GreenEnergy4.us

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View article:

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Uncategorized | Tagged anchor, attorney, california, federal, g & f, house, russia, safety, technology, union | Comments Off

How Climate Change Worsened Violence in Syria

by mirorita02 Posted on March 6, 2013

green4us

International security experts explain how low rainfall can evolve into violent conflict. Epic drought in Syria’s farmland, shown here, may have inflamed civil unrest. CharlesFred/Flickr In October 2010, just months before a Tunisian street vendor self-immolated and sparked what would become the Arab Spring, a prolonged drought was turning Syria’s verdant farmland into dust. By last month, more than 70,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, had been killed in the brutal and ongoing conflict between President Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorial regime and a coalition of opposition forces; just today, the UN announced that over one million refugees the country in the last two years. International security experts are now looking at the connection between recent droughts in the Middle East and the protests, revolutions, and deaths that followed, and building a body of evidence to suggest that climate change played a key role in Syria’s violence and the Arab Spring generally. The possibility that climate change could affect security is nothing new: The US Department of Defense has proven to be surprisingly progressive on planning for global warming. But Caitlin Werrell and Francesco Femia, co-founders of the Washington-based Center for Climate and Security, argue that if you want to see the connection between climate and conflict in action today, look no further than Syria. The pair contributed to a series of essays released last week by the Center for American Progress, all arguing that the Arab Spring is a textbook example of the link between climate change and social instability. Climate Desk called them up to discuss how lack of rainfall leads into violent uprising, and how the international community can prepare for the future of extreme weather. Climate Desk: How does climate change play into civil unrest? Where does it rank compared to other violence-causing factors? Caitlin Werrell: We use the term “threat multiplier” or “accelerant of instability,” in the sense that climate change can exacerbate other threats to national or international security. The way it does that is often through water: You have an increased prevalence of drought or floods or changing rainfall patterns, and what this does is it changes your ability to grow food, it has impacts on food security, it influences your ability to produce energy, it influences your infrastructure. Francesco Femia: We wouldn’t actually rank climate change amongst other factors; we would say that climate change is one of those almost special factors that exacerbates other drivers of unrest and/or conflict. It just makes other drivers of unrest worse. CD: What has happened in the case of Syria, specifically? FF: In Syria, prior to the unrest that eventually exploded into revolution and armed conflict, Syria had experienced an unprecedented drought, lasting about five years. In 2011, NOAA produced a report showing that the Mediterranean littoral and the Middle East had significant drought conditions that were directly related to climate change. And then we found some reporting that had been done over the course of the drought which were showing that in Syria the drought, connected with natural resource mismanagement by the Assad regime, had led to a mass exodus, rural-to-urban migration, as farmers lost their livelihood. The UN estimated that about 800,000 people in Syria during the course of the drought had their livelihoods entirely destroyed. In the run-up to the unrest in Syria, a lot of international security analysts, even on the eve of the exploding unrest, had determined that Syria was generally a stable country, and that it was immune to social unrest and immune to the Arab Spring. It was clear that there were some stresses underneath the surface, and those migrations that we’re talking about, internal migrations, also put pressure on urban areas that were already economically stressed, and that was added on top of refugees that had been coming in from Iraq since the US invasion. CD: Generally speaking, how well is the connection between climate change and civil unrest understood, by international aid organizations, by governments? Where is there opportunity or need for understanding it better? FF: In the past water scarcity has not necessarily led to conflict. Historically, it has sometimes led to cooperation, as conflicting parties come together to deal with their water resources. But we’re looking at an unprecedented picture in the future that we haven’t seen before. The historical record really doesn’t tell us too much about what to expect for the next 20 or 30 years, just given that we’re talking about an unprecedented climate situation and an unprecedented water situation. The international community is still piecing together how climate change is linked to these particular weather events, whether it’s drought or floods, and then how is that related to conflict. CW: Part of it is that [climate change] is one of many stressors. A lot of conflict, it’s a very complex process, there’s not direct causality between one aspect and another. But as we continue to see instances like Syria, like Egypt, that were indirectly impacted by droughts in Russia and China, these are the type of connections we will see more and more of in the future. And so the understanding we have now is a good foundation for developing more resilient practices, both mitigation and adaptation to the risks of climate change. CD: How well is this connection understood by average Syrians? Do they see the link between the conflict of which they’re a part, and climate change? FF: Generally speaking, we would say that populations are not very well educated about the links between climate change and specific weather events, and there’s a need for more education. And by generally, I mean globally. What is certainly clear is that there’s an understanding from Syrians about how this drought has impacted their own livelihoods, given that so many of them have had to pick up and move. And so, this is unprecedented within their own lifetimes, and unprecedented within the history of the region. In the Middle East and North Africa, these countries have been dealing with drought for a long time. Many of them are arid states, and they’ve had to deal with that. And so naturally there is an openness to making those connections between what is essentially increasing aridity in the region and why that’s happening, and that’s the connection to climate change. And so certainly the leadership in these regions, especially those who deal with water and energy, are very acutely aware of these things. CW: In other work we’ve done in Mali, drought is not something new, and people for thousands of years have been dealing with how do you survive in very arid regions. What is new is the rate of change, how long these droughts are lasting, the intensity of the drought. So to some degree, people in these regions are best-equipped to deal with water scarcity, but a lot of times these changes are very different from the floods and droughts of yesterday. CD: Given the likelihood that we’ll encounter more droughts like this in the future, what can be done to ensure that each one isn’t followed by some kind of violence or unrest? FF: There are certain things that governments and the international community will never be able to control. There are so many factors that feed into civil unrest and conflict, particularly armed conflict, that have to do with historical grievances, economics, democratic practice, etc., that there’s certainly no silver bullet on climate resilience, that’s going to prevent conflict. In other words, doing something about climate change is not going to bring world peace, in and of itself. However, it is very important that governments and the international community recognize that we can do something about mitigating climate change and also adapting to the risks. Governments can climate-proof their infrastructure: We’re talking about better water practices, better irrigation techniques. It also means climate-proofing institutions we normally don’t think of as associated with climate change, such as health infrastructure. If diseases are going to spread differently because of climate change, then governments should be prepared for that. In the Arab World right now, governments that are going through transition, whether it’s Libya, or Egypt, or Syria, that’s still in the midst of an armed conflict, in rebuilding post-conflict, and there really is an opportunity to get this right.

Visit link:

How Climate Change Worsened Violence in Syria

Anti-climate House Science committee now worried about the critical threat of asteroids

by jex34c67 Posted on February 18, 2013

Anti-climate House Science committee now worried about the critical threat of asteroids

At some point, as has happened in the past, a huge asteroid will be headed for Earth, threatening the planet with indescribable damage. That point could come within days or it could take centuries. And Hollywood theorizing aside, it’s not clear what we might do about it.

aloha75

Rep. Smith owns at this game

Last week’s meteor over Russia and the larger asteroid later that day spurred the normally laconic House Science committee to action. Newly elected committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) suggested that the event was “a stark reminder of the need to invest in space science.” From a committee statement:

[Smith said:] “Developing technology and research that enable us to track objects like Asteroid 2012 DA14 is critical to our future. We should continue to invest in systems that identify threatening asteroids and develop contingencies, if needed, to change the course of an asteroid headed toward Earth.” …

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee will hold a hearing in the coming weeks to examine ways to better identify and address asteroids that pose a potential threat to Earth.

It probably goes without saying that this is the same “science” committee that has excelled at downplaying and ignoring the science of another, less science-fictiony threat: climate change.

When he assumed the committee chairmanship, Smith — who once gave media outlets an ironic award for ignoring “dissenting opinions” on global warming — suggested that the committee would shortly hold hearings on climate change to “focus on the facts.” Meaning, obviously, to let those “dissenting opinions” have a seat at a table in the Capitol and question climate science.

Now, I understand that movies about asteroids threatening Earth star people like Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, and Ben Affleck, and that the one climate change movie starred (sigh) Dennis Quaid and (siiiiiiigh) Jake Gyllenhall, but I would nonetheless offer that science research and funding should 1) not be a function of trendiness and 2) should maybe reflect actual scientific threats. An extinction-level asteroid rolls around every billion years, and one hit in the Yucatan only 66 million years ago. Climate change on the other hand? Happening currently.

So why focus on the infinitesimal risk of asteroid strike and ignore the very real risk of climate change, a risk cited as “high” by the Government Accountability Office last week? Well, because Smith is a Republican, and because Smith is from Texas, and because of which industries each of those issues affects.

Respecting the science of climate change means tackling the oil and gas industry, an industry that has contributed half a million dollars to Smith over his career. While such donations don’t necessarily result in votes (they really don’t, guys), they are a very good way to track relationships. Smith has friends in the oil industry; he could hardly be a Congressmember from Texas if he did not. Asteroid fighting, on the other hand, means directing shitloads of money to the defense and aerospace industries — an industry which sends billions to Smith’s home state and which is always a safe bet for Republican obeisance.

If Lamar Smith had his way, the government would spend millions over the next few decades developing new systems for asteroid detection and annihilation which would float above our heads for centuries, ready just in case. Meanwhile, the Texas coast (and the New York coast and the Florida coast and the Louisiana coast and so on) will move a few hundred meters inland, and the state of Texas will see increased, more drastic droughts, according to Smith’s employer.

The National Review‘s Andrew Stuttaford neatly summarized Smith’s approach to science (as spotted by Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum):

We waste a fortune on measures (that will have no impact for decades, if ever) to tamper with the climate. Some of that money would be better spent on asteroid insurance.

Just don’t ask better for whom.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Business & Technology

Anti-climate House Science committee now worried about the critical threat of asteroids

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from:

Posted in Bunn, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged business & technology, climate & energy, earth, energy, florida, lamar, mother, russia, texas | Comments Off

Oh no, the Doomsday Clock didn’t change at all

by oks23po Posted on January 15, 2013

Oh no, the Doomsday Clock didn’t change at all

venosdale

This clock — like all clocks — is wrong.

If you are asked what time it is, the answer is 11:55. If you are asked what happens at midnight, the answer is “all of humanity is destroyed and the Earth becomes the crumbling home planet of resilient insects until it is eventually consumed by the sun.” On the plus side, if you answer this way people will probably stop asking you what time it is.

Yes, our friends at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (not a supervillain meetup) have decided that we are five theoretical minutes from our complete destruction — a determination that … doesn’t change from last year. So that’s good, I guess? From Live Science:

Keeping their outlook for the future of humanity quite dim, the group of scientists also wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama, urging him to partner with other global leaders to act on climate change.

The clock is a symbol of the threat of humanity’s imminent destruction from nuclear or biological weapons, climate change and other human-caused disasters. In making their deliberations about how to update the clock’s time this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists considered the current state of nuclear arsenals around the globe, the slow and costly recovery from events like Fukushima nuclear meltdown, and extreme weather events that fit in with a pattern of global warming.

I don’t really get why the clock didn’t change. We took more steps backward in 2012 than we did forward, according to analysis by yers truly. And isn’t the nature of climate change such that the threat of it automatically increases over time?

But that’s not my main complaint. My main complaint relates to this:

The Doomsday Clock came into being in 1947 as a way for atomic scientists to warn the world of the dangers of nuclear weapons. That year, the Bulletin set the time at seven minutes to midnight, with midnight symbolizing humanity’s destruction. By 1949, it was at three minutes to midnight as the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union deteriorated. In 1953, after the first test of the hydrogen bomb, the doomsday clock ticked to two minutes until midnight.

The Bulletin was at its most optimistic in 1991, when the Cold War thawed and the United States and Russia began cutting their arsenals. That year, the clock was set at 17 minutes to midnight.

Why bother making the clock run from midnight to midnight if you’ve only ever used 17 minutes of it? I get that in 1947 they unveiled this thing and were like, “Guess what, motherfuckers: Time’s almost up.” But it seems like the schtick would grow old pretty fast. The first mention I could find of the clock was in this 1968 Times article. The story was four paragraphs, buried somewhere in the paper. The paper doesn’t specifically say, “This news caused us to shrug,” because journalists were more polite back then.

But anyway: Use the whole clock! Last year could have been, like, 10:37. And then this year, 10:52! Oh man, we’d think. Is it that late? And we’d probably also try to stop the clock from moving forward because we certainly don’t want the clock to go to 11:30 because that’s when Jay Leno comes on and he is the worst. Talk about a horrifying apocalypse, am I right? Of course, for all we know it’s 11:55 a.m.? Hard to tell sometimes on those old clocks that no one uses anymore.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, if a horde of alien destroyers appeared over the United States next week, alerting us that the planet was going to be destroyed to make way for an interstellar highway, the most the clock could advance is four minutes — meaning we’d be only .28 percent more likely to be destroyed than we are now. That seems like it’s probably wrong.

Anyway, gotta get going. Didn’t realize it was so late.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Oh no, the Doomsday Clock didn’t change at all

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continued:

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged climate, first, politics, russia, science, soviet, states, union, united-states | Comments Off

The U.N. climate conference wraps up, and now all of our problems are solved

by Myrna Posted on December 10, 2012

The U.N. climate conference wraps up, and now all of our problems are solved

There are pretty good odds that the atmosphere already contains enough greenhouse gases to push global temperatures more than 2 degrees C higher by the end of the century, an increase broadly understood to mean catastrophic effects across the globe. If the atmosphere isn’t yet at that point, the amount that we’d have to curb our pollution to prevent it becomes steeper and less realistic by the day.

Which is why the United Nations — having previously eradicated from the world the scourges of war, poverty, inadequate medical care, and hunger — holds annual meetings during which it consistently and efficiently ratchets down the levels of greenhouse gas emissions from all of the nations of the world. Every schoolkid, no matter his or her nation of origin, has a photo of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon over the bed, dreaming of one day attaining that most-powerful position on Earth.

This year’s annual meeting, held in Doha, Qatar, wrapped up over the weekend. Two weeks ago, we offered a fairly cynical preview of what to expect from the United Nations’ gathering. Our prediction for its ineffectiveness was almost too optimistic.

As in previous years, participants (limited to a fairly small group of people with credentials given by the U.N.) spent 13 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes of the two weeks arguing loosely about funding issues and then spent a furious 60 seconds developing a face-saving and ineffective agreement that will, at the very least, ensure that they will be able to expense plane tickets to next year’s meeting. (If this is an exaggeration, it is a slight one.) The last-minute agreement, as described by Reuters:

Almost 200 nations extended on Saturday a weakened U.N. plan for fighting global warming until 2020, averting a new setback to two decades of U.N. efforts that have failed to halt rising world greenhouse gas emissions.

The eight-year extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 keeps it alive as the sole legally binding plan for combating global warming. But it was sapped by the withdrawal of Russia, Japan and Canada, so its signatories now account for only 15 percent of global greenhouse emisions. …

A package of decisions, known as the Doha Climate Gateway, would also postpone until 2013 a dispute over demands from developing nations for more cash to help them cope with global warming.

All sides say the Doha decisions fell far short of recommendations by scientists for tougher action to try to avert more heatwaves, sandstorms, floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

In summary: The main victory from the meeting was that the Kyoto Protocol (remember the Kyoto Protocol?) will limp forward, with fewer signatories. Yaaayyyyy. But then, as Mother Jones put it: “it’s something.” It seemed for much of the process that even a tiny victory would slip through participants’ fingers; that Kyoto was plucked from the recycling bin is better than nothing and not much else. And as for providing economic support to developing nations that want to build in systems for fighting carbon pollution? We’ll talk to you next year in London.

hydropower

Neither this press conference nor the elegant COP18 branding could stem rampant carbon pollution 🙁

A columnist at The Guardian suggests that there may be one other cause for optimism.

Doha reaffirms that [a replacement to Kyoto] must aim to achieve the UN goal of limiting global warming to 2C. [Ed. – You know, if possible.] And it sets in train a process to review countries’ emissions targets, with the aim of closing the “emissions gap” between current pledges and the reductions needed to meet that goal. The deal creates a new mechanism to compensate the countries worst hit by climate change for the loss and damage it causes. A single negotiations platform has been established to achieve the new agreement, with a deadline for completion of 2015.

This is a much bigger deal than most commentators, and most governments, have realised.

But!

The last time there was a negotiating deadline was 2009, in Copenhagen.

That turned out poorly.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

The U.N. climate conference wraps up, and now all of our problems are solved

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Follow this link:

Posted in GE, Hagen, Uncategorized | Tagged canada, climate, count, hagen, kyoto, nations, politics, russia, united, united-nations, world | Comments Off

For the first time, a fossil fuel tanker is navigating the Arctic

by Myrna Posted on November 26, 2012

For the first time, a fossil fuel tanker is navigating the Arctic

The Ob River is a massive tanker that can carry 150,000 cubic meters of liquified natural gas. (You can tell it carries liquified natural gas because the side of the vessel says “L N G” in massive letters.) And the ship is about to do something that no tanker has done before: traverse the winter Arctic to ship fossil fuels from Norway to Japan.

MarineTraffic.com

You can follow its progress from your own natural gas-warmed home! Click to embiggen.

From the BBC:

The tanker was loaded with LNG at Hammerfest in the north of Norway on 7 November and set sail across the Barents Sea. It has been accompanied by a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker for much of its voyage. …

“It’s an extraordinarily interesting adventure,” Tony Lauritzen, commercial director at [the company that owns the vessel,] Dynagas, told BBC News.

“The people on board have been seeing polar bears on the route. We’ve had the plans for a long time and everything has gone well.”

Oh, good! There are still polar bears!

According to the BBC, the Hammerfest LNG facility (which, I’ll note, is an awesome name) was created to ship gas to the United States. With the natural gas boom created by fracking, the market has shifted to the east — particularly Japan, which needs energy sources in lieu of its nuclear plants. Under traditional conditions, that would have required a route around Europe, through Mediterranean and the Suez Canal, and around the southern expanse of Asia. Now, however, it can slip above Russia and down to Japan in 20 fewer days.

Why is this possible? You know why this is possible. Because we’ve polluted the atmosphere with things like the methane in that tanker.

The owners [of the Ob River] say that changing climate conditions and a volatile gas market make the Arctic transit profitable.

But the fossil fuel profiteers want to assure you that climate change is just a tiny part of this.

“The major point about gas is that it now goes east and not west,” says Gunnar Sander, senior adviser at the Norwegian Polar Institute and an expert on how climate change impacts economic activity in the Arctic.

“The shale gas revolution has turned the market upside down; that plus the rapid melting of the polar ice.”

He stresses that the changes in climate are less important than the growing demand for oil and gas.

Yes, that’s important to note. This huge tanker is shipping fossil fuels through the Arctic — something that has never been feasible before – just because there’s demand for it on the other side. If the Arctic hadn’t melted, they would have done this anyway, somehow.

As the commercial director of Dynagas said: “It’s an extraordinarily interesting adventure.” This changing climate, this brand new world is indeed a fascinating, uncharted adventure for us all!

Polar bears included.

artic pj

The Arctic Ocean, off the coast of Norway.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Business & Technology