Page Updated: 1-1-2007
|
Page Updated: 1-1-2007 |
| Find a Naturopathic Doctor Near You Herbal Remedies - Medical Review Water Ionizers & Filters Sustainable Living - Compost Tea Yoga Meditation Music Online |
 Custom Search
|
Get Free Information Therapy: By Naturopathic Doctors, experts in holistic medicine. Sample Issue |
Global Warming - Climate ChaosArtic Ice Shelves Crossing The Climate Threshold Glaciers Surge When Ice Shelf Breaks Up
Interaction Concerns between Herbs, Vitamins, Drugs and Various Health Conditions?Information concerning interactions between, herbs, vitamins, health conditions and prescription drugs. This free information is gathered from scientific studies published in over 550 peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals. Visit
Health Notes for drug
interactions
|
Global Warming & Climate Chaos - Health Tips for Planet EarthBy F. James Handley - December 2006 Use your browsers "back" button to navigate the global warming menu and numbered references below. What Exactly is “The Greenhouse Effect”? What is Driving the Climate Into a Chaotic Dynamic? The Positive Effects of Carbon Caps Global Warming & Climate Chaos References “Global warming” sounds benign, even pleasant, like a cup of warm tea. But the term is terribly misleading. It implies gradual and gentle changes to which humans might adjust. In truth, climate change is an accelerating, chaotic process. Scientific climate models that are proving quite reliable suggest that if we do not dramatically curtail carbon dioxide emissions from our ever-increasing burning of fossil fuels, the Earth’s climate will continue to shift at an accelerating rate and is likely to do so abruptly and repeatedly. Like an avalanche, the further this de-stabilization process goes, the harder it will be to stop or even slow down. If we continue our “business as usual” increase in fossil fuel use, many of us may live to witness massive flooding, drought, crop failures, starvation, epidemics and waves of environmental refugees. As catastrophic climate events continue to pummel every part of the Earth, human society and institutions would struggle and then collapse under the strain. We have a stark choice now, and there is probably still time to avert the worst scenarios, but we must make major policy and behavioral changes. Strong economic incentives are needed to turn our entire civilization sharply towards energy conservation and alternatives to fossil fuels. You may have read articles or seen Mr. Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth” pointing out that “global warming” is an enormous problem. Distressingly, most people’s understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate, the forces driving the changes and what can be done, are frighteningly fuzzy or just plain wrong.[1] A clever disinformation campaign -- employing the same tactics that successfully stalled for decades action to address the diseases and deaths caused by smoking -- is sowing the seeds of doubt in the media. While the scientific community reached consensus decades ago that Earth’s climate is being dangerously destabilized by carbon dioxide emitted by burning of fossil fuels, public discussion remains stuck on whether human-induced climate change is even real.[2] This diversion is preventing us from understanding the problem, its consequences or most importantly, what to do to soften its potentially shattering blow. If the “doubt industry” succeeds in delaying action much longer, we will soon find ourselves in an unstoppable avalanche of accelerating climate chaos.
What exactly is “the greenhouse effect”?“Let’s take it from the top,” as musicians say. There is absolutely no scientific dispute about the fact that Earth’s atmosphere keeps us warm by a process aptly named “the greenhouse effect.” It works like this: The sun emits energy (mostly light) in a range of wavelengths that form the rainbow-like spectrum of colors that can be separated with a prism. Some gases including water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane act like filters. They are transparent to the shorter wavelengths (at the violet end of the spectrum) but absorb longer waves, including infrared radiation. When light energy passes through the atmosphere and hits dark objects, they tend to absorb the energy and re-radiate it as longer-wave infrared, which feels warm to us. In a greenhouse, or in your car on a sunny day, incoming short-wavelength energy enters through the glass, but when it is re-radiated as long-wave energy from surfaces inside, it doesn’t make it back through the glass, so the air and everything else inside get hot. Similarly, the Earth is surrounded by a natural array of greenhouse gases that allow sunlight through but act as a heat-trapping blanket holding in the infrared radiation, keeping the average surface temperature at a nice, comfy 59°F. Without the natural greenhouse effect, conditions on Earth would resemble those on the moon (which has no atmosphere)-- very large daily temperature extremes. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature would be a very chilly 0°F, the oceans would be frozen to the bottom and life as we know it would be impossible.[3] Again, there is no scientific uncertainty about this natural greenhouse effect at all. None. Human activities, especially burning fuels in our vehicles, electric power plants and for industrial power, as well as agricultural practices, are all adding significantly to the natural concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane. In 1958, chemist Charles Keeling [4] began making detailed measurements of carbon dioxide levels two miles above sea level on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The air on this mountaintop blows off the Pacific and is largely unaffected by localized variations that would be caused by industry or agriculture. Dr. Keeling’s painstaking measurements reveal a steadily rising, accelerating curve precise enough to include seasonal variations due to green plant growth in warmer months that removes carbon dioxide. In 1958, Keeling measured 315 parts per million (ppm). Current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are in the range of 380 ppm -- higher than they’ve been since dinosaurs roamed the Earth. We know -- by comparison with air bubbles trapped in ice over thousands of years and preserved deep in glaciers -- that until the dawn of the industrial age, carbon dioxide levels remained in the range of 275-280 ppm for the entire stable climate period of our existence.
The longest such record exists at Mauna Loa, but these measurements have been independently confirmed at many other sites around the world.
The purveyors of doubt, including Mr. Bush and his fossil fuel industry sponsors, are apparently hoping we don’t notice or understand the striking correlation between carbon dioxide levels and average temperature. If you’ve seen “An Inconvenient Truth,” you’ll remember that Al Gore forcefully drives home the association between these two sets of measurements. Scientists adhere strictly to the maxim that “correlation alone does not prove causation” so one can’t directly infer that higher carbon dioxide levels caused the warming trend we see above without information about a mechanism that links the two sets of data. But if you understand that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases retain more of the sun’s heat on the Earth’s surface, then you’re equipped with a physical mechanism linking the two phenomena. In other words, it’s clear that the horse (more greenhouse gases) is hitched to the cart (higher surface temperatures) and you even have a good idea how fast it’s going. [5] So what if things get a little warmer? Can’t we just install a few more air conditioners and get by?Here’s the rub: climate change is not a gradual or one-time event, which might increase Earth's temperature and then stop or slow down, but instead an open-ended, dynamic process that is accelerating due to reinforcing feedback mechanisms. These feedback loops include: a) More water vapor in the air. If you’ve lived in DC and maybe visited Denver in the summer you might have noticed that while Denver gets hot in the daytime, it cools off pretty fast at night, while DC stays warm all night, for weeks at a stretch. That’s because there is so much moisture in the air here (and being at sea level, we have more atmosphere to blanket us). Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. And as the Earth’s temperature rises, water evaporates faster and the amount of moisture the atmosphere can retain increases. The result is to increase the insulating power of our atmospheric blanket which in turn makes even more water evaporate, keeping things even hotter. One of the most pronounced effects of the increased greenhouse effect is higher night time temperatures-- moisture in the atmosphere keeps the Earth’s surface from cooling off. b) Reduced albedo (reflectivity). Ice reflects almost all solar energy-- much like a mirror, while the oceans, which replace them as the ice caps melt, absorb solar energy almost as well as a black surface, warming the oceans. Once the ice caps start to recede more and more heat will be absorbed by the oceans, causing further, faster melting.[6] You could say that the Earth’s sun visor is melting. c) Methane release. Methane, a greenhouse gas, about 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat, is being released from tiny bubbles as huge areas of permafrost melt into lakes. Methane is generated by bacteria as they decompose dead plants and animals. Vast amounts of methane have been trapped for millennia in tiny bubbles embedded in permafrost. As atmospheric methane levels rise, Earth’s atmospheric “blanket” will trap more heat, melting more permafrost, releasing more and more methane. Recent observations by a team of Russian and US scientists set off alarm because they indicate that methane is being released from Siberian permafrost five times faster than previously estimated. [7] d) Loss of forests, especially Amazon rainforest. Forests are massive carbon sinks-- they remove carbon dioxide from the air, release oxygen and build carbon into the forest. But deforestation, logging and increased drying, particularly of soil, caused by the warming climate are impairing the health of forests, reducing their capacity to sequester carbon and increasing the incidence and severity of forest fires worldwide. [8] The Amazon Rainforest is the world’s largest carbon-sequestering system. Forest fires in the Amazon region accelerate climate change in two profound ways: burning trees (and other biomass) converts them into carbon dioxide, and once rainforest is gone, it’s being replaced by savannah, an ecosystem much less bio-diverse and hundreds of times less effective at removing carbon dioxide than rainforest. A massive rainforest fire in the Amazon region could change the Earth’s climate very quickly. If you see a big Amazon rainforest fire in the news, start packing for Greenland. e)
Increased ocean temperatures provide more energy for tropical storms:
hurricanes, typhoons and other extreme weather events. More heat means
more energy, bigger and longer storms and thus more damage and carnage.
Even slight increases in ocean temperature dramatically increase the energy
of storms. Hurricane duration and strength has increased by about 50%
in the past three decades, much more than previous models predicted would
be caused by the approximately 1°F increase in ocean temperatures
observed over that time. [9] What about our food supply?Here’s a quote on climate change impacts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (not exactly a radical environmental organization): “The timing and length of growing seasons might shift geographically, which would alter planting and harvesting dates and likely result in a need to change crop varieties currently used in a particular area. Seasonal precipitation patterns and amounts could change. With warmer temperatures, evapo-transpiration rates would rise, which would call for much greater efficiency of water use. Weed and insect pest ranges could shift. Perhaps most important of all, there is general agreement that in addition to changing climate, there would likely be increased variability in weather, which might mean more frequent extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods.[11] We’re already witnessing famines caused by drought in Africa and Asia. North America is vulnerable too. Where can human agriculture move in order to adapt to “increased variability” and “extreme events”? What is driving the climate into a chaotic dynamic?Burning (“oxidation”) of carbon-based (“fossil”) fuels produces carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) represent about 85% of U.S. and world energy use. Therefore, in order to stabilize the planet's climate (or to even mitigate the impending climate chaos and buy ourselves a little time), human fossil fuel consumption (and thus total energy consumption) must drop dramatically, beginning immediately. If we wait to begin this, Earth will become increasingly uninhabitable due to accelerating climate chaos. The process is well underway. Using satellite images and temperature data, researchers at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS) report that arctic snowfall is not replacing the ice that melts each summer – the polar ice caps are rapidly receding. GISS reports that the average weight of Hudson Bay polar bears, which use floating sea ice to catch fish, has declined from 650 pounds in the 1980s to 507 pounds in 2006.[12] People are already being driven from their homes in the arctic regions and the damage will not be limited to the colder regions of the Earth. Entire civilizations have collapsed in the past because of climate change (though probably not human-induced) largely as a result of drought and famine. [13] Dr. James Hansen, the lead climate scientist and director of GISS, gained national attention in 1988 with his televised testimony before the Senate Energy Committee that there is a strong “cause and effect relationship” between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere, a conclusion supported by the National Academy of Sciences. More recently, Hansen wrote in the New York Review[14] that GISS’s models predict that continuing a “business-as-usual” scenario will result in at least a 5°F average global temperature rise over the next century, which among other things, would result in disintegration of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and lead to an 80 foot sea level rise. In the U.S., Washington, D.C., most east coast cities and most of Florida would be inundated. (And sea level rise will probably not even be the most dire consequence of climate chaos– we should also expect drought, fierce and frequent storms and resulting famine and refugee crises.) How can we limit the damage?Incentives:
Carbon taxes, efficiency rebates, and driving fees. While this is a very ambitious goal, he points to the enormous energy wasted in the United. States. European economies produce a similar standard of living with only half the energy use per unit of output. In the 1970s, when U.S. fuel prices and government auto fuel efficiency standards rose, incentives for conservation and alternatives pushed the economy towards efficiency. Rising fuel prices encouraged people to buy more efficient vehicles, insulate their homes and turn down the heat. Improving energy efficiency creates many more and many more local jobs than fossil fuel. Oil, gas and coal production and refining are highly mechanized and because we import most of our fuel, they’re not providing many jobs here. We are starting to hear politicians pandering to and fanning public concern over rising gasoline prices, but in fact, when adjusted for inflation, current fuel prices are below 1980 levels.[17] The truth is that when you factor in the real costs of fossil fuel extraction, refining and transportation and the damage that burning it does to our planet and our health, not to mention the enormous damage and suffering that will clearly result (think Katrina, over and over again), fuel prices reflect only a tiny fraction of fuel’s true cost. (The oil industry’s record-breaking windfall profits are a legitimate subject of concern, but that’s another subject.) The Washington-based International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) calculated in 1998 that the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline is over $15 when the price includes the subsidies to the petroleum industry such as the percentage depletion allowance; tax-funded programs that directly subsidize oil production and consumption, including government-sponsored research and development for the oil industry; the costs of protecting oil supplies, shipments and motor vehicle usage, including military expenditures for protecting the Middle East and other oil-rich regions; and environmental, health and social costs including those for climate change. [18] A comprehensive, gradually-increasing carbon tax would more accurately reflect the true costs of fossil fuels and would create needed incentives for conservation and alternative energy development. A carbon tax is even supported by some industry leaders including the chairman of electric utility Duke Energy.[19] A carbon tax could be revenue-neutral: not an additional tax burden but a replacement for other taxes such as income taxes that discourage employment and economic activity. To avoid placing a disproportionate burden on lower income people, they could be given tax credits and those who invest in energy-saving equipment could be given efficiency rebates. The idea is that the consumer or business that makes a special effort to save energy could gain, benefiting from the tax credit or tax savings while buying less fuel; and the wastrel who insists on driving a Hummer and living in a 14,000 square foot “McMansion” would pay for his (or her) own excesses. If consumers and industry knew in advance that carbon taxes would be rising steadily for the indefinite future, they could make appropriate and timely adjustments without severe economic disruption. Economists have long understood that markets respond to expected prices; the branch of economics called “rational expectations theory" [20] attempts to model this phenomenon and is widely relied upon by stock market modelers and traders. An example of expectations affecting market behavior is the way stock markets react in advance to anticipated changes in interest rates or oil prices. To meet Hansen’s goals (to prevent global catastrophe), the carbon tax rate would need to be high enough to begin to curb consumer and business demand for fossil fuels. Gasoline in Europe already costs roughly twice what it does in U.S., yet Europe still uses far too much gasoline to meet Hansen’s goal. And recent increases in U.S. fuel prices have hardly made a dent in short-term demand, though the long-term effects on demand can be expected to be more substantial as individuals and companies respond to expected higher energy prices by changing their habits and investing in conservation and alternatives. Sweden, New Zealand and the Netherlands already have mild carbon taxes. If a country (or even a state) imposed a carbon tax at the same time it granted relief from other taxes (e.g., income taxes), it would not be hobbling itself competitively; the change would be expected to spur investment and job creation, particularly in energy conservation and alternative energy infrastructure, putting a carbon-taxing country ahead of less forward-thinking rivals. So-called “cap and trade” systems are often touted as economic incentives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. EPA has successfully used such a system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions (the source of acid rain) and is implementing a cap and trade program for mercury emissions. [21] A ceiling is set on emissions (the “cap”) and then emissions sources are allowed to achieve the reductions by the most efficient means they can find. The system encourages emissions reductions at the least cost. If one source is better able to reduce emissions, it can sell credits (for reductions below the cap) to another that cannot accomplish the reductions as cheaply. Cap and trade systems require accurate monitoring and reporting of emissions and set up a market for emissions credits. Therefore, they work best with a relatively small number of large pollution sources that can readily be monitored. The 1997 UN Kyoto Treaty on carbon emissions is a very modest first attempt at an international cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions. The 165 countries that have ratified Kyoto have committed to reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or to engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases. Despite being one of the principal architects of the Kyoto system, the U.S. refuses to ratify the treaty, claiming in essence that the system is unfair because as one of the largest carbon dioxide emitters, the U.S. would need to make larger reductions than other nations. Further, the U.S. objects to the provision allowing developing nations to continue to increase their carbon dioxide emissions until 2012. [22] The promising climate change legislation passed in California last summer includes cap and trade elements but seems woefully lacking in many specifics including monitoring and enforcement. And the system would have to be expanded to national and international levels to even begin to tackle the full scope of the problem. [23] In his inspiring new book, Plan B 2.0: Rescuing A Planet Under Stress and a Civilization In Trouble, [24] Lester Brown highlights the success of vehicle traffic taxes. For instance, Singapore has greatly reduced traffic and air pollution by electronically taxing vehicles (as they enter the city center) at rates that increase with traffic levels. In London, where traffic had slowed to less than the speed at of a horse-drawn carriages a century ago, a congestion tax was adopted in early 2003. The £5 charge on all motorists driving into the center city between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. immediately reduced the number of vehicles, permitting traffic to flow more freely while cutting pollution and noise. A year after the new tax was introduced, the number of people using buses to travel into the central city has climbed by 38% while the flow of cars into central London has been reduced by 18% and delays dropped by 30%. The number of bicycles and mopeds has increased by 17%. Most businesses have not suffered loss of patronage and many are supportive of the program. [25] If we tax or cap carbon emissions to discourage fossil fuel use, what will happen to the economy and what alternatives can be expected to emerge?Conservation is by far the largest and cheapest “source” of energy in the U.S. and the world. Many analysts conclude that the U.S. could reduce energy use by at least half without causing economic decline and that the conservation effort would actually be an economic boon-- spurring lots of new jobs and new industries. [26] What would that economy look like? Think fast, convenient rail, bus and light rail transportation systems in every city, with high speed magnetic levitation trains -- as fast as airplanes -- linking cities. (Japan and Germany are leading the development of this very efficient transportation technology.) Think safe, convenient bike and pedestrian routes. Think, efficient, clustered communities and think lots of locally-grown food from local farms and green roof gardens. And think about switches, relays and electronic controls to turn off or dim lights, appliances and anything else that gobbles up energy when no one needs it. Wind-generated energy shows impressive promise. The Great Plains of North America have been described as the “Persian Gulf of wind energy.” According to Lester Brown, a quarter-acre of land in the corn belt can site an advanced-design wind turbine that will produce $100,000 worth of electricity per year. In comparison, the same land could produce 40 bushels of corn to yield 100 gallons of ethanol worth perhaps $200. [27] According to studies by Dr. David Pimentel, growing corn and converting it to ethanol uses 29% more energy than it produces if the energy inputs (mostly fossil fuel) for tilling, planting, fertilizing, watering, harvesting, processing and transportation are properly factored in.[28] Because it’s a net energy loser, the ethanol industry survives on taxpayer-funded subsidies. [29] Watch for the Bush Administration and possibly Congress to push soy- and corn-based ethanol, which according to Pimentel will only make our climate problems worse because we’ll be burning even more carbon-based fuel to produce the ethanol. [30] Some interesting research is being done using switch grass to produce ethanol, but so far, the process doesn’t come close to breaking even on an energy accounting basis. [31] A 50% reduction in energy use isn’t just “pie in the sky.” Germany, which is already much more efficient at energy use than the United States, plans to cut its carbon emissions by 65% by 2050 by continuously raising energy efficiency and harnessing renewable energy resources with an emphasis on wind and solar cells for electricity generation and solar thermal panels for water and space heating. [32] Beyond these well-known approaches, with the right incentives, we can only begin to imagine what new alternatives would be developed. Markets are our most powerful incentives for invention, innovation and risk-taking. In fact, isn’t that what free-market advocates have been telling us? We need to use the market incentives of carbon taxes, efficiency rebates, driving fees and cap and trade systems to save our natural support systems and our civilization -- and we need to start right now. What We Can Do About Climate Chaos and Global Warming:1) Transportation represents about one fourth of U.S. carbon dioxide output. [33] Drive less. Walk, bike and take transit everywhere you can. When you decide to drive, drive gently. Accelerate smoothly and avoid braking by keeping a distance from the vehicle in front of you. Avoid excessive speed-- fuel efficiency drops markedly at speeds above 60 mph. At speeds above that, the faster you go, the less efficiently you’ll be traveling. Driving at 80 mph uses roughly a third more fuel than cruising at 55 mph in most vehicles. [34] When it’s time to replace your vehicle, choose a fuel-efficient one but don’t replace it until you really need a new one. Manufacturing a vehicle uses enormous amounts of energy-- the Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment found that the manufacture of a typical vehicle uses about 1/8 as much energy as the vehicle consumes over an average 14-year life.[35] Limit and carefully plan your air travel. Jets are huge fuel hogs -- and carbon dioxide-emitters.[36] Flying across the country burns about 100 gallons of fuel per passenger[37]-- about the same as driving the distance alone in a 30 mpg vehicle. 2) At Home: Heating and cooling our homes and businesses uses a great deal of carbon-based energy too. Insulate and dress appropriately for the season. In the heating season, set the thermostat to the lowest setting you can tolerate and in the cooling season go as high as you can. And use natural ventilation or fans when you can. Electric clothes dryers are one of the biggest energy hogs in most homes. Instead, go solar: use a clothes line. In many areas, we have “power choice” which means we can select the source of our electricity generation.[38] Choose 100% wind power which has no carbon dioxide output. It costs more, but by selecting wind, you will be spurring development of a truly green alternative energy source. Choose a home where you can walk, bike or take transit to your normal activities and choose one with common walls with other homes, such as an apartment, row house or condominium – that saves a lot of heating and cooling energy. It may be counter-intuitive, but city dwellers have less impact than people who live in suburbs or rural areas. By purchasing or renting housing in a developed city, you also avoid contributing to the conversion of natural or agricultural land into suburban sprawl. Detached homes spread out in suburbs are a big energy waste because each exposed wall loses energy and the individual homes take so much energy to heat and cool. Moreover, sprawl inhabitants use tremendous energy to get there and back for every activity outside home.[39] 3) At Work: Turn off lights, machines and computers when not in use. Politely raise other people’s consciousness about energy conservation. Commute by bike, transit or car pool. Shorten your commute by choosing a home near your work and play so you don’t have to commute very far or at all. In Washington, D.C., Metro and Fannie Mae offer the "Smart Commute Initiative." It allows purchasers of homes near and use public transit for their work commutes to take into account the money they save on commuting to qualify for larger mortgages. [40] 4) Food:
A meat-based diet takes many times more energy and other resources than
a vegetable-based diet. U.S. beef demand is driving the clearing of rainforest
for cattle production. [41] 5) Reproductive: Population growth is one of the big long-term drivers of accelerating energy use and general environmental degradation. [43] Limit your family size and don’t put pressure on other people to feel they must have children to be "complete." Today's world population of 6.5 billion is probably three times larger than the planet can permanently support in a comfortable, natural environment. Human population is at the center of environmental impact, and nothing is more important than reducing global population to a sustainable level. According to the United Nations, "A child born in the industrial world adds more to consumption and pollution over his or her lifetime than do 30-50 children born in developing countries."[44] Because our impacts are so large, practicing family planning is very important here. We don't all need to have children to enjoy them. If you have children, “share” them. If you don’t, “borrow” one or two and give your parent-friends a break. If you have children, practicing energy conservation sets a good example and prepares them for the future. 6) Political: Vote! Take advantage of information published (and on line) by the Sierra Club [45] and the League of Conservation Voters [46] about candidates’ environmental positions and records. Contact your elected officials and let them know that you are alarmed about climate chaos-- you might mention Hurricane Katrina. Let them know that you would prefer a gradually-increasing carbon tax to other taxes such as income taxes and that you want the U.S. to ratify and implement the Kyoto Treaty now. Don’t succumb to pandering about the high cost of fuel-- the price is far too low to reflect true costs or to create the necessary incentives for conservation. Our market economy responds to price signals more than any other information. In short, encourage our leaders to consider and minimize energy and climate impacts in every decision and do the same yourself. 7) Take Action: Climate change is likely to be the biggest challenge the human race has ever faced and time is definitely not on our side. Leadership and activism are needed on all levels. Although a shift in national and even international policies will be necessary for our survival, every local planning and transportation decision has important climate implications. Get involved by participating in local governance – attend hearings, write letters and even consider running for office. Join and financially support effective environmental advocacy organizations. Sierra Club is the largest grass-roots environmental organization in the U.S. and provides training and leadership opportunities. Write letters to newspapers and call in on radio talk shows. Teach your friends, relatives and neighbors. Global Warming - Climate Chaos References[1] Activist David Suzuki reports on the public misunderstanding of climate change revealed in his focus groups at http://enn.com/comment.html?id=474. [2] According “Heat,” a book by George Monbiot, the “doubt industry,” a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that the science supporting climate change is inconclusive, setting back action by a decade. Reported in The Guardian of London, 9/19/06 at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html. [3] For a quick and graphic overview of the natural greenhouse effect, see the University of California’s primer at http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml. [4] Dr. Keeling (who almost became a concert pianist) was hired in 1957 by Roger Revelle who took advantage of funding available for the International Geophysical Year to set up a measurement station at Mauna Loa. Keeling stuck with the job for decades and the plot of his data is called the Keeling curve. Revelle later became a professor at Harvard and Al Gore was one of his students. [5] You’ll find snappy refutations for the “flat earth society’s” arguments that “gee, we just don’t know much about global warming yet”at gristmill.grist.org/skeptics. Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s Betrayal of Science and Reason (1998) provides a broader rebuttal, in lay terms, of the anti-scientific propaganda muddying the waters on the whole array of environmental issues. Chapter 8 addresses climate issues. Also check out “Global Warming Skeptics,” where Environmental Defense reveals Exxon-Mobil’s funding of academics and sponsorship of a cadre of “new” scientists to dispute the well-established science of climate change at http://environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804. [6] View a dramatic time-lapse image of the receding arctic ice caps from 1979 to 2005 at http://everybodysweather.com/Static_Media/Polar_Ice_Cap_Melter/index.htm. [7] Reported
at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm. [8] See http://panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=64220. [9] Human activity linked to rise in hurricanes,” Kerry A. Emanuel, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, and Michael E. Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences at Penn State, reported 5/31/06 at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/hurricanes.html [10] In the January / February 2006 issue of Sierra magazine, activist and author Bill McKibben, argues that Hurricane Katrina marks the arrival of “Climate Chaos.” Fifteen years ago, McKibben wrote the landmark book “The End of Nature” sounding warnings about the stark implications of climate change. [11] http://nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/land/pubs/ib3text.html. [12] Washington Post, 9/14/06 at A3. [13] Elizabeth Kolbert’s well-researched, clearly written and very sobering new book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe as well as her New Yorker series last year, ‘The Climate of Man” discuss past civilizations that have perished because of climate change. She also presents a splendid overview of the scientific consensus on climate change. http://newyorker.com/printables/fact/050425fa_fact3. [14] In “The Threat to the Planet” (July 13, 2006) Dr. Hansen reviewed three related books: “The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth” by Tim Flannery, “Field Notes From a Catastrophe” by Elizabeth Kolbert, and “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore. http://nybooks.com/articles/19131 . [15] The NASA GISS models are very large and sophisticated computer models that take into account a huge number of variables– not only greenhouse gas levels but also factors like ocean circulation and cloud cover. To test them, scientists run them backwards to see how well they model past climate conditions and changes for example, events during the last ice age. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/pliocene/. The models are constantly being refined but have been unnervingly accurate at “predicting” past events as well as recent developments. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/. [16] See Hansen’s presentation on February 10, 2006 at New School University, New York City, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/newschool_text_and_slides.pdf. [17] See the chart of fuel prices since 1980 adjusted for inflation at http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/04/gasoline_prices.html. [18] See CTA’s 11/16/98 press release announcing publication of “The Real Price of Oil”at http://icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12 [19] World Resources Institute Issue Brief, “Taxing Carbon to Finance Tax Reform” with links to the full document at http://wri.org/pubs/pubs_description.cfm?pid=4177 [20] For a quick explanation of rational expectations theory, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_expectation [21] See EPA’s description of cap and trade systems (used for sulfur dioxide emissions, primarily from coal-fired power plants) at http://epa.gov/AIRMARKET/trading/basics/index.html [22] The Wood Hole Research Center provides a concise description of the Kyoto protocol and US objections to its implementation at http://whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/kyoto.htm [23] The new California legislation is described in the report of National Commission on Energy Policy at http://energycommission.org/site/page.php?mediacoverage=250 [24] Brown’s book provides a sweeping and detailed blueprint for moving towards sustainability. Much of the text is available on line at the Earth Policy Institute web site: http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/Contents.htm [25] L. Brown, Plan B, Ch. 11, “Designing Sustainable Cities." [26] L. Brown, Plan B, Ch. 12, “Building a New Economy.” See also “Evaluation of environmental conservation and economic benefits from environmental industry-case study of Japan and tentative application to China” at http://p2pays.org/ref/22/21514.htm, concluding that Japan’s expenditures for pollution reduction had net positive economic effects even when increased production costs were included. [27] L. Brown, Plan B, Ch.10, “Stabilizing Climate." [28] "Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and bio-diesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy” 7/5/05 (Cornell News Service) http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html [29] Ethanol Continues to Reap Subsidy Windfall” Taxpayers for Common Sense, 6/28/02 http://www.taxpayer.net/bailoutwatch/ethanol.htm. [30] Most commercial ethanol production relies on natural gas (methane) fuel to liquify the corn starch and distill the alcohol. See http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060926171016.htm. In “Carbon Cloud over a Green Fuel” the Christian Science Monitor reports that new facilities use coal instead (http://csmonitor.com/2006/0323/p01s01-sten.html), but either way, ethanol production from plants depends on fossil fuels and thus generates carbon emissions both when it is produced and also when it’s burned. [31] Grain-Derived Ethanol: The Emperor’s New Clothes” R-Squared Blogspot, 3/23/06 http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/. See also “The Green Bullet” in the March 2006 Issue of Foreign Policy at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/. [32] L. Brown, Plan B, Chapter 10. “Stabilizing Climate.” [33] See the Sierra Club’s “cool it” web site listing “Tips on Reducing Your Car CO2 Emissions” at http://cool-it.us [34] Check out EPA’s suggestions for fuel economy; particularly the graph of fuel economy plotted against speed at http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml [35] Automobiles, Manufacture vs. Use” Carnegie Mellon University, 1998 at http://ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html [36] Clampdown on air travel 'a must' for Britain to meet climate target,” The Guardian of London, 10/6/06 http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/ [37] The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that cross country air travel uses about the same energy per passenger mile as driving. See http://www.bts.gov/publications/ [38] Pepco Energy offers 100% wind generated electricity. See http://pepcoenergy.com/ProductsAndServices [39] Green Manhattan,” by David Owen explains why the city is by far the lowest-impact place to live. Many of the reasons relate to energy use and thus have large climate impacts. http://walkablestreets.com/manhattan.htm [40] New
Smart Commute Initiative Encourages Homeownership Near Public Transportation
Throughout the Washington Region” 7/23/03, [41] According
to the Rainforest Action Network, one of the main causes of rainforest
destruction in Central and South America is cattle ranching. Ranchers
slash and burn the rainforest to make room for cattle pastures. The beef
goes for fast-food hamburgers, frozen meat products and canned pet food. [42] The United Nations Development Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that in the U.S. each food item purchased has been transported an average of over 2500km and even further in Europe and Australasia. In industrial countries, the embodied energy in food and drink is around 10 times the energy content of the food. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/115.htm. [43] See Bill McKibben’s “Maybe One: A Case for Smaller Families” (1999). [44] UNEP, Human Development Report 1998, New York: Oxford University Press 1998, p. 4. [45] http://www.sierraclub.org/politics/. [46] http://www.lcv.org/.
|
Climate Chaos - Open ThreadShare your thoughts about global warming. Enormous ice shelf snaps off in ArcticNational Post - Thursday, December 28, 2006
Ellesmere Island, Disraeli Fiord What's Your Carbon Footprint?A recent poll by funded by the Carbon Trust showed that two thirds of people want to know the "carbon footprint" of their purchases. Carbon footprinting is a safety feature designed to help companies measure the total amount of carbon emissions from their goods and services. The Carbon Trust has launched an initiative to provide businesses with a"cradle-to-grave" profile of their products' pollution costs, from the sourcing of raw materials through to disposal. http://news.bbc.co.uk Climate Chaos ResourcesNOAA- National Ennvironmental Satellite, Data and Information Service - The paleoclimate record shows rapid and dramtic changes in climate have ocured in the past on global and regional scales. Here's what we know and what we don't know about the causes and effects of these abrupt climate changes.
The Permaculture Institute conducts multiple permaculture courses each year, in collaboration with EcoVersity ecoversity.org, Sustainable Settings sustainablesettings.org, and others. The Institute has been involved in a variety of projects, such as co-founding and sponsoring the Permaculture Credit Union in Santa Fe NM, pcuonline.org, foundational work at EcoVersity, curriculum development and start ups of numerous initiatives and permaculture projects. myNasa.gov - Customize your own MyNASA page with specific and up-to-date news and features. Vanashing Ice - Konrad Steffen arrived on the Greenland Ice Sheet for the 2002 summer fieldwork season and immediately observed that something significant was happening in the Arctic. Pools of water already spotted the ice surface, and melting was occurring where it never had before.
Advertisement
Educate, Connect & TransformRead stories by, about and from under-represented voices. The Washington Spark |
Legal Disclaimer:
Health statements on this page have not been evaluated by the FDA. The health information on this site is for education purposes only.
HeartSpring.net assumes no responsibility in treatment or cure of any disease or illness.
The information provided on Heartspring.net is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician.
© 2008 Heartspring.net
Medical
Review of Herbal Remedies 
Let’s
take a look at the undisputed scientific facts and examine some of the
driving forces that are accelerating the Earth’s climate change.
Then we’ll look at the potential consequences, and finally we’ll
consider the steps that individuals and governments must take to mitigate
catastrophe.
An ancient ice shelf has cracked off northern Ellesmere Island, creating an enormous, 66 square kilometre ice island and leaving a trail of icy blocks in its wake. "It really is incredible," said Warwick Vincent of Laval University, one of the few people to have laid eyes on the scene. "It's like a cruise missile has come down and hit the ice shelf."
The breakup was so powerful, earthquake monitors 250 kilometres away picked up the tremors as the 3,000 to 4,500 year-old shelf tore away from its fjord on Ellesmere. >> 
