now.

The world’s leading science journals report that glaciers are melting ten times faster than previously thought, that atmospheric greenhouse gases have reached levels not seen for millions of years, and that species are vanishing as a result of climate change. They also report of extreme weather events, long-term droughts, and rising sea levels.

For the past five years I have been concerned about the impact of global warming on the planet in general and Australia in particular. 1 have made numerous speeches in the Parliament and in the broader community on the need for urgent action to address this issue. Throughout this period I have been increasingly frustrated by the misinformation spread by “climate change sceptics”, who have sought to undermine the case for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by peddling pretty much any line they could think of - that global warming was unproven, that it might not be man-made, that it might be good for us etc. None of these things is

Yup. That Carbon Dioxide. That’s the gas that traps the Earth’s heat and causes this Global Warming mess.

More than any other energy, fossil fuels (which account for around 75% of the world's electricity and 90% of the world's total energy including cars) are the single greatest contributor to global warming. 85% of the 23 billion tons of CO2 poured into the environment are from fossil fuels.

Before I settled in on the old movie channel, I caught a bit of the coverage of todays NDP convention on CPAC. Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, delivered a speach to the convention delegates about climate change in general and Canada’s failure to commit to the Kyoto Protocol emission targets in specific. I can’t fathom the audacity of the Conservative Party to try and pull that shit on the Canadian public and expect to get away with it. There is no doubt a very strong western base of support for dismantling these international agreements but I just can’t see Upper Canada and Maritime support forthcoming.

On July 2, MIT professor of atmospheric science, Richard Lindzen, published an opinion in The Wall Street Journal stating, among other things, that there is no consensus in the scientific community about global climate change. His opinion, “Don’t Believe the Hype: Al Gore is wrong. There’s no ‘consensus’ on global warming,” can be read here.

Crutzen emphasises that the best way of averting global climate disaster is for countries to cut back significantly on their emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide produced by burning oil, gas and coal. But in the absence of such measures, and with the average global temperature expected to rise more than 3C this century, there may soon come a time when more extreme measures have to be considered.

In the meantime, given the current government’s talk of pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, I find it disconcerting that this (cached) Government of Canada Climate Change web site (where “you can learn about the science, impacts and adaptation to climate change…”) is “unavailable”. hmmm…

Britain’s record high temperature set in July 1911 has been broken for a second time. Other parts of Europe sizzled, too, but Britain is a country particularly ill-equipped for its infrequent brushes with sweltering temperatures.

It was not that hot. there was still ice as one would imagine. But it is, thanks to climate change, a lot warmer than it has been since well before the last Ice Age. The permafrost is melting. We could see great collapses of coastal shoreline. Erosion, not due to wave action, but due to the changing climate and permafrost collapse. On Herschell Island, a Yukon Territorial Park, scientists from all around the world come to study the obvious effects of our fossil fuel addiction. On our brief stop at this lonely outpost and former whaling station in the Beaufort Sea, we ran into permafrost scientists from the Potsdam Institute in Germany and the Northern Studies Department at Carleton. They come to measure the rate of warming and the rate of permafrost collapse.

So what is mainly to blame for the problem with the coral? Reef scientists tell us it is global warming. Reefs all round the world are struggling. They cannot cope with the stress of greenhouse gases from rich nations far away. Combating greenhouse gas emissions by installing new technology, is, Western nations tell us, a costly and controversial business. But while the West hesitates over the investment, scientists say the real costs of climate change are being felt in places like San Pedro.

Anyone who disputes Global Warming is called a “spinner.” Any information calling Global Warming into doubt is “disinformation” even if it’s simply a matter of differing opinions. Honestly, I’d much rather hang with the skeptics than with people like this. I wonder what they’d say about Michael Crichton?

What struck me as the trip was winding down, was how easy it is to forget about global climate change, greenhouse gas, etc. Even though I was catching up on some of my environmental reading, I was spending most of every day out in beautiful environs that hadn’t changed in the decades I’d been visiting them. Skies were blue, water was as clean as I could remember, trash and litter have mostly been reduced to things I remember growing up.

If you drive a private vehicle into the core areas of London, you must pay a daily congestion charge that starts at 8 pounds and goes up, based on carbon dioxide emission levels. This is a daily charge, in effect, a fee for every commute into the city.

American flex-fuel wonders include the 2006 Chevy Tahoe 1500, for which greenhouse gas emissions running on pure gasoline weigh in at 11.0 tons of CO2. E85 ethanol improves (ha!) that to a measly 9.4 tons (for comparison: a conventionally fueled Honda Civic does 5.5 tons and a Prius does 3.4 tons). (mpg and CO2 figures from www.fueleconomy.gov)

If you watch the national news, you’ve probably noticed that wildfires have become an increasing problem for the U.S., particularly in the Southwest, but also here in Texas. And if you’re like me, you probably thought it was a consequence of misguided past policies of suppressing fire at any cost, thus letting combustible materials build up. After all, that’s what everyone from the environmentalists to the Bush Administration has been saying, right?

We need to restructure our economy for the 21st Century, part of that is shifting from a fossil fuel economy — that is causing terrible environmental damage to our water (including the Chesapeake) and air, but most significantly to the climate change that will cause chaotic weather. We need to move quickly on a variety of fronts to increase efficiency and use technology that minimizes fossil fuels. This includes transportation, home, business and government buildings. For all of these areas we have solutions and applying them will actually grow the economy and create new businesses. If we do not act to manage this transition it will be forced upon us by crisis. We need urgent action in this area.

Thus — when Mr. Hotz tells us that scientists assert that “Last year was the worst wildfire season on record,” I have to ask, so what? Studying wildfires between 1970 and 2003 does not give us answers to global environmental issues. It certainly does not suggest a course of action for “protecting” our environment. Who can say that wildfires aren’t simply the natural order of things?

More scientists have weighed in on An Inconvenient Truth. The verdict? All good.

That doesn't mean that I don't think the movie is worthwhile. I certainly think it's wonderfully done. But in many ways it's like the religious debates we have on this site. The people that already have opinions on the matter aren't going to budget in response to anything said or done by the people on the other side.

It’s crazy to see them still bringing up this “hockey stick” argument again because this has long been laid to rest scientifically. (not necessarily politically) Even a National Academies Synthesis Report reafirms that the current warming trend is caused by human activity. The Real Climate web site summarizes it nicely.

Kimberly Clark, the makers of Kleenex and Scott Tissue, are “kleercutting” the last ancient forest of North America for products that we wipe our nose and toss in the trash. The Boreal Forest is rapidly disappearing as each day the size of Connecticut is wiped off the map and, Kimberly Clark purchases a little less than 15% of all of its wood from the Boreal Forest. To give you a sense of how much wood that is, 1 out of every 4 homes has Kimberly Clark products in it. Now all of these components are disturbing enough, however the tremendously scary factor lies in the soil. This forest is the largest carbon-sink in the world… this forest, is the largest carbon sink in the world. The preservation of the Boreal Forest is more than imperative in our fight against climate change.

What’s a country to do when they need to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the air in order to comply with the Kyoto Protocol?

I’m no expert - in fact I know very little about this space (I’ll know a little more by this evening) - but unless I’m mistaken, advancing aircraft and engine technology leading to less expensive (to buy and to run) and more reliable small aircraft are key facilitators for this emerging market. But having read the recent report in the Economist on the challenges that CO2 emissions might pose to the global commercial air travel business over the coming decades, I have to wonder if this might not be a key success factor in the medium to long term for air taxis.

Alright, no evidence supports the theory that CO2 is raising the earth's temperature.

The news was all so depressing. How come none of this gets out? Soaring temperatures and declining rainfalls caused by climate change are wiping two a billion dollars a year off Australia's wheat industry within 30 years, a study shows. Rice yields are also well-down since the Murray stopped flowing. (But at least we can have cheap T-shirts with the cotton we're growing.)

Most of us are likely to be too busy to actually to read the several hundred pages of analysis produced by the Commission (but if you can, start here). Here are some key passages concerning waste from their summary document The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy (page 7):

Gore has ignored dissenting opinions. He has implied that certain changes are the fault of human made greenhouse gasses — something that is according to Balling — completely false. He’s cherry picked data to make his case, and has overstated the extent of the threat.

There are several obvious problems with Balling's arguments.

Balling says that the film's claim about water rising 20 feet is inconsistent with measurements of 1.8mm rise per year over 8,000 years. But the rise of 20 feet is based on the volume of water Greenland's glacier would add to the oceans if the glaciers melted. Currently, Greenland's glaciers are melting more quickly than anticipated.

Balling says that "... the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming." While the local Kilmanjaro conditions may be due to declining precipitation, it doesn't seem logical to attribute measured melting of glaciers worldwide to declininng atmostpheric moisture. Is it possible that it stopped snowing at all the glaciers over the same time period?

The problem with Balling's arguments are that they focus on somewhat irrelevant details without looking at the basic physics. It's as if Balling is boiling water and saying that, because we can't predict when and where the bubbles will occur, the water must not be getting hotter.

Today I saw the new documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, at the Arclight theater. The film basically documents a slide show presentation that Al Gore has been giving to audiences all over the world since his 2000 presidential election loss. I’m sure there are a lot of “right wing” liberal hating republicans out there that would like to dismiss Mr. Gore’s message as political maneuvering. They’ll probably suggest that this is all an attempt by Gore to slowly ease his way back into the public eye to begin a campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president. If that turns out to be true, I think it would be a very very good thing. That said, what this movie is REALLY about is the message itself. Mr. Gore spends the majority of the 100 minute documentary detailing just exactly what we’ve managed to do to our planet in the last 40-50 years. His evidence is irrefutable. He answers every doubt about global warming that I’ve ever heard (”oh its a natural cycle”, “so its getting hotter, so what?” etc). This is all build up to his main point which is that we CAN still do something about this.

With the news that the ozone hole is recovering faster than expected it just goes to show how little we know about global climate change and that radical steps to “fix” things often are worse than just sitting back and watching things pan out. Don’t get me wrong though, I believe changing the environment in a negative way (CFCs, carbon levels in the atmosphere, pollution, etc.) are bad and harming us and the environment and we should steer clear of those as much as possible.

So why did I end up going? Because in my new role as VP of Eco Responsibility at Sun I was the official sponsor of the Bike to JavaOne initiative! We ended up saving about 8 tons of CO2, so it was a very cool event (check out my Sun blog for upcoming pics).

Just like all of nature’s creatures, plants show an adaptiveness to increased CO2 levels that indicate they do not simply absorb the extra. After taking in what they need, the stomata (mouths) on the leaves that take in air and moisture close, preventing the plant from throwing itself into disequilibrium. This disproves those who say that global warming and increased CO2 in our atmosphere will merely result in bigger and greener plants. See more at NASA’s Earth Observatory News.

But I want to briefly comment on Sims’ second major proposal: the creation of an Executive Office of Global Warming, that would coordinate the county’s response to climate change and advise the various departments in regards to the expected impact. For example, let’s say the county was planning to building a scenic shoreline road about 5 feet above sea level, but sea level is projected to rise 10 feet… well the Office might advise that the road be built a little further inland. Stuff like that.

ESA is considering using a LIDAR instrument to monitor the levels of CO2 within the atmosphere. The most effective wavelength to detect CO2 is at 2 µm due to its deep absorption signature at this wavelength.

Straw horse argument by the oil companies — coming to the defense of carbon dioxide, as a pre- emptive strike against a movie by Al Gore on the environment that will be released next week. Really, listen to these ads, it is surreal. Apparently environmentalists are attacking breathing and the oil companies have jumped to the defense. Way to skew the story guys…

The fact that “global warming” appears to be occuring on a number of planets in our solar system should probably give cause to those who have wedded themselves to the idea that such warming on Earth is entirely a product of human activity. Or perhaps the residents of Jupiter just need to cut their dependence on fossil fuels and stop driving those SUVs...

From the broad national standpoint, we should welcome high gasoline prices because it is in the national interest to reduce our consumption of gasoline, and high prices will do that, dramatically so in the long run when more substitution is possible. The burning of gasoline in vehicles creates pollution and emits carbon dioxide that contributes significantly to global warming; and curtailing driving in order to reduce the consumption of gasoline would alleviate traffic congestion. Furthermore, a large part of the world’s oil supply comes from nations such as Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia that are actually or potentially unstable, hostile to the United States, or both, and it would be prudent to reduce our dependence on such suppliers.

I have a feeling that the mandatory limits on carbon dioxide would have far less of a damaging effect on this nation's economy (an untrue statement in any case) than epidemics of tropical diseases laying waste to significant segments of the population. It's time for scientists from all fields of study to unanimously make public the dangers that lie ahead if we don't all make every effort possible to avert them. If public health threats are seventy years ahead of the predicted climate change curve, then at the very least we deserve to be made very aware of them.

I found a paper from the UK parliament which makes that about 3% of the average C02 emissions per person here - France emits less Co2 than us - because their electricity is mostly nuclear, so their Co2 saving will be less. US emits twice as much (4.6% of the worlds population contributes 23.8% of green house gasses) so they need all the savings they can find.

I've finally got round to reading a number of the many climate change-related books that have been published in recent months. These books seem to have caught the public imagination in ways that are different than in the past, and so it's worth examining how they do. The three I've read are; Eugene Linden's The Winds of Change, Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe and Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. The first two writers are journalists, while the third is a scientist by background, and while there is some overlap in contents all of them, they are clearly distinct works in quite different styles. I'll mostly stick to commenting on the science though...

The nexus of prediction markets and microlending and mobile technologies and climate change is one I find fascinating and offers great potential for improving the lives of millions and millions of people across the globe.

This work further illustrates why a focus on the radiative effect of CO2 as the dominant human climate forcing is so inadequate.

A little backstory: at the end of the twentieth century, global warming caused enormous flooding issues in Japan, and the government responding by creating "labor" construction forces to rebuild and protect. Eventually, these Labors were also used for police and other forces, yielding the quasi-post-apocalyptic, futuristic series we have here. In this volume, Noa and Kanuka discover a subterranean city and are stuck there, alone and without the ability to summon backup. What's more, they are not, of course, alone down there, and the prehistoric dragon creature down there with them is hungry, very hungry.

If there is a global warming problem that can be corrected then Al Gore isn’t helping things with this sort of exaggeration done as entertainment. Just his stiff voice-over alone is enough to make people not take it seriously. And some of the assertions are very radical. What the public needs are “the facts.”

There’s a film to be released on May 24 in the U.S. called “An Inconvenient Truth” (watch the movie trailer) that is a reality check we need to stop ignoring.

If you could effect one major policy change in the governing of your country, what would it be? > Make combating global warming the centre of all policy: getting us off our dependency on cars, switching to solar and other sustainable energies. (One minor change I'd make is to have Australia be a republic and get the Queen of England off our money.)

I just filled out a form over at Wired that estimates your CO2 emissions based on a number of factors. My total: 27,312 pounds of CO2 each year. Probably more though because our local power plant uses coal.

Speaking of environmental issues tomorrow is Earthday. The main focus this year is tackling climate change and the whole global warming thing, something that is quite an emotive issue (check out what happened when Nick wrote about some information he found about global warming having stabilised/stopped since 1998 (this was his subsequent response.

On a slightly more serious note. If you've never read Michael Chrichton's refutation of the global warming phenomenon it's here. I find his analysis compelling and I've yet to hear any refutation that didn't begin with some variant of "...but he's just a Bushbot" or "I think he's an asshole" or even "you listen to that guy? he's just a writer."

Here is my solution. Oil is a natural resource that should be in control of the people that live in that area. Who are these fuckers to get filthy rich off a natural resource that should be all of ours to share? The majority of Americans overwhelmingly support finding an alternative to oil and with us in control of the industry, there would be no more suppressing of global warming reports, no more big money discouraging law makers to get tough on MPG regulations. It might hurt in the short-term, but it will pay off in the long-term. We aren't afraid to sacrifice, seriously, the majority of Americans realize this. You have to ask yourself, should something that is hurting the world in so many ways be in control of a corporation who, by definition, are looking out for stockholders, and stockholders only? Call it socialism, or whatever the fuck you want, but it sounds like common sense to me.

When I used Google search I saw that the Google logo was wearing a solar panel roof. Knowing that the two founders are investors into a solar cell startup, I had the suspicion this could have to do something with that. But when clicking on it another site was revealed: The Earth Day Network starts a 3 year campaign today. They mention a Top 10 list of the things we should do to contribute to slowing the climate change.

Rohrabacher: I caught your commentary last week, and how global warming is a fact and there's no scientific evidence to be against it. I just brought you a little present today, Bill. (It's not a subpoena, is it?) It's just a note that contains the names of 12 pre-eminent scientists who believe man-caused global warming, and also suggests there are 2600 scientists who are pre-eminent in their fields who are skeptical of the global warming theory./p>

Is it just me or do you guys and gals think that climate issues are about to mainstream? I’d say we’re approaching talking critical mass & tipping point. Here are five articles of evidence that I would like to lay before the jury - you.

Seed Magazine gives us a graphical look at the state of the planet. Mostly related to climate change but, hey! this is what is all about.

Friedman says that at many schools, clean energy is a “hobby, not a crusade.” Well, I’m not about to try to start a crusade, because the last few didn’t turn out so great. And I’d prefer to draw for inspiration on historical events like students sitting-in for civil rights. But I’m all in favor of a clean energy movement. And just as Friedman is calling for, we’re building one. Every school where clean energy is just a hobby needs instead a rip-roaring movement of students to call for clean energy on campus, in their communities, from their Governors and from their members of Congress. I can’t put the reasons why better than Friedman did: “today’s students will be profoundly affected by climate change, the coming energy wars and the rising danger of petro-authoritarian states.”

As such Forty Signs of Rain reads more like a mainstream novel than SF. The science is there and a key part of the story—we’re dealing with global climate change, after all—but what really moves the story along are the actions and interactions of the main characters.

I think I agree with Moore, Nick Kristof of the NY Times and other prominent "liberals" who have come forward in support of nuclear energy. Terrorism be damned -- global climate change is clearly the biggest threat to human species. Whether humans are behind climate change is really a non-issue. Maybe it's a result of industrialization or maybe it's simply a natural cycle. When the frozen tundra at the poles has melted and the coastal low-lying areas of every nation on Earth are underwater, culpability will be kind of a moot point.

Despite Leaker's (aka Smirk) insistence that global warming hasn't been proved yet, that we have to wait until all the evidence is in, others seem to be moving on without him. Al Gore recently addressed a group of corporate leaders and investors on the topic, and they were willing to listen. Gore stated that we have to start thinking of subjects like global warming and the environment as moral issues, not as political issues. Amen.

Bill Clinton said in London yesterday (in a speech at the Smith Institute) that while terrorism could kill large numbers of people, it could never wipe out a civilisation, but that global warming could.

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure- ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

I've known about global warming and CO2 emissions for some time. I used to read Discover magazine religiously, and every other issue had something about global warming. It's a highly debated topic, but only in the economic realm. In the scientific realm, there is simply no debate. It is an accepted truth.

February witnessed the first anniversary of the the Kyoto Protocols. In short, Kyoto is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Signers to Kyoto commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases with an eye towards “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” In short, Kyoto aims as stopping humanity from destroying the planet through our industrialized, mechanized way of living which releases harmful gases into the environment.

Hydrogen, which is stored in a tank aboard the train, is supplied to the fuel cells, where it reacts with oxygen to produce electricity. Unused electricity and electricity generated during braking is stored in a secondary battery, which is used as an auxiliary power source. In addition to being energy-efficient, hydrogen fuel cells emit no carbon dioxide (a contributor to global warming), only water.

But did you also know that algae can be used to reduce carbon emissions from mega-factories? And, did you know that the oil from this algae could then be used to run your car? Did you know that this technology is here and is in use? It is and it’s working:

After the harsh winter now several parts of Germany once again are facing floods. This is becoming a regular thing now since 2000 and has hardly happened before.

The Times has reviewed the book twice recently, once in the Arts section, and again in the Sunday book section, alongside a review of Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth, whose first chapter is also available online.

So if we’d signed onto the Kyoto Protocol and had started messing with our economies to reduce CO2 emissions, how stupid would we feel about now as we learn that the Sun is probably to blame for rising temperatures? Pretty darn stupid – and about $500 billion poorer. Thank you, President Bush for bucking the “consensus.”

60 Minutes had an eye-opening segment on the Global Warming situation.

Climate change is changing the way of life in the Arctic Circle.

Normally I don’t post articles without pictures, but this one just floored me. This little blurb from 53 years ago perfectly sums up the greenhouse effect and global warming.

I have written repeatedly of the keen interest that the American government and the corporations who sponsor our politicians have in silencing scientific facts and opinion on climate change. For one obvious reason: it will be enormously costly to implement the immediate changes so desperately needed to reduce the amount of pollution our current way of life is pumping into the Earth’s atmosphere. And, given that:

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

Warmer oceans mean more, and stronger, storms. Japan saw 10 typhoons last year - the previous record had been 7. For the first time, we saw a hurricane in the South Atlantic, as well as a record hurricane season. Storms are stronger and wetter - outside the bounds of history - including downpours like the one that flooded Mumbai recently.

The downside is knowing that government agents are attacking free speech. I don't make a thin dime off of this blog, not one penny, I don't even rattle a cup here, begging for money like many sites do, so there was zero reason for NOAA to attack this little blog, it wasn't like I was ripping them off, nay, I asked everyone to visit the various NOAA sites---they used to be very informative but now they ain't, a lot of the important information is...er...MISSING!

There is some controversy over whether or not 2005 was actually the warmest year. Data from groups besides NASA did not take into account the Arctic regions, which were warmer this year than in previous years, bumping 2005 into the lead. Climate change has also been to blame for the ridiculous amount of activity this hurricane season, with a total of 27 tropical storms.

Without doubting that God can sometimes use the fury of his creation to judge wicked persons, it is a precarious theology that sees the wrath of God in every major instance of the fury of nature, especially when we are talking about an indescrimant fury like hurricane Katrina. We might do better to blame ourselves for global warming, because it is human beings who have messed up the ozone, which in turn raises the temperature of the ocean, and melts the polar caps, and engenders many more hurricanes, even before hurricane season, in the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. It is humankind that has despoiled our environment, not God. And in any case, the Bible has something else to say about such things, whether we are talking about natural disasters, or the loss of life due to human accidents, or birth defects or human beings being malicious.