99 One-Liners Rebutting Denier Talking Points

99 One-Liners -With Links To The Full Climate Science- here.

 

Is the title of a recent blogpost I skimmed through. As the author writes, "Those arguments have been repeated so many times /.../ that almost everyone has heard them — and that means you'll have to deal with them in almost any setting, from a public talk to a dinner party."

 

And it's true. We all get into those situations and the problem is, unless it is your specific field of research that you've majored in (or really dug into), one may run out of things to say. And yet you know what the other party is saying is pretty much junk science and a far-fetched argument. But what to do?

 

Apparently, there's a guy who's been collecting one-liners and adapting them through the years, to make them more succint and one-liner-y. His name? John Cook.

 

One of the great aspects this post points to is that you may run out of wind ... and thus, misinform easily. So, it suggests to refer the other party to the pages and sources with literature. (Though not sure how that's going to work... the Other Party being generally stuck in their own frame of mind, as well as you being stuck in yours. Hm...)

Anyways, enjoy (or not): http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/07/1972581/99-one-liners-rebutting-denier-talking-points-with-links-to-the-full-climate-science/

 

 

Economy of Humans and the Amsterdam Urban Innovation Week

This is so on the topic I simply have to copy-paste it here.

Got it from: Economy of Humans, here.

For far too long we have violently pursued things we don’t need. Too long we have equated a busy life with a meaningful one, a career with righteous self-esteem. Too long we have put ourselves in the centre of our lives, the only thing that really matters to us – but does it? Although it brought us material wealth and monetary fortune, economy-as-usual has not lived up to its expectations. It did not make us better citizens, nor better partners and friends. It has distanced us from nature, our neighbours and our needs. It has done us wrong and we admit it.

We need peace, food and shelter. We need understanding, love and care. We need science, art, and religion. But most of all, we need a sense of purpose. We need to contribute to something bigger than ourselves, to be a source of meaning, a valuable part of a whole. Unfortunately, our economy-as-usual does not measure this, does not secure it, nor stimulate it. In fact, it almost kills it. We need something better, and we know how.

The economy-of-humans requires but a single step: to see ourselves reflected in others. We no longer buy in to the myth of the individual, which owes her fortune to a unique combination of talent and sweat. We see and value the merits of our shared culture, the people that raised and surround us, the bold inventions of people we do not know. We no longer value products over people, and some occupations, backgrounds and accents over others. We realise that humble, selfless contributions to the whole will make us the finest, most happy human beings.

As we went up the heavens and looked back, we suddenly saw how fragile and small our habitat is. We saw our planet with its tiny habitable landmass, sustaining life to seven billion inhabitants amidst a universe of emptiness, with boundless dimensions and unimaginable timescales. Our presence unnoticed, our struggles unheard. This blue planet that sustains and confines us, binds all of us into a species of earth-dwellers, far more common to each-other than to anything else in the entire universe. We are in this trip together.

The economy-of-humans only demands a different perspective. It doesn’t cost money, and nobody will get rich. It’s immune to financial bubbles, stagflation or even scarcity. It is as familiar to us as anything can be. And it is winning us over, one by one, at an ever-increasing pace. It might take some courage, but the gains are without borders. By taking care of, and value the others, we value, and take care of ourselves.


(This article was first published in publication 'Redefining Growth - a collection of stories on shifting values' by PICNIC during the Amsterdam Urban Innovation Week. This book was designed and made in one day by 20 participants of The Book Fab Lab on Sept19th, 2013 - edited by Michiel Jansen-Dings. It comes with a choice of 14 different covers.)
 

Related projects:

Amsterdam Urban Innovation Week 2013

 

Picture credits: CC: PICNIC 2013

How does one transform massive suffering into X% GDP?

Author addresses key issues and drawbacks of the infamous Stern Review (2006). It's quite a read and does provide a nice example of how everything, every single paper, books, newsitem, ..., should be put under close scrutiny and checked for consistency and truth. (Which, with the lack of time of a single individual, can be nigh impossible.)
Below, an excerpt. Still below, the source.

"The surprises are potential scenarios which scientists can outline to the best of their ability and
which involve loss of life and human infrastructure on a grand scale; losses only precedented by the mass movement of people, death and destruction of World War II.
  However, there is no enemy to defeat nor peace treaty to sign, only our own actions to control. Once the surprises start in earnest action will be too little too late. For example, ice sheet melt causing a six meter sea level rise is a scenario which would flood all the major coastal cities. A two-meter sea level rise alone will displace hundreds of millions of people and inundate low lying cities (Lenton et al., 2006: 15).
  How does this get transformed into X% GDP with any semblance of meaning left in the utter disaster and human suffering which would be entailed? Indeed, there are four major problems with the whole framing of human induced climate change as GDP losses and gains."

From: Spash, C. L. (2007). The economics of climate change impacts à la Stern: Novel and nuanced or rhetorically restricted?. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 706-713.

Stern Review:
Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. UK Government Economic Service, London. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm, accessed on: 23.9.2013.

5 questions to help you spot inadequate (false?) climate-related reporting

When you read any news in the media (TV usually gives an even shallow-er overview), be sure to watch out for issues the below 5 questions point out to:

1. who is the author of the claim and what his professional qualifications are (if it only says PhD or Dr., that doesn't mean the person is a climate scientist, a physicist, has extensive knowledge of meteorology, biology, ecology, is an environmental scientist or anything. And yes, sometimes, people not from these fields of science get called upon to give statements..)
2. is the person citing specific scientific research or giving a 'general' claim, pointing to a myth, repetition of "what we all know" (but not really, as most of us are not scientists in the particular fields mentioned above)?  *
3. is this specific research even linked to, referenced in the media item?
   (If not ... it means you might have to do additional research, before you could competently decide on the claims in the news item. Additional time that not many will take...)
4. If you know or can figure out: who owns the particular media you are getting the news from;
5. and affiliations of the owner, as well as the author of the claims to the money structures. (Looks specifically for fossil fuel industry and also for UN and government institutions, to be a bit more unbiased.)

With the above questions answered, you should be able to make a pretty good judgement as to whether the article/item in question is sound news reporting, is based on more than just speculation or belief, and whether any partial interests might have influenced it. [Unless you devote your entire week to it, you probably won't get a resounding yes! either way, but a better picture, get you will. [Yoda voice]]

*You can spice-up solving of question 2 by asking yourself, whether the title of the news item is a pompous one (though this can just point to the "sensationalism" in media nowadays) - and are the statements and claims made by the person(s) advocated in the news item also pompous and exaggerated or are they more moderate? **

** Note that as denial and attacks on persons and institutions involved in the climate science in the last couple of years intensified, so did the reporting from some of the scientists. From being moderate, even timid at first, quite some of them apparently decided it's time for more decisive "action" and stronger words, that should somewhat balance the otherwise pompous and screaming climate "denialism".

Also a good read might be Edward de Bono's book: I Am Right You Are Wrong: From This to the New Renaissance: From Rock Logic to Water Logic (link to description (Amazon)).

Climate "denial", the media debate and whatnot

I repost this here, because I find it interesting, however, judge by yourself, as always.

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal (via Desmogblog)

This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley. How many climate errors in one article? A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal…

---

The Huffington post debate: Renewables VS oil, coal and nuclear

This serves as continuation (or a collection) of the whole debate on the Huffington Post news item titled Robert Redford Calls Alberta Oil 'The Dirtiest Oil On The Planet' In New Anti-Keystone XL Video (link).

I post part of the reply here, as the comments box is too small and I really wanted to give a comprehensive reply (that also shows the limitations of what I know (or think I know)).

The reply is whole as was meant (previous comments will be added in reverse order below later).

I totally agree with your first paragraph. Totally. It does not make any sense to stop all damaging activity (at least not without a magic wand to simultaneously address several problems).

As to the attainability of renewables, I am not so sure. Again, I don’t work in the industry, don’t have the 100% overview on ALL that is happening, but what I can tell you is that a) costs are falling rapidly, b) efficiency is going up (to a certain limit, granted) and c) environmental impact varies from tech to tech, but is generally considered lower than that of fossil fuel industry, coal and nuclear power plants. I give examples and quotes in the next reply.

I don’t feel capable on commenting on the case you build for nuclear, as I did no research in that field. As I understood, we’re not near fusion yet and fission creates waste (that to me, again, in the long run, is not sustainable. Unless we haul it into space (unethical? boomerang?, space debris).

I fully agree that wind and PV have intermittency problems, however, as you partly point out, sun does not shine ON ALL SIDES of the planet at once. With a global network, ... well, with other sources added (wind can operate at night), we can go pretty high in terms of energy self (local)-reliability.

Thanks for explaining the “Long Beach oil” and the purity of it, energy needed to purify it. Makes it more clear now. Thanks!
.
.
.
.
Costs
“Solar technology costs are falling rapidly. Chrystalline silicon PV module costs fell by 70 per cent 2008-January 2012 and are forecast to fall by another 30 per cent by 2015, without subsidies” (Assadourian et al., 2013: Loc 2067).

Energy demand estimates ... and meeting it with renewables
‘Estimates of energy required to meet the world’s continuously growing energy demand vary, and future energy use scenarios vary greatly in their outcomes. A medium scenario examined by European Union foresees doubling of current energy demand by 2050’ [“current” was 13.2 TW in 2011? and is 14 TW in 2012] (EC, 2006; Assadourian et al., 2013).
‘Instead of raising the number of nuclear power plants worldwide from 61 to 1200, based on the immense power that is radiated daily to Earth from the Sun (i.e., 5000 times the estimated requirements for 2050), if we could cover 1 % of the Earth’s land surface with solar panels operating at 10% efficiency, a rough estimate is photovoltaic power could generate around 25 TW’ (Peter, 2011).
  Problem is, as Peter (2011) points out, the availability of minerals. For example, cadmium (Cd) for the CdTe solar cells, to meet this demand, one would require amount of Cd for a factor of a 100 exceeding the identified world reserves (Peter, 2011; 3). But, new ways and new cells are underway (for more, see Peter, 2011).
  As to the environmental impact of Cadmium (from PV panels production) and other renewables, see Assadourian et al. (2013): they maintain (based on a number of sources) that renewables have lesser impact in total than fossil, though I would exclude biomass from it, as it appears to be the most unsustainable of the crowd.

And about meeting the energy demand in 2050, Assadourian et al. write: “Even with greatly limiting the areas for solar energy development /.../, the potential capacities are estimated at 340 terawatts (TW) for PV and 240 TW for CSP [concentrating solar power systems] – much more than projections for energy demand in 2050, even without any efficiency measures” (2013: Loc 2067).

Locally produced energy (which, granted, needs some more development and changes to the energy grids and distribution)

Another argument in favour of locally produced, renewable energy is (so I read) that of avoiding transmission and distribution costs. Renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, small hydro, wave, and tidal energy), though having different impacts on the environment themselves (also in the book), “have the additional efficiency advantage of converting natural flows of mechanical energy or sunlight directly into electricity, unlike fossil fuel combustion and nuclear power, which require inherently inefficient thermal energy conversion processes.” (Assadourian et al., 2013: Loc 2053, link below).

From an abstract of a book titled Renewable revolution: low carbon energy by 2030 (Sawin & Moomaw, 2009):
Global energy scenarios offer wide-ranging estimates of how much energy renewable sources can contribute, and how quickly this can happen. Many scenarios show a gradual shift to renewables that still envisions a major role for fossil fuels for most of this century. This report examines the potential for renewable energy to provide needed energy services for all societies while lowering heattrapping emissions of greenhouse gases. It concludes that it is not only possible but also essential to effect a massive transformation of the global energy system from its current fossil fuel base between now and 2030 that continues for the rest of the century.

Carbon free?
Photovoltaic cells and panels have a CO2 release of one fifth of that of an average emission rate of conventional fossil fuel-generated electricity. This was calculated for DSCs, with a premise of an efficiency of 8 per cent and lifespan of 5 years, but the number grows even five times smaller for CdTe PV modules (Peter, 2011). Therefore, though not ‘carbon free’, the carbon of PV panels is small enough that a large scale implementation of PV can substantially provide for the world’s energy needs and at the same time addressing some of the problems of climate change (Elliston et al., 2013; Peter, 2011).


References

Assadourian, E., Prugh, T., Adamson, R., & Starke, L. (2013). State of the world 2013: is sustainability still possible?. Washington, DC [etc.]: Island Press.
(Assadourian et al., 2013: Loc 2053 : https://kindle.amazon.com/post/Sdj9B8pvQ-C70-q3GkZt0Q).

EC (2006). European Commission: World energy technology outlook 2050: WETO-H2. See
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/energy/docs/weto-h2_en.pdf.

Elliston, B., Macgill, I., & Diesendorf, M. (2013). Least cost 100% renewable electricity scenarios in the Australian National Electricity Market. Energy Policy [In press]. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.038.

Peter, L. M. (2011). Towards sustainable photovoltaics: the search for new materials. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369 (1942), 1840-1856.

Sawin, J. L., & Moomaw, W. R. (2009). Renewable revolution: low carbon energy by 2030. Worldwatch Institute.) Link: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20103141191.html;jsessionid=623D63DEC4D6A3DFBDF201E7C4390340?freeview=true

Challenge the world faces “today”, September 2013

Challenge the world faces “today”, September 2013, is whether climate warming “denialists” and “contrarians”, as well as PR people from the fossil fuel industry will be able to convince everybody else that IPCC was wrong, UN was wrong and that we don’t need to act, to change our way of living. And that is a dead wrong perception.
  I write about it extensively in the last weeks, as I’ve come to realisation that discussing* how much the world is warming up, and if it’s at all caused by humans, is IRRELEVANT. The climate debate aside, human society and production systems have such a great impact on the planet, that we’ve practically begun to terraform-it. As it was written before, human society has “become a geological force to reckon with”, thus, the term ‘anthropocene’ some people are giving the current era (See the Economist (2)).

Gist: we need to change. And change is hard. But necessary. Otherwise, the planet (so not the garden, not the local shop, not your country or the continent you are living on, but the PLANET will not be able to take it. And come ecosystems collapse, mass extinctions and decades of economic, cultural and other stagnation of human society. See below.

"The Cost of Ecological Overspending

Throughout most of history, humanity has used nature’s resources to build cities and roads, to provide food and create products, and to absorb our carbon dioxide at a rate that was well within Earth’s budget. But in the mid-1970s, we crossed a critical threshold: Human consumption began outstripping what the planet could reproduce." (1)

* [Referring to the IPCC AR5 media pomp, at the time of writing, yet to come.]
(1) See more: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/gfn/page/earth_overshoot_day/

(2): The Economist: The geology of the planet. Welcome to the Anthropocene. (May 26th 2011 |From the print edition):: http://www.economist.com/node/18744401

Climate Change: Debate, Science or Outdated mastodonts?

From the album description on Facebook:

[It's about] Social and economic change towards a new future. The young always complain about the old (but maybe quietly), the old about the young. But in the case of transition to the new world economy and arrangement, one must be at least willing to transcend some of the old views and values.
  As to the Climate science: I'm NOT a climatologist, nor a meteorologist, geologist, physicist, mathematician or geo-chemist. Unless you yourself are, there's a chance we both don't understand ALL the science and data, all the models behind the whole climate change schabang. But we might be both concerned about the future of the (ONE!) planet we have ... and the environmental degradation we ARE causing and strain we ARE putting on the natural system.
  I think - no, I know - there are limits to how much people - who consume a given amount of resources and energy, and produce a accompanying waste - there can be on this planet. And I am pretty sure about our survival depending on the ecosystem services, who in turn depend on the working ecosystems, of which various life forms are a big part (and that's an understatement).
  So, is climate changing? It appears so. Are anthropogenic emissions a driving cause of it? I am not so sure anymore, but neither do I care - for the moment. But I do care of the equitable production, sustainable living (in cities and elsewhere), minimizing waste, increasing efficiency and _decreasing_ energy use, as well as making sure we don't poison our food, air and water.
  You know, survive with a smile, that sort of thing.

Climate Change: Debate, Science or Outdated mastodonts?
Get it here: https://www.facebook.com/aljaz.gabersek/media_set?set=a.10151564622597644.1073741837.563837643&type=3

Re-usable, re-constructible phone - Phonebloks

[Buzz of the week] A phone only lasts a couple of years before it breaks or becomes obsolete. Although it's often just one part which killed it we throw everything away since it's almost impossible to repair or upgrade. Visit www.phonebloks.com to show your support and raise your voice. via:

 The Green Engineer.

A good idea for a way to eliminate excessive electronic waste. Alas, still some way to go to the actual realisation and marketable product.

Luckily, in the meantime, here's the Fairphone, 'A seriously cool smartphone that puts social values first'. It's as sustainable as it gets at the moment. Or it tries to be, and that is a lot.
See why it’s fair and Technical specifications > on the page here: Fairphone.

World Overshoot Day and Global Environmental Footprint network

This is vaguely why I remain passionate about transition into a truly sustainable economy that supports life as we know it and life as we need it.

Because, everybody is so keen on explaining it in terms of planets and resources we need, if this scenario or that scenario of development and resource intensity happens. And lay people are much to eager to just accept what is being said. Partly, blame resides on global and local media, as they gulped the news down, some years ago - and now it is stale bread. Partly, the scientists, who, from their ivory towers still somehow thought the "scare people into action" logic of the 70s and 80s will work again. In the age of digital consumption and no-time-to read, nah-ah, it's not going to work.
When we hear: UN/World Bank population projection for 2020 ... 2030 ... 2050 is some bilion, we don't really think of it in terms of how much can I consume in 2050? How much can other consume, if I consume this per cent of the planet's resources. No, we don't as ourselves this, because we've been trained by the media and advertising (Relax...  and shop, shop to relax, live better: consume more!), from politicians (We will fix this in our mandate! (If you vote for us.)) and each other (Meh, I'm just one guy and our neighbourhood doesn't even separate waste!). We've been trained that everything is going to be just fine. Well, I'm not so sure about that. Maybe it's going to be sort-of fine for Europe, Japan, USA and Canada, but what happens when 20 million people suddenly want to move their homes, because their homeland has been made unlivable? What happens to Australia with rising temperatures and increased precipitation abnormalities?

I foresee some strife.
And I look at the world and I wonder: why don't people start running down the streets in utter panic, when they hear about stuff like this? Obviously, we discount the value of the future; we put today before tomorrow. But that's the basic animal need and instict. We're better than that, we should be better than that! If the loss of life (err... massive extinctions of other species) dosen't convince us, maybe an economic logic should.
  If we make the planet unlivable, where do we live? Surely, number of people still entertaining the notion of just reaching for the stars - flying away (where?) on a spaceship is incredibly small. Right? I mean, we can't simulate the ecological system in a controlled environment, never mind have the means and energy to produce food for so much (how much) people that would embark on the Noah's Ark 2050XYZ. I mean, yes, a laboratory produced burger today costs $332,000 (or just about € 250,000) and it will probably cost less in 2050, but ... do we really want to risk it like that? Risk the lives of your kids, your sister's kids, cousin's kids, your own life, as the date is just 37 years away. God, never thought I'd have to make sure to be in shape at the age of 65 to be able to run onto a spaceship.

 

Earth overshot day

"If there is one day that all of humanity can recognize together, it would be that of Earth Overshoot Day. That is the day that global resource consumption for the year exceeds the planet's ability to replenish its natural capital.

 

"Or to put it another way, it is comparable to living off of your credit card, except in this case humanity is living off of its ecological credit card and using more than nature can keep up. Currently we are using about 50% more resources each year than the Earth can replenish. We would need 5 planets if we all lived like the average American and 3 planets as a European, according to the Global Footprint Network, which along with the new economics foundation conceived of Earth Overshoot Day.

 

"There is no date-specific day for overshoot, though Global Footprint Network estimates that it usually takes approximately 8 months and then the planet goes into ecological debt, using more than what the Earth can provide in a given year. This year it hit on August 20th."

 

See more, or a 2 min video if you prefer, at: http://blog.wiser.org/blowing-the-budget-overspending-natures-wealth/#sthash.Uq4Wdj9k.dpuf

via @WiserEarth

Emissions in 2020 and 2030

"It is clear that the world will have to take some tough decisions if it is to give itself a reasonable chance of holding to 2 degrees centigrade. In 2030 the overall world budget for emissions would be in the region of 32 billion tonnes CO2e.

  On current, fairly explicit, plans (see Stern, 2011 and 2012a on China's 12th five year plan). China is likely to go from around 9 billion tonnes p.a. now to around 12 in 2020. Currently policy makers in China are speaking of a peak of emissions in 2030. A further increase of 3 billion tonnes in annual flows over the decade from 2020 would take China to around 15 billion tonnes in 2030 when the population may be around 1.4 billion (and thus per capita emissions 10 or 11 tonnes). If the USA's total were 6 or 7 billion tonnes and the EU totalled 3 or 4 then in 2030, China, USA and the EU might together total around 25 billion tonnes. With a 32 billion tonne budget, that would "leave" 7 billion tonnes for the other nearly 6 billion of the 8 billion in the world in 2030 (assuming the population of China/USA/EU totals a little above 2 billion people in 2030). That would require this 6 billion to average close to 1 tonne per capita 20 years from now – that would be extremely unlikely to be feasible.

 

"The implication is that China/USA/EU will have to be far lower than 25 billion tonnes CO2e in 2030 if a reasonable chance of 2 degrees centigrade is to
be realistic. One can see in these figures the potential intensity of the debate on who does what and where and how investment and technology are financed."

From: Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change. Nicholas Stern, August 2012. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. Working Paper No. 97, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 84. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Papers/80-89/WP84-ethics-equity-economics-of-climate-change.pdf. Last accessed: 4.9.2013.

Dear Prime Minister, please show your shale gas working

From an article at Businessgreen.com, titled "Dear Prime Minister, please show your shale gas working" (link here).

"It's not the embarrassing question about why you said communities affected by fracking will get payments of £1m, when you obviously meant £100,000. Your office has already corrected the error and we'll assume it was a case of mis-speaking rather than a deliberate attempt to overstate the benefits.

"It's not the politically tricky question about why you said you "don't think we're going to have a huge amount more" wind turbines, when your government's energy strategy calls for quite a lot more. We'll leave it to your Lib Dem colleagues to ask that one.
/.../

"No, the question I'd really like answered is why you think fracking will lead to "cheaper" energy bills? Have you got some evidence to support this suggestion? Because if so it would really help your case if you shared it.

To be precise, you said: "I think we would be making a big mistake as a nation if we did not think hard about how to encourage fracking and cheaper prices right here in the UK. If you look at what's happening in America with the advent of shale gas and fracking, their energy costs in business and their gas prices are half the level of ours... The EU has about three-quarters as much shale gas as the US, so we are missing out big time at the moment and I want to make sure that Britain does not miss out."

Now I presume you meant to imply that encouraging fracking would lead to cheaper prices, because that is certainly the way the comments have been reported (if that was not the meaning you should probably seek to correct it pretty sharpish). Assuming that is the case, would it be possible to explain how this will work? Because there are plenty of people, including many in the gas industry, who are deeply sceptical fracking in the UK can lead to lower bills."

Read more here, if you want, because it's interesting.

EU Water Framework directive

EU Water Framework directive runs until 2015.
(Each EU member state must attain 'good chemical and ecological status'.)
Funny, imbedded in the directive is this:

"Member states are allowed to SEEK PERMISSION to 'derogate' (defer) attainment of the good water status standard if evidence can be given to show that the COST of achieving that standard would be EXCESSIVE.”

(Accentuations added. Perman et al., 2011: 190)

So, you have to do it, but if it costs too much, you don’t really have to do it. Not the very best policy-making.

To be completely honest, I didn't check if, and how many EU member states applied for such exemptions. You are free to do so yourself.

Perman et al., (2011). Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. 4th ed. Pearson Education Limited. Ashford Colours Press Ltd, Gosport.

Pro-nuclear, pro-money crazy (and less a pro-life one)

"Before we all become pro-nuclear greens, however, you've got to ask three questions: Is #nuclear power safe and clean? Is it economical? And are there better alternatives?
No, no and yes. So let's not swap the pending environmental disaster of climate change for another that may be equally risky."

From: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/the-new-nuclear-craze/?smid=tw-bittman&seid=auto&_r=0

 

Keywords: safety, uranium mines (still not cleaned up), disposal of spent fuel (no real plan after decades of their existance), HUGE governmental subsidies, taxpayers, ratepayers, externalities (usually) excluded (from calculating C/B), ... and ultimately, better energy alternatives.

 

Utilities are afraid that solar power will be to the electrical grid what PCs were to mainframes, or e-mail to the Postal Service: a technology that will simply kill its predecessors. Coal and nuclear power are both doomed, and the profit-making power grid with it. That's all to our benefit.

IPCC projections accurate, Alaskan fish dying, and Deathly taxation in Spain

Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
In this post we will evaluate this contrarian claim by comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes.
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html)

Want money? Tax death. There'll be plenty of death (that) where it came from.
'Even in death, people in Spain cannot escape the economic crisis. /.../ 
"I paid over 7,000 euros (9,300 dollars) for my husband's funeral, and it was a simple service, with one of the simple coffins, which cost 2,600 euros (3,450 dollars), without mementos or music, and only a few flowers. Besides, instead of a burial, we had him cremated, which is even less expensive," Ana María Robles, a 66-year-old pensioner, told IPS. /.../
In 2004, a complete funeral service cost around 4,000 euros (5,300 dollars), and today a normal average funeral costs between 6,000 and 7,000 euros (8,000 to 9,300 dollars)," the source added.'

/.../ the crisis in this country has led to a 30 percent increase in social inequality between the richest and the poorest since 2006.'
(Source: http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/even-death-feels-weight-of-crisis-in-spain/)

"Unusually hot, dry weather in Alaska is wreaking havoc on fisheries, as thousands of fish perish in overheated waters. Last month, 1,100 king salmon died on their way up to the Crystal Lake hatchery due to water temperatures around 80 degrees Fahrenheit and lack of oxygen. That's the bulk of the 1,800 adult salmon that were expected to return to the hatchery this season.
 
Earlier in the summer, another hatchery lost hundreds of grayling and rainbow trout in a Fairbanks lake where water temperatures reached 76 degrees. Alaska's heat wave broke records last week, with 14 days straight above 70 degrees in Anchorage and 31 days of 80 degrees in Fairbanks."
From: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/05/2410921/extreme-heat-is-killing-off-thousands-of-fish-in-alaska/
(Salmon is, apparently, 'the state's largest export product after oil and natural gas' (ironical, isn't it?).)

Oh, also from the same source:
'While Alaska's heat wave is expected to subside soon, the state has warmed up twice as fast as the rest of the nation in the past 50 years, and climate change is worsening extreme weather. Wildfires raged through subarctic forests as late as Friday, consuming more than a million acres and prompting emergency evacuations across the state. Thawing permafrost is also sinking villages, threatening fish stocks and water supplies that the communities rely on to survive.'

A new climate change action agreement? Hopefully in 2015. With the IPCC's AR5 coming up in Dec, 2014, it will be a Crunchy Christmas.
"Peru is a country absolutely committed to the negotiations and its progress in dealing with climate change. We are committed to the Durban Platform agreement and we know that in Warsaw 2013, Lima 2014 and Paris 2015 we will come to a binding climate agreement, for the planet, for the people and for our citizens. Those of us who serve the public are aware that our fundamental priority is our people, especially the most vulnerable-those who suffer the consequences of climate change," says Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Minister of Environment"
From: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=9807&section=news_articles&eod=1

'Conservative IPCC Errs on the Side of Least Drama

 
'Although the IPCC climate models have performed remarkably well in projecting average global surface temperature warming thus far, Rahmstorf et al. (2012) found that the IPCC underestimated global average sea level rise since 1993 by 60%.  Brysse et al. (2012) also found that the IPCC has tended to underestimate or failed to account for CO2 emissions, increased rainfall in already rainy areas, continental ice sheet melting, Arctic sea ice decline, and permafrost melting.  Brysse et al. concludes that the on the whole the IPCC has been too conservative in its projections, "erring on the side of least drama" — in effect preferring to be wrong on the conservative side in order to avoid criticism.'
From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

Crop pollination exposes honey bees to pesticides, altering their susceptibility to pathogens

I'd like to say: "No shit?" but it'd be premature. Instead: hm... further research is obivously needed (har, before a billions-of-dollars industry can be put to question & 'blame').

Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae. Link to PlosONE.

From the research article's abstract: "We detected 35 different pesticides in the sampled pollen, and found high fungicide loads. The insecticides esfenvalerate and phosmet were at a concentration higher than their median lethal dose in at least one pollen sample." (Pettis et al, 2013)

And the original source where I got the link from: here.

"Highlight":

'The pollen was contaminated on average with nine different pesticides and fungicides though scientists discovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample. Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated with increased risk of infection by the parasite called Nosema ceranae.' (here)

 

Glaciers flooding nearby towns

Never thought of this particular consequence of global climate change and warming, to be honest:

 

"Starting in July 2011, and each year since, sudden torrents of water shooting out from beneath the glacier have become a new facet of Juneau's brief, shimmering high summer season. In that first, and so far biggest, measured flood burst, an estimated 10 billion gallons gushed out in three days, threatening homes and property along the Mendenhall River that winds through part of the city. There have been at least two smaller bursts this year."

 

From: July 23 News: Melting Glaciers Across The Globe Experiencing 'Jokulhlaup,' Icelandic For 'Glacier Leap' (link)

 

 

Climate change is threatening Bangladesh's Millennium Development Goals two years before the goals' 2015 deadline. [Reuters] (Ibidem)

 

'Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy' (link)

Funny, food, de-re-forestation, desertification, floods, draughts, acidification do not even enter the title.
See, this is sort of what I talk about when I say value of Climate Change costs (from damages, adaptation or mitigation) might (harhar) end up higher than the money 'we have' as the world.

In relation to the news and the above, this comes to mind.

Obama's Climate Care

Some stuff changes. Some doesn't. China's role in the world is. USA's dealing with climate change isn't ... at least not as fast. 

Read below. It is encouraging, however, that a (black) US president is saying stuff like climate change being affected by human behaviour and climate emissions.

 

'President Barack Obama has stumbled on an unusual partner in his quest to combat climate change: China.' Josh Lederman |21.7.2013|
(1) http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/07/21/environment/obama-finds-unlikely-ally-in-climate-change-battle-china/

I have to say: how is carbon capture going to help us, in the long term? Besides prolonging the age of the fossil fuel consumption, how is having a time-bomb stored underground in an - if it leaks - atmosphere-accessible way, going to help us?
Seriously, people.
"They also agreed to team up on large-scale experiments with "carbon capture" — a technology that isolates carbon dioxide from power plant emissions so it can be safely stored." (Ibidem)

Some time ago (Nov, 2012, (1)) and less time ago (3), president Obama was making some big-ass statements. With little actual work.
'Obama Talks Climate Change During His First Post-Election Press Conference', Stephen Lacey |Nov 14, 2012|
"Obama's response in today's press conference shows that broad action on climate probably isn't very high up on the priority list at the moment. While he did say he wanted to do more on climate in his second term, Obama gave few specifics about what a plan might look like."
From source (2): http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/14/1191841/obama-talks-climate-change-during-his-first-post-election-press-conference/

Pic from the same source (2).

Whitehouse gave us a nice jpeg file online, after Obama's speech (5) on climate. 'President Obama's Plan to Fight Climate Change' (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)
(3): http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan

And now, for something (not) completely different:
'Billions spent in Obama climate plan may be virtually useless, study suggests' (July 18, 2013)
  Though I must say that you know, in theory, getting together paying 12 people to do some research for you should not be too hard in climate-sceptic abundant US&A. To me, it seems a bit like
this news is launched by the Big Oil. But then again, I offer no proof and it's just a minor feeling.
It would be worthy to see who pays and owns Fox news. Just saying.
Additionally, it has been shown in economics (though, I must say and point out, I cannot cite the source (!) at this time, as I forgot where it was that I read it)
that taxes work less well than monetary incentives for businesses and households. (One is negatively and the other one, positively charged and perceived.)

Highlights: biofuels VS gasoline, 'fracking' seems to be supported or at least not contradicted, 'more research needed to attribute the GHG reductions with government's actions', US army going green (see below), possibly more nuclear ("investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels to nuclear mini-reactors") and others.

"The Defense Department is committing to deploy about 3 gigawatts of solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy on military installations by 2025. Federal agencies intend to install 100 megawatts of additional renewable capacity in federally subsidized housing by 2020."

(4) Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/18/billions-spent-in-obama-climate-plan-may-be-virtually-useless-study-suggests/#ixzz2ZmR5XXDe

(5) President Obama's Climate Change Speech: Full Text: http://ens-newswire.com/2013/06/25/president-obamas-climate-change-speech-full-text/

"The Green Island" - 'The eco resort that's 'greener' than most'

We originally put in 96 solar panels and last year we put in 32 more. The first 96 were 205 watts per panel and cost $2000 each; the ones I put in last year are 245 watts per panel and cost me $900 each. Now I can get 255 watts per panel and they're about $400 so it's getting more and more economical.

http://2degreesproject.com.au/Story/green-eco-resort

President Obama’s 2nd-Term Plan To Address Climate Change

Well, this is interesting.

President Obama's Second-Term Plan To Address Climate Change

 

"The plan, according to senior administration officials, has three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, leading international efforts to cut global emissions, and preparing the U.S. for the costly impacts of climate change. President Obama will frame action as a moral obligation to do what we can for "the world we leave our children."

 

"Increasing renewables: Set a goal to double electricity fueled by renewable energy by 2020 nationally. This will be kickstarted by a goal of 10 gigawatts' worth of permits for renewable energy projects on public lands by 2020. Another Presidential Memorandum streamlines electric grid transmission projects across the country. Increase the federal government renewable target from the current 7.5 percent to 20 percent by 2020.
Get smarter: Conduct the first-ever Quadrennial Energy Review, focusing on infrastructure and investment. Aggregate energy data from federal facilities using the "Green Button" standard. Launch a Climate Data Initiative, which makes federal climate-related data available to the public, encouraging innovation and climate preparedness.
Fuel efficiency: The administration will develop post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles, building upon 2011′s first-ever such standards.
Appliances and buildings: Establish goal that current efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will reduce carbon pollution by more than 3 billion metric tons by 2030.
Efficient housing: Try innovative approaches to developing cost-effective energy delivery to multifamily housing. Federally subsidized housing stock will strive toward a goal of 100 megawatts of installed renewable capacity by 2020 as well. Find options to factor energy efficiency into the mortgage process. Expand Better Buildings Challenge to make multifamily housing more efficient.

On paper, the plan, if implemented quickly and decisively (which means also supported by a robust legal and public defense against the certain fusillade from Republican and industry groups), could be fairly consequential given the realities of current congressional dysfunction. Whether or not Keystone XL is approved, the U.S. needs to cut emissions a great deal, and there are things in the plan that could kickstart that process. To roll back carbon pollution with the intent of avoiding catastrophic global warming will require more."

High environmental costs if 2050 world population be fed

... Well, it depends how, as always.
Below, an excerpt from Bloomberg BusinessWeek's report:

“Current growth in global crop yields will be insufficient to feed the world in 2050,” according to the University of Minnesota. 

 But, if we are nice to each other, we may make it:

More efficient use of arable lands and increasing yield growth rates by sharing best-management practices may help lift production, the study authors wrote. Changing to more plant-based diets and reducing food waste could reduce the large expected growth in demand, according to the researchers. 

With the BAU, Business As Usual, it may not look so good:

Environmental Costs

“A portion of the production shortfall could also be met by expanding croplands, but at a high environmental cost to biodiversity and carbon emissions,” the authors said. 

Source: link.

Wind power: NIMBY-ism (Not In My Backyard) VS. WARYDU rhetoric (We Are Right; You Don't Understand)

Because it reads so nice, I am just going to copy-paste this paragraph from the "Acoustic Ecology Institute" (don't ask me what it is, I've never before heard of it) (Source: this here link):

 

From another page: link.

Modern wind turbines are massive structures, hundreds of feet tall, and often constructed in large wind farms that in effect industrialize rural landscapes, from the rolling grassy hills of California, to the vast rangeland of Texas, to ancient ridgelines in the Appalachians, to the commons in rural England. While the trade-offs may be worth it in some areas, the downsides have become more apparent. Resistance to wind farms is often belittled as NIMBY-ism (Not In My Backyard); but at the same time, proponents often slip into oversimplifeid WARYDU rhetoric (We Are Right; You Don't Understand). In most cases, industrial wind farms are complying with local noise limits; the issue has become whether these noise limits are sufficient to protect rural residents from irrevocable changes in the soundscapes of their homes and farms. If we are to forge a reliable energy future that is respectful of both the environment and the rights of neighbors, we'll need to move past knee-jerk reactions on both sides, and develop best practices that can ensure that the landscape and local residents don't become long-term casualties of today's "Klondike Wind Rush."

 

 

 
This caption is from the first site as well <link>:
How big are modern wind turbines? The ones on the left are 60m and 125m; the one on the right is 95m, with blades sweeping an area the size of a 747.
 

EU ETS update - 2 billion surplus allowances. Whoops.

 

EU ETS: continuing decline in emissions but growing surplus of allowances in 2012

Allowance surplus doubled in 2012

The surplus of emission allowances almost doubled from around 950 million at the end of 2011. A combination of the use of international credits, auctioned phase 2 allowances and remaining allowances in the new entrant reserve, sales of phase 3 allowances to generate funds for the NER300 programme and early auctioning of phase 3 allowances resulted in a cumulative surplus of almost two billion allowances by the end of 2012.

Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, said: "The good news is that emissions declined again in 2012. The bad news is that the supply-demand imbalance has further worsened in large part due to a record use of international credits. At the start of phase 3, we see a surplus of almost two billion allowances. These facts underline the need for the European Parliament and Council to act swiftly on back-loading."

From: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013051601_en.htm

Big companies and UN on Environmental reporting

Big companies should report their impact on the environment in addition to their earnings under a U.N. plan to boost economic growth and ease poverty by 2030, according to recommendations by a panel of world leaders released on Thursday.

 

This is from a UN report. Title of the news item is UN Recommends Big Companies Report Environmental Impacts As Well As Profits. <link here>

 

More from the same source:

 

And aparently, they actually said: "Without environmental sustainability, we cannot end poverty; the poor are too deeply affected by natural disasters and too dependent on deteriorating oceans, forests and soils."

 

Snippets:

 

Australia is on track to generate 22 percent of its energy from renewable resources. [CleanTechnica]

 

The Canadian government refused to detail how $16 million in taxpayer funds was spent to promote oil, gas, and other resources. [Vancouver Sun]

 

André Borschberg and Bertrand Piccard, the pilots of Solar Impulse – the first 100% solar-powered plane that flies day and night without fuel –  Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/30/solar-plane-reddit-ask-me-anything-may-31-100pm-et/#dEmmsE0Ic5L1CBKO.99

 

New Jersey is set to increase spending on solar energy by nearly half a billion dollars, meaning almost a hundred more megawatts of new capacity. [Solar Love]

A new special report from USA Today on the impacts of climate change spotlights how increased carbon dioxide creates more pollen, making allergy sufferers miserable. [USA Today]

Former Iowa lawmaker Ed Fallon is organizing a 1,000-person climate march across the country next year, spanning 8 months, thousands of miles, and lots of public curiosity. [Des Moines Register]

 

 

Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”

From their abstract (I deposit it here for later use):

we describe revisions of the sensitivities of the RFCs to increases in GMT and a more thorough understanding of the concept of vulnerability that has evolved over the past 8 years. This is based on our expert judgment about new findings in the growing literature since the publication of the TAR in 2001, including literature that was assessed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), as well as additional research published since AR4. Compared with results reported in the TAR, smaller increases in GMT are now estimated to lead to significant or substantial consequences in the framework of the 5 “reasons for concern.”

From:

Smith, J. B., Schneider, S. H., Oppenheimer, M., Yohe, G. W., Hare, W., Mastrandrea, M. D., ... & Van Ypersele, J. P. (2009). Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)“reasons for concern”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(11), 4133-4137. Link: http://ateson.com/ws/r/www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full

The FED, Too Big to Fail, Carbon Bubble and pension funds

From: If Alan Greenspan Wants To 'End The Fed', Times Must Be Changing (Forbes, 3/14/2013)
Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island is an excellent account of how the Fed came into being. The fact that this 1994 book is, today, the #2 bestselling book in Amazon.com's Banks and Banking category, the #2 bestselling book in the Economic Policy and Development category, and the #4 bestselling book in the Economic Policy category, shows why crowds start chanting "End the Fed" wherever Ron Paul turns up, with no prompting from him.

In recent years, any attentive watcher has noticed that the Fed has been working rather closely with certain "Too Big to Fail" banks, in ways that are not necessarily in the public's best interest. The fact that the Fed is likely heavily influenced by a certain well-known European banking family — a criticism that president Andrew Jackson applied to its predecessor the Second Bank of the United States, just before he killed it — is all the more reason to eliminate its influence in U.S. affairs.

As a member of the "keep the Fed" camp in prior years, it seems to me now that we will most likely come to that point, in not too many years, where replacing the Fed will be the best and even the easiest path.
We are not there yet.

 

Carbon bubble will plunge the world into another financial crisis – report (The Guardian.uk, 19.04.2013)

"Analysts say you should ride the train until just before it goes off the cliff. Each thinks they are smart enough to get off in time, but not everyone can get out of the door at the same time. That is why you get bubbles and crashes."

'The world's governments have agreed to restrict the global temperature rise to 2C, beyond which the impacts become severe and unpredictable. But Stern said the investors clearly did not believe action to curb climate change was going to be taken. "They can't believe that and also believe that the markets are sensibly valued now." '

 

"This report makes it clear that 'business as usual' is not a viable option for the fossil fuel industry in the long term. [The market] is assuming it will get early warning, but my worry is that things often happen suddenly in the oil and gas sector."

 

I find this next one remarkably important:
The report calculates that the world's currently indicated fossil fuel reserves equate to 2,860bn tonnes of carbon dioxide, but that just 31% could be burned for an 80% chance of keeping below a 2C temperature rise. For a 50% chance of 2C or less, just 38% could be burned.

Carbon capture and storage technology, which buries emissions underground, can play a role in the future, but even an optimistic scenario which sees 3,800 commercial projects worldwide would allow only an extra 4% of fossil fuel reserves to be burned. There are currently no commercial projects up and running. The normally conservative International Energy Agency has also concluded that a major part of fossil fuel reserves is unburnable.

Oh, and the pension funds, you ask?
Pension funds are also concerned. "Every pension fund manager needs to ask themselves have we incorporated climate change and carbon risk into our investment strategy? If the answer is no, they need to start to now," said Howard Pearce, head of pension fund management at the Environment Agency, which holds £2bn in assets.

 

I think this guy [Jeremy Grantham, a billionaire fund manager who oversees $106bn of assets] speaks sense, when he "said his company was on the verge of pulling out of all coal and unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil from tar sands. "The probability of them running into trouble is too high for me to take that risk as an investor."" 

 

What if it's all a big hoax, climate cover-up and Kunt Vonnegut

What if we create a better world for nothing?

 An interesting read has been brought to my attention recently: Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan.

"Climate Cover-Up names names, identifying bogus experts who are actually paid lobbyists and flaks. The authors reveal the pr techniques used to misinform, to mangle the language, and to intimidate the media into maintaining a phony climate change debate."...
 

 It is amazing, how many people continue to argue about it. I for one think it does not matter - we can just dispense with the climate change talk ... and try to deal with the rest of the shit. Inequality, corruption and environmental degradation, with a topping of species loss per day and riots because of too few owning too much. Well, but we've been there, haven't we? We did squat. Sooo, luckily for the planet and ALL its species (including us, humans), we'll face a crisis bigger than anything we've seen before. And then, we'll act. Loosing some billion human lives on the way, but we'll act. And I hope we then truly manage the world in a sustainable, custodian-guardian kind of way. Sigh.

I got the Big Hoax picture from the internet search (type in the text in the speech bouble and you will get it), but one for example is this one [the animated cartoon I don't really get in whole, I'm afraid].

Additionally, "what’s so radical about wanting to protect life-sustaining biosystems? About wanting to only consume as much energy and resources as is sustainable? And about wanting to build an economic system that is equitable?
And ‘equitable’ means equitable for all, including future generations."

From a great Blog post that is designed to 'lift your spirits':
Was Kurt Vonnegut right (and if so, Now What?), by Mike Targett.

Emissions - 80% of 1990 levels by 2050

Why US States Have A Duty To Reduce Their Emissions to Their Fair Share of Safe Global Emissions: The Case of Pennsylvania.
"A new report that looks at Pennsylvania examines why US states must reduce their greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions. Although this report focuses on Pennsylvania, the conclusions in this report could be applied to other US states as well as sub-national and regional governments around the world."

 

 
via Bill McKibben @billmckibben
 If Alan Greenspan Wants To 'End The Fed', Times Must Be Changing <link here>

 

 

Keystone pipeline decision will determine Obama's legacy (06 Feb 2013)

Watching President Obama give his inaugural address was uplifting. "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," he said /.../
But I fear the intervening quarter-century has allowed just the tiniest bit of cynicism to seep into my soul.

 Here's why: the president didn't go on to say, "and therefore I'm going to kill the Keystone pipeline just as soon as I can."

If there were ever a stupid and indefensible scheme, it's this long straw from the tarsands of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

/.../

In fact, Keystone is the only environmental issue that has drawn large numbers of activists into the streets across the country in many years.

 

Want to know why? Because 18 months ago, our most respected climatologist, NASA's James Hansen, calculated that because that patch of tarsands oil is so big, and because the sandy bitumen it contains is the dirtiest oil on earth, burning it on top of everything else we burn would mean it was "game over for the climate."

The president apparently wasn't quite sure Hansen was correct — he asked for a year's delay to study the pipeline more deeply. In that year, Mother Nature filed fairly compelling public testimony, including the hottest year in American history, the deepest drought since the Dust Bowl, and Hurricane Sandy. Oh yeah, and the Arctic melted — but hey, it's just one of the four or five biggest physical features on earth.
/.../
It will create a few thousand good construction jobs, but every analysis for more than a year has shown these would be far outweighed by the people put to work building a clean-energy economy.

 

Sustainable cities

A webpage and a book crossed my path. I'll put them right here, so that they can be Found Again:)

 

Sustaining Cape Town - imagining a livable city <link to book's page>

"Sustaining Cape Town ' Imagining a Livable City is a comprehensive book which tackles all possible factors that need to be taken into account when facing sustainability in Cape Town. Municipal finance, economic and industrial development, water, transport, architecture and social justice are just some of the topics covered by 19 contributors who are experts in their respective fields. The book alerts, warns and scares, but even more so it introduces ideas for thinking about sustainability and urban future in new and novel ways." (Quoted from here.)

 

Online Magazine: City Views: Cape Town as a sustainable city <link>

 

Another news item A political stalemate for the environment <link> (07 May 2013)
Could climate adaptation be blocked by a political stalemate at local government level? "Local government is doing more than we think, but they are not doing enough," said Lorena Pasquini (pictured), postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cape Town /.../ <read more>

 

Another online thingy:

Bettery Magazine: Recharging the urban mind
A collection of insights and inspirations from smart cities around the world <link>

 

Climate Change Summit 2040, To be held on Mount Everest

 

Will say something about this later, but for now:
2012 was the year the Kyoto protocol targets "ran out" (from 2007 - 2012, even though Kyoto was signed in 1997!).
As of now, we DO NOT have a binding international agreement ... not until 2015, when they will try to form another one.
... Which will ENTER in force probably in 2017 or as late as 2020.

... Can you see how ever increasing GHG emissions and environmental degradation, WHILE we talk and quibble (/squabble) about how best to do it will hinder us in the very goals we are trying to achieve?

Mind, there has been an increasing number of studies stating that the 2 degrees target* for the 2050/2100 will be increasingly harder to meet, since we're all going berserk and trying to race each-other in the unsustainable economy. They say that if the most strict emission abatements/reductions were applied by the developed AND developing countries, MAYBE we would JUST achieve the 2 degrees target.

I don't know how much you know about the planetary ecosystem resilience ... I know only enough to know I haven't got a clue. But I do "know" that it's going to be increasingly harder to survive.

See also my blog with many more links (interspersed with some rants, granted): http://aljobaljoenvironmental.blogspot.nl/

The photo is from The Economist, from Kal Cartoons (link also here), though I originally got it from a blog, here. Ha, I used in my MSc thesis presentation. You know, as the classical "end humour" photo.

Tar sands and coal shale is us being junkies

Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse.
Developping tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent.
-- http://www.ted.com/playlists/78/climate_change_oh_it_s_real.html

Meanwhile, Canada is considering bypassing the beleaguered Keystone XL pipeline (which would carry oil from tar sands deposits in Alberta to the US and the Gulf of Mexico) by shipping across the Arctic Ocean instead. <link>
 

Bill McKibben @billmckibben writes today:
Amazon could lose two-thirds of its biomass by 2060? Not really great news http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/amazon-deforestation …
This is where we, the average consumers step in. Can you spot the link?:

Brazil is under intense pressure to convert the Amazon forests to produce crops and provide pasture for cattle. But the forests' natural ecosystems sustain wild food production, maintain water and other resources, regulate climate and air quality and ameliorate the impact of infectious diseases. 

They predict that by 2050 a decrease in precipitation caused by deforestation will reduce pasture productivity by 30 percent in the governance scenario and by 34 percent in the business-as-usual scenario. They say increasing temperatures could cause a reduction in soybean yield by 24 percent in the governance scenario and by 28 percent under the business-as-usual scenario.

I used to think that "war-like-mobilisation" to combat #climatechange propagated by @paulgilding was a bit excessive. Now I think he's right. <link>
@paulgilding Referring to the implications of 'Two scenarios' in the article: Amazon -65% by 2060 http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/amazon-deforestation … via @billmckibben

Renewable energy 'soaring' in Australia as carbon price does what it's supposed to (Carbon price working? Coal slumps, clean energy soars <link>)

Electricity generated by Australia's highly polluting brown coal power plants has fallen 14 per cent since introduction of the carbon price, while renewable power has soared.

/.../ All up, the emissions intensity of the national electricity market has fallen 5.4 per cent since the carbon price was introduced, meaning carbon emissions from power generation is down 7.7 per cent, or 10 million tonnes, from the previous nine months.

The Dem base--even its big donors--are in a real uproar over Keystone. As they should be--it's a fateful decision http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/10/activists-compare-keystone-decision-to-lincolns-outlawing-of-slavery/ …

 

Fine piece from @wenstephenson in @thenation on Thoreau and the rising Fossil Fuel Resistance http://www.thenation.com/article/174225/thoreaus-radicalism-and-fight-against-fossil-fuel-industry?page=full# …

 

 Carbon price working? Coal slumps, clean energy soars

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-working-coal-slumps-clean-energy-soars-20130509-2jals.html#ixzz2Sty0Vxoi

Just a test on how this displays:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Amazon could lose two-thirds of its biomass by 2060? Not really great news<a href="http://t.co/1XLOevqH0R" title="http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/amazon-deforestation">wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2…</a></p>&mdash; Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) <a href="https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/332867369540128768">May 10, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

 

Rio+20 Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals

Third session of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals
 The intergovernmental Open Working Group on sustainable development goals called for in the Rio+20 Outcome Document will convene its second meeting on 22 – 24 May 2013.
 
The meeting will be broadcasted through United Nations webcast. The links to the sessions will be posted on this page below as they become available. See Draft Programme of Work on Third and Fourth Session of the Open Working Group on SDGs here.

 

 

Divestment movement, New York Times, Bill McKibben, Do the Math

It's time to post some of a more positive outlook. Ever heard of the Divestment movement?

Well, it just so happens that this interview with Bill McKibben (350.org; fathered projects like Connect the Dots, Do the Math) explains it well and cites some influential media in doing so:

"The New York Times, in what became the week's most e-mailed story in the paper of record, said the campaign could "force climate change back on to the nation's political agenda." A few days later, Time magazine ended its account of the mushrooming movement like this: "University presidents who don't fall in line should get used to hearing protests outside their offices. Just like their forerunners in the apartheid battles of the 1980s, these climate activists won't stop until they win.""

You might be interested to read more, here: Divest from Fossil Fuels. Now. (By Bill McKibben)