ClimateCrisis

What a Speed - Video Dailymotion

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:44:00 +0000

How will everything change under climate change

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:55:00 +0000

The alarm bells of the climate crisis have been ringing in our ears for years and are getting louder all the time - yet humanity has failed to change course. What is wrong with us?

Many answers to that question have been offered, ranging from the extreme difficulty of getting all the governments in the world to agree on anything, to an absence of real technological solutions, to something deep in our human nature that keeps us from acting in the face of seemingly remote threats, to – more recently – the claim that we have blown it anyway and there is no point in even trying to do much more than enjoy the scenery on the way down.

Some of these explanations are valid, but all are ultimately inadequate. Take the claim that it’s just too hard for so many countries to agree on a course of action. It is hard. But many times in the past, the United Nations has helped governments to come together to tackle tough cross-border challenges, from ozone depletion to nuclear proliferation. The deals produced weren’t perfect, but they represented real progress. Moreover, during the same years that our governments failed to enact a tough and binding legal architecture requiring emission reductions, supposedly because cooperation was too complex, they managed to create the World Trade Organisation – an intricate global system that regulates the flow of goods and services around the planet, under which the rules are clear and violations are harshly penalised.

The assertion that we have been held back by a lack of technological solutions is no more compelling. Power from renewable sources like wind and water predates the use of fossil fuels and is becoming cheaper, more efficient, and easier to store every year. The past two decades have seen an explosion of ingenious zero-waste design, as well as green urban planning. Not only do we have the technical tools to get off fossil fuels, we also have no end of small pockets where these low carbon lifestyles have been tested with tremendous success. And yet the kind of large-scale transition that would give us a collective chance of averting catastrophe eludes us.

Is it just human nature that holds us back then? In fact we humans have shown ourselves willing to collectively sacrifice in the face of threats many times, most famously in the embrace of rationing, victory gardens, and victory bonds during world wars one and two. Indeed to support fuel conservation during world war two, pleasure driving was virtually eliminated in the UK, and between 1938 and 1944, use of public transit went up by 87% in the US and by 95% in Canada. Twenty million US households – representing three fifths of the population – were growing victory gardens in 1943, and their yields accounted for 42% of the fresh vegetables consumed that year. Interestingly, all of these activities together dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

Yes, the threat of war seemed immediate and concrete but so too is the threat posed by the climate crisis that has already likely been a substantial contributor to massive disasters in some of the world’s major cities. Still, we’ve gone soft since those days of wartime sacrifice, haven’t we? Contemporary humans are too self-centered, too addicted to gratification to live without the full freedom to satisfy our every whim – or so our culture tells us every day. And yet the truth is that we continue to make collective sacrifices in the name of an abstract greater good all the time. We sacrifice our pensions, our hard-won labour rights, our arts and after-school programmes. We accept that we have to pay dramatically more for the destructive energy sources that power our transportation and our lives. We accept that bus and subway fares go up and up while service fails to improve or degenerates. We accept that a public university education should result in a debt that will take half a lifetime to pay off when such a thing was unheard of a generation ago.

The past 30 years have been a steady process of getting less and less in the public sphere. This is all defended in the name of austerity, the current justification for these never-ending demands for collective sacrifice. In the past, calls for balanced budgets, greater efficiency, and faster economic growth have served the same role.

It seems to me that if humans are capable of sacrificing this much collective benefit in the name of stabilising an economic system that makes daily life so much more expensive and precarious, then surely humans should be capable of making some important lifestyle changes in the interest of stabilising the physical systems upon which all of life depends. Especially because many of the changes that need to be made to dramatically cut emissions would also materially improve the quality of life for the majority of people on the planet – from allowing kids in Beijing to play outside without wearing pollution masks to creating good jobs in clean energy sectors for millions.

Time is tight, to be sure. But we could commit ourselves, tomorrow, to radically cutting our fossil fuel emissions and beginning the shift to zero-carbon sources of energy based on renewable technology, with a full-blown transition underway within the decade. We have the tools to do that. And if we did, the seas would still rise and the storms would still come, but we would stand a much greater chance of preventing truly catastrophic warming. Indeed, entire nations could be saved from the waves.

So my mind keeps coming back to the question: what is wrong with us? I think the answer is far more simple than many have led us to believe: we have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism, the reigning ideology for the entire period we have been struggling to find a way out of this crisis. We are stuck because the actions that would give us the best chance of averting catastrophe – and would benefit the vast majority – are extremely threatening to an elite minority that has a stranglehold over our economy, our political process, and most of our major media outlets. That problem might not have been insurmountable had it presented itself at another point in our history. But it is our great collective misfortune that the scientific community made its decisive diagnosis of the climate threat at the precise moment when those elites were enjoying more unfettered political, cultural, and intellectual power than at any point since the 1920s. Indeed, governments and scientists began talking seriously about radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in 1988 – the exact year that marked the dawning of what came to be called “globalisation,” with the signing of the agreement representing the world’s largest bilateral trade relationship between Canada and the US, later to be expanded into the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with the inclusion of Mexico.

The three policy pillars of this new era are familiar to us all: privatisation of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and lower corporate taxation, paid for with cuts to public spending. Much has been written about the real-world costs of these policies – the instability of financial markets, the excesses of the super-rich, and the desperation of the increasingly disposable poor, as well as the failing state of public infrastructure and services. Very little, however, has been written about how market fundamentalism has, from the very first moments, systematically sabotaged our collective response to climate change.

The core problem was that the stranglehold that market logic secured over public life in this period made the most direct and obvious climate responses seem politically heretical. How, for instance, could societies invest massively in zero-carbon public services and infrastructure at a time when the public sphere was being systematically dismantled and auctioned off? How could governments heavily regulate, tax, and penalise fossil fuel companies when all such measures were being dismissed as relics of “command and control” communism? And how could the renewable energy sector receive the supports and protections it needed to replace fossil fuels when “protectionism” had been made a dirty word?

Even more directly, the policies that so successfully freed multinational corporations from virtually all constraints also contributed significantly to the underlying cause of global warming – rising greenhouse gas emissions. The numbers are striking: In the 1990s, as the market integration project ramped up, global emissions were going up an average of one percent a year; by the 2000s, with “emerging markets” like China now fully integrated into the world economy, emissions growth had sped up disastrously, with the annual rate of increase reaching 3.4% a year for much of the decade. That rapid growth rate continues to this day, interrupted only briefly in 2009 by the world financial crisis. Emissions rebounded with a vengeance in 2010, which saw the largest absolute increase since the Industrial Revolution.

As a result, we now find ourselves in a very difficult and slightly ironic position. Because of those decades of hardcore emitting, exactly when we were supposed to be cutting back, the things we must do to avoid catastrophic warming are no longer just in conflict with the particular strain of deregulated capitalism that triumphed in the 1980s. They are now in conflict with the fundamental imperative at the heart of our economic model: grow or die.

Once carbon has been emitted into the atmosphere, it sticks around for hundreds of years, some of it even longer, trapping heat. The effects are cumulative, growing more severe with time. And according to emissions specialists like the Tyndall Centre’s Kevin Anderson (as well as others), so much carbon has been allowed to accumulate in the atmosphere over the past two decades that now our only hope of keeping warming below the internationally agreed-upon target of 2C is for wealthy countries to cut their emissions by somewhere in the neighbourhood of eight to 10% a year. The “free” market simply cannot accomplish this task. Indeed, this level of emission reduction has happened only in the context of economic collapse or deep depressions.

What those numbers mean is that our economic system and our planetary system are now at war. Or, more accurately, our economy is at war with many forms of life on earth, including human life. What the climate needs to avoid collapse is a contraction in humanity’s use of resources; what our economic model demands to avoid collapse is unfettered expansion. Only one of these sets of rules can be changed, and it’s not the laws of nature.

Fortunately, it is eminently possible to transform our economy so that it is less resource-intensive, and to do it in ways that are equitable, with the most vulnerable protected and the most responsible bearing the bulk of the burden. Low-carbon sectors of our economies can be encouraged to expand and create jobs, while high-carbon sectors are encouraged to contract. The problem, however, is that this scale of economic planning and management is entirely outside the boundaries of our reigning ideology. The only kind of contraction our current system can manage is a brutal crash, in which the most vulnerable will suffer most of all.

So we are left with a stark choice: allow climate disruption to change everything about our world, or change pretty much everything about our economy to avoid that fate. But we need to be very clear: because of our decades of collective denial, no gradual, incremental options are now available to us. Gentle tweaks to the status quo stopped being a climate option when we supersized the American Dream in the 1990s, and then proceeded to take it global. And it’s no longer just radicals who see the need for radical change. In 2012, 21 past winners of the prestigious Blue Planet Prize – a group that includes James Hansen, former director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister of Norway – authored a landmark report. It stated that, “in the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.”

That’s tough for a lot of people in important positions to accept, since it challenges something that might be even more powerful than capitalism, and that is the fetish of centrism – of reasonableness, seriousness, splitting the difference, and generally not getting overly excited about anything. This is the habit of thought that truly rules our era, far more among the liberals who concern themselves with matters of climate policy than among conservatives, many of whom simply deny the existence of the crisis. Climate change presents a profound challenge to this cautious centrism because half measures won’t cut it: “all of the above energy” program, as US president Barack Obama describes his approach, has about as much chance of success as an all-of-the-above diet, and the firm deadlines imposed by science require that we get very worked up indeed.

The challenge, then, is not simply that we need to spend a lot of money and change a lot of policies; it’s that we need to think differently, radically differently, for those changes to be remotely possible. A worldview will need to rise to the fore that sees nature, other nations, and our own neighbours not as adversaries, but rather as partners in a grand project of mutual reinvention.

That’s a big ask. But it gets bigger. Because of our endless procrastination, we also have to pull off this massive transformation without delay. The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that if we do not get our emissions under control by a rather terrifying 2017, our fossil fuel economy will “lock-in” extremely dangerous warming. “The energy-related infrastructure then in place will generate all the CO2 emissions allowed” in our carbon budget for limiting warming to 2C – “leaving no room for additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would be extremely costly”. This assumes, probably accurately, that governments would be unwilling to force the closure of still profitable power plants and factories. As Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, bluntly put it: “The door to reach two degrees is about to close. In 2017 it will be closed forever.” In short, we have reached what some activists have started calling “Decade Zero” of the climate crisis: we either change now or we lose our chance. All this means that the usual free market assurances – A techno-fix is around the corner! Dirty development is just a phase on the way to a clean environment, look at 19th-century London! – simply don’t add up. We don’t have a century to spare for China and India to move past their Dickensian phases. Because of our lost decades, it is time to turn this around now. Is it possible? Absolutely. Is it possible without challenging the fundamental logic of deregulated capitalism? Not a chance.

I was struck recently by a mea culpa of sorts, written by Gary Stix, a senior editor of Scientific American. Back in 2006, he edited a special issue on responses to climate change and, like most such efforts, the articles were narrowly focused on showcasing exciting low-carbon technologies.
But in 2012 Stix wrote that he had overlooked a much larger and more important part of the story – the need to create the social and political context in which these technological shifts stand a chance of displacing the all too profitable status quo. “If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of the next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison.”

In other words, our problem has a lot less to do with the mechanics of solar power than the politics of human power – specifically whether there can be a shift in who wields it, a shift away from corporations and toward communities, which in turn depends on whether or not the great many people who are getting a rotten deal under our current system can build a determined and diverse enough social force to change the balance of power. Such a shift would require rethinking the very nature of humanity’s power – our right to extract ever more without facing consequences, our capacity to bend complex natural systems to our will. This is a shift that challenges not only capitalism, but also the building blocks of materialism that preceded modern capitalism, a mentality some call “extractivism”.

Because, underneath all of this is the real truth we have been avoiding: climate change isn’t an “issue” to add to the list of things to worry about, next to healthcare and taxes. It is a civilisational wake-up call. A powerful message – spoken in the language of fires, floods, droughts, and extinctions – telling us that we need an entirely new economic model and a new way of sharing this planet. Telling us that we need to evolve.

Some say there is no time for this transformation; the crisis is too pressing and the clock is ticking. I agree that it would be reckless to claim that the only solution to this crisis is to revolutionise our economy and revamp our worldview from the bottom up – and anything short of that is not worth doing. There are all kinds of measures that would lower emissions substantively that could and should be done right now. But we aren’t taking those measures, are we? The reason is that by failing to fight these big battles that stand to shift our ideological direction and change the balance of who holds power in our societies, a context has been slowly created in which any muscular response to climate change seems politically impossible, especially during times of economic crisis.

On the other hand, if we can shift the cultural context even a little, then there will be some breathing room for those sensible reformist policies that will at least get the atmospheric carbon numbers moving in the right direction. And winning is contagious so, who knows?

For a quarter of a century, we have tried the approach of polite incremental change, attempting to bend the physical needs of the planet to our economic model’s need for constant growth and new profit-making opportunities. The results have been disastrous, leaving us all in a great deal more danger than when the experiment began.

Looking for a Moose is one of my two-year-old son’s favourite books. It’s about a bunch of kids that really, really, really want to see a moose. They search high and low – through a forest, a swamp, in brambly bushes and up a mountain, for “a long legged, bulgy nosed, branchy antlered moose”.
The joke is that there are moose hiding on each page. In the end, the animals all come out of hiding and the ecstatic kids proclaim: “We’ve never ever seen so many moose!”

On about the 75th reading, it suddenly hit me: he might never see a moose. I tried to hold it together. I went back to my computer and began to write about my time in northern Alberta, tar sands country, where members of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation told me about how the moose had changed – one woman described killing a moose on a hunting trip only to find that the flesh had already turned green. I heard a lot about strange tumors too, which locals assumed had to do with the animals drinking water contaminated by tar sands toxins. But mostly I heard about how the moose were simply gone.

And not just in Alberta. “Rapid Climate Changes Turn North Woods into Moose Graveyard,” reads a May 2012 headline in Scientific American. A year and a half later, The New York Times was reporting that one of Minnesota’s two moose populations had declined from four thousand in the 1990s to just one hundred today. Will he ever see a moose?

Then, the other day, I was slain by a miniature board book called Snuggle Wuggle. It involves different animals cuddling, with each posture given a ridiculously silly name: “How does a bat hug?” it asks. “Topsy turvy, topsy turvy.” For some reason my son reliably cracks up at this page. I explain that it means upside down, because that’s the way bats sleep.

But all I could think about was the report of some 100,000 dead and dying bats raining down from the sky in the midst of record-breaking heat across part of Queensland, Australia. Whole colonies devastated. Will he ever see a bat?

When fear like that used to creep through my armour of climate change denial, I would do my utmost to stuff it away, change the channel, click past it. Now I try to feel it. It seems to me that I owe it to my son, just as we all owe it to ourselves and one another.

But what should we do with this fear that comes from living on a planet that is dying, made less alive every day? First, accept that it won’t go away. That it is a fully rational response to the unbearable reality that we are living in a dying world, a world that a great many of us are helping to kill, by doing things like making tea and driving to the grocery store and yes, okay, having kids.

Next, use it. Fear is a survival response. Fear makes us run, it makes us leap, it can make us act superhuman. But we need somewhere to run to. Without that, the fear is only paralysing. So the real trick, the only hope, really, is to allow the terror of an unlivable future to be balanced and soothed by the prospect of building something much better than many of us have previously dared hope.

Yes, there will be things we will lose, luxuries some of us will have to give up, whole industries that will disappear. Climate change is already here, and increasingly brutal disasters are headed our way no matter what we do. But it’s not too late to avert the worst, and there is still time to change ourselves so that we are far less brutal to one another when those disasters strike. And that, it seems to me, is worth a great deal.

Because the thing about a crisis this big, this all-encompassing, is that it changes everything. It changes what we can do, what we can hope for, what we can demand from ourselves and our leaders. It means there is a whole lot of stuff that we have been told is inevitable that simply cannot stand. And it means that a whole lot of stuff we have been told is impossible has to start happening right away.

Can we pull it off? All I know is that nothing is inevitable. Nothing except that climate change changes everything. And for a very brief time, the nature of that change is still up to us.

Funny attitudes against Arab in estrangement

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:47:00 +0000

Driving with brown dads

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:54:00 +0000

Innovative Leadership

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:02:00 +0000

Innovative Leadership:

The technological and policy solutions for the climate crisis already exist. What's missing is something much more important but less tangible: innovative leadership.

Innovative leaders help us see what's possible. They bring us together and help us achieve more as a community than we ever imagined we could do as individuals. Martin Luther King, Jr, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy understood this; they unleashed creative processes that helped us reach new heights, whether political, technological, or spiritual. We need leaders to help us move forward again, this time to solve the climate crisis.

Innovative leadership exists. For example, last year Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed executive orders requiring the state government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by ten percent by 2012 and by forty percent by 2025. His actions will lead to more efficient government buildings and vehicles and will increase the use of alternative energy. The new policies also have great potential to stimulate local economic growth in renewable energy and efficient building sectors, creating jobs and driving innovation.

In another example, Colorado voters passed a ballot initiative in 2004 requiring ten percent of the state's energy to be renewable. Building on this initial success, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and the legislature signed new policy in 2007 that doubles the amount of renewable energy by 2020 for investor-owned utilities, and makes it easier to connect the new clean energy to where it's needed. They plan to double the amount of renewable energy by 2020 for investor-owned utilities and passed laws to make it easier to transfer electricity from renewable sources. This shows how leaders can promote policies that help solve climate change. It also shows how individuals working together can promote policies and help make a difference: Colorado voters were clear about what they wanted, and elected officials responded by making better policies.

There are many examples of innovative leadership in every region and in every sector. But we need more. To help ensure that our children have a positive future, we will need to support -- and demand -- innovative leadership at the community, state, and national levels.

As individuals, we must urge leaders to make climate change a priority. We must speak up for what we believe in and urge our leaders to pass legislation that will dramatically reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of renewable energy sources. Please join us today and help add your voice to this important issue.

Enhanced Energy Efficiency

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:00:00 +0000

Enhanced Energy Efficiency:

Solving global warming isn't only about installing majestic wind turbines and glistening solar energy systems in the desert. One of the cheapest, most effective, and safest ways to reduce global warming pollution is to increase our energy efficiency. In fact, by using energy efficiency technologies and today's know-how, we could cut our global warming pollution by a third.

So why aren't we?

In the United States, we're off to a good start - innovation and improvements over the past 30 years have allowed our economy to grow faster than our energy consumption. Unfortunately, in the next 22 years our electricity consumption is expected to grow by 25%. That'll mean an extra 550 million tons of CO2 each year that we'll have to reduce to stop global warming.

The good news is that by aggressively improving our energy efficiency now, we can nearly eliminate this increase. It'll take leadership, but there are plenty of examples of how energy efficiency has worked. For example, people using energy-efficient appliances in 2007 avoided global warming pollution equivalent to nearly 27 million cars. If everyone did likewise -- and we similarly improved America's buildings, industry, and transportation -- we could reduce annual emissions equivalent to nearly 400 million cars. That's 2 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide (more than 6,000 times the weight of the Empire State Building!).

Building for energy-efficiency: In the United States alone, buildings are responsible for 25-35% of greenhouse gas emissions. By making simple changes, like using the proper amount of insulation, we can save half of the energy it takes to heat, cool, light, and otherwise provide power to buildings. And, with buildings lasting for 40-50 years or more, efficiency choices we make now will last at least a generation.

Cutting fuel costs on the road: CO2 emissions from cars and trucks account for about one-third of all energy-related global warming pollution in the United States. Cars bought in the United States last year averaged only 20 miles per gallon (mpg), which is less than half the gas mileage available on the most efficient cars today and about the same as a 1908 Model T. We can do better than a car introduced 100 years ago. With American innovation and technology, we can offer all cars with much better fuel economy and the same level of safety and features we expect. And the opportunities are not just available for cars: heavy-duty trucks, which transport about 60% of the goods we buy and use 39 billion gallons of fuel every year, can also become more efficient. Effective gas mileage standards and support for innovative technologies will keep our transportation system moving while greatly decreasing our environmental impact.

Making new appliances more energy-efficient: By using energy-efficient products at home and at work, we can significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without sacrificing function, style, or features. For the home and at work, we already have excellent federally rated EnergyStar appliances that are designed to use 10 to 50 percent less energy and water than other appliances.

In a nutshell -- buy the most efficient technologies available. Stop wasting energy at home, at work, and on the road. And importantly - ask your leaders to set new standards for efficiency for all sectors so that from now on 'best practice' in energy efficiency becomes normal practice for everyone.

Adoption of Renewables

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:57:00 +0000

Adoption of Renewables:

We can help break our addiction to fossil fuels like coal and oil by switching to renewable energy. In fact, with upgrades to our electricity grid, the United States could meet all of its power needs, with renewable energy and support a significant portion of our transportation needs, too.

Wind Power: The United States added enough wind power in 2007 alone to provide electricity to more than a million homes. Texas is the fastest-growing wind power state and about 15% of the country has excellent wind, especially the Great Plains. Today's efficient wind turbines are sleek and powerful, and can be taller than the Statue of Liberty with blades longer than the wings of a Boeing 737. When connected together through a national grid, wind power could provide at least one-third of our total electricity needs.

Solar Thermal: Solar thermal power -- which uses solar energy to drive turbines -- already produces enough electricity in the United States for about 100,000 homes, but several utilities have announced projects to provide enough power for 10 times that many homes in the next several years. And, because solar thermal power plants can store energy to produce electricity at night, they can be installed in place of new coal power plants. Just a small area of solar thermal in the Southwest could supply all of the US electricity needs.

Solar Photovoltaics: States like California and New Jersey are already implementing programs to encourage communities to install solar panels in new homes, buildings, and even on parking lot roofs. Solar photovoltaics, which can now be integrated into roof tiles, have no moving parts and can even produce electricity on cloudy days. It will become more common as global installations of photovoltaics grow by an expected 800% in the next 10 years. If these systems were installed on all sunny buildings in the US, we could supply at least one-quarter of our electricity needs.

Geothermal Power: Today, the United States is the leading producer of geothermal power, producing enough electricity from underground hot rocks for more than 2 million homes. Experts say that we could have 15-30 times as much power over the next few decades thanks to recent advances in geothermal technology.

These technologies are just a few of the opportunities available today. All across the country and around the world, companies, governments, universities, and individuals are working to make renewable energy even more affordable and widely available.

The tide is turning toward renewable energy, but progress has been too slow. Individuals acting alone can't halt the 100+ new coal power plants currently being considered. And they certainly can't build new solar thermal power plants by themselves. That's why we need our leaders at all levels to do more to promote renewable energy.

Some government and business leaders are already taking a leadership role and considering the long-term costs of fossil fuels. Recently, three of the nation's largest investment banks -- Citi, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley -- announced that they will begin using new climate-based principles when considering loans for proposed coal-fired power plants. This is a first step towards investors choosing efficient and clean alternatives -- which will create new jobs in important sectors.

To ensure greater adoption of renewable energy, each of us needs to urge our friends, utility companies, and government officials to more aggressively promote and integrate renewable power into all sectors of the economy. Together, we can stop the building of new dirty power plants and instead ensure that future energy projects take advantage of the clean renewable resources available. Please get involved today.

Personal Choices

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:53:00 +0000

Personal Choices:

Throughout history, people have been a powerful force for positive change. That's because when people unite and call for action, change isn't just possible, it's inevitable. But no single person stormed the beaches of Normandy or ended slavery, and no single person will stop global warming. When we solve the climate crisis, it will be because of regular people like you and me. It will be because we, along with our neighbors, co-workers, and friends around the world, took a stand and demanded that our leaders make stopping global warming a top priority.

In order to create the kind of large-scale change required to halt climate change, we need elected leaders to implement policies and pass laws that promote renewable energy and support energy efficiency. We need companies to publicly support these policies and improve their business operations and product offerings.

In addition to making our voices heard, we can each make climate-friendly choices in our personal lives, whether by buying energy efficient appliances, switching to electricity generated by renewable energy, or taking public transportation. By taking these actions and by talking to our friends about the climate crisis, we are not only reducing our personal contribution to global warming, we're building support for additional progress at the local, state, national, and international level.

The good news is that we are already a million strong and have begun to make our voices heard. Before the UN Climate Conference in Bali, we urged people to contact the State Department to support stronger action on the climate crisis. Thousands acted and the State Department called us to let us know they were collecting the responses and reporting the feedback to the US delegation. We're going to build on successes like this to ensure elected leaders and companies take action now, not ten years from now when it's too late.

As people like you and I get involved, the future will become safer and cleaner for our kids. Innovation and imagination will be the centerpieces of our robust economy. This isn't mere possibility; it is the future we need to ensure happens. We must stop global warming -- we cannot afford to fail. Please add your voice today and be part of the solution.

Clean Energy Economy

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:47:00 +0000

Clean Energy Economy:

Thousands of new companies, millions of new jobs, and billions in revenue generated by solutions to the climate crisis -- this is the clean energy economy we can adopt with today's technologies, resources, know-how, and leadership from our elected officials. Although our reliance on fossil fuels has created global warming, we now have the opportunity and obligation to begin a transformation towards a robust clean energy economy -- one that is supported by highly efficient industries, fueled by clean, renewable resources (like wind, solar and geothermal energy), and based on modern infrastructure and smart transportation planning.

A clean energy economy is a win for American jobs. A recent report showed that investment in a clean and efficient economy would "lead to over 3 million new green-collar jobs, stimulate $1.4 trillion in new GDP, add billions in personal income and retail sales, produce $284 billion in net energy savings, all while generating sufficient returns to the U.S. treasury to pay for itself over ten years."

Studies by leading research institutions have shown that if we invest in clean energy over fossil fuels, we will create more American jobs. A report released by the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club, for example, found that thanks to the growth of wind energy, approximately 5,200 manufacturing jobs could be created in Iowa alone over the next decade. Additional studies have found that thousands more jobs could be created in other states that have suffered industry job losses and that welcome the opportunity to train workers for the new energy economy.

Even without strong U.S. leadership, clean energy is catching on around the world. Global investment in renewable energy climbed 25% in 2006 (from $80 billion to $100 billion). Three clean-energy industries—biofuels, wind, and solar photovoltaics—each surpassed $20 billion in revenue in 2007. Just last year, clean energy received $2.7 billion in US venture capital investment.

But, in order to fully transition to a clean energy economy, we need our elected officials to take action. Absent policies from government, the private sector may continue to invest in old-fashioned, polluting technologies. More than 70 coal plants without technology to capture carbon pollution are now being considered. If these projects go ahead, this will be billions of dollars invested in technology that is outdated and not “clean coal.” We need effective policies that unleash American ingenuity and innovation to propel growing clean energy industries forward.

America is up for the challenge. In the past two decades, the United States took the lead in the high-tech revolution, exporting trillions of dollars worth of products around the world and employing millions of American workers. We can do it again, this time with clean energy technologies, from solar panels to hybrid vehicles.

Each of us can play a role in bringing about this much-needed transition. Tell your business and elected leaders that the next generation deserves to grow up in a world powered by clean energy. Tell your mayor that you want city planning that encourages more efficient new buildings and sidewalks and bike paths that make it easy to walk or ride a bike. Tell your state and national officials to invest in energy grids that can deliver renewable energy to everyone. Tell your utility company that instead of old-style coal power you want to buy solar, wind, or geothermal energy. And tell your elected officials that you want national policies that encourage investors to make long-term commitments to clean energy.

This is the opportunity of our generation— to lead the transformation to an economy that is robust without causing environmental harm. Please get involved today.

Solutions

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:37:00 +0000

The solutions to climate change exist. The technologies are available right now and there immense economic opportunity for expanding their use.The only real question is: On this page we will learn how we can solve the climate crisis and what you can do to help.

We can Repower America with 100% clean electricity within 10 years. Doing so would deliver the affordability; stability and confidence our economy needs, as well as help solve the climate crisis. All it takes is the political will to support national policies that…

Get the most out of the energy we currently produce
Rapidly deploy the clean energy technologies we already know can work
Create a new smart, integrated grid to deliver power economically from wherever it is generated to wherever people live.

Delve deeper below.

· Clean Energy Economy

· Personal Choices

· Adoption of Renewables

· Enhanced Energy Efficiency

· Innovative Leadership

We Can Solve The Climate Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:54:00 +0000

Why Join We?

"Climate Change is real and it's happening right now. We don't have a lot of time. The good news is that the solution exist. What's missing is leadership. We need our leaders to make climate change a priority. But none of them can happen if they don't know you care. Join us. Together, we can solve the climate crisis."

We Can Help America Make the Switch

Climate change is occurring now, and is already affecting our natural environment, our national security and our quality of life. But, there are effective, achievable solutions for addressing the crisis. An important step is to repower America by producing 100 percent of our country's electricity from energy sources with zero carbon emissions -- within 10 years. Making this switch will generate millions of good American jobs, cut energy costs, safeguard national security, and protect the climate. We need business and government leaders at all levels to help adopt policies and practices now that will enable America to switch to energy sources with zero carbon emissions. We need policies that encourage energy efficiency, renewable energy, and a unified national electricity grid.

We can repower America in a short time frame. We put a man on the moon in just eight years. We quickly retooled our factories to produce tanks, trucks and airplanes for World War II. We mobilized for civil rights and women’s suffrage. We've done this before, and we can do it again.

What "We" Do

We can help solve the climate crisis. We can switch America’s electricity to energy sources with zero carbon emissions – within the next 10 years. To succeed at this challenge, political will and leadership are essential. The We campaign, over a million strong, is a network of people from all walks of life who are acting now to help America make the switch and solve the climate crisis.

1. We invite you to join us. The continued growth of We -- our goal is to have several million members early in 2009 -- will compel leaders to recognize the need to repower America.

2. We get organized to bring about the policy and political changes we need to to solve the climate crisis. Will you take responsibility for helping us get organized in your area? It may mean recruiting people to join you, hosting a meeting or event, organizing a training, and reporting back to us on how it went.

3. We act together to help America make the switch that will stop climate change. Repowering America means that individuals, elected officials, and business and community leaders must take bold action to quickly switch to clean energy, curbing carbon emissions and helping to solve the climate challenge. We campaign actions will help persuade these leaders to act effectively now. When you commit to take action through the We campaign, we will help you by providing regular action alerts with both on- and off-line requests that may include:

Contacting your Member of Congress or other government leaders about helping America make the switch to energy sources with zero carbon emissions – within the next 10 years.
Contacting business leaders to encourage them to help make the switch.
Writing letters to the editor or attending a press conference.
Organizing and running a local meeting about Repowering America.
Contacting targeted local citizens with a persuasive message on climate change and recruiting them to join We.

Additional Resources

Solutions
Take Action
What is global warming?

Global Warming Solutions

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:11:00 +0000

ABSTRACT

Global Warming Solutions

The generation of electricity from fossil fuels in power stations is generally only about 40% efficient. The internal combustion engine has an efficiency of only 20-25%. Conversion of solar energy into electricity is less than 20% efficient. Despite the brilliance of so many of our technological achievements and despite the imminence and severity of the problems of global warming, it remains the case that the conversion of heat into mechanical or electrical energy is notoriously inefficient. This paper describes a new approach that may offer much higher conversion efficiencies.
Hot gases rise. The combustion of fossil fuels in a power station produces a continuous stream of hot gaseous products that rise. The upward flow of the products of combustion could itself directly drive a turbine to produce electricity. The residual energy of the flue gases can then be used to preheat the incoming air for combustion. Indeed generation would be most efficient if the preheated incoming air was used to drive a turbine. By rigorously eliminating all possible energy losses it should be possible to generate electricity with over 80% efficiency.
The principles described should also apply to motor vehicle engines. Illustrative examples have been devised of possible design. Continuous combustion of fuel produces a stream of hot rising gases whose energy can be converted into rotation which is conveyed to the axle. Again if the products of combustion are used to preheat incoming air, energy losses are minimized and a conversion efficiency of heat into mechanical energy of over 80% should be possible.
Solar energy falling on panels produces warm air which rises. The flow of warm air can be used to drive a generator. If the residual energy of the warm air is used to preheat incoming air and all energy losses minimized, conversion of incident solar energy into electricity with over 80% efficiency should be possible. This is the Holy Grail. The materials and technologies described are cheap and relatively low tech. If it is possible to convert solar energy into electricity efficiently and cheaply that is the energy problem solved and global warming solved. Hence the title ‘Global Warming Solutions’.

Power Stations

Natural gas is now the leading fuel for electricity generation in Britain giving modern power stations very high controllability. If only a stoichiometric quantity of air is used the combustion gases will have a temperature of 2000° C. The combustion chamber should be designed to allow a large excess of air so that the rising flue gases are at below 500° C.
A magnet could be designed of suitable geometry and with buoyant light materials surround so that it rotates efficiently and ‘weightless’ under the upthrust of the rising incoming gas flow. There are no major energy losses in the above configuration. The heat content of the combustion gases is transferred to the incoming air that rotates the magnet and generates electricity. Any residual heat is absorbed in the water exchanger. An overall efficiency of over 90% should be possible.
Car Engine

In the cross-section above the central rotating arms will be linked to an axle to convey rotational energy to the wheels. As the fuel burns, combustion gases rise inducing rotation of the asymmetrical arms in an anti clockwise direction. Fresh air is drawn in from the bottom – it will be pre-heated by the asymmetrical arms as it enters the combustion chamber.
There could be several layers (3 to 20) of such rotational arms to allow effective energy transfer from the rising hot gases to the rotating mechanism and from the latter to pre-heat the incoming air. If there is an abundant air supply, the central temperature could be below 500° C but will fall as we pass to outer layers ideally at 100° C. If such a design were achievable it would mean a rotary engine of over 80% efficiency.

Solar Energy

Dimensions above for the generation unit could be one meter diameter and the heat exchanger 5 meters height. The solar absorption surface could be 100 meters x 100 meters with the sloping glass one meter high at the perimeter and 5 meters high at the center. The mouth of the warm air exit pipe would need to be 1-5 meters above the cold air entry level to drive the system.
The geometry of the solar generator as drawn may appear inconvenient but it could be sited on a South facing hillside with the generator at the highest point. The only major energy loss above is through the glass of the solar collector – certainly double glazing or perhaps triple glazing with glass of low thermal conductivity will be needed to reduce such energy loss. For the absorption of solar energy the Solar One Power Plant in California has achieved an efficiency of 96% absorption using a special type of paint. The Wells turbine can capture as much as 90% of the energy of air flow. If heat losses through the glass can be minimized conversion of solar energy into electricity with over 80% efficiency should be possible.
Solar electricity is considered wildly uneconomic in the UK – but even in Britain, in Aberporth solar energy influx is 600 kWh/sq meter/year. At a value of 2 pence/kWh, an area of solar absorbers of 100 meters x 100 meters with 80% conversion efficiency into electricity would provide annually about £100,000 electricity per hectare of land. The capital cost of the equipment described would be repaid in a year. In California, most of Southern Europe and large areas of the developing world solar influx is 3-4 times as great.
If solar energy could be converted into electricity efficiently and cheaply that solves the energy problem and global warming. There is however a seasonal mismatch, a day/night mismatch and a geographical supply/demand mismatch. The advanced countries have highest energy demand whilst the potential for solar energy is greatest between the tropics. The best solution is to use solar electricity to generate hydrogen. This could become the fuel for transport using the fuel cell, for industrial and home heating as natural gas supplies diminish and of course could regenerate electricity. A new world trade could develop in the supply of hydrogen.

Summary

The conversion of heat into mechanical or electrical energy is notoriously inefficient. Power stations generate electricity with only 40% or so efficiency whilst motor vehicles are only 20-25% efficient.

This paper describes a new approach to harnessing heat energy. Hot air rises. The products of combustion rise because of gravity as cold air, which is heavier, is drawn in at the base of any fire. The upward flow of combustion products or the flow of incoming air could be used to rotate a turbine to generate electricity. This is the principle of what is described as the Convector Generator.

If the flue gases are used to preheat incoming air and the preheated incoming air used to rotate a turbine, very high conversion efficiencies should be possible. Several illustrative examples have been devised. The ideas can be scaled up for power stations or miniaturised for motor vehicle engines. By rigorously eliminating energy losses, efficiencies of over 80% should be possible.

The principles described should also apply to harnessing solar energy in large scale solar farms or in roof collectors. Using relatively cheap and unsophisticated materials an efficiency of conversion of solar energy into electricity of over 80% should be possible.

No experimental work has been carried out to illustrate the principles or to develop any working models. The ideas however are based on convection currents and about 10 examples are quoted from everyday life as proof of concept.

If the assertions made are found to be correct and the relevant technologies developed, fuel demand for power stations and transport and carbon dioxide emissions could be halved. If solar energy can be converted into electricity with high efficiency and cheaply that is global warming solved. Hence the title – global warming solutions.

Golbal Warming Cartoons

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:40:00 +0000

World Council on Global Warming: 'I regret to report that there's no global warming threat after all - we just got Fahrenheit and Celsius mixed up.'
Artist: Baloo -Rex May-

Green is the new black...my book is aimed at all those interested in saving the planet.
Artist: Fran

Research Concludes: We are destroying Earth.
Artist: Bilicki, Justin

Protection
Artist: Milenkovic, Goran

Polar bears attacked by lions. Artist: Lynch, Mark

Evolution. Artist: Lynch, Mark

You wait until the polar icecaps melt my friend then we will see who is laughing!
Artist: Stik -Bill Greenhead-

Greenhouse effect.
Artist: Nilsson-Maki, Kjell

Oil crisis. Artist: Lynch, Mark

'Mr. Bernanke is busy saving the economy right now. Can he come over and fix the ozone layer tomorrow?' Artist: Brown, David

GLOBAL WARMING

noreply@blogger.com (Abidjays) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:03:00 +0000

Global Warming is an environmental issue that is continuing to harm our planet. The definition of Global Warming is “the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation” which means that if in the winter the snow melts faster than it snows then there has to be something wrong with Earth because how else can you explain average temperature for many years that change one year? The answer is Global Warming. It is dangerous and unless we as people investigate more into the causes of Global Warming and how to prevent Global Warming then the world would over heat and eventually burn.

For further examples there are icebergs melting in Antarctica and Alaska for nothing other than Global Warming because those icebergs are what those places are known for and for all of sudden to begin melting gradually year after year is astounding and frightening all at the same time. There are singers, such as Sheryl Crow, that have had songs that dealt with telling audiences about Global Warming, that it is real and beginning to surface. In Melbourne, Fl they “endured 24 days above 95 degrees and Tampa remained above 80 degrees F at nighttime for 12 days” (climatehotmap.org).

There are steps to prevent Global Warming such as “minimizing drafts in your home, reducing your waste electricity use, using more efficient light bulbs, turning down your water heater, and being the change you wish to see” (energyefficienthomearticles.com). These are simple steps to help make the world a better place. Doing your research on Global Warming and what other organizations are doing in order to prevent Global Warming is important because we as people caused Global Warming slowly but surely and we need to learn how to prevent it from continuing to happen.

This article is about the current period of increasing global temperature. For other periods of warming in Earth's history, see Paleoclimatology and Geologic temperature record.

Global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990

Mean surface temperature anomalies during the period 1995 to 2004 with respect to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980
Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.
Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.

Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century. This range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.
Increasing global temperature is expected to cause sea levels to rise, an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, and significant changes to the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including an expanse of the subtropical desert regions. Other expected effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, mass species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.
Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences.

Greenhouse effect
Main articles:
Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect
The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research. The scientific consensus is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era, and the observed warming cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural causes alone. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available.
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases.
Recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the Northern Hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable. On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.
Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced approximately three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.
CO2 concentrations are expected to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100, if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively used.

Solar variation
Main article: Solar variation
Solar variation over the last thirty years.
Some other hypotheses departing from the consensus view have been suggested to explain most of the temperature increase. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity.
A paper by Peter Stott and other researchers suggests that climate models overestimate the relative effect of greenhouse gases compared to solar forcing; they also suggest that the cooling effects of volcanic dust and sulfate aerosols have been underestimated. They nevertheless conclude that even with an enhanced climate sensitivity to solar forcing, most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely attributable to the increases in greenhouse gases.
Two researchers at Duke University, Bruce West and Nicola Scafetta, have estimated that the Sun may have contributed about 45–50 percent of the increase in the average global surface temperature over the period 1900–2000, and about 25–35 percent between 1980 and 2000.
A different hypothesis is that variations in solar output, possibly amplified by cloud seeding via galactic cosmic rays, may have contributed to recent warming. It suggests magnetic activity of the sun is a crucial factor which deflects cosmic rays that may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei and thereby affect the climate.
One predicted effect of an increase in solar activity would be a warming of most of the stratosphere, whereas an increase in greenhouse gases should produce cooling there. The observed trend since at least 1960 has been a cooling of the lower stratosphere. Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s. Solar variation combined with changes in volcanic activity probably did have a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since. In 2006, Peter Foukal and colleagues found no net increase of solar brightness over the last 1,000 years. Solar cycles led to a small increase of 0.07 percent in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is too small to contribute significantly to global warming. One paper by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985, whether through variations in solar output or variations in cosmic rays. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the main proponents of cloud seeding by galactic cosmic rays, disputed this criticism of their hypothesis. A 2007 paper found that in the last 20 years there has been no significant link between changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth and cloudiness and temperature.
Forcing and feedback
Components of the current radiative forcing as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. The thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur.
Climate variability
The Earth's climate changes in response to external forcing, including greenhouse gases, variations in its orbit around the Sun (orbital forcing), changes in solar luminosity, and volcanic eruptions; all examples of the earth's own variation in temperatures, for which the UNFCCC uses the term climate variability.