Tag Archives: columbia

Are We Reaching Peak CO2?

green4us

Maybe! Emission of CO2 from coal burning and cement manufacturing, the two biggest humanmade sources. The trend has slowed recently and actually reversed in 2015.Graph by Jackson, et al., modified (red rectangle added) by Phil Plait Our planet is heating up. The cause is in some ways simple: Humans add a lot of carbon dioxide to the air every year, about 40 billion tons of it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas: It lets sunlight through to heat the ground, but the infrared light the ground emits gets absorbed, and cannot escape to space. That warms us up, slowly but inevitably. By every measure available to us, we see the effects of this increased heat. But there’s hope, at least a hint of it. A new study has some hopeful news about global warming: The global emission of carbon dioxide slowed substantially in 2014, and is projected to drop a little bit in 2015. This comes after over a decade of quite sharp growth in emission. Better yet: This happened while the global economy underwent “robust growth,” and it happened in part due to switching to renewables (solar and wind power) as well as a drop in coal use. Globally, over the past 15 years, we’ve been dumping roughly an extra billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, jumping from 25 billion tons per year to over 37. But the rate has slowed in the past couple of years; in 2014 the growth slowed dramatically, and according to the new research the rate is projected to drop in 2015 by roughly 0.6 percent, from 35.9 billion tons to 35.7. Read the rest at Slate.

Read More: 

Are We Reaching Peak CO2?

Related Posts

Forget the Oil Industry’s Methane. Obama Should Crack Down on Cows Instead.
Some Climate Engineering Ideas Are Insane. This One Isn’t.
Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year? Here’s Why It Doesn’t Matter.
Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution
Can a Carbon Tax Work Without Hurting the Economy? Ask British Columbia
2014 Was the Year We Finally Started to Do Something About Climate Change

Share this:






View this article: 

Are We Reaching Peak CO2?

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are We Reaching Peak CO2?

How Campus Racism Just Became the Biggest Story in America

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Tim Wolfe, president of the University of Missouri system, resigned from his post on Monday amid growing pressure from students, faculty, and alumni over a series of racial incidents that have plagued the system’s flagship campus in Columbia this fall. Wolfe’s decision to step down came a week after Missouri graduate student Jonathan Butler went on a hunger strike to demand the president’s ouster, after weeks of protests over university inaction. The issue was thrust into the national spotlight on Saturday when a group of black players on the Missouri football team declared they would refuse to participate in football-related activities until Wolfe was removed or stepped down. The players drew support from coaches and the athletic department, though some within the team were unhappy with the protest.

But the matter escalated remarkably fast from Saturday, with Gov. Jay Nixon and US Sen. Claire McCaskill calling for reform, Wolfe resigning, and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin of the University of Missouri, Columbia, announcing late Monday that he would also resign at the end of the year.

Here’s how the chain of events unfolded since mid September. (For more, check out this timeline from the Maneater, the university’s student newspaper, and one from the Missourian.)

September 12: Payton Head, president of the Missouri Students Association, took to Facebook to reflect on the university’s racial climate after a group of people repeatedly screamed “nigger” at him, he said, while he was walking through campus. Head told the Missourian: “I’d had experience with racism before, like microaggressions, but that was the first time I’d experienced in-your-face racism.” (Read his lengthy, impassioned post here.)
October 5: The Legion of Black Collegians, the university’s black student government, described an incident of overt racism, when, according to a letter released by the group, an intoxicated “white male” disrupted a group rehearsal of a play on campus and referred to members as “niggers.” That day, Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin condemned the incident in a video, noting that “hate and racism were alive and well at Mizzou.” Loftin called for mandatory diversity training for students, faculty, and staff: “It’s enough. Let’s stop this. Let’s end hatred and racism at Mizzou. We’re part of the same family. You don’t hate your family.”
October 10: Members of Concerned Student 1950, an activist group whose name alludes to the year the first black student was admitted to the university, took to the streets during the university’s homecoming parade to condemn the university’s history of racism; they blocked Wolfe’s car, demanding a response from him. Wolfe did not acknowledge them or get out of the car, and police dispersed the protestors without an arrest, the Missourian reported. Jonathan Butler later told the Missourian: “We’ve sent emails, we’ve sent tweets, we’ve messaged but we’ve gotten no response back from the upper officials at Mizzou to really make change on this campus.”
October 21: Concerned Student 1950 released a list of demands calling for Wolfe’s ouster, and for institutional changes at the university to promote racial inclusion.
October 24: An incident in a bathroom in one of the campus residence halls prompted further outcry: Someone reportedly drew “a swastika on the wall with their own feces,” according to a letter released by the university’s Residence Halls Association. The group called it an “act of hate.”
October 27: Concerned Student 1950 met with Wolfe to discuss its demands; according to the Missourian, the group noted that Wolfe “also reported he was ‘not completely’ aware of systemic racism, sexism, and patriarchy on campus.” The group said in a statement: “Not understanding these systems of oppression therefore renders him incapable of effectively performing his core duties.”
November 2: Graduate student Jonathan Butler announced he would go on a hunger strike, calling for Wolfe’s resignation for failure to adequately respond to the string of racial incidents. Concerned Student 1950 would later call for demonstrations at university events, including Missouri’s football game against Mississippi State. Since November 2, students have camped out at the heart of the university’s campus, Carnahan Quadrangle, in support of Butler’s hunger strike.
November 6: Wolfe issues a statement expressing concern for Butler’s health and apologized for his behavior at the homecoming parade. “My behavior seemed like I did not care,” he said. “That was not my intention. I was caught off guard in that moment. Nonetheless, had I gotten out of the car to acknowledge the students and talk with them perhaps we wouldn’t be where we are today.” He acknowledged that racism existed at the university. “Together we must rise to the challenge of combating racism, injustice, and intolerance.”
November 7: Members of Missouri’s football team took a stand. In a statement posted by the Legion of Black Collegians on Twitter, many of the team’s black athletes said they would decline to participate in practice until Butler’s strike was resolved.
November 9: In an emotional statement before the University of Missouri Board of Curators, Wolfe resigned, saying he hoped his taking responsibility would heal the campus. “I ask everybody — from students to faculty to staff to my friends, everybody — use my resignation to heal and to start talking again. To make the changes necessary and let’s focus on changing what we can change today and in the future, and not what we can’t change, which is what happened in the past.”

Students flooded onto the university’s Columbia campus following the resignation on Monday, chanting and calling for change. They drew support from those at the university and well beyond, including from congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis, and from Michael Sam, the former Missouri football star who became the first openly gay player drafted by a NFL team.

As the day went on, members of Concerned Student 1950 linked arms around the encampment on a campus plaza to create a “no media safe space.”

Video shot on the ground shows supporters, including a Greek life administrator and a mass communications professor, blocking a student photographer from taking pictures on public ground and asking him to back up.

On Monday, Butler addressed a large crowd of protesters: “This is not a moment,” he said, “This is a movement.”

View original article:

How Campus Racism Just Became the Biggest Story in America

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Campus Racism Just Became the Biggest Story in America

The state of carbon pricing is messier than we might like to think

The state of carbon pricing is messier than we might like to think

By on 29 Oct 2015commentsShare

These days, it’s common to hear a politician, an economist, or even an oil company profess that pricing carbon is the most efficient way to combat climate change. But real-life climate policy is often far from efficient; we’re left settling for second-best (or third- or fourth-best) solutions. In the run-up to the Paris climate talks at the end of this year, a fair question then is whether or not we can expect any kind of global carbon pricing mechanism to emerge from the negotiations.

Spoiler alert: probably not, but not for want of trying.

Over at The Christian Science Monitor, Cristina Maza takes a deep dive into the logic behind — and viability of — carbon pricing at the national and international levels. While the global approach has been piecemeal so far, she writes, a handful of countries have given the concept a shot in one way or another:

Currently, about 40 national and over 20 sub-national jurisdictions have implemented or scheduled carbon-pricing systems, according to a report by the World Bank and Ecofys, a renewable-energy consultancy. That represents nearly a doubling of such systems since 2012. All together, global carbon taxes and trading systems are estimated to value just under $50 billion, according to the World Bank and Ecofys.

But not all carbon-pricing systems are created equal. Critics of cap-and-trade systems, for example, often tout trading mechanisms as inequitable. If a polluting plant can still pay to pollute, the argument goes, the poorer communities where such plants are often located will continue to bear the brunt of poor air quality. Environmental justice groups often advocate on behalf of a flat carbon tax or, more simply, mandatory emissions cuts (and more recently, “revenue-neutral” policies like fee and dividend). Under the World Bank’s definition, all of the above (except mandatory emissions cuts) count as carbon pricing.

Cap-and-trade systems are also often criticized for their frequent inability to actually achieve anything. If the cap — which effectively sets the price — is set too high, the price will be too low. What’s more is that many international attempts at constructing carbon markets have been met with rampant corruption.

The thing is, when a proper carbon price works, it really works. Maza continues:

Launched in 2008, British Columbia’s carbon tax is lauded for its revenue-neutral design. A reduction in income taxes offsets a new levy on the carbon content of fuels. The result? Per-person consumption of fuels dropped by 16 percent from 2008 to 2013 while economic growth kept pace with the rest of Canada, according to Sustainable Prosperity, an Ottawa-based think tank. Income and corporate taxes, meanwhile, were slashed, and the program earned the praise of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. By 2012, the province’s emissions including carbon offsets had dropped 6 percent below 2007 levels, meeting an interim goal on the path to cutting emissions 80 percent by mid-century.

But British Columbia is a singular case. One of the problems with the numbers game here is that the global supply of carbon pollution is still ill-defined; and this fact, in turn, makes the environmental externalities exceptionally difficult to price. A flat carbon tax wouldn’t accurately reflect environmental degradation if we’re still burning enough carbon to cause self-amplifying, runaway climate effects.

Put another way: Without a global carbon budget — a final, set amount of fossil fuel reserves that the world agrees it will distribute and burn, such that projected atmospheric CO2 levels remain safe — any price still feels hand-wavy.

And sure, the chances of adopting a global carbon budget in Paris are smaller than Bobby Jindal’s chances at the White House, but the most recent draft negotiating text saw the idea’s resurfacing (after briefly disappearing from the negotiating table in a previous, slimmed-down draft). If there’s any reason to cross your fingers, it’s for the resurgence of a budget. It’s one of the only ways to ensure the global economy will actually keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Of course, with any luck, both ideas — a global carbon budget and the endorsement of pricing mechanisms — will worm their way into the final Paris agreement. It’s exceptionally unlikely; but hey, a climate hawk can dream.

Source:

Everyone’s favorite climate change fix

, The Christian Science Monitor.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Original article:  

The state of carbon pricing is messier than we might like to think

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Oster, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The state of carbon pricing is messier than we might like to think

Opiates Are Killing More People in This State Than Car Accidents. Obama Wants to Change That.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

President Barack Obama announced a new federal initiative to combat the country’s painkiller problem ahead of a speech on Wednesday in Charleston, West Virginia, a place at the heart of an opiate crisis. In greater Kanawha County, of the 65 people who have died from drug overdoses so far this year, 22 people have succumbed to heroin. The same number of people have died from heroin in nearby Cabell County, the epicenter of the state’s drug problem.

For the last half decade, the state has been gripped by the rise of prescription opiates and heroin, just as the rest of the country has encountered the revival of the cheap painkiller as a drug of choice. In 36 states and the District of Columbia, deaths from drug overdoses have outnumbered those from auto accidents, with West Virginia leading the way. Of the 363 drug overdoses in West Virginia so far this year, roughly 88 percent were opiate-related and included multiple substances, with 97 deaths related to heroin overdoses, according to new data from the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources’ Health Statistics Center.

A crackdown on cash-only clinics for prescription painkillers and a flood of pure heroin from nearby cities have contributed to West Virginia’s drug problem. But just how bad is it?

More here: 

Opiates Are Killing More People in This State Than Car Accidents. Obama Wants to Change That.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Opiates Are Killing More People in This State Than Car Accidents. Obama Wants to Change That.

China’s Climate Plan Isn’t Crazy and Might Actually Work

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Barack Obama are planning to jointly announce long-awaited details of China’s plan to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon dioxide pollution. The plan, which will commence in 2017, will make China the world’s biggest market for carbon cap-and-trade, a system that sets a cap on the amount of CO2 that major polluters like power plants and factories can emit, then allows those entities to sell off excess credits (if they pollute less than the limit) or buy extra ones (if they pollute more than the limit).

The idea of a system like this is that it uses the market—rather than simply a government mandate—to force cuts in the emissions that cause climate change. Want to pollute? Fine, but it’s going to cost you. If you clean up, you can make cash selling credits to your dirtier neighbors. A similar type of policy, a carbon tax, imposes a different kind of financial incentive in the form of a fee paid to the government for every unit of CO2 emissions. Ultimately, the rationale behind both systems is the same: Because corporate polluters now have to pay a financial price price for their emissions, air pollution and fossil fuel consumption both go down, clean energy goes up, and the climate is saved.

Many environmental economists agree that some kind of carbon price—either cap-and-trade or a tax—is the most efficient and effective way to quickly curb fossil fuel consumption, and thus give us a chance at staving off global warming. Democrats in Congress attempted to enact a national cap-and-trade program in the US in 2009; it passed the House but was killed by the Senate Republicans. Since then, a national carbon pricing system has been a non-starter in Washington. But there are plenty of other examples of successful systems elsewhere that should make us optimistic about China’s new plan.

The Northeast United States: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cap-and-trade market that includes nine states in the Northeast, set up in 2008. The program is widely considered a success and is expected to reduce the region’s power-sector emissions by 45 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2020. This year, the price of credits has been riding high, a sign that the market is working to create a powerful incentive to reduce emissions. The most recent auction of credits, in September, generated in $152.7 million for the states—revenue that is re-invested in clean energy programs and electric bill assistance for low-income households.

California: When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed through legislation in 2006 to set aggressive climate targets for the state, the key mechanism was a cap-and-trade program, which finally opened in 2013. So far, it seems to be working. Emissions are down, while GDP is up. In fact, the California program was a primary model for the Chinese system.

British Columbia: This Canadian province’s carbon tax, first enacted in 2008, is one of the most successful carbon pricing plans anywhere. Gasoline consumption is way down, and the government has raised billions that it has returned to citizens in the form of tax cuts for low-income households and small businesses. The program “made climate action real to people,” one Canadian environmentalist told my former colleague Chris Mooney.

Australia: For a country that is notoriously reliant on coal, Australia had been on the progressive side of climate politics after it passed a national carbon tax in 2012. The tax was scrapped just two years later, after then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott blamed it for a sluggish economic recovery and high energy prices. But the repeal actually yielded an unexpected insight into the success of the program: In the first quarter without the tax, emissions jumped for the first time since prior to the global financial crisis. In other words, the tax had worked effectively to drive down emissions.

Europe: Of course, carbon pricing systems aren’t without their flaws, and the European Trading Scheme has provided a good example of the risks. The system has often been plagued by a too-high cap, meaning the market becomes flooded with credits, the price drops, and polluters have little incentive to change. This month, regulators passed a package of reforms meant to restrict the number of credits and bolster the market. But even with the low price, the ETS has been effective enough to keep the EU on track to meet its stated climate goals.

Even with these good examples to draw from, there are still challenges ahead for China. How will the government allocate credits among different polluters? Will the polluters actually trade with one another? How effectively will the government be able to monitor emissions, to ensure that the credits actually match real pollution?

But at the very least, Republicans in the US just lost one their favorite excuses for climate inaction: That China, the world’s biggest emitter, is doing nothing.

Continue reading: 

China’s Climate Plan Isn’t Crazy and Might Actually Work

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Cyber, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China’s Climate Plan Isn’t Crazy and Might Actually Work

Monsanto’s coming up with an alternative to GMOs

Monsanto’s coming up with an alternative to GMOs

By on 13 Aug 2015commentsShare

Sharpen your talons, Monsanto haters. Everyone’s favorite biotech company is cooking up a new GMO alternative, and it’s just begging to be crucified.

The new technology, called BioDirect, is a kind of temporary, spray-on defense mechanism for plants. It relies on a natural phenomenon called RNA interference that scientists can use to block crucial genes in, say, Roundup-resistant weeds or killer pests. MIT Technology Review’s Antonio Regalado took a deep dive into the new technology, and it sounds a bit like an Arnold Schwarzenegger character. No one has ever tried spraying RNA on thousands of acres of crops before, so it does raise some legitimate concerns.

Here’s how it works: All living things contain DNA, and that DNA carries the genetic information that cells need to make proteins. But it’s actually RNA, DNA’s less famous workhorse of a partner, that takes that genetic information out into the cell to get shit done. Viruses also use RNA, however, so cells have a kind of defense mechanism to detect viral RNA, memorize its contents, destroy it, and then hunts down its progeny to destroy them too.

Told you it was kind of badass.

With a little tweak, however, this defense mechanism can be turned against itself, so that a cell starts attacking its own genetic code. That’s where BioDirect comes in. Using spray-on RNA that looks like viral RNA but is actually genetic information from weeds or pests or whatever it is Monsanto wants to target, the company can effectively turn the enemy against itself. It could even use BioDirect to target certain genes in crops themselves in order to make those crops, for example, drought resistant.

So if an orange grove in Florida is suddenly overrun with the insect that transmits greening disease (look it up — it’s destroying the orange industry), farmers could, in theory, just spray on some insect RNA BioDirect until the situation is under control and then go about their business — no pesticides or genetically engineered trees required. This technique has a number of advantages over GMOs. Here’s more from Technology Review:

Monsanto isn’t the only one working on genetic sprays. Other large agricultural biotech companies, including Bayer and Syngenta, are also investigating the technology. The appeal is that it offers control over genes without modifying a plant’s genome—that is, without creating a GMO.

That means sprays might sidestep much of the controversy around agricultural biotechnology. Or so companies hope. What’s certain is that a way to accomplish the goals of genetic engineering without having to develop a GMO could bring commercial rewards. Sprays might be quickly tailored to do battle with an insect infestation or a new type of virus. Not only could this be faster than creating new GM crops, but the gene-silencing effects of RNA interference last only a few days or weeks. That means you might spray on traits such as drought resistance in times of water shortage without affecting the plant’s performance in times of normal rainfall.

BioDirect isn’t ready for prime time yet but, according to Technology Review, Monsanto and others are spending a lot of money trying to change that:

[Monsanto] paid $30 million for access to the RNA interference know-how and patents held by the biotech company Alnylam, and it did a similar deal with Tekmira, an RNA delivery specialist based in Burnaby, British Columbia. Monsanto is also the financial backer of a 15-person company called Preceres, a kind of skunk works it established just off the campus of MIT, where robotic mixers are busy stirring RNA together with coatings of specialized nanoparticles.

Meanwhile, Syngenta paid $523 million to buy out a European biotech company that had been working on RNA insecticides.

The obvious question here is: Should we be spraying and/or eating RNA that makes other species kill themselves? First, it’s important to note that scientists can tailor the RNA to target very specific genetic sequences in whatever it is they want to kill or otherwise tweak, so it’s a lot less likely to hurt people than, say, the potato bug that it’s targeting. And we do eat viral RNA all the time, so that’s nothing new. It’s just that lab-synthesized RNA (and lots of it) might give people the willies.

Still, it’s not yet clear how spraying a bunch of RNA on crops could affect the surrounding ecosystems, so as Regalado’s headline suggests, this could very well be “the next great GMO debate.” And yet, as one Israeli scientist working on RNA interference told Regalado, perhaps the biggest obstacle in the way of BioDirect actually has nothing to do with the technology itself:

The real problem can be summarized in a single word: Monsanto. “For half the world, that is enough to know it’s evil,” he says. “Monsanto is introducing a new technology, full stop. But Monsanto is also the best way to make this real. For the scientifically literate, this is the dream molecule.”

Monsanto, word of advice? If you ever want to shake that evil vibe, maybe take a note from Google’s playbook and come up with a new name. Larry Page already snagged Alphabet, but there are plenty of other equally innocent-sounding options out there. How about Teddy Bear? Or Sunshine?

Source:
The Next Great GMO Debate

, MIT Technology Review.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

A Grist Special Series

Oceans 15

What seafood is OK to eat, anyway? Ask an expertWhen it comes to sustainable seafood, you could say director of Seafood Watch Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly is the ultimate arbiter of taste.

What’s there to see at the bottom of the ocean? More than you’d thinkWe know more about the moon than the deep sea. National Geographic explorer David Gruber wants to change that.

What’s it like to be at home on the ocean? Ask a fishermanTele Aadsen fishes for salmon in southeast Alaska, which means she is up close and personal with the sea every day.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Continue reading here: 

Monsanto’s coming up with an alternative to GMOs

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, mixer, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Monsanto’s coming up with an alternative to GMOs

Ocean acidification: Not just for oceans anymore!

Ocean acidification: Not just for oceans anymore!

By on 30 Jun 2015commentsShare

Move over, ocean acidification — or don’t, actually. “Freshwater acidification” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, though it is happening, thanks to the same carbon emissions currently souring the seas. And apparently fish are feeling the burn already, according to a study in Nature on juvenile pink salmon. From Scientific American:

The study was among the first to look at how different CO2 levels could affect fish larvae in fresh water, according to the lead author, Michelle Ou, a former master’s student at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

“We didn’t actually expect to see so many effects,” she said. “We were just poking around to see what we could find.”

Pink salmon seemed like a good species to start with. Not only are the fish abundant and economically important, but they also serve as a keystone species … Although pink salmon spend their adulthood in the open ocean, their first weeks of life are in freshwater streams.

It turns out that, while adult fish do pretty OK with changing water chemistry, larvae exposed to elevated CO2 levels showed some significant changes:

They found that not only were they smaller and lighter, but the fish’s senses were also impaired. The pink salmon larvae were more bold around new objects and did not seem to be afraid of alarm cues in the water that would normally prompt fish to flee.

The fish also had an impaired sense of smell that prevented them from recognizing specific amino acids associated with the streams where they were born. This was significant because recognition of those amino acids is believed to play an important role in the fish’s navigational ability, said Ou.

If you know much about what salmon have to do — namely, navigate from the open ocean back to the exact tributary of the exact stream in which they were spawned — you will recognize that this is potentially A Very Bad Thing. But just how acidic are rivers going to get in the future? Since bodies are freshwater are typically smaller than the ocean (no, duh) pH levels are likely to wobble around more depending on immediate conditions. Still, way, way more research is needed.

So get on it, science. Meanwhile, I’m gonna go ahead and guess we should try to stop this runaway carbon emissions thing, how’s that sound?

Source:
Pink Salmon Struggle as Freshwater Becomes Acidic

, Scientific American.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article – 

Ocean acidification: Not just for oceans anymore!

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ocean acidification: Not just for oceans anymore!

The “secret science committee” behind the pope’s encyclical

The “secret science committee” behind the pope’s encyclical

By on 19 Jun 2015commentsShare

Sick of hearing about the pope’s encyclical? How about the “400-year-old collective […] that operates as the pope’s eyes and ears on the natural world,” a.k.a. the “secret science committee” behind that encyclical?

Didn’t think so. Here’s the scoop from Bloomberg:

The Pontifical Academy has about 80 members, all of them appointed for life. Scientists hail from many nations, religions, and disciplines, which today include astronomy, biochemistry, physics, and mathematics. Members pursue the scientific issues they deem most important to society, without Vatican interference. Unlike the National Academy of Sciences, which is financially independent from the U.S., the Pontifical Academy relies on the Vatican to keep the lights on.

The full academy meets every two years and is often granted an audience from the pope. In the stretches between the biannual sessions, scientists hold workshops and produce reports on whichever topics they agree are most important for the pope to understand.

And they’ve been worried about climate change for quite some time:

Academy events have addressed the basics of climate change going back at least to October 1980. That’s when Italian physicist Giampietro Puppi addressed the academy during a weeklong workshop on energy.

“The introduction into the atmosphere of an additional amount of particulates and gas, as a result of fuel burning,” said Puppi, an academy member from 1978 until his death, in 2006, “represents in the medium term, decades to centuries, the most important issue and the one of greatest concern on a global scale.”

Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, has been a member of the academy since 2004. He told Bloomberg that the group is completely secular: “Not all of them even believe in a god. They are there for pure scientific excellence, and they are not co-opted by any country. They’re not co-opted by the United Nations.”

In April, the academy invited religious leaders from all over — Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and other Christians — to the Vatican for a symposium on climate change. Here’s more from Bloomberg:

They heard from Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, who popularized the notion that human industry has shoved the world into a new geological phase — the “anthropocene,” or in plainspeak, “the human age.”

And they heard Jeffrey Sachs, prolific writer and Columbia University economist, say that “we can still, but just barely,” avoid pollution levels that lead to dangerous climate change risk.

But the pope doesn’t necessarily take advice from the committee, Werner Arber, a Nobel-winning molecular biologist and the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, told Bloomberg. If he doesn’t “appreciate” their work, he’s free to pretty much ignore it.

In an email to Bloomberg, British astronomer Martin Rees, who has been on the committee since 1990, wrote that “the Vatican is as opaque to me as to you!” But he added that this encyclical is encouraging — it could have an impact in the developing world and “maybe also in your Republican Party.”

Yeesh. That’s embarrassing. And also, unfortunately, pretty wishful thinking.

Source:
Behind the Scenes With the Pope’s Secret Science Committee

, Bloomberg Business.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here: 

The “secret science committee” behind the pope’s encyclical

Posted in alo, Amana, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The “secret science committee” behind the pope’s encyclical

Exclusive: The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday, when President Barack Obama spoke at the US Coast Guard Academy’s commencement ceremony, he called climate change “an immediate risk to our national security.” In recent months, the Obama administration has repeatedly highlighted the international threats posed by global warming and has emphasized the need for the country’s national security agencies to study and confront the issue.

So some national security experts were surprised to learn that an important component of that effort has been ended. A CIA spokesperson confirmed to Climate Desk that the agency is shuttering its main climate research program. Under the program, known as Medea, the CIA had allowed civilian scientists to access classified data—such as ocean temperature and tidal readings gathered by Navy submarines and topography data collected by spy satellites—in an effort to glean insights about how global warming could create security threats around the world. In theory, the program benefited both sides: Scientists could study environmental data that was much higher-resolution than they would normally have access to, and the CIA received research insights about climate-related threats.

But now, the program has come to a close.

“Under the Medea program to examine the implications of climate change, CIA participated in various projects,” a CIA spokesperson explained in a statement. “These projects have been completed and CIA will employ these research results and engage external experts as it continues to evaluate the national security implications of climate change.”

The program was originally launched in 1992 during the George H.W. Bush administration and was later shut down during President George W. Bush’s term. It was re-launched under the Obama administration in 2010, with the aim of providing security clearances to roughly 60 climate scientists. Those scientists were given access to classified information that could be useful for researching global warming and tracking environmental changes that could have national security implications. Data gathered by the military and intelligence agencies is often of much higher quality than what civilian scientists normally work with.

In some cases, that data could then be declassified and published, although Francesco Femia, co-director of the Center for Climate and Security, said it is usually impossible to know whether any particular study includes data from Medea. “You wouldn’t see Medea referenced anywhere” in a peer-reviewed paper, he said. But he pointed to the CIA’s annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, which includes multiple references to climate change, as a probable Medea product, where the CIA likely partnered with civilian scientists to analyze classified data.

With the closure of the program, it remains unclear how much of this sort of data will remain off-limits to climate scientists. The CIA did not respond to questions about what is currently being done with the data that would have been available under the program.

Marc Levy, a Columbia University political scientist, said he was surprised to learn that Medea had been shut down. “The climate problems are getting worse in a way that our data systems are not equipped to handle,” said Levy, who was not a participant in the CIA program but has worked closely with the US intelligence community on climate issues since the 1990s. “There’s a growing gap between what we can currently get our hands on, and what we need to respond better. So that’s inconsistent with the idea that Medea has run out of useful things to do.”

The program had some notable successes. During the Clinton administration, Levy said, it gave researchers access to classified data on sea ice measurements taken by submarines, an invaluable resource for scientists studying climate change at the poles. And last fall, NASA released a trove of high-resolution satellite elevation maps that can be used to project the impacts of flooding. But Levy said the Defense Department possesses even higher-quality satellite maps that have not been released.

Still, it’s possible Medea had outlived its useful life, said Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a 23-year veteran of the CIA who had first-hand knowledge of the program before leaving the agency in 2009. He said he was not surprised to see Medea close down.

“In my judgment, the CIA is not the best lead agency for the issue; the agency’s ‘in-box’ is already overflowing with today’s threats and challenges,” he said via email. “CIA has little strategic planning reserves, relatively speaking, and its overseas presence is heavily action-oriented.”

Over the past several years, climate change has gained prominence among defense experts, many of whom see it as a “threat multiplier” that can exacerbate crises such as infectious disease and terrorism. Medea had been part of a larger network of climate-related initiatives across the national security community. Medea’s closure notwithstanding, that network appears to be growing. Last fall, Obama issued an executive order calling on federal agencies to collaborate on developing and sharing climate data and making it accessible to the public.

But the CIA’s work on climate change has drawn heavy fire from a group of congressional Republicans led by Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.). Barrasso said last year that he believes that “the climate is constantly changing” and that “the role human activity plays is not known.” He recently authored an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he listed the conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere as “greater challenges” than climate change. (The Syrian civil war, however, was likely worsened by climate change.)

Around the time Medea was re-instated by the Obama administration, the CIA formed a new office to oversee climate efforts called the Center for Climate Change. At the time, Barrasso said the spy agency “should be focused on monitoring terrorists in caves, not polar bears on icebergs.” That office was closed in 2012 (the agency wouldn’t say why), leaving Medea as the CIA’s main climate research program.

So does the conclusion of Medea signal that the CIA is throwing in the towel on climate altogether? Unlikely, according to Femia. At this point, he said, US security agencies, including the CIA, are still sorting out what resources they can best offer in the effort to adapt to climate change. Regardless of whether the CIA is facilitating civilian research, he said, “continuing to integrate climate change information into its assessments of both unstable and stable regions of the world will be critical.”

“Otherwise,” added Femia, “we will have a blind spot that prevents us from adequately protecting the United States.”

From:  

Exclusive: The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program

Posted in Anchor, Bragg, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Exclusive: The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program

The Keystone Pipeline Just Lost Big in a Shocking Canadian Election

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

American environmentalists are frustrated that our adorable neighbor to the north is surprisingly retrograde on climate change. The reason is that Canada has a Conservative government. Right-leaning governments almost always have worse records on environmental protection, but this is especially so in present-day Canada because Prime Minister Stephen Harper hails from, and draws a lot of support in, the interior province of Alberta.

Oil-rich Alberta—home to notorious tar-sands operations—is just north of Idaho, and has the politics to match. The right-leaning party has been in power there for 44 years. But not anymore.

On Tuesday, the lefty New Democratic Party (NDP) won the provincial elections on a platform that promises to diversify Alberta’s fossil fuel-dependent economy. The NDP campaigned on criticism of the Conservatives for being too close to the oil industry and a pledge to tax more oil profits. From The Wall Street Journal:

The longtime ruling party of Canada’s energy-rich Alberta province lost its four-decade hold on power on Tuesday, ushering in a left-leaning government that has pledged to raise corporate taxes and increase oil and gas royalties.

The Alberta New Democratic Party swept enough districts to form a majority, taking most of the seats in both the business center of Calgary and the provincial capital of Edmonton, according to preliminary results from Elections Alberta.

Canada has a multi-party system. The three biggest are the Conservative Party, which is the largest right-of-center party; the Liberal Party, which is center-left and roughly equivalent to mainstream US Democrats; and the NDP, which is like the left wing of the Democratic Party. So this election result is shocking, like Dennis Kucinich being elected governor of Alabama. For historical reasons, the Alberta Conservative Party is oxymoronically known as the Progressive-Conservatives, but this doesn’t mean they are any more moderate than other Conservatives. The Alberta NDP is moderate compared to the NDP of, say, liberal green-minded British Columbia. But the election result is still a paradigm shift with potentially major environmental implications.

The Journal reports:

“We need to start down the road to a diversified and resilient economy. We need finally to end the boom-and-bust roller coaster that we have been riding on for too long,” NDP leader Rachel Notley, who is expected to succeed Jim Prentice as Alberta’s premier, said at a news conference.

The NDP has long been a marginal force in Alberta’s traditionally conservative politics, but recent public opinion polls showed its popularity surging. In the campaign, Ms. Notley attacked Mr. Prentice for reinstating provincial health-care premiums and being too cozy with oil-patch interests.

In a move that spooked some energy company executives during the campaign, Ms. Notley raised the specter of increasing royalties levied on oil and gas production, although she said that her party would only consider that once crude-oil prices recovered from recent lows.

She also signaled her party wouldn’t support a proposed Enbridge Inc. crude-oil pipeline, called the Northern Gateway, which would connect Alberta’s oil sands with a planned Pacific coast terminal in British Columbia, telling a local newspaper that “Gateway is not the right decision.”

Notley also doesn’t support plans for Keystone XL, and pledged to stop spending taxpayer dollars to push the pipeline in Washington, DC. (She does support two other tar-sands pipeline projects, though.) And she wants Alberta to get more serious about climate change, as the Globe and Mail reports:

Another focus, according to Ms. Notley’s platform, will be bolstering the province’s reputation on climate change as previous governments have resisted establishing tougher targets for carbon reduction from the oil sands and other industries.

The NDP triumph in Alberta may put political pressure on the Harper government, which is facing a federal election this fall. The province’s voters sent the message that they want more protection for the environment and less pandering to oil interests. This couldn’t happen at a better time, as environmentalists are nervously awaiting Canada’s proposal for carbon emission reductions heading into the UN climate negotiations to be held this December in Paris. Will Harper now make a more significant climate commitment? We’ll all be watching to see.

See the article here:

The Keystone Pipeline Just Lost Big in a Shocking Canadian Election

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Keystone Pipeline Just Lost Big in a Shocking Canadian Election