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Climate Change: Debate, Science or Outdated mastodonts?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/