U.S., Russia, Kuwait and Saudis block key climate study at COP24
Read more at:
The Future Is Here Today
Where Business, Nature and Leisure Provide An Ideal Setting For Living
Showing posts with label Global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global warming. Show all posts
December 10, 2018
December 1, 2018
August 7, 2018
Europen Heat Waves to worsen study predicts
Study predicts worsening killer heat waves in Europe
Shared via the CBC News Android App
August 2, 2018
April 27, 2018
Global Warming: 'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention - by Patrick Barkham
e’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman
with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink
in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet
because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no
means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And
very few appear to be prepared to say so.”
Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.
From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record. But when it issues from Hillman, it may be worth paying attention. Over nearly 60 years, his research has used factual data to challenge policymakers’ conventional wisdom.
In 1972, he criticised out-of-town shopping centres more than 20 years before the government changed planning rules to stop their spread. In 1980, he recommended halting the closure of branch line railways – only now are some closed lines reopening. In 1984, he proposed energy ratings for houses – finally adopted as government policy in 2007. And, more than 40 years ago, he presciently challenged society’s pursuit of economic growth.
When we meet at his converted coach house in London, his classic Dawes racer still parked hopefully in the hallway (a stroke and a triple heart bypass mean he is – currently – forbidden from cycling), Hillman is anxious we are not side-tracked by his best-known research, which challenged the supremacy of the car.
“With doom ahead, making a case for cycling as the primary mode of transport is almost irrelevant,” he says. “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”
Read more: 'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention | Environment | The Guardian
Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.
From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record. But when it issues from Hillman, it may be worth paying attention. Over nearly 60 years, his research has used factual data to challenge policymakers’ conventional wisdom.
In 1972, he criticised out-of-town shopping centres more than 20 years before the government changed planning rules to stop their spread. In 1980, he recommended halting the closure of branch line railways – only now are some closed lines reopening. In 1984, he proposed energy ratings for houses – finally adopted as government policy in 2007. And, more than 40 years ago, he presciently challenged society’s pursuit of economic growth.
When we meet at his converted coach house in London, his classic Dawes racer still parked hopefully in the hallway (a stroke and a triple heart bypass mean he is – currently – forbidden from cycling), Hillman is anxious we are not side-tracked by his best-known research, which challenged the supremacy of the car.
“With doom ahead, making a case for cycling as the primary mode of transport is almost irrelevant,” he says. “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”
September 16, 2017
Climate Change: EU, Canada, China to jointly fight climate change
This gathering, a first of its kind, seeks to galvanise global momentum for the implementation of the Paris Agreement and will bring together ministers and high-level representatives from 34 economies that are part of the G20 and other invited countries, the Commission said.
Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are leading lead the roundtable discussion on climate action and clean growth.
Cañete stressed that the EU remains committed to the Paris Agreement and its full and swift implementation. “Domestically, we are progressing steadily with the finalisation of the measures to reduce our emissions by at least 40% by 2030. Internationally, we are strengthening our existing partnerships and seeking new alliances.
Our aim is to raise global climate ambition, follow through with concrete action and support our partners, in particular the most vulnerable countries,” Cañete said.
The meeting in Montreal takes place only days after this year’s State of the Union Address by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker where he underlined that he “wants Europe to be the leader when it comes to the fight against climate change.
Set against the collapse of ambition in the United States, Europe will ensure we make our planet great again. It is the shared heritage of all of humanity”.
Two months before the next United Nations climate conference (COP23) in Bonn, Germany, the meeting will also provide the space for discussions on the expected outcomes of upcoming UN climate talks, the Commission said.
Read more: EU, Canada, China to jointly fight climate change
July 1, 2017
G20: Merkel takes aim at Trump ahead of stormy G20 summit
Merkel said that discussions at the July 7-8 gathering of world
leaders in Hamburg would be difficult given Trump's climate scepticism
and "America First" stance, but that she was determined to seek a clear
commitment for the Paris accord against global warming and a pledge
against protectionism.
When Trump announced in early June he would withdraw from the Paris deal, "we knew that we could not expect discussions to be easy" at the G20 summit,
When Trump announced in early June he would withdraw from the Paris deal, "we knew that we could not expect discussions to be easy" at the G20 summit,
Merkel told the German parliament"The differences are obvious and it would be dishonest to try to
cover that up. That I won't do," she said, adding that the US exit from
the 2015 Paris pact had made Europe "more determined than ever" to make
the accord a success.
Without naming names, she also warned that "those who think that the problems of this world can be solved with isolationism or protectionism are terribly wrong" and pledged to seek a "clear signal for open markets and against sealing off" at the summit.
Read more: Merkel takes aim at Trump ahead of stormy G20 summit | SBS News
Without naming names, she also warned that "those who think that the problems of this world can be solved with isolationism or protectionism are terribly wrong" and pledged to seek a "clear signal for open markets and against sealing off" at the summit.
Read more: Merkel takes aim at Trump ahead of stormy G20 summit | SBS News
May 10, 2017
Climate change: China vows to defend Paris agreement
Chinese President Xi Jinping has
vowed to protect the landmark Paris agreement, which aims to curb
climate change and fossil fuel emissions.
US President Donald Trump is still deciding whether to withdraw from the accord - an election campaign promise.
Climate experts worry such a move would throw the agreement into chaos.
Read more: Climate change: China vows to defend Paris agreement - BBC News
April 22, 2017
Earth Day: April 22: The G20’s Time for Climate Leadership, as Trump Adm. ready to block project - by Teresa Ribera
 |
| Global Warming Disaster:The question is not if but when |
But at Merkel and Trump’s first in-person meeting, no substantive statements were issued, and their body language made the prospect of future dialogue appear dim. Trump’s slogan “America first” seems to mean “America alone.”
By reversing his predecessor’s policies to reduce CO2 emissions, Trump is rolling back the new model of cooperative global governance embodied in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The countries that signed on to that accord committed themselves to sharing the risks and benefits of a global economic and technological transformation.
Trump’s climate-change policy does not bode well for US citizens – many of whom are now mobilizing resistance to his administration – or the world. But the rest of the world will still develop low-carbon, resilient systems. Private- and public-sector players across the developed and developing worlds are making the coming economic shift all but inevitable, and their agendas will not change simply because the US has a capricious new administration. China, India, the European Union, and many African and Latin American countries are still adopting clean-energy systems.
As long as this is the case, businesses, local governments, and other stakeholders will continue to pursue low-carbon strategies. To be sure, Trump’s policies might introduce new dangers and costs, domestically and worldwide; but he will not succeed in prolonging the fossil-fuel era.
Still, an effective US exit from the Paris agreement is a menacing development. The absence of such an important player from the fight against climate change could undermine new forms of multilateralism, even if it reinvigorates climate activism as global public opinion turns against the US.
More immediately, the Trump administration has introduced significant financial risks that could impede efforts to address climate change. Trump’s proposed budget would place restrictions on federal funding for clean-energy development and climate research. Likewise, his recent executive orders will minimize the financial costs of US businesses’ carbon footprint, by changing how the “social cost of carbon” is calculated. And his administration has already insisted that language about climate change be omitted from a joint statement issued by G20 finance ministers.
These are all unwise decisions that pose serious risks to the US economy, and to global stability, as United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently pointed out. The US financial system plays a leading role in the world economy, and Trump wants to take us all back to a time when investors and the general public did not account for climate-change risks when making financial decisions.
Since 2008, the regulatory approach taken by the US and the G20 has been geared toward increasing transparency and improving our understanding of possible systemic risks to the global financial system, not least those associated with climate change and fossil-fuel dependency. Developing more stringent transparency rules and better risk-assessment tools has been a top priority for the financial community itself. Implementing these new rules and tools can accelerate the overall trend in divestment from fossil fuels, ensure a smooth transition to a more resilient, clean-energy economy, and provide confidence and clarity for long-term investors.
Given the heightened financial risks associated with climate change, resisting Trump’s executive order to roll back Wall Street transparency regulations should be a top priority. The fact that Warren Buffet and the asset-management firm Black Rock have warned about the investment risks of climate change suggests that the battle is not yet lost.
Creating the G20 was a good idea. Now, it must confront its biggest challenge. It is up to Merkel and other G20 leaders to overcome US (and Saudi) resistance and stay the course on climate action. They can count as allies some of the world’s large institutional investors, who seem to agree on the need for a transitional framework of self-regulation. It is incumbent upon other world leaders to devise a coherent response to Trump, and to continue establishing a new development paradigm that is compatible across different financial systems.
At the same time, the EU – which is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome this year – now has a chance to think about the future that it wants to build. These are difficult times, to be sure; but we can still decide what kind of world we want to live in.
Note EU-Digest: the EU needs to take its own independent and united position on this issue. Compromise should not be part of the equation. In addition, it has become extremely difficult for any country to negotiate with the Trump Administration on just about any issue, given they change their position more often than the Kama Sutra.
April 9, 2017
Global Warming: Low-lying Netherlands is exporting its water-management expertise
 |
| Netherlands: famous for water-management expertise |
The fact that the runway is dry and the passengers can alight without getting their feet wet is thanks to more than a century of water management. For hundreds of years, the Dutch have been pumping, draining, building sea walls and dykes, fighting coastal erosion and reclaiming land as a matter of national survival because more than half their country lies below sea level.
These skills in keeping water at bay have served the domestic economy in the Netherlands well, but now, in an era of climate change and rising sea levels, they are driving a major export industry as well.
“There are so many cities around the world in deltas, or in coastal zones, very close to the water that are in jeopardy,” Piet Dircke, a Dutch water engineer, told Marketplace. “Millions of people in these big cities need to be protected against the impacts of floods and climate change, and the Dutch know how to do that,” Dircke said.
From Wuhan in China, to São Paulo in Brazil, to Miami, New Orleans and New York, big coastal and riverine cities around the world have been hiring Dutch companies to combat rising sea levels. Dircke’s employer, the giant engineering consulting firm Arcadis, has seen its water business revenues jump by 42 percent over the past five years to $515 million due to this increasing global demand for Dutch expertise.
The know-how extends well beyond pumping and draining. In Rotterdam harbor, an experimental project has been unveiled that could help communities cope with rising sea levels, not by draining and reclaiming land but by “building on water.”
April 9, 2016
Global warming: NASA: Global warming now changing how Earth wobbles - AJE News
Global warming is shifting the way the Earth wobbles on its polar axis, a new NASA study says, highlighting what one expert said is the "large" impact humans have on the planet.
According to the study published on Friday in the journal Science Advances, melting ice sheets - especially in Greenland - are changing the distribution of weight on Earth.
As a result, both the North Pole and the wobble, which is called polar motion, have changed course.
"The recent shift from the 20th-century direction is very dramatic," said Surendra Adhikari, lead author at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab.
While scientists said the shift is harmless, it is meaningful.
Read more: NASA: Global warming now changing how Earth wobbles - AJE News
According to the study published on Friday in the journal Science Advances, melting ice sheets - especially in Greenland - are changing the distribution of weight on Earth.
As a result, both the North Pole and the wobble, which is called polar motion, have changed course.
"The recent shift from the 20th-century direction is very dramatic," said Surendra Adhikari, lead author at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab.
While scientists said the shift is harmless, it is meaningful.
Read more: NASA: Global warming now changing how Earth wobbles - AJE News
March 31, 2016
Global Warming: Who are the Global Warming Skeptic Organizations - who also have lobbyists in Bruxelles?
 |
| Global warming is for real - Vested Interest fights change |
These organizations play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas — even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet.
Who are these groups? And what is the evidence linking them to the fossil fuel industry?
Here's a quick primer on several prominent global warming skeptic organizations, including examples of their disinformation efforts and funding sources from the fossil fuel industry. Many have received large donations from foundations established, and supported, by the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers.
American Enterprise Institute
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change. [1]
For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists [2], with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.” [3] A resident scholar at AEI went so far as to state that the profession of climate scientist “threatens to overtake all” on the list of “most distrusted occupations.” [4]
AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6]
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements, such as “How much information refutes carbon dioxide-caused global warming? Let me count the ways.” [7]
While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. [8]
These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries.
AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch [9], and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors [10]. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also serves as a director for both AFP and AFP Foundation. [11]
Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. [12]
American Legislative Exchange Council
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” [13] and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions.
ALEC purports to “support the use of sound science to guide policy,” but routinely provides a one-sided platform for climate contrarians. State legislators attending one ALEC meeting were offered a workshop touting a report by a fossil fuel-funded group that declared “like love, carbon dioxide's many splendors are seemingly endless." [14, 15] Another ALEC meeting featured a Fox News contributor who has claimed on the air that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming.” [16, 17]
ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [18], and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [19]
Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University
From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states.
These economic analyses are at times accompanied by a dose of climate contrarianism. For example, BHI Director David Tuerck has claimed that “the very question of whether the climate is warming is in doubt…” [20] Claims such as “wind power actually increases pollution” can be found in many of BHI’s reports.
BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding [21], which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. [22]
Cato Institute
Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato's website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” [23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.” [24]
Patrick Michaels, Director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, has referred to the latest Draft National Climate Assessment Report as “the stuff of fantasy.” [25] The most recent edition of Cato’s “Handbook for Policymakers” advises that Congress should “pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.” [26]
Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 [27], and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. [28] Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. [29]
Competitive Enterprise Institute
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” [30] But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.” [31]
These kinds of claims are nothing new for CEI. Back in 1991, CEI was claiming that “The greatest challenge we face is not warming, but cooling.” [32] More recently, CEI produced an ad calling for higher levels of carbon dioxide. [33] One CEI scholar even publicly compared a prominent climate scientist to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. [34]
CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005 [35], though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations. CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s. [36]
Heartland Institute
While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists. [37]
Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski [38], bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” [39]
Heartland even once marked Earth Day by mailing out 100,000 free copies of a book claiming that “climate science has been corrupted” [40] – despite acknowledging that “…all major scientific organizations of the world have taken the official position that humankind is causing global warming.”
Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006 [41]. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011. [42, 43]
Heritage Foundation
While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. [44, 45, 46, 47] One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” [48]
Vocal climate contrarians, meanwhile, are described as “the world’s best scientists when it comes to the climate change study” in the words of one Heritage policy analyst. [49]
Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [50] ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. [51, 52]
Institute for Energy Research
The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming.
IER claims that public policy “should be based on objective science, not emotion or improbable scenarios ” But IER also claims that the sense of urgency for climate action is due not to the science that shows the real and growing conequences of global warming. Rather, IER suggests that researchers “exacerbate the sense [that] policies are urgently needed” for monetary gain, noting that “issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding.” [53]
IER has received funding from both ExxonMobil [54] and the Koch brothers [55].
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.” [56]
“The science is not settled, not by a long shot,” Robert Bryce, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow has written in the Wall Street Journal [57]. At other times Bryce has expressed indifference to the science on climate change. “I don’t know who’s right. And I really don’t care,” he wrote in one book. [58]
The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 [59], with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [60]
Read more : Global Warming Skeptic Organizations | Union of Concerned Scientists
December 30, 2015
The Netherlands, US, Switzerland: The Down-to-Earth Solution to Climate Change - by Ken Roseborro
Research conducted by the Rodale Institute in the U.S., the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland and the Louis Bolk Institute in the Netherlands has found that organic farming methods are
effective at removing carbon dioxide (CO2)—the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change—from the atmosphere.
The Carbon Underground is coordinating global research to demonstrate the potential of sustainable agriculture and land management to sequester carbon and mitigate climate change.
Read more: The Down-to-Earth Solution to Climate Change
effective at removing carbon dioxide (CO2)—the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change—from the atmosphere.
The Carbon Underground is coordinating global research to demonstrate the potential of sustainable agriculture and land management to sequester carbon and mitigate climate change.
Read more: The Down-to-Earth Solution to Climate Change
November 9, 2015
Climate Change Could Push 100 Million Into Poverty by 2030: World Bank
There’s no doubt that President
Obama is trying to shape a climate legacy and that showing leadership on
all things climate related is his way of doing so. Accordingly, the
President had already made a groundbreaking climate deal with Chinese
premier Xi Jinping. Coming roughly a year ago, it neutralized what might
otherwise have been the biggest issue in global climate talks — that
is, what China will do.
And then,
earlier this year, Obama’s administration delivered the finalized Clean
Power Plan, the centerpiece of the U.S.’s push to cap its own
emissions. This was all about walking the walk and cleaning up our own
house.
So what was left when it
came to showing leadership? Well, the major symbolic move of rejecting a
pipeline that environmentalists have extensively rallied against, and
that has come to symbolize the notion that many new fossil fuel projects
won’t be able to go forward if the U.S. and world stay committed to the
goal of not allowing warming beyond 2 degrees C above pre-industrial
levels.
Read more: How Obama’s Keystone XL rejection gives him momentum for the Paris climate talks - The Washington Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)