Ecology If you care about our children's future

[strat-0]

Perhaps with Bushkie paying some lip service to alternative fuels lately, some headway can be made in this country now. With the more efficient and economical solar panels that are being developed, I don't see why every roof in North America shouldn't be fitted with them. It might be a good start. We've shown that we can control pollution, but weaning off of the oil teat needs to happen for several reasons. Bush points to the political and economic reasons (if you can even believe he's sincere), but whatever the motivation, the result is desirable.

I'm not a Global Warming denier; I hope our earlier discussions on the subject didn't give that impression. Without going down that road again, I would like to say that what's good for the environment is good for us, and we should do what we can right now. There is no sense or logic in not having all power plants be low-emissions (we can do it now for a few pennies per kw/hour), a substancial and increasing percentage of alternative fuel vehicles in the fleet, or not supporting and fostering other governments to manage the rain forests, etc. I can see no reason why any home on this continent should be heated with 'fuel oil' (i.e., kerosene) today. Btw, and fwiw, fuel cell vehicles are not going to help or work. They rob Peter to pay Paul energy-wise, and are exceedingly impractical. They just don't fit today's world. Now, if most of our electric power came from solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc., they might help, but that's not the world we have now. Hybrids and alternative fuels do show promise.

And Phil, that list of items like not using your dryer and using energy saving light bulbs is feel-good fluff. Might save some dough, though.

[Kensterberg]

Has the world turned upside down today? First, I find that I'm pretty much agreeing w/Chrisfan over on CE, and now I have to second what Strat just wrote here ...

[strat-0]

Why, thank you, Counselor! It is upside down, you know. Well - for Scottsy, at least!

[note: The reason electricity production is important with fuel cell vehicles is because it takes a lot of juice to produce they hydrogen they are fueled with.]

[Kensterberg]

Yeah, unfortunately a lot of proposed "conservation" ideas simply shift the use of fossil fuels from one location to another. Fuel cells aren't really any better than gasoline right now as the Hydrogen requires lots of power to create -- and (as you noted earlier) that electricity is largely the product of fossil fuel consumption.

As a resident of the desert southwest, I am absolutely baffled why we don't require solar cells on all new construction today. The new cells are much more efficient, and could provide a substantial contribution towards the electrical needs of our southern communities. Here in El Paso we have something like 330+ days of sunshine a year -- think about how much power is just going to waste, no use what so ever.

[phil]

And Phil, that list of items like not using your dryer and using energy saving light bulbs is feel-good fluff. Might save some dough, though.


Not if half a billion people do it ...


Nevermind !!

[Dr. Drum]

kenholzman said:

Has the world turned upside down today? First, I find that I'm pretty much agreeing w/Chrisfan over on CE, and now I have to second what Strat just wrote here ...

If you’re feeling a sense of dislocation here, Ken, imagine mine!

Totally kidding, strat-0. I’d concur with you on most of that, too. I think the human race is in quite a critical situation overall on this issue, so there might be a difference in degree of emphasis... But aside from that, I agree, there’s nothing at all easy about this in terms of alternate sources of power generation – or anything else for that matter. Over the long haul we’re basically talking about halting economic growth that depends on non-renewable sources of energy. Without a doubt a process every bit as wrenching as the original process of industrialization. The only reason we’ll do it is the negative consequences of not altering course will become so large and obvious that we’ll conclude there really is no choice.

[phil]

Greenland glaciers dumping ice into Atlantic at faster pace

Thursday, February 16, 2006; Posted: 11:40 p.m. EST

A new study shows Greenland's glaciers are melting faster

• Global warming boosting Greenland glacier flow
SPECIAL REPORT

Greenland's southern glaciers have accelerated their march to the Atlantic Ocean over the past decade and now contribute more to the global rise in sea levels than previously estimated, researchers say.

Those faster-moving glaciers, along with increased melting, could account for nearly 17 percent of the estimated one-tenth of an inch annual rise in global sea levels, or twice what was previously believed, said Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

An increase in surface air temperatures appears to be causing the glaciers to flow faster, albeit at the still-glacial pace of eight miles to nine miles a year at their fastest clip, and dump increased volumes of ice into the Atlantic.

That stepped-up flow accounted for about two-thirds of the net 54 cubic miles of ice Greenland lost in 2005. That compares with 22 cubic miles in 1996, Rignot said.

[limitdeditionlayla]

Not if half a billion people do it ...

The great unwashed - they just don't care. Thats the crux of it.

The building I live in is fairly new(ish) & the body corporate had installed a 'grey water' system before we moved in, so that all the 'used' water from the communal laundry be re-directed to watering the entire garden, as well as being re-routed to use as flushing water for all toilets.

Its surprisingly relatively inexpensive when you consider the overall savings on water use (- which was the primary motivation for the building owners to install it - being they carry the cost of water use & not tenants) & works equally as well in smaller buildings, domestic residences etc.

[phil]

Warmer Oceans Tied to Stronger, Larger Hurricanes, Study Says

March 16 (Bloomberg)

Rising ocean temperatures create more intense hurricanes, explaining the increase in the number of strong storms since 1970, according to a study to appear published in tomorrow's edition in the journal Science.

The study found that a rise in the surface temperature of the world's oceans is the most consistent link between more powerful hurricanes among four variables, which include humidity, wind shear and large-scale circulation patterns.

``This study really shores up the link between rising sea temperature and the intensity of hurricanes,'' said Judith Curry, a co-author of the study and an earth sciences professor at Georgia Institute of Technology.

``It's a very important message to get out because this is a long-term trend, and it's not going to go away,'' she said in an interview. ``The `cross your fingers, close your eyes' management of storms will not be acceptable anymore.''

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=alhovpkJy3K8&refer=canada

[phil]

Layla ~ All operation costs are ultimately included into the tenants' rents ... !!

[phil]

Junior's administration is a joke !!

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

NY Times, June 8, 2005,

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

An Editor in the White House In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved.

In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports. The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues. Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The inmates are running the asylum ... !!

Since the time of that article, the guy is now working for ... EXXON !!

[phil]

40 percent of the Amazon could be grassland by 2050

mongabay.com
March 22, 2006


Scientists today warned that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest could be lost by 2050 due to agricultural expansion unless strict measures are taken to protect the world's largest tropical forest.


Britaldo Soares-Filho, of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Brazil, and a team of scientists used computer simulations to model the future extent of Brazilian rainforests under different scenarios and found that "by 2050, current trends in agricultural expansion will eliminate a total of 40 percent of Amazon forests, including six major watersheds and ecoregions". The research is published in the journal Nature.

"For the first time, we can examine how individual policies ranging from the paving of highways to the requirement for forest reserves on private properties will influence the future of the world's largest tropical forest," said Soares-Filho in a statement.

The Amazon rainforest is disappearing due to conversion of forest land for cattle pasture and agriculture. Logging, mining and infrastructure development are also contributing to pressure on the region's forests, which are among the most biodiverse on the planet. Scientists estimate that perhaps 30 percent of the world's species are found in the Amazon.

[phil]

The only reason we’ll do it is the negative consequences of not altering course will become so large and obvious that we’ll conclude there really is no choice.


Just pray that it won't be too late then ...

[phil]

Bush v. Science

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, February 6, 2006; 1:10 PM

President Bush is talking a lot about science these days. He just doesn't have much interest in listening to scientists.

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "Finally there may be an answer to the question of why President Bush spends so much time clearing brush at his Texas ranch.


"Maybe he's collecting it to fuel his next truck. . . .


"The president's fascination with the gee-whiz breakthroughs of modern science may not be new, but it has certainly been more evident in the days since he made unleashing the power of research and innovation a central element of his State of the Union address."

But Bush's relationship to science can be illustrated by the fact that he is speaking rapturously of producing ethanol from (of all things) switch grass -- but not saying a word about what many scientists say may be the greatest disaster facing humankind: global climate change.

A Time magazine cover story today shines a spotlight on Bush's relationship of convenience with science. Mark Thompson and Karen Tumulty write that "growing numbers of researchers, both in and out of government, say their findings -- on pollution, climate change, reproductive health, stem-cell research and other areas in which science often finds itself at odds with religious, ideological or corporate interests -- are being discounted, distorted or quashed by Bush Administration appointees.

"White House officials don't see that pattern of interference. 'This Administration has been very supportive of science,' Bush's science adviser and respected physicist John Marburger told Time. 'The President wants us to do it right, and doesn't want us to do things that contradict the laws of nature.'

But in the past two years, the Union of Concerned Scientists has collected the signatures of more than 8,000 scientists -- including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients and 171 members of the National Academies -- who accuse the Administration of an unprecedented level of political intrusion into their world. 'There have always been isolated incidents where people have played politics with science,' says Francesca Grifo, director of the group's Scientific Integrity Program. 'What's new is its pervasive and systemic nature. We get calls every week from federal scientists reporting stuff to us.'

"Rarely, however, are they willing to put their jobs and their research grants at risk by going public with their complaints. That's why it was so remarkable when one of the government's leading experts on climate change, 29-year NASA veteran James Hansen, who is director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, charged on the front page of the New York Times that he has been muzzled by the agency. He accused the agency of demanding to review his lectures, papers and postings to the NASA website, as well as screen his media interviews."

Andrew C. Revken followed up on that story in the New York Times on Saturday, writing: "A week after NASA's top climate scientist complained that the space agency's public-affairs office was trying to silence his statements on global warming, the agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, issued a sharply worded statement yesterday calling for 'scientific openness' throughout the agency.

" 'It is not the job of public-affairs officers,' Dr. Griffin wrote in an e-mail message to the agency's 19,000 employees, 'to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff.' "

Revken called attention to yet another example of political interference by George Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose resume says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Deutsch "told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word 'theory' after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times. . . .


www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/02/06/BL2006020600817.html

[phil]

The 7,000km journey that links Amazon destruction to fast food

· Farmers illegally seize virgin land for soya crops
· Export chain ends in big fast food outlets in UK

John Vidal, environment editor
Thursday April 6, 2006
The Guardian


A handful of the world's largest food companies and commodity traders, including McDonald's in the UK, are driving illegal and rapid destruction of the Amazon rainforest, according to a six-year investigation of the Brazilian soya bean industry.

The report, published today, follows a 7,000km chain that starts with the clearing of virgin forest by farmers and leads directly to Chicken McNuggets being sold in British and European fast food restaurants. It also alleges that much of the soya animal feed arriving in the UK from Brazil is a product of "forest crime" and that McDonald's and British supermarkets have turned a blind eye to the destruction of the forest.


The report, by Greenpeace investigators, details how the world's largest private company, the $70bn (£40bn) a year US agribusiness giant Cargill, has built a port and 13 soya storage works in the Amazon region. It provides farmers with seeds and agrochemicals to grow hundreds of thousands of tonnes of beans a year, which the company then exports to Liverpool and other European ports, mainly from Santarem, a city on the Amazon river.

Animal feed

From Liverpool, much of the high protein soya, which is used as animal feed, goes to Hereford-based Sun Valley, a wholly owned Cargill subsidiary that rears chickens. The company provides McDonald's, the largest fast food company in the world, with up to 50% of all the chicken it serves in Britain and across Europe.

According to Greenpeace, public and indigenous land is being seized by farmers using bulldozers and even slave labour. Last year more than 25,000 sq kilometres (10,000 sq miles) of Amazon forest were felled, largely for soya farming.

Much of the damage, says the report, has followed the entry of large multinational firms. Using satellite photography and government records, Greenpeace claims it can pinpoint where the destruction has taken place. For instance, only five years ago, much of the land around Santarem was heavily forested.

But when Cargill announced plans to build two grain silos, a $20m terminal and its own port, it had a momentous impact. Satellite images show that in two years, deforestation rates doubled to 28,000 hectares (69,000 acres) a year, land prices rocketed and soya took off as farmers from all over Brazil arrived to take advantage of guaranteed markets.

(read more)

www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,,1747904,00.html