Bush reverses 35 years of endangered species protection...

...in order to help his bigwig pals — concerned only with their money — who have gained from the past eight years of environmental injustice. Pulling America backwards, thanks George W!

AP:

Just six weeks before President-elect Barack Obama takes office, the Bush administration issued revised endangered species regulations Thursday to reduce the input of federal scientists and to block the law from being used to fight global warming.

The changes, which will go into effect in about 30 days, were completed in just four months. But they could take Obama much longer to reverse.

They will eliminate some of the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have performed for 35 years on dams, power plants, timber sales and other projects, a step that developers and other federal agencies have blamed for delays and cost increases.

The rules also prohibit federal agencies from evaluating the effect on endangered species and the places they live from a project's contribution to increased global warming.

Bush is trying to maximize the damage he does to America during his last days in office (mostly to the environment, but also abortion/employment rights).

From a must read Rolling Stone article:

"It's what we've seen for Bush's whole tenure, only accelerated," says Gary Bass, executive director of the nonpartisan group OMB Watch. "They're using regulation to cement their deregulatory mind-set, which puts corporate interests above public interests."

While every modern president has implemented last-minute regulations, Bush is rolling them out at a record pace — nearly twice as many as Clinton, and five times more than Reagan. "The administration is handing out final favors to its friends," says Véronique de Rugy, a scholar at George Mason University who has tracked six decades of midnight regulations. "They couldn't do it earlier — there would have been too many political repercussions. But with the Republicans having lost seats in Congress and the presidency changing parties, Bush has nothing left to lose."

Easily the worst president in the past 100 years — yes, it's my personal opinion that Bush has had a more destructive reign than recent blunders like Reagan and Nixon. One hopes there will be no worse leaders in this century.

Just imagine folks — in less than a month and a half we'll have a new president with a reasonably level head! It's going to feel good.

I expect President-elect Obama not only to reverse these horrendous last-minute executive actions by Bush, but also to move America forward in terms of environmental regulation. Hopefully the government will begin to protect what needs protecting (the poor, the environment) instead of powerful business interests who already hold far too much sway. Hopefully the value of what can not be replaced (including human lives) will overtake the value of a dollar. One can only hope.

Coral reef inhabitants face extinction

Some of the most diverse animals on the planet may soon disappear. Coral reefs and their inhabitants are being destroyed at an alarming rate, as rare ocean wildlife is already being harmed and fish supplies are dwindling.

A third of the world's reef-building coral species are facing extinction.

That is the stark conclusion from the first global study to assess the extinction risks of corals.

Writing in the journal Science, researchers say climate change, coastal development, overfishing, and pollution are the major threats.

The economic value of the world's reefs has been estimated at over $30bn (£15bn) per year, through tourism, fisheries and coastal protection.

"The picture is frightening," said Alex Rogers from the Zoological Society of London, one of 39 scientists involved in the assessment.

Say no to offshore drilling

In a move of populist pandering in an age of high gas prices, President George W. Bush...

has called on Congress to end a 27-year ban on drilling for oil in US coastal waters, to reduce dependence on imports.

We should not greatly endanger the environment when we should be looking for real solutions to the energy crisis. Offshore drilling -- like the loosening of gas taxes, or increased oil production -- is not a long-term solution. It will only make Americans more dependent on oil, and more dependent on something that destroys the environment in many more ways than one.

John McCain has made a complete U-turn on his offshore drilling policy, now following Bush in saying he supports it. His electoral opponent Barack Obama opposes both offshore drilling and the opening of ANWAR in Alaska.

Senator Obama dismissed Mr McCain's call as "political posturing" that would not bring down petrol prices and could endanger the country's coastal environment.

America's coastal environments have already been put in enough danger as the government takes a step back from regulating polluting industries. We have seen the vital role the coastal environment plays in protecting against hurricanes (New Orleans' natural defenses were down when Katrina hit) to soaking up what we pollute.

We shouldn't revert to old policies of drill-and-spill. I fail to see how this Republican ploy will do anything but hurt the United States in the long term. Isn't it time we moved beyond oil anyways?

Happy Earth Day

Yes, yes — today is the day hippies rejoice and we ponder what our malevolent human activities are doing to ruin the planet we inhabit. Happy Earth Day everyone!

Eco-friendly tip: Use less water

Heres an article from the Independent reminding you that every purchase you make affects someone, somehow — especially in an environmental sense. No, this doesn't concern greenhouse gas emissions, but something much simpler: water.

The concept of water footprints – or "virtual water" – will tell consumers the amount of precious H2O that has been used in the manufacture of products they buy. As with carbon footprints, a "virtual water" figure will indicate the extent to which a particular product has cost the earth. And, as with carbon footprints, the message is clear: less is better.

A new website run by the University of Twente in the Netherlands, waterfootprint.org, gives ethically minded consumers a chance to work out the hidden implications of their shopping habits.
...
Though it covers more than two-thirds of the earth's surface, water has never been more precious. An influential UN report published in 2003 predicted severe water shortages would affect 4 billion people by 2050, adding that 40 per cent of the world's population did not have access to adequate sanitation facilities.

The most effective method to combat the wasting of water? Use common sense. You don't even have to buy less (although two showers a day may be excessive). Recycling and conservation are, as always, the best things to do for the environment.

Water is already proving to be a global problem. The combination of global warming and overuse of water have made the need for drinking water one of the primary issues of our day, affecting especially those in developing countries.

If you're wondering why its been a bit cooler this year...

It's not because global warming is a myth. As the Beeb reports:

Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
...
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

Global climate change is a long-term trend; that doesn't mean it is not a current threat, though.

Calinferno

Over a million people were evacuated in Southern California last week, but, as this Economist article wisely says, there are simple, 'low-tech' solutions to this mess. Plus, it's a wonder people act so surprised these fires ever happen, considering they are

an integral part of nature, the mechanism by which much of vegetation regenerates itself.

(Remember 2003?) Even the arsons are exaggerated due to the overabundance of tinder.

How do you think Mexico manages their fires? Prescribed burning to prevent massive wildfires (the other 'fire paradox'), along with some common sense measures. Alas, as the article concludes,

everyone seems more concerned about their roses than their roofs.

Sidenote: the sunny state isn't even on the list of worst forest fire areas.

Sick planet: the Geo-4 report

Recently, the United Nations released its major Global Environmental Outlook report.

As this BBC News article explains,

Geo-4 covers the whole range of environmental issues, and the links between them.

In these climate-obsessed times, it is often forgotten that issues like forestry, fresh water supplies, agriculture, biodiversity, and the spread of desert land all connect to each other and to climate change.

In the language of James Lovelock's Gaia theory, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that have punctuated 2007 allowed us to take the planet's temperature; Geo-4 shows us what is going on in the blood supply, the lymph system, the intestines and the immune defences.

Third, it explores the links between social trends and environmental decline in a way that is not often done. Which other body, for example, asks whether the divergence we are seeing in the wealth of the richest and the poorest is good or bad for the environment?

This is a major report that should be brought to the attention of the public. Scientific evidence of our planet's declining state is not some alarmist liberal conspiracy, but a fact-supported plea for action. Often the ones who could take action most easily and effectively are some of the world's most affluent, and thus powerful, people, organizations, and nations, not to mention the big polluters and those who value short-term economic gain over long-term environmental livelihood (which greatly affects economic well-being too, not to mention mere human lives). Let's not value money over the planet that sustains — barely, at this point — our actions.

I hope to talk soon about the GEO report, as I skim it for eco-friendly living ideas (I've decided to move it from Mondays to Fridays). In the environmental complexities of today's world, it's good to look at the big picture.

Eco-friendly living tip: cease the beef

Eight years ago, general science magazine New Scientist said this:

IT IS hard to measure the methane in a cow's farts. But Dieter Ehhalt has made an estimate. It is hardly an easy task to count how many cattle there are in the world. But the West German chemist has tried to do that too. Ehhalt's answers are, respectively, 200 grams per day and 1300 million. Together, they suggest that the world's cattle emit into the atmosphere approaching 100 million tonnes of methane each year, enough to warm up the planet.

Today global warming is all-the-more pressing. CO2 may be the prime culprit in the eyes of environmental do-gooders, but methane is also a factor in the human-encouraged changing in our planet's climate. It is amazing to look back nearly a decade ago and see that nobody but 'environmentalist nuts' — as they are so often stereotyped in mainstream culture — heeded the warnings of scientists; now the general public is becoming more aware. Still, we see some hardly scientific denials every now and then, and many are still not even pretending to take action, but the thought of the precious polar bear dying out and the Manhattan of 2020 being a tourist spot for scuba divers has changed some minds. Where am I going with this? Well the topic of that old news article is the "Earth-friendly living tip of the week", albeit a few days late — methane, in specific the methane emitted from cows.

Why red meat isn't bad just for your heart...
Cows not only require a huge amount of food and water, considering especially how much food they provide, but also produce large amounts of methane, a key and harmful greenhouse gas that plays a role in global warming. Thus beef consumption is far from a good thing for the Earth.

As was written in the Christian Science Monitor,

American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year. ... Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

Beef is a big part of the livestock problem; a study earlier this year reported that

A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.

It can seem daunting that the steak you so enjoy is just as bad for the planet as a long drive in a SUV or 4X4, but it's about true. I'm one of those people who would love to be a vegetarian but just loves meat too much to kick the habit. However, I have lowered my beef intake, especially recently. This is more of a sacrifice than shutting off your computer or television, or changing a few light-bulbs; nonetheless it's something to consider. Lowering beef consumption is better for both health and environment, it seems.

Note: Usually I do the Earth-friendly living tip of the week on Mondays. Since this week has been a bit hectic, it's being done today instead.

Blog Action Day + Bush's inept global warming policy

Today is Blog Action Day, a day for bloggers to focus on the pressing issue of the environment.

http://www.blogactionday.org/resources

Tomorrow, as usual, I will do an "Earth-friendly living tip of the week"; but today I will focus on the political, as opposed to practical, side of global warming...

Mr. President, define 'flexible'
At his own climate change meeting a couple of weeks ago, President Bush stated a vague plan that is far from a compromise with even the moderates on the global warming issue. The American president's biggest step to meeting in the middle with the rational people who believe in scientific data instead of what lobbyists and pastors tell them — and this should be an indicator of not only how stubborn this man and his administration are, but how blind their policy is — was speaking of 'flexible' (i.e. industry-written) greenhouse gas targets, which mean nothing. Bush is sticking with White House policy of denying global warming and the human impact on the earth, and occasionally making a side-comment on how America shouldn't have to save the world if no one else will. (Perhaps the last thing he wanted to do was start a scientific debate against him, but that's what happened.)

Mr Bush stressed that combating climate change should not damage the economy.

And he again hinted that the US would not commit itself to mandatory CO2 cuts.

A few points on President George Bush's climate change policy:

Bush doesn't to justice to the climate change issue;

He pussyfoots the important issue of global greenhouse gas caps;

He is trying to appear somewhat eco-friendly to an increasingly aware American and global audience

Bush does know that global warming will hurt the economy more in the long run than can even be imagined now, right? The costs will be much greater the longer America and the world wait to take action. It's amazing, but not altogether surprising, that such a person of power can value money, an artificial human creation, over nature, a target of man's massive destructive powers.

Pundits have asked if Bush's latest environmental moves are stunts or real, albeit very small, progress; for now I'm erring on the side of the former.

Earth-friendly living tip of the week: no standby

Today I'm starting a new, regular In Perspective feature: weekly Earth-friendly living tips. Having already talked about CFL (swirly florescent) light bulbs, this week I will focus on turning off appliances.

When you turn of your television, for example, chances are it is not actually turning off. Because of TV components, it takes a few seconds for the tube to power up. So manufactures figured out a way to make TVs (etc.) turn on faster: standby. When your television is on standby, it is still using up a decent about of energy — without being used. It is best to have all large or major appliances — computers, TVs, etc. — hooked up to a power strip.

What I do every night or once I am finished watching television for a while is turn off that strip in order to conserve energy. I do the same with my computers and other electronic devices it is convenient to unplug. In Europe, more is being done to get rid of standby (many in the UK have the option of using a standby button). However, in America most people don't even know this feature exists; people think that when they turn their TV "Off" it is actually off. As the TerraPass blog says:

[According to a CNET energy usage report for TVs] the average TV...has a standby mode that consumes 6.5% of the electricity used in full-power mode.

6.5% might not sound like very much, but even in the average US household (where the TV is on for a staggering 8 hours a day) the standby mode is responsible for 13% of the TV’s energy consumption.

And an aforelinked BBC article states:

On average a traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) television set uses 100 watts of power when in use and about two watts on standby.

Newer LCD and plasma screens are higher users of energy, with the largest models consuming up to 400 watts when in use and about four watts on standby.

Unplugging things like televisions is just one way to reduce your carbon footprint — and it isn't that hard to flip a switch or unplug a device. Be sure to unplug chargers and other devices not in use; all these things add up, and not just on your electric bill! This week's tip helps both save you money as well as reducing your dent in the environment and, ultimately, our planet's dangerous turn towards global warming.

Carbon footprint tool(s)

Here is an interesting resource on the Earth Day website that calculates your carbon footprint — i.e. amount of CO2 greenhouse gases your activities and lifestyle emits — based on the car you drive, whether you eat meat, the size of your house, and a number of other factors. Not only is it important to take its results with a grain of salt (they're fairly scientific, but I wouldn't bet my life on them), but your impact is probably underestimated due to factors they don't ask about, like what kind of lawnmower you have, or whether you unplug your televisions when they are not in use, or what your electric and water consumption is... there are more things than could be included in a simple quiz.

Still check it out if you want to see which areas that affect your carbon footprint you need work in. One of the more thought-provoking features of the results the calculator gives you is how many planets the world population would need if everyone lived like you. For me, that number is a lot more than two.

But wait, there's more!
There are many more footprint tools out there. Listed below are some of the best I've found on the web. All of them are pretty quick and easy, so feel free to give them a try. (Post your scores and we can compare!)

World Resources Institute's carbon footprint tool;

Official UK govt. calculator;

A pretty good one from BP (go figure);

US EPA emissions tool.
Also see...
Yahoo! Green;
Clean Air-Cool Planet.

More on global warming and the environment soon.

Big business wants regulation; my light bulb agenda

Wow, things sure have changed. American industries now actually want government regulation! Of course, it's not to protect the consumer or increase fair competition — they want Washington to shield them from outside competition, as many markets grow more global.

See this chart by the NYT (click it):


I would like to note that one of those sought-after regulatory policies — the banning of wasteful incandescent light bulbs — I heavily support. Look for CFLs, the compact, often swirly florescent (don't worry, they come in all brightness levels and colors and don't make the horrible noise many florescent lights do) at your local store. Not only do they last longer than regular bulbs, but they use less energy, saving you money and causing less harm to the environment. In addition, they do not put out the massive amount of heat regular bulbs release, another helper to Mother Nature. Learn more here, here, and here.

All Bush, no action

US President George Bush. If one called him an environmentalist, one would be considered an absolute idiot. In America, has deregulated modest environmental controls, killed many eco-initiatives, rolled back years of environmental progress while accelarating the detrimental effect the US has on our planet. No, the purpose of this post isn't to go on another environmental schpiel, but the environment — like human rights and all other things not relating to war or money — is one of the subjects Bush is all talk, no action on.

He has proposed action on reducing greenhouse gases, even though he hardly, if at all, believes in global warming. Of course this is to pacify the international community infuriated by the US's inaction on such pressing global issues. Like his other not-so-bright ideas that he doesn't actually believe in, which are basically just rhetoric, there is no goal to actually take action on climate change from within the White House. Bush presented no ideas on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and outrightly opposed such common and expert-suggested actions like carbon trading and caps — sensible steps that can be taken modestly. In short, he has opposed any action at all. His administration has a track record on blocking progress in the battle against human caused climate change.

Rhetoric has seeped from the White House these past six years possibly more than ever. This rhetoric is often irrational and false. The administration has been unaccountable and the least transparent since Nixon's horrendous time in office. The environment and human rights might not be politically sexy issues like terrorism, but at the end of the day they matter more.

Not destroying the planet we inhabit to the point which we can survive no more should be a goal of governments everywhere — and it is a goal of many. However time and time again the only environmental policies the administration has enacted are either diluted forms of old ones or those in which it eats out of the hands of the agriculture or energy lobbies. And no, corn ethanol is not good for the environment. The only thing it is good for are the American farmers. Pain to the environment is a high price to pay for pleasing special interests — like when Ronald Reagen had the brilliant idea of sacking many of the US's practical and fuel efficient trains and killing the competition of the truck driver lobby. it is actually counterproductive to make because it takes nearly 30% more energy to create than it gives out (another plant Bush has spoken about, switchgrass, uses 45% more energy to make than it ultimately gives out, and that's not Bush bashing, its science. That is energy made by — drumroll please — the same fossil fuels America apparantly hoped to get away from in the first place. Coal has also popped up as a contender to power the US's massive energy usage. Coal is also much dirtier than oil, and is an overall stupid fuel to use in that it is amazingly unenvironmentally friendly.

Sugar ethanol might well be the way to go. One might think it would be easy, with free trade and all, and Brazil — which uses E85 sugar ethanol — only a bit away. The catch-22(s): free trade isn't that free when you have lobbyist and special interests nipping at your political power. One of the many problems in America which I hope to cover soon is indeed the prevalence of special interests and the detrimental affect they wreak on democracy.

Like many, I am skeptical of Bush's new environmental plan. As climate change reaches another 'tipping point' — honestly, hysterics don't help either — action must be taken. And his announcement comes after America refused a sensible G8 action plan on reducing greenhouse gases. Bush has a hard time accepting science. This is in part due to his wanting to reach into the deep pockets of the lobbyists for political and financial gold, but also comes as a result of his stubborn, narrow ideology, the same ideology that rejects scientifically-backed up evolution in favor of a more religious approach. And some people wonder why he has messed up the United States so much.

Don't just blame the superpower

It's really easy to blame the United States — and just the United States — for a number of things. It's a perfect target. The world's sole superpower, the US makes foreign policy mistakes frequently. Of course it is also easy to blame the big guy: the most powerful, most senior, most vulnerable for criticism, etc. On the subject of greenhouse gas emissions, however, it might be a bit harder to put the whole of climate change blame on the US. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has stated that China could very soon overtake the US as the leading greenhouse gas emitter. Greenhouse gases play a role in global climate change.

The IEA says China will give our more CO2 than the US by 2010. Of course China is developing, less wealthy and more unable to enforce or create environmental standards, and just harder to blame than America. Even staunch free trade activists say that wealth leads to environmental enlightenment (and wealth comes from the exchange of goods, i.e. trade). China is no doubt being reckless in its massive industrial endeavors, but it does acknowledge climate change. But like the Sudan issue (generally), there is more rhetoric than action.

A big issue is the use of coal powered power plants. America also uses coal as a primary power source; coal is one of the dirtiest sources of power. Both economic giants must act now more than ever — especially the developed, wealthy US — to reduce coal dependence and enforce, not just promote, clean environmental policies. At the risk of sounding like a Green: we only have one planet, let's treat it wisely or future humans will pay the price. China and the United States are both huge countries with plenty of wind power potential, plenty of sun, and plenty of coastline and rivers for water-powered energy. I'd say its more cost effective to dish out some money for solar panels and wind turbines than to destroy your planet, thus destroying any economy. Why not pay the relatively small price now so we don't have to pay it later — when it will have a cost in currencies other than dollars, euros, yuans or yen.

When one considers all the factors, America has more of a responsibility to take action on its environmental policies, but China could save itself plenty of money (not to mention other things) if it acted sooner rather than later. At the risk of sounding like Al Gore: it's time for governments to act, now, on global warming. How does it hurt to not destroy our only habitat as much anyways?

I'll be covering alternative energy more soon, as well as free trade.

Supreme Court tells EPA to do its job, and it should

The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can — and should — do its job. The party spearheading the case against the EPA was a collection of environmental groups, states, along with other individuals and groups. (The EPA is a part, like, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security, of the White House.) The Bush administration had argued the EPA should not regulate greenhouse emissions known to cause global warming created by driving a car. Apparently, in their view, protecting the public interest from climate change is pointless — since it isn’t happening and of course it’s not our fault (so they think).

The Bush administration has even brought California to court in the past because of its tough environmental policies on vehicle emissions and clean air. Just because the EPA doesn’t do its job doesn’t mean the states cannot. In addition, that contradicted the federalist stance of many conservative heavyweights associated with and in power in the White House.

The EPA has even refused to mandate an official policy on potentially disastrous effects of too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Such gases are so called because of the earth-warming effect they produce, where sunlight is trapped. The court ruled the EPA had no excuse in overlooking greenhouse gases and global warming, on a policy and regulatory level. The EPA has also given plenty of poor excuses for its lack of initiative on an issue deemed so important by the scientific community. This is yet another judicial defeat — albeit a righteous one — for Bush.

This isn’t the first time the Bush administration and US government has disregarded science: evolution, stem cells, and other issues remain and the White House seems to want to tie religion into all of them. Maybe they also don’t think that driving a big SUV releases gases which — when given out in massive amounts — contribute to climate change. Then again in their view global warming isn’t happening. Just like evolution.

On a similar note, the UN is set to release the second in a string of reports this year on climate change. The upcoming one will focus on the impact of such global change. We already know it hurts the poor the most.

Update:
I thought it good to include some of the majority and dissenting opinions of the ruling, which delt with both the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulatory power over emissions in the first Supreme Court ruling on climate change-related issues. Expect more to come; and Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, the conservative pals on the bench, will continue to hide behind their limited judicial power/review ideology.
IHT:

"EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both 'actual' and 'imminent,' " Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, citing two standards linked to standing.

"EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," Justice Stevens wrote. Instead, the agency resorted to "impermissible considerations" in rejecting the plaintiffs' request to regulate those admissions, the justice wrote.

"Its action was therefore 'arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,' " Justice Stevens went on. Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined his decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. dissented, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. The chief justice said his dissent "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem."

Not only did Stevens, et al rule against the Bush administration's interpretation of existing pollution legislation, meaning greenhouse gases, in the court's view, is a similar destructive pollutant to that of those highly regulated, but they also slammed the EPA for just not caring about CO2, politics and policy brushed aside.

technorati tags: EPA, bush, politics, supreme+court, environment, government, climate+change, global+warming, news, current, un, united+states, usa, united+nations, greenhouse+gases, auto+emissions, environmental+protection+agency, california, court, justice, white+house

Who does global warming hurt the most?

...The people who are already down on their luck as it is.

The world's poor, who are the least responsible for global warming, will suffer the most from the effects of climate change, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told global environment ministers on Monday.

"The degradation of the global environment continues unabated ... and the effects of climate change are being felt across the globe," Ban said in a statement after last week's toughest warning yet mankind is to blame for global warming.

For some reason I'm not really surprised. Number one, I have heard this kind of talk before, and agree with it, and number two it is typical for developed, wealthy states to be selfish — whether it is with trade, debt, or whatever — even on an issue that is going to hurt themselves too. It is all to typical for things to hurt most the people who do the least to cause those things, and have little power against those problems. Keep in mind the current Kyoto Act expires in 2012, where do developed nations go from there?

This week I plan to have a fair amount of posts on climate change, relating to both the scientific and political and humanitarian sides of the issue.

technorati tags: climage+change, global+warming, developing, industrialized, developed, kyoto+act, ban+ki-moon, environment

Warming, warming, warming...

Global warming and climate change: the inevitability, the issue, the danger, the scenario, and the crisis.

I may have missed out on analyzing the Stern Review**, but this latest climate change study is totally new to the news.

The Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year.

While I think the carbon emission market set up in Europe is a brilliant idea, it has been hard to implement and there have reportedly been misunderstandings and loopholes in enforcing the principles of the project — which is like a carbon dioxide (CO2 is one of the leading greenhouse emissions) stock market. The United States is by far the number one polluter of greenhouse gasses, and shows no sign of letting up soon.

At the recent United Nations climate summit in Nairobi, a number of delegations, including those of Britain, Australia and the US, pointed out that they had managed to grow their economies without significant increases in carbon emissions.

Proof enough, or just that nasty UN getting on the righteous "freedom"-loving Americans again? Who needs stupid diplomacy? .

Coming up right behind the US is rising power China, expected to take the number one spot in a while. America has yet to show any promise, with no help to the news media (versus the near-ample coverage British media has given the scientific issue of climate change). Any time that global warming has potentially been tied to something regular people can associate with (e.g. 2005's Hurricane Katrina hitting the US gulf coast), that smidgen of credibility and sensibility is knocked off the table by the media that does talk about global warming and possible implications blowing things like hurricanes out of proportion! Therefore, you have the groups of: sensible educated people who believe in scientific climate change (that's me), those who don't believe it at all [because they are narrow-minded or otherwise], those who believe it because of the hyped version that links global warming to temporary things (unseasonably summer heat, hurricanes — yet to be proven tied to the kind of climate change we are really talking about), and those who don't believe in global warming because of the sensationalized version they get.

The United States may have left the building of realism of impending ecological disaster for now, but at least there are international consortiums — such as the IPCC (see aforelink) — working on this serious matter.

**: From 1 Nov.

Check out the latest global warming report commissioned by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, the Stern Review. It shows that climate change could easily and greatly devistate the economies of the world very fast. The more we wait, the higher the economic, humanitarian, and environmental toll will be.

technorati tags: news+media, media, climate+change, ecology, environment, science, stern+review, global+warming, greenhouse, international, united+states, USA, china, UK, hurricaine, weather, katrina, un, united+nations, diplomacy, IPCC